The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20120345.tiff Varra Companies, Inc. Office of Special Projects 1431 East 161h Street Greeley, Colorado 80631 Telephone(970)353-8310 Fax(970)353-4047 Wednesday 1 February 2012 Weld County Clerk to the Board 915 10"' Street, 31(1 Floor Greeley, Colorado 80632 Subject: Varra Companies, Inc. Western Sugar Reclamation Land Development Permit — Regular Impact (112) Technical Revision Application - Permit M-2010-049 Materials submitted to the Colorado Division of Reclamation Mining and Safety (CRMS) -- Office of Mined Land Reclamation (OMLR): • Correspondence of 31 January 2012 from Varra Companies, Inc. to the Colorado Office of Mined Land Reclamation, with attending attachments. Attachments: 1. CGRS Correspondence and related materials/attachments/reports — 20 July 2011. 2. Copy of OMLR Permit Approval Conditions and Stipulations of 7 July 2011. 3. Copy of Weld County FHDP Approval correspondence of 21 November 2011. 4. Proof: Placement with the Weld County Clerk to the Board. Your signature below acknowledges receipt of the above referenced material, as attached. The material should be added to the above referenced Application, as originally submitted to the Weld County Clerk to the Board, and made accessible for public review. Received On . 2 ,a11,41- , 2011 By: „Ant Did, Office of the Weld County Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners r, Isb RkN i a% ft o0 3 O I t ) Cn i, u'o c� , P� r_ i a 2012-0345 m C o�G Varra Companies, Inc. WESTERN SUGAR RECLAMATION LAND DEVELOP NT : .OJ1 11E4 OMLR Permit— M-2010-049 1 February 2012 Technical Rec }H ion-° N < O Varra Companies, Inc. Office of Special Projects 8120 Gage Street Frederick, Colorado 80516 Telephone(970)353-8310 Fax(970) 353-4047 Wednesday 1 February 2012 To: Peter Hays, E.P.S. Colorado Office of Mined Land Reclamation (OMLR, or 'the Office') 1313 Sherman St., #215 Denver, CO 80203 From: Varra Companies, Inc. Bradford Janes Professional Forester Subject: OMLR Permit M-2010-049 —Technical Revision Western Sugar Reclamation Land Development Project Follow-up to Approved Permit Stipulation As part of the approval of the above referenced Permit, as reviewed by Michael Cunningham, OMLR; a Stipulation to the Permit (1) — which states: Prior to affecting land in Tract C and Tract I). Varra Companies, Inc shall submit and obtain approval of a "Technical Revision addressing a flood analysis and flood control plan for the Western Sugar Reclamation Land Development Project. The attached Plan forms the basis of this Technical Revision as developed by C.G.R.S. and approved by Weld County Dept. of Public Works Drainage & Floodplain Engineer, Clay Kimmi (refer to attached approval letter of 21 November 2011). We trust this submittal will satisfy this part of the Permit requirement. We respectfully request notification from the OMLR as to the fulfillment of the post approval permit conditions as soon as practical affirming we can operate within Tracts C and D with the appropriate financial warranty in place prior to affecting the same in conformance with Permit Commitment No. 1. Please contact my office, above, should you need clarification or additional information. Thank-you. Enclosed: Two Copies of Technical Revision and $ 216.00 fee. CGRS Correspondence and related materials/attachments/reports — 20 July 2011. Copy of OMLR Permit Approval Conditions and Stipulations of 7 July 2011. Copy of Weld County FHDP Approval correspondence of 21 November 2011. Proof: Placement with the Weld County Clerk to the Board. 1 STATE OF COLORADO DIVISION OF RECLAMATION,MINING AND SAFETY Department of Natural Resources 1313 Sherman St., Room 215 Denver,Colorado 80203 C D I L O R A D O IVISION OF Phone:(303)866-3567 RECLAMATION FAX:(303)832-8106 MINING St— SAFETY John W.Hickenlooper Governor July 7,2011 Mike King Executive Director Mr. Christopher L.Varra Loretta E.Pineda Varra Companies,Inc. Director 8120 Gage Street Frederick,CO 80516 Re: File No. M-2010-049, Western Sugar Reclamation Land Development Project, 112c Decision Letter - Conditions,Financial and Performance Warranty Request-Construction Material Operation Dear Mr. Varra: On July 7, 2011, the Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety approved your 112c mining permit application. The conditions to the approval are noted below: Committment No. Description 1. Varra Companies, Inc. shall request in writing to the Division of Reclamation,Mining and Safety(DRMS)that the financial warranty be increased prior to opening additional phase(s).An increase of the financial warranty shall be requested,and provided with the letter to the DRMS, by Varra Companies, Inc.to its bonding/surety provider prior to opening and mining additional phase(s). The increased financial warranty and updated bond forms shall also be provided to the DRMS from Varra Companies, Inc.bonding surety provider. The DRMS will process the request to increase the financial warranty under a Surety Increase(SI)revision. Stipulation No. Description 1. Prior to affecting land in Tract C and Tract D, Varra Companies, Inc. shall submit and obtain approval of a Technical Revision addressing a flood analysis and flood control plan for the Western Sugar Reclamation Land Development Project. The amount of financial warranty set by the Division for this operation is $127,210.00. You must submit a financial warranty in this amount and a performance warranty in order for us to issue a permit. In the event you have requested a financial warranty form,we have enclosed it in this letter. If you have not, please select a type of financial warranty from Rule 4.3. Then contact us so that we can provide you with the appropriate warranty form. We have enclosed a performance warranty form with this letter for your use. Office of Office of Mined Land Reclamation Denver • Grand Junction • Durango Active and Inactive Mines PLEASE NOTE THAT MINING OPERATIONS MAY NOT COMMENCE UNTIL A PERMIT HAS BEEN ISSUED BY THE DIVISION AFTER RECEIPT OF YOUR FINANCIAL WARRANTY AND PERFORMANCE WARRANTY. A PERMIT WILL NOT BE ISSUED UNTIL WE VERIFY THE ADEQUACY OF BOTH YOUR FINANCIAL WARRANTY AND PERFORMANCE WARRANTY. If you have any questions,please contact me at(303)866-3567 x8116. Sincerely, • r Michael A. Cunningl am Environmental Protection Specialist Enclosure cc: Tony