The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20000626................................................................................................................................... ......... ..................................................................... ................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ................................................................................................................................... ......... ..................................................................... ................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Rivery ases Resources Project No, 99-132 `opy o L gal Deed 200' -(1626 ti 2519767 n-1596 P-575 01/IS/1997 03:34P PG 1 OF 11 REC DOC Weld Counts/ C0 JA Suki Tsukamoto Clerk & Recorder 56.00 QUIT CLAIM DEED THIS DEED,Made this 31st day of December, 1996,between CAMAS inc,a Delaware corporation,whose address is 3605 S.Teller Street,Lakewood,Colorado 80235 ("Grantor"),and CAMAS COLORADO,INC.,an Indiana corporation,whose address is 3605 S.Teller Street, Lakewood, Colorado 80235 ("Grantee"), WITNESSETH,That the Grantor, for and in consideration of the sum of Ten Dollars and other good and valuable consideration the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged,has remised,released,sold and QUIT CLAIMED,and by these presents does remise,release,sell and convey and QUIT CLAIM unto the Grantee, its successors and assigns, forever,all the right,title,interest,claim and demand which the Grantor has in and to the real property,together with improvements, if any,situate,lying and being in the County of Weld and State of Colorado,as more particularly described on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same,together with all and singular the appurtenances and privileges thereunto belonging or in anywise thereunto appertaining,and all the estate,right, title, interest and claim whatsoever,of the Grantor,either in law or equity,to the only proper use, benefit and behoof of the Grantee, its successors and assigns forever. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,The Grantor has executed this deed on the date set forth above. CAMAS inc,a Delaware corporation By: � t Mic I Hayes, esident STATE OF ` td ) )ss. COUNTY OF sex) ) The foregoing trument was acknowledged before me this 13S day ofitarixoniat. , 1996,by Michael E.Hayes as President of CAMAS inc,a Delaware corporation. My commission expires ©C2tt 029 , T9�. Witness my hand and official seal. k6 1JIli es ,,.�' Notary Public 841 V Pt kt ®yig ».`tits ii ;li, Zli If(II ( - I i , i I II EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION PA3CEL 12 : All that part of the N1/2 and the N1/2 of the S1/2 of Section 32, Township 6 North, Range 66 West of the 6th P.M. , County of Weld, State of Colorado, lying North of the Cache La Poudre River and West of the following described line: Commencing at the Northeast corner of said Section 32 and considering the North line of said Section 32 to bear North 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds West and with all other bearings described herein being relative thereto; thence North 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds West along the North line of said Section 32, a distance of 1,918.10 feet to the True Point of Beginning; thence South 00 degrees 45 minutes 07 seconds East, 1,140.00 feet, more or less to the existing center of the Cache La Poudre River and the terminus of the line; EXCEPT that parcel of land as conveyed to Roxena Von Trotha by Warranty Deed dated November 18 , 1965 and recorded November 24, 1965 in Book 554 as Reception No. 1476288, Weld County Records, EXCEPT that parcel of land as conveyed to D and E Investment Company by Quit Claim Deed dated November 27, 1974 and recorded November 29, 1974 In Book 727 as Reception No. 1649367, Weld County Records. EXCEPT that parcel of land conveyed to Weld County, Colorado, a Body Corporate and Politic in Warranty Deed recorded June 12, 1980 in Book 905 as Reception No. 1827326, described as follows: A tract of land in the W1/2 of Section 32, Township 6 North, Range 66 West of the 6th P.M. , County of Weld, State of Colorado, and being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the Northwest corner of Section 32 and running along the West line of Section 32 South 00 degrees 00 minutes 19 seconds West, 2, 249. 00 feet more or less to the center of the Cache La Poudre River; thence South 71 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds East along the center of the Cache La Poudre River 31.73 feet to the East right-of-way line of Weld County Road 27 to the Point of Beginning; thence South 71 degrees East along the center of the Cache La Poudra River 8.85 feet to a point; thence North 00 degrees 45 minutes 56 seconds West, 622.93 feet to a point on the East right-of-way line of Weld County Road 27; thence along the East right-of-way line of Weld County Road 27, South 00 degrees 00 minutes 19 seconds West, 619.99 feet to the True Point of Beginning. OF 11 2518367 B-1596 F'-57S 11]/15/1947 07:34P PG 10 11.1, r. lli III ;l I III ................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ........................................ ................................................. ........................................................................................................................ ................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ........................................ ................................................. ........................................................................................................................ ................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ........................................ ................................................. ........................................................................................................... ........... • • .k ii RSfriik:s'-3 `Y:i£si; 'ri, ?<9 f.:r • • • • eve o i t.Perm 1 FLOOD HAZARD DEVELOPMENT PERMIT CERTIFICATION I certify that the following standards have been met: (Check applicable sections only) ✓ The lowest floor, including the basement floor, is elevated (for existing structures which are being substantially improved)or will be built(for new structures) to the level, or above, of the regulatory flood datum. Water Surface Elevation of the Intermediate Regional Flood is: H'308•(, feet above MSL at the building site. Elevation of the lowest floor of the proposed structure is ) feet above MSL at the building site. ✓ The mobile home pad is elevated (for existing structures which are being substantially improved) or will be built (for new structures)to the level, or above, of the regulatory flood datum. Water Surface Elevation of the Intermediate Regional Flood is: H1DY.4 feet above MSL at the building site. Elevation of the mobile home pad is I feet above MSL at the building site. The lowest floor of the manufactured home, including the basement floor, is elevated (for existing structures which are being substantially improved)or will be built(for new Structures) to the level, or above, of the regulatory flood datum. Water Surface Elevation of the Intermediate Regional Flood is: A17{4 (0 feet above MSL at the building site. • Elevation of the lowest floor of the manufactured home is I feet above MSL at the building site. Source of Information: N yd4 ckcJ: �cis /v cA-u ale 0-4 Structures which are not elevated in order to be floodproofed are designed so the structure is watertight below the elevation of the regulatory flood datum and the structures are designed to be capable of resisting the hydrostatic and hydrodynamic forces expected at the building site during an intermediate regional flood. Water Surface Elevation of the Intermediate Regional flood is: feet above MSL at the building site. Elevation to which structure is to be floodproofed and watertight: feet above MSL at the building site. Source of Information: ✓ All new or replacement domestic water wells or water supply, treatment, or storage systems are designed to prevent inundation or infiltration of floodwater into the system by an intermediate regional flood. ✓ All new or replacement sanitary sewer systems are designed to prevent inundation or infiltration of floodwater into the system and to prevent discharges from the systems into the floodwater of an intermediate regional flood. • ✓ The encroachments, including fill, new construction, substantial improvements, and other development shall not result in any increase in flood levels during the occurrence of an Intermediate Regional Flood. 8 FLOOD HAZARD DEVELOPMENT PERMIT CERTIFICATION - Continued ✓ Electrical, heating, ventilation, plumbing, and air-conditioning equipment and other service facilities will be designed and/or located so as to prevent water from entering or accumulating within the components during conditions of flooding. ✓ All new construction and substantial improvements will be constructed using methods and practices that minimize flood damage. Improvements will be constructed with materials and utility equipment resistant to flood damage. All new construction and substantial improvements will be anchored to prevent flotation, collapse or lateral movement of the structure and to withstand hydrodynamic loads. ✓ The proposed use or structure is to be located in the FW (Floodway) District, and when built will not cause any increase in floodwater levels during an Intermediate Regional Flood and will not limit or restrict the flow capacity of the floodway. ✓ Fill material will be used in the FP-1 or FP-2 (Floodprone) Districts, and the fill material is designed to withstand the erosional forces associated with an Intermediate Regional Flood. I The use or development causes or results in an alteration or relocation of a water course. Evidence is attached to this certification that: 1. Municipalities within a three-mile radius of the proposed alteration or relocation have been notified in writing of the proposed alteration or relocation. 2. The Colorado Water Conservation Board has been notified in writing of the proposed alteration or relocation. 3. The Office of Insurance and Mitigation of the Federal Emergency Management Agency has been notified in writing of the proposed alteration or relocation. I The flood carrying capacity within the altered or relocated portion of the watercourse will remain the same after the alteration or relocation as existed prior to the alteration or relocation. Evidence is attached which substantiates that the alteration or relocation shall not adversely affect landowners upstream or downstream from the alteration or relocation. Date: Property pQ Owner Chat %��h Date: l/l i/De+ Registered Professional Engine State of Colorado 9 .. . . . .... ......................................................................................................... ............. .......................................... ........................................ .. ............................. ................... ....... ............................................................................................................. ......................................................................................................................................................... ......................................................... ........................................ .. ............................. ................... ....... ............................................................................................................. ................... ..................................................................................................................................... ............. .......................................... ........................................ .. ............................. ................... ....... ............................................................................................................. /`ct3>t� iel-> ltz-enxssecc z �tcr}fe3.Ater. fi?e-s, Flood Hazard eves ,p ° OFFICE FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION 1 .0' (MIN.) \ 100-YR WATER SURFACE ELEVATION FLOOD HAZARD DEVELOPMENT PER@l68T ELEVATION DRAWING Dole: 01/12/00 Job No Sig—I82 CAMAS COLORADO,INC. rraTuttleApplegate4nc. mmrm for Lose.Irmnh.end Woke Design: Dr. RIVERVIEW RESOURCE e - uswCr-Aft w+ Checked: —.G orno Fk: NHoz P�N13t3L I F=(M0W3-2759 FM:OPadrasess*enDe Scale, MIS, RattleApplegate,lic. Consultants for Land, Mineral and Water Development LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL DATE: Jan. 28, 2000 PROJECT: 99-182 TO: Connie Davis, CAMAS, Colorado, Inc. 131 N. 35th Ave Greeley, CO 80633 WE TRANSMIT: THE FOLLOWING: FOR YOUR: Attached J] Prints/Bluelines m Use Under Separate Cover i Originals El Approval Information Below ® Copy of Letter Information Applications Review & Comment Specifications El Material Returned n Other Revise & Resubmit Number of Copies Dated Sheet No. Description 1 1/11/00 Slope Stability Analysis Remarks: Connie, fnis is the copy for Kim Oci e, Wed County Planner, +mat you requested, fa k to you soon! 5hani , Copy to: Signed: r Shani . Eastin w/Enclosures: geld County Planning FEB 03 2000 11990 Grant Street, Suite 555 ■Denver, Colorado 80233 ■(303)452-6611 ■Fax(303)452-2759 CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify this slope stability analysis for Camas Colorado, Inc., the Riverview Resource site, located in Weld County Colorado was prepared by me or under my direct supervision. 1//i/ac Mike Applegate Registered Professional Engineer State of Colorado No. 15791 INTRODUCTION Camas Colorado, Inc. proposes to excavate and operate a sand and gravel pit known as the Riverview Resources site. The Riverview Resources Pit is located in Weld County, Colorado south of"O" Street between 71st and 83`d Ave. The proposed mining operation will extract gravel reserves from the property in some locations that are adjacent to man- made structures. The rules and regulations of the Division of Minerals and Geology require that any mining within a 200 foot setback of a man-made structure show through engineering analysis that the proposed mining will not cause damage. The accepted method of demonstrating this is through a slope stability analysis. This report contains a stability analysis of the mining highwall and the embankment that is proposed for reclaiming the pit. The report also provides a general overview of the reservoir, the proposed embankment design, geotechnical results, and methodology, and conclusions and recommendations for construction of the reservoir. OVERVIEW The Division of Minerals and Geology mining plan, exhibit C, proposes that the property be mined in 6 cells. The reclamation plan, Exhibits F, proposes future use as water storage reservoirs, with the exception of cell 1 and cell 5 which will remain unlined. Concurrent reclamation is planned in that the lake embankment will be constructed as the mining progresses. The reservoir will cover an estimated 244 surface acres when full. Actual surface areas will depend on the final configuration of the reservoir after reclamation is complete. The proposed reservoirs will be constructed in a shallow alluvium stratum that varies in thickness up to a depth of approximately 40' for the proposed site. Underlying the alluvium is a relatively impermeable layer of siltstone/claystone. The bore log information (see attached) for this site shows that weathered bedrock (siltstone/claystone) was encountered at depths ranging from 15 to 40 feet across the site. This will serve as the foundation of the lake and will also provide some material for embankment construction. GEOTECHNICAL TESTING In order to evaluate the slope stability of the proposed embankment, geotechnical investigations were performed to obtain the soil types and classifications for the onsite materials. Soil strength properties were estimated based on typical values for similar materials in this region. Table 1 represents a summary of the results that were used in the stability analysis. Table 1.—Soil Properties Description Max dry density Saturated Density Cohesion Direct Shear (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (Friction angle) Siltstone Claystone 128 140 300 45 Embankment 115 128 200 18 Silty Sand 110 122 125 16 Overburden Clayey Sand 112 125 150 18 Overburden Alluvium 126 138 0 32 Liner Core 118 130 200 16 EMBANKMENT DESIGN Based on the results of the geotechnical site investigation, it was decide that the embankment would be constructed of a mixture of the siltstone /claystone bedrock and the silty/sandy clay overburden located on the site. The embankment will not extend above the ground surface and will extend down into bedrock. DESIGN ANALYSIS AND CRITERIA The proposed reservoir embankment was analyzed using the XSTABLE v5.105a computer program. XSTABLE was designed to analyze the slope stability of earth embankments subjected to several critical situations that may occur during the life of the embankment. For this project, seven situations were identified as critical. Case 1 — Mining Conditions— "O" Street. A 75 foot setback has been proposed from the Public R.O.W. for this location. An H.S. 20 highway loading with a 1.3 impact loading factor has been added to the stability model Case 2 — Mining Conditions — 71st and 83rd Ave. A 40 foot setback has been proposed from the Public R.O.W. for this location. An H.S. 24 highway loading with a 1.3 impact loading factor has been added to the stability model Case 3 — Mining Conditions — Cache La Poudre River. A minimum 100 foot setback has been proposed for this case. Case 4 — Mining Conditions — Surrounding private homes. There are several private homes that surround the proposed site. A minimum 100 foot setback has been proposed for this case. Typical foundation loading has been added to the stability model for this case. Case 5 — Mining Conditions — Fish Hatcheries — There are several existing fish hatcheries adjacent to cell 4. A minimum 100 foot setback has been proposed for • this case. A 5000 psf loading has been added to the stability model. Case 6—Mining Conditions —Existing Utilities. There are several utilities (gas lines, power poles, etc...) located adjacent to and outside of the 83"d Ave ROW. A minimum 30 foot setback has been proposed for this case. Case 7 — Reclaimed Condition. The proposed reclamation embankment has been added to most critical mining condition cross-section (Case 1) Please see exhibit F for the reclamation embankment geometry. The phreatic surface shown is considered to be the "worst" case estimate. Typically, the draw down cone could extend a few hundred yards away from the highwall. This would result in a "lower" phreatic line and a move stable highwall. METHODOLOGY The embankment configuration shown in the computer analysis represents the proposed reservoir embankment, which in the most critical case is a 42 foot high embankment with a variable side slope. Material properties where obtained from typical values for the onsite soils identified in the geotechnical report. Two methods were used in the computer analysis for determining safety factors; Simplified Bishop's Procedure and JanBu procedure. Both procedures search for circular shear failures and automatically search for the lowest safety factor. Both methods converged on nearly identical safety factors in every case. The proposed minimum safety factors are based on the current standards used by the State Engineer in evaluating embankment dams. SLOPE STABILITY RESULTS The results of the slope stability analysis are presented in Table 2. The calculated factors of safety are within the design criteria (the State Engineers criteria for dam safety) specified for this project and can be considered indicators of the embankment performance under the various conditions. Table 2. Slope Stability Analysis Results Description Factor of safety Case 1 —Mining Conditions 1.26 Case 2 — Mining Conditions 1.57 Case 3 - Mining Conditions 1.57 Case 4 - Mining Conditions 1.26 Case 5 - Mining Conditions 1.26 Case 6 - Mining Conditions 1.57 Case 7—Reclamation Conditions 1 1.77 CONCLUSIONS AND RECCOMENDATIONS 1. The materials available onsite appear to be suitable for construction of the proposed earth embankment. 2. The minimum safety factor calculated for the mining conditions adjacent to "O" Street is 1.26 which exceeds the minimum requirement of 1.25. Also, the critical failure surface does not intersect the existing structures. The proposed 75' setback is adequate. 3. The safety factor calculated for the mining conditions adjacent to 7151 and 83rd Ave is 1.57 which exceeds the minimum requirement of 1.25. Also, the critical failure surface does not intersect the existing structures. The proposed 40' setback is adequate. 4. The safety factor, against sliding, calculated for the mining conditions adjacent to Cache La Poudre River is 1.57 which exceeds the minimum requirement of 1.25. Also, the critical failure surface does not intersect the river. The proposed 100 setback is adequate. 5. The minimum safety factor calculated for the mining conditions adjacent to the existing private homes is 1.26 which exceeds the minimum requirement of 1.25. Also, the critical failure surface does not intersect the existing homes. The proposed 100' setback is adequate. 6. The minimum safety factor calculated for the mining conditions adjacent to the existing water tanks is 1.26 which exceeds the minimum requirement of 1.25. Also, the critical failure surface does not intersect the existing structures. The proposed 100' setback is adequate. 7. The minimum safety factor calculated for the mining conditions adjacent to the existing utility lines is 1.57 which exceeds the minimum requirement of 1.25 Also, the critical failure surface does not intersect the existing structures. The proposed 30' setback is adequate. 8. The safety factor calculated for the reclaimed embankment is 1.7which exceeds the minimum requirement of 1.5. 9. These safety factors are based on obtaining a saturated cohesion of 200 psf for the soil in the embankment. Based on results of direct shear tests on similar soils a 700 psf cohesion value was obtained. The 200 psf value was selected as a conservative value for the purposes of analysis. 10. The safety factors are based on an assumed value for the strength of the bedrock on the site. The strength of the bedrock has no impact on the stability of the mining highwalls. A failure surface will not initiate or propagate through the bedrock material A conservative c value of 300 psf and a friction angle of 45 degrees was selected to represent the strength of the bedrock The stability analysis and resulting factors of safety are based on assumed values for soil properties for this site. The values selected are representative of soils in this area and are considered to be conservative. The following recommendations for monitoring of slope stability should be followed: 1. A visual inspection of the excavated highwalls should be done on a weekly basis for the first 6 months of mining. This inspection should consist of walking the existing ground and looking for any signs of stress cracks or other potential signs of slope failure. Some minor sluffing of highwalls is expected on any mine site. The intent of this inspection is to locate potential major slope failures that could potentially extend back into a structure. 