Waldron,DRMS Brad Janes,Varra Companies,Inc. 1 8 6 1 2 0 1 1 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 11 l 1 H STREET,P.O. BOX 758 GREELEY, COLORADO 80632 WEBSITE: WWW.CO.WELD.CO.US PHONE: (970) 356-4000, EXT. 3750 W E L ' O N T Y FAX: (970) 304-6497 November 21, 2011 Varra Companies, Inc Attention: Garrett Varra 8120 Gage St Frederick, CO 80534 Re: Flood Hazard Development Permit application (FHDP-743) Dear Mr. Varra, The Weld County Public Works Department, Planning Services, Building Inspection Department, and Environmental Health Services have reviewed the requested Flood Hazard Development Permit (FHDP) application for the Great Western Sugar Quarry. The current FHDP application is conditionally approved based on the comments and requirements below. Applicant: Varra Companies, Inc Attention: Garrett Varra 8120 Gage St Frederick, CO 80534 Legal: Part of the N1/2 Section 9 and part of the S1/2 of Section 4, T5N, R65W, Sixth P.M., Weld County, Colorado Location: North of 16th St and East of Ash Ave FEMA Panels: 080266-0637C dated September 28, 1982 and 080266-004 dated September 28, 1990 Parcel No's.: 0961-04-0-00-015, 0961-04-0-00-016, 0961-09-1-00-002, 0961-09-1-00-003, 0961- 09-2-00-012, 0961-09-2-00-0013, and 0961-04-3-02-008 COMMENTS Department of Planning Services USR-1760 was approved by the Board of County Commissioners on July 27, 2011 for an Open Pit Gravel Mining (sands, gravels, and stones), materials processing including concrete or asphaltic batch plants, and/or concrete or asphaltic recycling operations in the 1-3 (Industrial) Zone. Please refer to the REQUIREMENTS section of this memorandum for specific instructions. Building Department Please refer to the REQUIREMENTS section of this memorandum for specific instructions. Page 1 of 5 M:\PLANNING—DEVELOPMENT REVIEW\FHDP-Flood Hazard Development Permit\743 Varra Great Western Sugar Quarry\FHDP-743 Varra Great Western Sugar Quarry Conditional Approval 11-21-11.doc Public Works Department The applicant's engineer, CGRS Environmental Services, submitted a FHDP application for review on August 8, 2011. The application was returned for more information on September 6, 2011. The application was resubmitted via email by the applicant's engineer on October 28, 2011 with a hardcopy received on November 7, 2011. Comments were returned to the applicant's engineer on October 28, 2011. The comments were addressed with a hardcopy submittal on November 17, 2011. The FHDP maps were stamped, signed, and dated by Randal Kenyon, P.E. #41216. The FHDP application was submitted for a gravel mining operation known as the Great Western Sugar Quarry. The subject property is located north of 16th St and east of Ash Ave in part of the N1/2 Section 9 and part of the S1/2 of Section 4, T5N, R65W, Sixth P.M., Weld County, Colorado. Portions of the property are located in the Cache La Poudre Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA), also known as the 100-year floodplain and are designated as Zone A3 on Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Panel 080266-0637C. A portion of the property is also designated as floodway on Flood Boundary and Floodway Map (FBFM) 080266-0004. These designations indicate that there are published base flood elevations (BFEs) and floodway boundaries established for the Cache La Poudre River on the current effective FIRM dated September 28, 1982 and FBFM dated September 28, 1990. All FIRMs and FBFMs are prepared, distributed, managed, and revised by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The City of Greeley contracted with the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to update the floodplain and floodway boundaries. The Corps study resulted in a physical map revision that was adopted by FEMA. The Corps study will be incorporated as part of the DFIRM for Weld County. The Corps study is utilized by Weld County as the best available information. The subject property appears on Sheet 2 of 6 of the Corps work maps. The applicant's engineer did not provide a HEC-RAS model demonstrating the effect of mining on the 100-year water surface elevations. The applicant and the applicant's engineer show that all stockpiles and buildings used in the mining process will be outside of the 100-year floodplain. The applicant has placed a note on the final plat and on the FHDP drawing stating "No fill material (temporary or permanent) including but not limited to berms, material stockpiles, overburden stockpiles, or topsoil stockpiles shall be placed in the Poudre River Floodplain and Floodway that extend above the existing pre-mining topography." The applicant is hereby put on notice that if stockpiles are located in the floodplain above the existing pre-mining topography, an amended FHDP including hydraulic modeling shall be submitted for review and acceptance prior to the placement of such material. No material may be stockpiled in the floodway. There is an existing 41' x 39' foot wood and block barn located on the property in the 100-year floodplain. The applicant has stated that the barn is a historic structure and will not be used for any mine processes. The barn shall not be remodeled or converted for mine uses unless an amended FHDP is obtained prior to the use of the structure. The applicant has indicated that the scale house and office will be located outside of the floodplain. If a scale house and office building are to be placed in the floodplain, an amended FHDP is required prior to construction and/or placement of the building. It should be noted that development activities located in a FEMA regulatory floodplain or floodway are subject to the requirements of Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Parts 60 and 65. The proposed sand and gravel operations will include a gravel pit, material stockpiles, overburden stockpiles, top soil stockpiles, conveyor, and on-site parking. Because more than 5 acres of land are being disturbed, FEMA in letters dated January 13, 2011 and June 17, 2011, informed the County that a Letter of Map Revision was required in order for Weld County to remain in compliance with Page 2 of 5 M:\PLANNING—DEVELOPMENT REVIEW\FHDP-Flood Hazard Development Permit\743 Varra Great Western Sugar Quarry\FHDP-743 Varra Great Western Sugar Quarry Conditional Approval 11-21-11.doc FEMA's National Flood Insurance Program. Therefore, at the conclusion of mining the applicant shall be required to provide a Letter of Map Revision based on as-built topography to document and formalize any changes that may have occurred to the floodplain and floodway during mining activity. The FHDP application includes the following documentation: 1. Flood Hazard Development Permit Application 2. A cover letter dated July 20, 2011 that is signed by Joby Adams and Randy Kenyon 3. Flood Evaluation Report 4. FHDP maps that has been stamped, signed, and dated by Randy Kenyon, P.E. #41216 5. Deeds for the property 6. October 28, 2011 letter addressing comments provided to the applicant's engineer in September 6, 2011 letter to the applicant 7. November 14, 2011 letter addressing comments provided to the applicant's engineer regarding the October 28, 2011 submittal The following information was added to the file: 1. Letter to the applicant outlining the identified deficiencies dated September 6, 2011 2. Copy of October 28, 2011 email providing comments to the applicant's engineer regarding the October 28, 2011 submittal 3. Letter from FEMA to Weld County dated January 13, 2011 4. Letter from FEMA to Environment, Inc dated June 17, 2011 5. Comments from Planning Services, Building Department, and Environmental Health Services 6. GIS Map showing the extents of the current effective FEMA floodplain 7. Sheet 2 of the 2003 Army Corps of Engineers Poudre River Floodplain Study showing the current effective floodplain and floodway boundaries. Please refer to the Requirements section of this memorandum for specific instructions. Environmental Health Services Please refer to the Requirements section of this memorandum for specific instructions. REQUIREMENTS: Department of Planning Services 1. All existing structures not to be replaced on the Varra Inc. property or within the special use permit boundary and associated real property must be appropriately permitted for the use of the building or structure, including evidence of compliance with the floodplain regulations. The applicant must provide evidence of approval from the Department of Building Inspection for all existing and proposed structures and buildings. 2. Stockpiling of any material in the floodway is not permitted due to the highly erosional nature of placement of said material in this location. 3. Appropriate anchoring of future transient equipment including temporary structures such as the conveyor system shall be required per established Codes and Ordinances from the appropriate regulatory agency. 4. Construction shall comply with requirements/conditions of the Weld County Building Code and other applicable Codes, Ordinances, and standards. Future installation of utilities shall comply with the conditions listed in the Weld County Code. 5. All proposed or existing structures will or do meet the minimum setback and offset requirements for the zone district in which the property is located. 6. New construction must meet the minimum requirements for setback from oil and gas encumbrances. No building or structure as defined and limited to those occupancies listed as Groups A, B, E, F, H, I, M and R in Section 302.1 of the 2006 International Building Code, shall be constructed within a 200-foot radius of any tank battery or within a 150-foot radius of Page 3 of 5 M:\PLANNING-DEVELOPMENT REVIEW\FHDP-Flood Hazard Development Permit\743 Varra Great Western Sugar Quarry\FHDP-743 Varra Great Western Sugar Quarry Conditional Approval 11-21-11.doc any wellhead. Any construction within a 200-foot radius of any tank battery or 150-foot radius of any wellhead shall require a variance from the terms of the Section 23-3-10 of the Weld County Code. 7. Any future structures or uses on site must obtain the appropriate zoning and building permits. 8. Low water crossings, including access roads, shall not impede floodwater, potentially adversely impacting adjacent properties and/or conditions. Building Department 1. Any new structures and any electrical work will require appropriate building permits. Public Works Department 1. A letter of map revision shall be submitted to Weld County and FEMA for review and acceptance by the gravel pit operator within 60 days of final bond release from DRMS and prior to the request for the vacation of the USR. The LOMR shall depict the impact of mining activity to the floodplain boundaries, floodway boundaries, and BFEs. 2. Any new buildings or structures to be placed in the floodplain or any existing buildings/structures in the floodplain that will be used by the mine operator shall obtain a FHDP prior to the use or placement of such structure or building. 3. The current FHDP application must be amended for future reclamation development, or for any changes to the mine plan as shown on the FHDP maps date stamped November 17, 2011. 4. Any proposed development activities in the FEMA-defined 100-year floodplain and/or floodway may not cause an adverse rise in the BFE on adjacent or upstream properties or structures. Any flooding impacts must be quantified in the amended FHDP documentation, clearly identified on pertinent work maps stamped by a registered P.E., and be accompanied by written approval from impacted landowners. 5. Any future proposed stockpiles, berms, levees, or riverbank protection features not identified on the current effective FIRM maps must be approved through the amended FHDP (AmFHDP) process and FEMA's LOMR Process. Future stockpiles, berms, levees, or riverbank protection features will not be allowed in the floodway and will only be allowed in the flood fringe if they are permitted with an AmFHDP and are oriented parallel to the direction of flow in the floodplain. 6. Portable toilets located in the flood plain shall be anchored to resist flotation and lateral forces associated with flood waters. 7. No tanks such as fueling tanks will be allowed in the floodway and tanks placed in the flood fringe will have to be anchored, protected with a fuel containment berm whose top of wall elevation is a minimum of one foot above the BFE, and permitted with an amended FHDP application. 8. AmFHDP applications will be subject to the rules and regulations in effect at the time of future application. 