2. A visual inspection should be done anytime after a major precipitation event that has saturated the ground using the same procedures. A major precipitation event would be defined as a storm that produces an intensity level reached once in 50 years on the average. 3. If a visual inspection detects signs of a potential slope failure, qualified personnel should be contacted to evaluate a recommend remediation work to stabilize the area. 4. If no visible signs of slope failure are detected within the first 6 months, then the inspection period could be reduced to once per month or after every major precipitation event. Case 1 CASE1 10-30-99 10:17 mining conditions — case 1 200 _ 1 most critical surfaces, MINIMUM BISHOP FOS = 1 .339 160 _ yv w1 '405120 _ 'W m N_ X Q 80 _ 40 _ 0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360 X-AXIS (feet) CASE1A 10-30-99 10:18 mining conditions — case 1a 200 _ 1 most critical surfaces, MINIMUM JANBU FOS = 1 .262 160 _ NN W -,S120 _ 'w cD 4- 80 _ >- 40 _ 0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360 X-AXIS (feet) XSTABL File: CASE1 10-30-99 10: 17 ****************************************** * XSTABL * * * * Slope Stability Analysis * * using the * * Method of Slices * * * * Copyright (C) 1992 A 96 * * Interactive Software Designs, Inc. * * Moscow, ID 83843, U.S.A. * * * * All Rights Reserved .* * * * Ver. 5. 105a 95 A 1483 * ****************************************** Problem Description : mining conditions - case 1 SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES 5 SURFACE boundary segments Segment x-left y-left x-right y-right Soil Unit No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment 1 50. 0 100.0 200.0 100. 0 1 2 200.0 100.0 204 .0 135. 0 5 3 204 .0 135.0 204 .6 139. 0 3 4 204 . 6 139.0 205.0 142. 0 4 5 205.0 142.0 350.0 142.0 4 3 SUBSURFACE boundary segments Segment x-left y-left x-right y-right Soil Unit No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment 1 204 . 6 139.0 350.0 139.0 3 2 204 .0 135.0 350.0 135.0 5 3 200.0 100.0 360. 0 100.0 1 ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters 5 Soil unit (s) specified Soil Unit Weight Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Water Unit Moist Sat. Intercept Angle Parameter Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Ru (psf) No. 1 128 .0 145.0 300.0 45. 00 .000 . 0 1 2 115. 0 128 .0 200.0 18 . 00 .000 . 0 3 110. 0 122.0 125.0 16. 00 .000 . 0 4 112. 0 125.0 150.0 18. 00 .000 .0 1 5 126.0 138 .0 . 0 32.00 .000 .0 1. 1 Water surface (s) have been specified Unit weight of water = 62. 40 (pcf) Water Surface No. 1 specified by 4 coordinate points ****************************.***** PHREATIC SURFACE, ********************************** Point x-water y-water No. (ft) (ft) 1 200. 00 100.00 2 250. 00 125.00 3 275. 00 135.00 4 308 . 00 135.00 BOUNDARY LOADS 2 load(s) specified Load x-left x-right Intensity Direction No. (ft) (ft) (psf) (deg) 1 300.0 302.0 20800.0 .0 2 306. 0 308.0 20800.0 .0 NOTE - Intensity is specified as a uniformly distributed force acting on a HORIZONTALLY projected surface. A critical failure surface searching method, using a random technique for generating CIRCULAR surfaces has been specified. 200 trial surfaces will be generated and analyzed. 2 Surfaces initiate from each of 100 points equally spaced along the ground surface between x = 199. 0 ft and x = 203.0 ft Each surface terminates between x = 220. 0 ft and x = 300. 0 ft Unless further limitations were imposed, the minimum elevation at which a surface extends is y = 50.0 ft * * * * * DEFAULT SEGMENT LENGTH SELECTED BY XSTABL * * * * * 5.0 ft line segments define each trial failure surface. ANGULAR RESTRICTIONS : The first segment of each failure surface will be inclined within the angular range defined by : Lower angular Limit :_ -45. 0 degrees Upper angular limit := 5. 0 degrees *****************x****************************************************** -- WARNING -- WARNING -- WARNING -- WARNING -- (# 48) *****************x****************************************************** USER SELECTED option to maintain strength greater than zero Factors of safety have been calculated by the : * * * * * SIMPLIFIED BISHOP METHOD * The most critical circular failure surface is specified by 15 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 200.09 100.80 2 205.09 100.99 3 210.03 101.74 4 214 . 86 103.05 5 219. 50 104 . 90 6 223. 91 107.26 7 228 .03 110. 10 8 231 . 79 113. 39 9 235. 16 117.08 10 238. 10 121. 13 11 240. 56 125.48 12 242. 51 130. 08 13 243. 92 134 . 88 14 244 .79 139.80 15 244 . 92 142.00 **** Simplified BISHOP FOS = 1.339 **** The following is a summary of the TEN most critical surfaces Problem Description : mining conditions - case 1 FOS Circle Center Radius Initial Terminal Resisting (BISHOP) x-coord y-coord x-coord x-coord Moment (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft-lb) 1. 1. 339 200.89 145.00 44 .21 200. 09 244 . 92 4 .233E+06 2. 1. 366 200. 99 145.59 34 . 90 201.22 235. 64 1. 952E+06 3. 1. 503 201 . 90 153.08 53.16 199. 00 253. 89 6. 417E+06 4 . 1 . 506 200. 05 168.44 66.23 200.25 260.73 7.717E+06 5. 1 . 529 203. 55 145.22 25.72 202.23 228 . 97 8.275E105 6. 1 .591 204 . 61 161.08 60. 10 200. 13 261 . 58 7. 663E'06 7 . 1 . 609 203. 88 152.56 46. 93 200. 66 249.55 4 . 477E+06 8 . 1 . 619 202. 41 159.81 52.32 200.86 251 . 58 4 .740E+06 9. 1 . 627 200. 87 167. 14 58.21 201 .02 253. 36 5.037E+06 10. 1. 634 201 . 88 164 . 54 57.74 200.78 254 . 99 5. 