9. Pursuant to Chapter 15, Articles I and II of the Weld County Code, if noxious weeds exist on the property or become established as a result of the proposed development, the applicant/landowner shall be responsible for controlling the noxious weeds. All vegetation, other than grasses, needs to be maintained at a maximum height of 12 inches until the area is completely developed. Environmental Health Services 1. The future installation of any septic system within the 100-year floodplain shall comply with the Weld County I.S.D.S. floodplain regulations. Specifically, if the septic tank lids are not above the floodplain elevation, then the access to the tank manhole lids must be covered with 20 ml PVC and sealed with plumbers cement. In addition, a one-way valve must be installed on the effluent line between the tank and the absorption field. Therefore, any future pumping of the Page 4 of 5 M:\PLANNING-DEVELOPMENT REVIEW\FHDP-Flood Hazard Development Permit\743 Varra Great Western Sugar Quarry\FHDP-743 Varra Great Western Sugar Quarry Conditional Approval 11-21-11.doc septic tank will require that the tank lids be sealed prior to backfilling, and any future upgrade of the septic system will require that a one-way valve be installed on the effluent line. 2. In accordance with the Colorado I.S.D.S. Regulations, no septic systems shall be installed within the floodway. RECOMMENDATIONS: The Weld County Public Works Department recommends conditional approval of this FHDP application, subject to all Comments and Requirements included in this letter. Sincerely, Clay Kimmi, P.E., CFM Weld County Public Works Original: Varra Companies,Applicant CC to Files: USR-1760 PC by Post: Kim Ogle,Planning Services Frank Piacentino,Building Inspections Dept. Lauren Light,Environmental Health Lin Dodge,Planning Services Page 5 of 5 M:\PLANNING-DEVELOPMENT REVIEW\FHDP-Flood Hazard Development Permit\743 Varra Great Western Sugar Quarry\FHDP-743 Varra Great Western Sugar Quarry Conditional Approval 11-21-11.doc cGCGrS ENVIRONMENTAL CQWM© g S July 20, 2011 Weld County Planning and Building Department 1555 N. 17`s Ave. Greeley,Colorado 80631 Attn: Mr. Kim Ogle RE: Varra Great Western Sugar Project Flood Hazard Development Permit Application CGRS No. 1-135-12539ab Dear Mr.Ogle: Please find an executed Flood Hazard Development Permit Application (FHDP) for the referenced site. We used the County's Procedural Guide in developing this submittal. The supplemental requirements are addressed by item. 1) A completed application form is attached to this submittal. 2) The application is for a open cut and dry mine gravel quarry and the proposed operations comply with Section 23-2-480 of the Weld County Code. The flood plain management standards are addressed by item. a) There are no proposed structures or utilities that would be built within the 100-year flood plain. b) There are no non-residential structures proposed for this operation. c) There are no new or replacement water wells, water supply, treatment or storage systems proposed for this operation. d) There are no new or replacement sanitary sewer systems planned for this operation. e) The development of the gravel quarry will result in increased lateral water storage and will provide a benefit during flood events. Extraction material may be temporally stored within the flood plain; but these materials are not protected and will be subject to erosion and will not impede the flood way or raise the base flood elevation (BFE). Tract A(Figure 1),which is not within any designated flood plain, will be that last tract mined and can store any significant volume of mined material or equipment. As Tract A is mined equipment or mined material will be stored on the periphery of the flood plain or stored below the existing grade and will not alter any water course or raise the BFE. f) A certification is provided that the proposed use will not limit or restrict the flow capacity of the floodway and will not cause any rise in the BFE. P.O. Box 1489 Fort Collins, CO 80522 T 800-288-2657 F 970-493-7986 www.cgrs.com Mr.Kim Ogle Flood Hazard Development Permit Application July 21,2011 Page 2 of 2 g) There is no permanent fill material planned for this operation. The temporary placements of sand and gravel are not protected from flooding and will be subject to erosion and re-deposition within the gravel quarry. 3) A Flood Hazard Development Map is provided as an attachment to this submittal. 4) Copies of warranty deeds are provided as an attachment to this submittal. 5) A FHDP Certification is provided as an attachment to this submittal. 6) A report describing the potential for overtopping and erosion at the subject site is provided as additional information for staff review. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact me at 970-493-7780. Sincerely, CGRS, Inc. Joby L.Adams, P.G. Senior Hydrogeologist Reviewed by 7K Randy enyon, P.G., P E. Senior Engineer FLOOD HAZARD DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATION FLOOD HAZARD DEVELOPMENT PERMIT (FHDP) APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT USE DATE RECEIVED: RECEIPT/AMOUNT# 1$ CASE#ASSIGNED: APPLICATION RECEIVED BY PUBLIC WORKS REVIEWER: Parcel Number: Multiple Parcels-See Attachment _ (12 digit number-found on Tax I.O.information,obtainable at the Weld County Assess ors Office,or www.eo.weld.co.us). Waterway Name: Cache La Poudre River Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Panel #: 080266-0637 C Legal Description Multiple Descriptions-See Attachment , Section_, Township North, Range_West FEE OWNER(S)OF THE PROPERTY: Name: Varra Companies,Inc. Work Phone# 303-666-6657 Home Phone# 720-272-2857 Email Address gcvarravci@aol.com Street Address: 8120 Gage Street City/State/Zip Code Frederick,Colorado 80534 APPLICANT OR AUTHORIZED AGENT(See Below.Authorization must accompany all applications signed by Authorized Agent) Name: Garrett Varra Work Phone# 303-666-6657 Home Phone# 720-272-2857 Email Address gcvarravci@aol,com Street Address: 8120 Gage Street City/State/Zip Code Frederick,Colorado 80534 1. General Description of Proposed Development: (Please check all that apply) Residential Non-Residential Manufactured of Mobile Home ❑ New Construction ® New Construction ❑ On Single Lot ❑ Addition or Improvements ❑ Addition or Improvements O In Mobile Home Park ❑ In Subdivision ❑ Fill Material ❑ Fill Material ❑ Fill Material ❑Watercourse Alteration ❑ In Mobile Home Subdivision Other 2. Brief Narrative Description of Proposed Development: Open Cut, Dry Mine Gravel Quarry 3. Property located in designated FW(Floodway)District? Yes X No (If yes, certification and engineering calculations shall be provided by a registered Professional Engineer(RE.)that the property use or structure, when built, will not cause any increase in floodwater levels during an intermediate regional flood (100-year flood) and will not limit or restrict the flow capacity of the floodway.) 4. Is the property located in a designated FP-1 (100-yr Floodplain)or FP-2 (500-yr Floodplain)District? Yes X No Signature: Owner or Authorized Agent Date Signature: Owner or Authorized Agent Date (If an Authorized Agent signs,a letter of authorization from all fee owners must be Included with the application.If a corporation is the fee owner, notarized evidence must be included showing the signatory hes to legal authority to sign for the corporation.) Updated 03-13-2008 6 PARCEL NUMBERS AND LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS The proposed development is located in all or part of the following parcel numbers: 096104302008 096104000015 096104000016 096109200013 096109100002 109109100023 096109100003 096109200012 The legal description of the proposed development is as follows: NEY+, NW'/., 59,T5N, R65W SE 34, NW'/,,59,T5N, R65W NW''., NE' ,59,T5N, R65W SE'/.,SW'/+,54,T5N, R65W SW'/,,SE,Ye,S4,T5N, R65W FLOOD HAZARD DEVELOPMENT MAP • ‘1" t-. 11 ,, trio/ ;, / - yr t 16 • iks:lit -.4_ i„, , . IS. i � f4F . 'he • a � 1 f iiiiijitraiiiiiii a•y: is 4z . , •k • LAS , • ist._.; •• •; : \k, .. '� • •'�I 4 .1 - —Y.10,..:, •+& ito I,� Yi d 4,.. • -455:g. .„ - 4 4 11 I e AL" -,• 1 ta .•a...I..- - --",- Is'::, -I L r, •-. -"...,:. I;li . Cr • . !isi 'DIY tages ,�,..' i 'i' Y "�'� `. -- •-� - , ,�• /r•� `y {Or i ''.3 „..14,4 swims lert, , i 1 , A ..... — _ _. _— �. t. tn ...,......„7„rie . .. . .. v.-,,,,It • . , I Or •., u, e. x. � lib. e 1 • dam• ...... . ill, 4IL I. y . - ��► tr:(:!... t ' . Pi rl Wiiiiit, #. it Oa A i ' •\ '• • re- • • . I �flirt • -6, - " I • t x • J J / t ,14 r' 1 ' a - Fis it i tli i 4 , i .0 liselet 4.111pe ' •07;2. '' 414 1 , 4 �� 1 a .1 7 N • ..., .IM Aif . ` y - \ ,,, \ '1/4. ... s\1 k 11 RI 19/1 t 1• ‘ • N. e ., ..r, a• - II ` . ‘4 ' \ - -„...... I1 ~'•\;.. •-\�. 1"ib,M `1 N. a. : 1 ` V • ( % ,I, Vt . !' ,} '1 1:: ' 14'.4... :-�_. - 2 �!, t . (�, �; R �t---------..yid ,i *"A*), e , .. . _. • ' i PE ' ,MIIIIL -1"-- ---- Ikt-..... 7 , :Fp t.4 . 01 0 'eF• ' . 'tar I t :014014.4%. a III . \-\\ S.. • \.r - a, , pr, aip1/44% ,, I ‘-4"‘I'N., . .. \ • .�.,f t ^ �� / '� - -R` +t - , 4 - I`. �' R y Rif. • L f , -. r1 ., - t4 ' 1-0 tit \ ` \ .1 , •' tia. �( • , a A • .,.� ,.• war— tire . - II 4 Idir; 41 8 • 1�. ' f y g FHDP CERTIFICATION 100-YEAR FLOOD PLAIN CERTIFICATION Project Title:Great Western Sugar Project County: Weld STATEMENT I hereby certify that a Professional Engineering judgment has been made after evaluating all available flood plain data from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,Weld County, local flood districts, etc, regarding a potential 100-year flood threat to the Great Western Sugar Gravel Operations for Varra Companies, Inc. In my opinion the property use or structure, when built, will not cause any increase in flood water levels during and intermediate regional flood (100-year flood) and will not limit or restrict the flow capacity of the floodway. Signature f /(7.---z.--, Title ..Sea o- SeheP/- Date 8/24 Date Seal: PP... LI O r,,,..».., �s s st: 4 216 "CV' 91" 4Zs �e.4pe�� O s/ONP`-`" WARRANTY DEEDS FLOOD EVALUATION REPORT Report on Overtopping and Erosion Probability during the 100 year flood for the Western Sugar Reclamation Site, Greeley Colorado '4rI. • 'a. re�,�: 4 . �' t. 4.. . Or 1 apiw . . .1 ... : 4 - ..;.., .- .li •0. 1 :se :sr • _ • . a { ; 7 _- } . • ! e Prepared at the request of: Varra Companies Prepared by: CG RS Fort Collins, Colorado July 20, 2011 i I n , Contents Site Location and Notable Features 1 Mapping 3 Hydraulic Modeling 3 Proposed Conditions 4 Potential for Overtopping and Erosion 4 Tract C 6 Tract D 7 Recommended Action 7 Tract C- 7 Tract D- 7 References 8 Tables Table 1, Existing Conditions USACE Model. WSEL=Water Surface Elevation, ROB= Right overbank, MC= Main Channel 5 Table 2,Anderson Consulting CLOMR models 5 Figures Figure 1-View looking south across site showing existing vegetation and topography 1 Figure 2-Typical surface material at the site is silty clay with sand, underlain by clay and gravels(note pen for scale) 2 Figure 3-View of Cache la Poudre river through site (downstream of drop structure) showing existing man made and vegetative bank stabilization 2 Figure 4-View of drop structure looking north towards diversion take out. The drop structure has an approximate elevation change of 9ft 3 iiiPage Site Location and Notable Features The Western Sugar Reclamation site (henceforth "the site") is approximately 103 acres, located on the south side of the Cache la Poudre River, downstream of the Ash Avenue Bridge and upstream of Birch Avenue in Greeley, Colorado (Plate 1, Figure 1). The site contains four oil and gas tank batteries and associated wells, which will be left in place during mining activities. The topsoil on site is silty clay with sand, underlain by clays and gravels (Terracon, 2011, Figure 2). Historically the site was a sugar beet processing plant, but it is currently inactive. The river bank is partially stabilized by trees and grasses, as well as non-engineered concrete slabs in some sections (Figure 3). There is an existing drop structure through the site, with a crest elevation of approximately 4625 and a toe elevation of approximately 4516, for a total drop of approximately 9 ft. The drop structure appears to be associated with a diversion on the north side of the river ( Figure 4). tqaikbikabt -• - - Nita'-i. Ile 1:- cn - :71 at• { .. - -��, s_ _.rba_ -1 1� ' ' • • -. • ,I. •� • ��..�.r.�_w..t��_' rev .. •._ - ..�:J __ Figure 1- View looking south across site showing existing vegetation and topography 1iPage la II j,F 4 fib' jiiiiiiit A. ..:,-..., -A.TN,Y, 07.4,_ le,'. _ _ fro .-it..f , � . •• ter ` ^• � .,. 1?�� •'i .•'. a_. •. • . . .. mil Nr:.. 1 wiz V. Fig '....1.4 ... 1. 4 \ arimo_ _ _. 7 t : • ` (4-3..,... .. Apr i , • - •r x I , ..., - . .. ...4 I\ ' by • c" - - --. •, ♦ Cis• _ 1. ,A •, �" /. i.,.