620E+06 * * * END OF FILE * * * Case 2 CASE2A 10-30-99 12:17 mining conditions — case 2a 175 1 most critical surfaces, MINIMUM JANBU FOS = 1 .570 140 .4-. a 105 - N < 70 �- w ostevivic- 35 0 40 75 110 145 180 215 250 285 320 X-AXIS (feet) CASE2 10-30-99 12:17 mining conditions — case 2 175 1 most critical surfaces, MINIMUM BISHOP FOS = 1 .646 140 a 105 a) -- 01 N_ Q :: : w w1 0 40 75 110 145 180 215 250 285 320 X-AXIS (feet) XSTABL File: CASE2 10-30-99 12: 17 ****************************************** * XSTABL * * * Slope Stability Analysis * * using the * Method of Slices * * * * Copyright (C) 1992 A 96 * Interactive Software Designs, Inc. * * Moscow, ID 83843, U.S.A. * * * All Rights Reserved * * * * Ver. 5. 105a 95 A 1483 * ****************************************** Problem Description : mining conditions - case 2 SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES 5 SURFACE boundary segments Segment x-left y-left x-right y-right Soil Unit No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment 1 50.0 50. 0 201. 3 50. 0 1 2 201.3 50. 0 202. 9 63. 0 5 3 202. 9 63.0 203.7 67 . 0 3 4 203.7 67.0 204 .0 70. 0 4 5 204 .0 70.0 303.0 70. 0 4 3 SUBSURFACE boundary segments Segment x-Left y-left x-right y-right Soil Unit No. ( ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment 1 203.7 67 .0 303.8 67.0 3 2 202. 9 63.0 304.0 63.0 5 3 201.3 50.0 320.0 50.0 1 ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters 5 Soil unit (s) specified Soil Unit Weight Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Water Unit Moist Sat. Intercept Angle Parameter Constant Surface - - No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Ru (psf) No. 1 128 .0 145. 0 300.0 45.00 . 000 .0 1 2 115.0 128. 0 200.0 18.00 . 000 . 0 1 3 110.0 122.0 125. 0 16.00 . 000 . 0 1 4 112. 0 125.0 150. 0 18 .00 . 000 . 0 1 5 126. 0 138.0 . 0 32 . 00 .000 . 0 1 1 Water surface (s) have been specified Unit weight of water = 62.40 (pcf) Water Surface No. 1 specified by 4 coordinate points PHREATIC SURFACE, ********************************** Point x-water y-water No. (ft) (ft) 1 201.30 50.00 2 225.00 57.00 3 250.00 63.00 4 303.00 63.00 BOUNDARY LOADS 2 load(s) specified Load x-left x-right Intensity Direction No. (ft) (ft) (psf) (deg) 1 263.0 265.0 20800.0 . 0 2 269.0 271 . 0 20800.0 . 0 NOTE - Intensity is specified as a uniformly distributed force acting on a HORIZONTALLY projected surface. A critical failure surface searching method, using a random technique for generating CIRCULAR surfaces has been specified. 200 trial surfaces will be generated and analyzed. 2 Surfaces initiate from each of 100 points equally spaced along the ground surface between x = 200.0 ft and x = 202. 5 ft Each surface terminates between x = 210.0 ft and x = 300.0 ft Unless further limitations were imposed, the minimum elevation at which a surface extends is y = 20.0 ft * * * * * DEFAULT SEGMENT LENGTH SELECTED BY XSTABL * * * * * 3.0 ft line segments define each trial failure surface. ANGULAR RESTRICTIONS : The first segment of each failure surface will be inclined within the angular range defined by : Lower angular limit :_ -45.0 degrees Upper angular limit 3.0 degrees Factors of safety have been calculated by the : * * * * * SIMPLIFIED BISHOP METHOD * * * * * The most critical circular failure surface is specified by 14 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 200. 18 50.00 2 203. 18 49. 93 3 206. 16 50.23 4 209.09 50. 89 5 211. 91 51. 91 6 214 .58 53.26 7 217.07 54. 94 8 219.33 56. 91 9 221.34 59. 15 10 223.05 61. 61 11 224 .44 64 .26 - - 12 225.50 67 . 07 13 226.21 69. 99 14 226.21 70.00 **** Simplified BISHOP FOS = 1. 646 **** The following is a summary of the TEN most critical surfaces Problem Description : mining conditions - case 2 FOS Circle Center Radius Initial Terminal Resisting (BISHOP) x-coord y-coord x-coord x-coord Moment (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (it) (ft-lb) 1 . 1 . 646 202.26 74 .23 24 .32 200. 18 226.21 6. 886E+05 2 . 1 . 649 202. 51 79. 16 26.40 201 . 64 227. 27 5. 874E+05 3. 1 . 722 204 . 47 73.00 22.70 201.36 226. 96 6. 264E+05 4 . 1 . 748 202. 84 75. 52 25. 60 200.78 227. 81 7 . 846E+05 5. 1 .751 205.21 152. 96 103.05 200.73 265. 95 8 . 43LE+06 6. 1. 779 202. 59 77. 50 27. 62 200.03 229. 14 8 . 867E+05 7 . 1. 909 203.78 90.07 39. 42 201. 39 237 . 68 1. 382E+06 B. 1. 960 202.00 91.01 33.52 202 . 22 228 . 10 5.090E+05 9. 1. 975 203. 85 81.78 23. 51 202 . 32 224 . 16 2. 999E+05 10. 1. 978 205. 58 77.88 26.24 201 . 54 230.57 7 . 652E+05 * * * END OF FILE * * * Case 3 (Please see Case 2) Case 4 CASE4 10-30-99 10:34 mining conditions — case 4 200 _ 1 most critical surfaces, MINIMUM BISHOP FOS = 1 .339 160 _ wi ;73. 120 _ w 4 cn 5<- < 80 _ >- 40 _ 0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360 X-AXIS (feet) CASE4A 10-30-99 10:35 mining conditions — case 4a 200 _ 3 most critical surfaces, MINIMUM JANBU FOS = 1 .262 160 _ W , ;7) 120 _ -9 N_ X < 80 _ >- 40 _ 0 I i I 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360 X-AXIS (feet) XSTABL File: CASE4 10-30-99 10: 34 ****************************************** * XSTABL * * * * Slope Stability Analysis * * using the * * Method of Slices * * * * Copyright (C) 1992 A 96 * * Interactive Software Designs, Inc. * * Moscow, ID 83843, U.S.A. * * * * All Rights Reserved * * * * Ver. 5. 105a 95 A 1483 * ****k************************************* Problem Description : mining conditions - case 4 SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES 5 SURFACE boundary segments Segment x-left y-left x-right y-right Soil Unit No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment 1 50.0 100.0 200.0 100. 0 1 2 200.0 100.0 204 .0 135. 0 5 3 204 .0 135.0 204 . 6 139. 0 3 4 204 . 6 139.0 205.0 142.0 4 5 205.0 142.0 350.0 142.0 4 3 SUBSURFACE boundary segments Segment x-Left y-left x-right y-right Soil Unit No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment 1 204 . 6 139.0 350.0 139.0 3 2 204 .0 135.0 350. 0 135. 0 5 3 200. 0 100.0 360.0 100. 