�� ' .•..2`"• ,i r Imo .. �'• ♦ - ' �• ' �' .. . rt 4,..fret.m........ t. , . .. .1 , . , • , t, • . , 4, , ..... ig.a. A it r t s '%* q.t. eras •—. i 4 a��a! �� if t 4,3 • Figure 2- Typical surface material at the site is silty clay with sand, underlain by clay and gravels (note pen for scale). ~ :4 'f•it - V. �I w ',•h 1Yr i _ L '' •S 00 • ...,. ,.�i r1 •11 - F a I,li r �. `F r .�1 `� _tip`' ►r,1J d,• ! { , •may. .r • 0 • -, l 7., Figure 3- View of Cache la Poudre river through site (downstream of drop structure) showing existing man made and vegetative bank stabilization Wage I , I- ', `• .a—,_fr;•• 1. _ . -• LAL'ti•-i►7, y�o;,,p ‘. .. . ", -..� - } a- ' -...�- -. ..i TY.V+M+4M - -.��, . . : 4 _ . C. t's- -- .... -.... a — 1 . - • aV - • -- •Y,y gem°° tar-at ). :t-EA:2,-.3t 'It It .-kalar4At.ategt - '' -A esih a At bits . 'it e . '4 ?till ‘‘ Nilaftra elattP%-- -4144:;adt+c. 't cif • �� --:.4.-ca... .... 1 i friti 1/241041:01* J J Figure 4- View of drop structure looking north towards diversion take out. The drop structure has an approximate elevation change of 9ft. Mapping All elevations presented in this report are based on the National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) 1929. Topographic contours at one foot intervals for the proposed conditions at the Western Sugar Reclamation site were provided by Varra Companies, based on a survey of existing site conditions performed by American West in March of 2006. Hydraulic Modeling The primary hydraulic model used in this analysis was published as part of the Greeley, CO General Investigations Study by the Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). The USACE draft model is assumed to be the most up to date information available about existing hydraulic conditions at the site, and was provided by Dave Wells at the City of Greeley to Joby Adams of CGRS on April 26th, 2011. The datum for the ASCE model is NGVD29 (as per personal communication from Clay Kimmi, Drainage & Floodplain Engineer for the City of Greely, 6/9/11). The model is constructed using the USACE Hydraulic Engineering Center River Analysis System (HEC-RAS) software. Cross section geometry in the USACE model is taken from the 2003 Flood Insurance Study (FIS), with updates based on 2 foot contour mapping. Relevant cross sections are plotted in Appendix A. See above report for more details about the USACE existing conditions model. Cross section locations are depicted on Plate 2. The 100-year flood plain and flood way limits are depicted on Plate 3. The USACE model shows a flow split starting at the 5th Street bridge (river station 30715, not shown in table), and continuing through the site. According to the model, the flow carried in the split channel 3IPage returns to the main channel starting downstream of the Ash Avenue Bridge, at river station 24158 in the Western Sugar Reclamation site. Because of this split flow return, the total flow in the channel incrementally increases through the site (Table 1). The USACE Manning's roughness coefficients for the overbank areas through the site range from 0.049 to 0.055. These are higher than the recommended values of 0.02-0.035 for short grass and 0.02-0.04 for cultivated areas not planted with crops, leading to conservative WSEL values in the overbank (USDOT, 2001, pg. 2.22). In addition to the USACE model, there is a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) issued by FEMA on February 14, 2006 for the site immediately downstream of the Western Sugar Reclamation site. The CLOMR includes possible changes to the water surface elevation due to the construction of the Durham Pit on the property immediately downstream of the Western Sugar Reclamation site. It is described in the report prepared by Anderson Consulting, Inc. dated October 4, 2004. The CLOMR models split channel flow through Durham Pit, lowering local water surface elevations. However, there is negligible proposed change in elevation through the Western Sugar site (Table 2), and therefore the USACE existing conditions model was determined to be the correct model for all further analysis. Proposed Conditions The site is proposed to be developed as a sand and gravel pit with a 100 foot setback from the river. Proposed side slopes of the pit are 1.25:1 for the first 30 feet and then 3:1 to the bottom of the pit,with a maximum total depth of approximately 45 feet(Plate 4). The elevation of the 100 foot berm would be the same as the existing ground. Four pits are proposed and are identified as Tracts A-D, with Tract A being the southeast pit, Tract B being the southwest pit, Tract C being the northwest pit and Tract D being the northeast pit. For Tract C, the approximate elevation of the proposed berm is 4630 at the upstream side and 4625 at the downstream side, with a relatively constant slope between the two points. For Tract D the proposed berm elevation is approximately 4624, which is constant along the river front. Under the proposed operations plan,the pit would not be operated under flood conditions, and water would be allowed to flood the pit to the level of the adjacent river. Potential for Overtopping and Erosion The areas of maximum overtopping and erosion potential are shown on Plate 4, and are explained below in detail. 41Page 3 pm ol m m m N re O O 'O \ m m ID N crf ti y cc tt O O .-i m US MI O > 2 N CO N O t` up O N N N 0 O O U 1 al O to ni " N tt/i .C N. C in .II i O O O O 171 T. y ' N N ri m M i O U CU rs' J O co N ONI, m 1-4 `1 • 01 d c \ N O I IND t/1 m tD Vn 0 upl 'I E (7 n n M N N r b c ,n a ri I t-i o 0 0 o a 3 Z CV ^'o tND tNO O Cto to j o x a a a a a m D: I c ( 0 0 1 I omo, m l'--. m Y. XI:IC O f ti y cc 'j= I O N 'i '-N to o g ow > Na a to NM II U > I V' a. 2 to cc z to tO VD ID "tic) a a a 2 v �. IC QU1 Ol .t a a Y �{ O w a 2 O O 2 t in aO n c .wi a N N:co in N N t0 LL N N n m m to n v1 u1 c cu o 0 O po O o > Q N C to 0 0 0 0 0 C W n N� N N N m = m c m 0 0 0 0 0 C J O m N0 •01 Nre? N.: N VD m a (7 U ei N N H H tib U H o N N Q ml MD a mi Cr; d ¢ 0 Z t�O to .C CD VND ID 13 0 .'�' a s �J a s a s E O nx ¢c m2 N. A. o O° 1 m m --I to m S W CO i Ou. t t O O N r N ' 0 I z LT' V X •p Oc pbe > y Q O c C > V O I can N N O• i .w-N C a a °" DOzaa vv � � v c p .oV1 � m VD) b cy a U N V i+ ty y ct N N r, o 00 to w C 0 >0 O it ao CI u N ≤ y N CO ro C 00 w O VI t9 r••• M 00 M N Y Q 3 - C E .a `6 ii i la, O w O Z tO tD tD tO LID H II N S N a w 4'' 'Cr s a a a f 18 Cl w i ~ t aVI 2 I ° n 'pc E p et igt to D O O O tf1 n t!1 to CO O C O m > n • m m N C 0 two two CO On 00 ry 0 C C (7 y CC a v a a 1 r4 W to v 0 O E w o 'O _ a c a p ¢ m e 88 888 W O = ',Oi+ J > c111+1 N N 2 t ble ON .O-1 ' O O m aD aL z I I v a v I a u a Q O w wt. t f > C LA 0 Le y o N COn s w vmi N O La O m m m N N et a ≥ « a s a N a ≥ N t(D tW ttO ID OM N .~-N 011 CO CO 01 N N N N Ni Oc a N N N N N N N N IA X C ` Y N tEA-) Et I N ., O 110 Q W m a a3N v in Tract C Although the USACE model indicates that the Tract C berm elevation is 0.3 ft above the expected WSEL at cross section 24158 in Tract C, there is the potential for flow to overtop the berm and enter the pit immediately upstream of the drop structure due to backwater effects. The exact location of the overtopping is unpredictable, therefore it is recommended that either the entire bank be protected from erosion,or that a weir be constructed to train flow through a suitably armored location (Plate 5). The weir will capture any overtopping flows, and therefore should be placed away from the critical gas infrastructure. A Weir placed as shown in Plate 5 will concentrate overtopping flow and erosion to a non-critical section of Tract C. Because of this, it is not necessary to armor the inside wall of Tract C, provided that erosion which occurs during an overtopping event can be repaired after the event. The existing ground adjacent to Tract C has an elevation of 4630 NGVD. The weir entrance should therefore be no higher than 4629 ft NGVD to protect the adjacent berm from overtopping. The USACE model predicts a total flow of 901 cfs in the right overbank. Based on the weir sizing guidelines for gravel weirs set forth in USDOT (2001), and a 1 foot depth of flow over the weir, the equation (rearranged to solve for weir length) is: __ Qo Lr KukrCr(HWr)t5 Where: • L, is the calculated weir length • Q0 is total discharge expected through the weir(901 cfs) • K„is a unit conversion(1 for English units) • kr is the submergence factor(0.65 for a 5%difference between water height before and after the weir) • C,.is the overtopping discharge coefficient(2.8 for a depth of 1 ft,gravel surface) • KW,is the expected depth of water entering the weir(1 ft) This equation predicts a necessary weir width of 330 feet to pass the expected flow in the right overbank. In addition, it is recommended that the transition from 1.25:1 to 3:1 slope at a depth of 30 ft within the pit be protected after active construction is finished. However, if the water surface level in the pit is maintained at least 2 feet above the slope transition (28 ft from existing ground surface), this riprap will not be necessary because the standing water will acts as an energy dissipater. If the pit is reclaimed by contouring a uniform slope the riprap will not be necessary as well. 6 ( Page Tract D There are no gas wells locate within Tract D that could be exposed to head cutting, therefore protection of Tract D is not a priority. Using the USACE hydraulic analyses, the site is likely to overtop along the Tract D berm during a 100 year event at cross section 22471, with a maximum flow depth over the berm of approximately 0.4 ft and a maximum flow velocity of approximately 2.3 ft/sec. In this area the proposed berm elevation for Tract C is approximately 4625, a foot higher than the proposed berm for Tract D, and 0.7 ft higher than the expected WSEL, so no flow is expected to enter Tract C. In addition, the two pits are separated by a drainage channel, so overtopping of Tract D is unlikely to adversely affect Tract C. Permissible velocities for the berm if it is topped by grass range from 2-4 ft/sec depending on the species of grass and time of year(Schwab, 1993, USDOT 2001, pg 6.51). Maximum permissible velocities for the in situ soil (partially cohesive silty clay with sand) range from 1.5 ft/sec to 3 ft/sec(Julien, 2002). Based on an expected overtopping velocity of 2.3 ft/sec, the berm should be allowed to remain vegetated to prevent erosion. Recommended Action Based on the analysis above,the following measures are recommended. Tract C-There are two gas wells of concern in Tract C. • Provide an armored weir with 1 ft of flow depth and 330 ft width at elevation 4629 NGVD upstream of the drop structure to convey and guide possible overtopping flows away from critical infrastructure. • Allow erosion of the interior pit walls during an overtopping event, but repair damaged areas after the event, particularly in the area of the weir. • After pit excavation is complete, provide rip-rap or other protection at the slope transition within the pit if the water level is not at least 2 feet above this point(Approximately 28 feet from the existing ground elevation) Tract D-There are no gas well of concern in Tract D. • Allow Tract D to overtop during the 100 year event since there is no threat to critical infrastructure. • Maintain existing vegetation or hydroseed to encourage vegetation establishment after excavation to help control erosion on the top of the berm in an overtopping event. • No armoring is necessary on the interior of the pit. 7 ) Page References Anderson Consulting Engineers, Inc. Phase II Report:Hydraulic Anlayses for the Cache la Poudre River between Fern Avenue and Ash Street. October 4, 2004. Julien, P.Y. Erosion and Sedimentation. Cambridge University Press,Cambridge UK. 2002. Schwab, G.et al. Soil and Water Conservation Engineering.John Wiley&Sons, USA, 1993 Terracon Consultants Inc.Geotechnical Engineering Report.Great Western Sugar,Ash Avenue Greeley, Colorado. January 17,2011 U.S.Army Corps of Engineers Omaha District. Draft Greeley,CO General Investigations Study; Feasibility Study, Hydraulics Analysis, February 2008. Available online at: http://greeleygov.com/Engineering/CacheLaPoudre.aspx, accessed May 19, 2011 U.S.Army Corps Of Engineers General Investigations Program. Draft Report,Cache La Poudre at Greeley,Colorado General Investigation Study. June 2010. Available at: http://greeleygov.com/Engineering/CacheLaPoudre.aspx, accessed June 12,2011 U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration (USDOT) River Engineering for Highway Encroachments, Highways in the River. Publication No. FHWA NHI 01-004, December 2001 8 ) Page — - — --- ---,— ._ IMF isrM n.. MI J 1 1 - ,7 i. j r \ _ a 0,0 .... Air .