0 1 ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters 5 Soil unit (s) specified Soil Unit Weight Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Water Unit Moist Sat. Intercept Angle Parameter Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Ru (psf) No. 1 128. 0 145. 0 300. 0 45.00 .000 . 0 1 2 115. 0 128. 0 200. 0 18.00 . 000 . 0 1 3 110.0 122.0 125.0 16.00 . 000 . 0 1 4 112.0 12.5.0 1.50.0 18 .00 . 000 .0 1 5 126. 0 138 . 0 .0 32.00 . 000 .0 1. 1 Water surface (s) have been specified Unit weight of water = 62. 40 (pcf) Water Surface No. 1 specified by 4 coordinate points ********************************** PHREATIC SURFACE, Point x-water y-water No. (ft) (Et) 1 200. 00 100.00 2 250. 00 125.00 3 275. 00 135.00 4 308.00 135.00 BOUNDARY LOADS 1 load(s) specified Load x-left x-right Intensity Direction No. (ft) (ft) (psf) (deg) 1 305.0 309.0 3000.0 .0 NOTE - Intensity is specified as a uniformly distributed force acting on a HORIZONTALLY projected surface. A critical failure surface searching method, using a random technique for generating CIRCULAR surfaces has been specified. 200 trial surfaces will be generated and analyzed. 2 Surfaces initiate from each of 100 points equally spaced along the ground surface between x = 199.0 ft and x = 203. 0 ft Each surface terminates between x = 220.0 ft and x = 300. 0 ft Unless further limitations were imposed, the minimum elevation at which a surface extends is y = 50. 0 ft * * * * * DEFAULT SEGMENT LENGTH SELECTED BY XSTABL * * * * * 5.0 ft line segments define each trial failure surface. ANGULAR RESTRICTIONS : The first segment of each failure surface will be inclined within the angular range defined by : Lower angular limit := -45. 0 degrees Upper angular limit := 5.0 degrees ****************k******************************************************* -- WARNING -- WARNING -- WARNING -- WARNING -- (# 48) **k***************************************************************� ***** USER SELECTED option to maintain strength greater than zero Factors of safety have been calculated by the * * * * * SIMPLIFIED BISHOP METHOD * * * The most critical circular failure surface is specified by 15 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 200. 09 100.80 2 205. 09 100. 99 3 210. 03 101.74 4 214 . 86 103.05 --- 5 219. 50 104 . 90 6 223. 91. 107.26 7 228 . 03 110. 10 8 231. 79 113. 39 9 235. 16 117 . 08 10 238 . 10 121. 13 11 240.56 125.48 12 242 .51 130.08 13 243. 92 134 .88 14 244 . 79 139.80 15 244 . 92 142. 00 **** Simplified BISHOP FOS = 1.339 **** The following is a summary of the TEN most critical surfaces Problem Description : mining conditions - case 4 FOS Circle Center Radius Initial Terminal Resisting (BISHOP) x-coord y-coord x-coord x-coord Moment (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft-lb) 1. 1.339 200. 89 145.00 44 .21 200. 09 244 . 92 4 .233E+06 2. 1 .366 200. 99 145. 59 34 . 90 201.22 235. 64 1 . 952E+06 3. 1. 503 201. 90 153. 08 53. 16 199.00 253. 89 6.417E+06 4 . 1. 506 200.05 168 . 44 66.23 200.25 260. 73 7 . 717E+06 5. 1. 529 203.55 145.22 25.72 202.23 228. 97 8 .275Ei05 6. 1. 591 204 . 61 161.08 60. 10 200. 13 261. 58 7. 663E+06 7. 1. 609 203.88 152.56 46. 93 200. 66 249.55 4 .477E+06 8. 1. 619 202.41 159.81 52.32 200. 86 251.58 4 .740EF06 9. 1 . 627 200. 87 167 . 14 58 .21 201. 02 253.36 5.037E+06 10. 1. 634 201. 88 164 .54 57 .74 200.78 254 . 99 5. 620E+06 * * * END OF FILE * * * Case 5 CASE5A 10-30-99 10:59 mining conditions — case 50 200 1 most critical surfaces, MINIMUM JANBU FOS = 1 .262 160 X W , a 120 w- 0 N_ X < 80 >- 40 0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360 X-AXIS (feet) CASES 10-30-99 10:57 mining conditions — case 5 200 1 most critical surfaces, MINIMUM BISHOP FOS = 1 .339 160 V 120 LJwwi 't m x a 80 >- 40 0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360 X-AXIS (feet) XSTABL File: CASES 10-30-99 10 : 57 ********************-********************** XSTABL * * * Slope Stability Analysis * * using the * * Method of Slices * * * Copyright (C) 1992 A 96 * Interactive Software Designs, Inc. * * Moscow, ID 83843, U.S.A. * * * All Rights Reserved * * * Ver. 5. 105a 95 A 1483 * ****************************************** Problem Description : mining conditions - case 5 SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES 5 SURFACE boundary segments Segment x-left y-left x-right y-right Soil Unit No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment 1 50.0 100.0 200. 0 100.0 1 2 200.0 100.0 204 .0 135 .0 5 3 204 .0 135.0 204 . 6 139 . 0 3 4 204 . 6 139. 0 205.0 142. 0 4 5 205. 0 142 . 0 350.0 142 .0 4 3 SUBSURFACE boundary segments Segment x-left y-left x-right y-right Soil Unit No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment 1 204 . 6 139.0 350.0 139. 0 3 2 204 .0 135.0 350.0 135. 0 5 3 200.0 100.0 360.0 100. 0 1 ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters 5 Soil units) specified Soil Unit Weight Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Water Unit Moist Sat. Intercept Angle Parameter Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Ru (psf) No. 1 128 .0 145. 0 300.0 45.00 . 000 . 0 1 2 115.0 128. 0 200.0 18 . 00 . 000 . 0 1 3 110. 0 122.0 125.0 16. 00 .000 .0 1 4 112. 0 125.0 150.0 18 . 00 .000 .0 1 5 126.0 138 .0 .0 32.00 .000 . 0 1 1 Water surface (s) have been specified Unit weight of water = 62. 40 (pcf) Water Surface No. 1 specified by 4 coordinate points ********************************** PHREATIC SURFACE, ********************************** Point x-water y-water No. (ft) (ft) 1 200.00 100. 00 2 250.00 125. 00 3 275.00 135. 00 4 308.00 135. 00 BOUNDARY LOADS 1 load(s) specified Load x-left x-right Intensity Direction No. (ft) (ft) (psf) (deg) 1 305.0 315. 0 5000.0 . 0 NOTE - Intensity is specified as a uniformly distributed force acting on a HORIZONTALLY projected surface. A critical failure surface searching method, using a random technique for generating CIRCULAR surfaces has been specified. 