- ' .k,:li n1 d 4-0 `e. /I' II�-: ,;.; ,� 4 'O; '_ .. Birch Ave `I /'}T J I 1 11. .0' s ---�,. •.... .•.• • rte ♦ ,✓ ' iti C I. F - . /. . - - •, .- : r t : .1 9 : 1 ,sr/\ al. i 01 ) .-4. . - 1 , # \ I.,.. ,- fel .II ....et,. 1' 11101. litres:. -lir - • ' 44C: e:i Pt 't - OP;/.7.".1 :t '40 i 444,. .„ \\I be'l%N....%l'. • / I • , I f r . Ai _ NN 't QI. 4. • - I ' it • i e • IP. • _c . , --../ \ .: 7 .11. ‘. w., :tlui : Jill ... stin. t 44 t • , - 1 0 Q ••7V < so >'� i-. I Aii) Q x RI ` 4 .. \ N 7 • 1 11 �. O)j yqy • 1 !, + O Et •,..04 1/4„ , , , • {1 0- .•• -i i • i , t1 . ♦ . . .. '` 1 wL._ a) . i j D cu . U .. •• i! * x k.4"4 41 NINA V) 411 -, N s. ; U a Mt IV a it _ /T T t 1 - cv .» • _ - -melt--• 4 -ran Iv4:44. 1441,.. A 3 .i. t imc V.' r . ' i 0 ' ..lik - , r e _,r."00. . or/ -fie i illis :i qp, D " P.' ( - OS • It- 4. gitadc 40 U Q is iltisi �% 1 U 1 _• 1: co CO ' . i a 1 •' >, ff x .r , r ,,, ' #‘41fOlk:Are -it • POI' JPIC . - -.. • c w_ . 3 n • t f ; r•.. , . r . :ear—si- tr- •• i • a , r 01 *roe AI• • •i 1 �' t .A efrry 4 e 'r e41 - . . .`. ' tiI.r.`s .• i1 t • P l�T�\II.. Ili 1 li ce . , 1 . ....• i , _ .# �_ 4 � . I, • I •% • ' 'fr"".......''''......;:- -*"..771 ..."`"11:. s ithi 1 t / : , i . .,„ ir.,.. ,.40. , m p., '•I. . Alta ' . • a 7 44e b . ,i .N. .i. , . ., Li- _igr..., . .. ,ra t:--. 3,. . - A % . ...., cif ,leli it' .' • O •- 4.0 j U) • '-• Felt ., • • *I , k ) CO V _ it • te ' . 3 ., + •_ I . , •t. ' `L lai. 1 1 le `' i 1 r j . • —. r {f r a ,2 • co Et. ..... le a., tie iti - � - _ - It f gobs -. .• r,. . _... . •• 4ID _ t .� N _ _ �' ,..'011 Al r '-� airs, 4 N VJ 1 • alr j • iiiilli I - I I ' a � ' • �. _.. alike _ . ;fiSnail•s... 'I:/ CU �s: .r r- ,may' A r•i \s • il a- :+ . . • J. 1 1J S N I ail . r r, • - r 1/4\ LI t �'-"ra'�,.,w 11. 1 1... WC1 • 0., \ l t 13 IL ! `' lc 1\`\• Qy ,•' ( '' -4-N Kitl - `"a '. 1 i . , . •. 1 -. •••• - •:-- _ c\ ■ iii i ,at\ IL . - I .• • I.*. \\ 4p . 'set—, '44, • ii . ii S II r W r .1f . 4-. . b. . i Ut • _ it'll ' •�" ,. fit i, I '�---- ` tit 1taMi +1r- ` It_a ij\ t- -•-' _ - • '�b Cl) y - �•, ,�r-A CS- 4 PA >•• �.. I ` •tas c irG4iP- - .glar - i~ •� • _ • — •' ��S♦( • I • • .� Y \.�� ; �V S • •- c i• fir • OD A ,• r. r -Tr y. L .. ' � i r , •, _-_ .-1 .'•t - � ~w--- --.rye i r • . ,, , •I- W l./ '•' Ik •• •:w !•R . 1 ,r •1 -. rr."-' _ _if !I 1 f' M 1. _f- r • .a • 14 _ Y.. I iH 'k_ I ♦1 • ' u: • , _ :_ _:Alter = -- i �_.... .. i IPA ( •� t s ap�I ( 1 -' • T �.• S •'g.! _ [ 1� .tSI a 1 , le ` as t 't l, L 1 ° t_ II _ !.ki it II - 4 \ •_./ • • asp : t, , ! �C "21st e _ - , • f• 4y ry �' i r , et, _ _ "� • i• {: 1 Ta • • • a .VV • A retail n -y [�. es. • { - ••' 1`{r ,l • r I I I . ,; 1 '• 1 • - - t<. I M:. - I 4 1 t �, ! ` �'1� _ { r ? -� _ J� _ _ __ 1 to f0 O a) a a C is o +- v+ 2 o b w a Y W o _OD lug, / L _ _ yr� q 4yy .r 4 ., cY?9N yec-- ev -1/4."‘N...."\k‘( O 17\3 m la iiN / M ` OD W 2. t \ O \ \ / E( 13 3 1 < in S co X V 4 H \ , co A • cu 'c In 2 O '+ J sa \\b a o 4 ° d y( ' a ; < U �ta� u ` 8 .46,., cc ea m --- I t,\, N. NNN)cf it i QR* 4 a O D —o tn N to f0 a / Q C O C 0 1 5 9 O ui O Y W v, Y fn OD Ct 2 L _D7 S cf M (1 d z o— I E, U h al X 0 a x ` u N_ 0 a t. i Y 44, \---. e a- 40,"/C rN- ........."'.."\\\\.\\\\ -a 47 0 m / te\K\C.) w E O v °° a a a.4( o .' , E a Q4.0 T , \ 47 E in m , ^ c r �C �•+ � V \\\I EC o U °LE-3:2 L•.%,•r V 2 ►p��l CO 1! - NNN)c, 1 Y 4{ ,i, ri--- It a K l _ D C \ i O Y 4le C 0 U W0 a--------j/9 Co 0 a. 7:0 in a-- m .. 0 M 0.. 0— APPENDIX A HEC-RAS CROSS SECTIONS Greeley Existing Conditions Plan: p0=Existing Conditions-FIS discharge 6/13/2011 SECTION FROM 2002 PHOTOGRAMMETRY (1) .05 >1( .035 >1C - .05 - 4660 . A Lind WS 100yr FIS 4655 • Ground A Ineft 4650 • Bank Sta 4645 - c - 4640- w 4635- 4630-, 4625 .� 4620 - 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 Station (ft) Greeley Existing Conditions Plan: p0=Existing Conditions-FIS discharge 6/13/2011 cjm-Adjusted reach length to accomodate bridge width .048 . .055 )-. 4650 ♦ ,dpi► Legend 3 5 WS 100yr FIS • 4645_ Ground Ineff • Bank Sta 4640- .2 c `o 4635 . A 7 - 0 463 .. � 4625 li 4620 r 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 Station (ft) Greeley Existing Conditions Plan: p0-Existing Conditions-FIS discharge 6/13/2011 Bridge #2 aac 048 055L 4650 ` - - 3 � 5 WS 100yr FIS 4645 •• Ground A Inen Bank Sta 4640 0 4635- m w NIN 4630- 4625- 4620 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 Station (ft) Greeley Existing Conditions Plan: p0-Existing Conditions-FIS discharge 6/13/2011 Bridge #2 �< .048 . ;c .055 4645 0 3 Legend 5 WS 100yr FIS • Ground 4640- --A-. Inert • Bank Sta ^ 4635_ E v C O cU W 4630- 4625-# 4620 , , . , , • --, , . , , , , , 20O0 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500 Station (ft) Greeley Existing Conditions Plan: p0=Existing Conditions-FIS discharge 6/13/2011 QT 5 7367 7367 3310 7550 22800 Lc .048 }- . k .055 a 4645 0 • n 3 _ 5 WS 100yr FIS Ground 4640- -- Ineff • Bank Sta 4635- t c 0 - A> W - W 4630- • 4625 r 4620 T T f ; I I r I r -. 2O00 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500 Station (ft) Greeley Existing Conditions Plan: p0=Existing Conditions-FIS discharge 6/13/2011 SURVEY SECTION 13 .048 " I .055 4650 0 Legend - 5 A A WS 100yr FIS 4645 I Ground Ineff • 4640 j Bank Sta 4635-1 c o Y w 4630 i \re • 4625 � 4620 4615-1--I I I I I I , , , - 1- —, • I 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 Station (ft) Greeley Existing Conditions Plan: p0-Existing Conditions-FIS discharge 6/13/2011 SURVEY SECTION 12 .048 ? . .055 4670 0 3 1 Legend 5 WS 100yr FIS • 4660 Ground Bank Sta 4650 r cv 4640 m 4630 4620 46101 - 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 Station (ft) Greeley Existing Conditions Plan: p0-Existing Conditions-FIS discharge 6/13/2011 SURVEY SECTION 11 -c .055 . k .065 4660 0 3 Legend _ 5 WS 100yr FIS Ground 4650 Bank Sta 4640 c O ca m 4630 4620 4610 I IT -,- if 0 1000 20O0 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 Station (ft) Greeley Existing Conditions Plan: p0-Existing Conditions-FIS discharge 6/13/2011 SURVEY SECTION 10 •_ .048 H • - .048 4640 - 3 Legend 5 WS 100yr FIS 4635- Ground Ineft Bank Sta 4630 I It T3 4625 m w � I 4620 r ; 4615 III 461O? - 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 Station (ft) Hello