200 trial surfaces will be generated and analyzed. 2 Surfaces initiate from each of 100 points equally spaced along the ground surface between x = 199. 0 ft and x = 203. 0 ft Each surface terminates between x = 220 .0 ft and x = 300. 0 ft Unless further limitations were imposed, the minimum elevation at which a surface extends is y = 50.0 ft * * * * * DEFAULT SEGMENT LENGTH SELECTED BY XSTABL * * * * 5. 0 ft line segments define each trial failure surface. ANGULAR RESTRICTIONS : The first segment of each failure surface will be inclined within the angular range defined by : Lower angular limit := -45. 0 degrees Upper angular limit := 5. 0 degrees ************************************************************************ -- WARNING -- WARNING -- WARNING -- WARNING -- (# 48) ****************************************************************** ***** USER SELECTED option to maintain strength greater than zero Factors of safety have been calculated by the : * * * * * SIMPLIFIED BISHOP METHOD * * * * * The most critical circular failure surface is specified by 15 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 200.09 100. 80 2 205.09 100. 99 3 210.03 101 .74 4 214 . 86 103.05 --- 5 219. 50 104 . 90 6 223. 91 107 .26 7 228 .03 110. 10 8 231 . 79 113. 39 9 235 . 16 117 .08 10 238. 10 121. 13 11 240. 56 125. 48 12 242.51 130. 08 13 243. 92 134 .88 14 244 . 79 139.80 15 244 . 92 142 .00 **** Simplified BISHOP FOS = 1. 339 **** The following is a summary of the TEN most critical surfaces Problem Description : mining conditions - case 5 FOS Circle Center Radius Initial Terminal Resisting (BISHOP) x-coord y-coord x-coord x-coord Moment (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft-lb) 1. 1.339 200. 89 145.00 44 .21 200. 09 244 . 92 4 .233E+06 2. 1.366 200. 99 145.59 34 . 90 201. 22 235. 64 1. 952E+06 3. 1.503 201. 90 153.08 53.16 199. 00 253. 89 6.417E+06 4 . 1 .506 200.05 168.44 66.23 200.25 260. 73 7 . 717E+06 5. 1.529 203. 55 145.22 25.72 202.23 228. 97 8 . 275E+05 6. 1.591 204 . 61 161 . 08 60. 10 200. 13 261. 58 7. 663E+06 7 . 1 . 609 203. 88 152. 56 46. 93 200. 66 249. 55 4 . 477E+06 8. 1 . 619 202. 41 159. 81 52.32 200. 86 251 .58 4 .740E+ 06 9. 1. 627 200. 87 167 . 14 58.21 201. 02 253.36 5.037E+06 10. 1. 634 201. 88 164 . 54 57.74 200. 78 254 . 99 5. 620E+06 * * * END OF FILE * * * Case 6 CASE6A 10-30-99 12:28 mining conditions — case 6a 175 _ 1 most critical surfaces, MINIMUM JANBU FOS = 1 .570 140 w 105 _ 0 N - X Q 70 _ w wl 35 _ 0 40 75 110 145 180 215 250 285 320 X-AXIS (feet) CASE6 10-30-99 12:28 mining conditions — case 6 175 _ 1 most critical surfaces, MINIMUM BISHOP FOS = 1 .646 140 _ a 105 _ - to 70 _ >- w 1 35 _ 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 40 75 110 145 180 215 250 285 320 X-AXIS (feet) XSTABL File: CASE6 10-30-99 12:28 ******k*k********************************* XSTABL * * * Slope Stability Analysis * * using the * * Method of Slices * * * * Copyright (C) 1992 A 96 * * Interactive Software Designs, Inc. * * Moscow, ID 83843, U.S.A. * * * * All Rights Reserved * * * Ver. 5. 105a 95 A 1483 ****************************************** Problem Description : mining conditions - case 6 SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES 5 SURFACE boundary segments Segment x-left y-left x-right y-right Soil Unit No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment 1 50.0 50. 0 201 .3 50. 0 1 2 201.3 50. 0 202.9 63. 0 5 3 202. 9 63. 0 203.7 67 . 0 3 4 203.7 67 . 0 204 .0 70.0 4 5 204 .0 70. 0 303.0 70 . 0 4 3 SUBSURFACE boundary segments Segment x-i.eft y-left x-right y-right Soil Unit No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment 1 203.7 67 .0 303.8 67 . 0 3 2 202 . 9 63. 0 304 .0 63. 0 5 3 201. 3 50.0 320.0 50 . 0 1 ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters 5 Soil unit (s) specified Soil Unit Weight Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Water Unit Moist Sat. Intercept Angle Parameter Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Ru (pst) No. 1 128 .0 145.0 300.0 45.00 . 000 . 0 1 2 115.0 128 .0 200.0 18 . 00 . 000 .0 1. 3 110.0 122.0 125.0 16.00 . 000 .0 4 112 . 0 125. 0 150.0 18 .00 .000 .0 1 5 126. 0 138 . 0 .0 32 .00 .000 .0 1 1 Water surface(s) have been specified Unit weight of water = 62. 40 (pcf) Water Surface No. 1 specified by 4 coordinate points ********************************** PHREATIC SURFACE, ******k*************************** Point x-water y-water No. (ft) (ft) 1 201. 30 50.00 2 225. 00 57.00 3 250. 00 63.00 4 303. 00 63.00 A critical failure surface searching method, using a random technique for generating CIRCULAR surfaces has been specified. 200 trial surfaces will be generated and analyzed. 2 Surfaces initiate from each of 100 points equally spaced along the ground surface between x = 200.0 ft and x = 202. 5 ft Each surface terminates between x = 210.0 ft and x = 300. 0 ft Unless further limitations were imposed, the minimum elevation at which a surface extends is y = 20.0 ft * * * * * DEFAULT SEGMENT LENGTH SELECTED BY XSTABL * * * * * --- 3.0 ft line segments define each trial failure surface. ANGULAR RESTRICTIONS : The first segment of each failure surface will be inclined within the angular range defined by : Lower angular limit := -45. 0 degrees Upper angular limit := 3. 0 degrees ************************************************************* ** Factor of safety calculation for surface # 138 *` ** failed to converge within FIFTY iterations ** ** ** ** The last calculated value of the FOS was 21 . 1720 ** ** This will be ignored for final summary of results ** ************************************************************* Circular surface (FOS= 21. 1720) is defined by: xcenter = 244 .33 ycenter = 95. 68 Init. Pt. = 201.72 Seg. Length = 3.00 ***********************k************************************* ** Factor of safety calculation for surface # 142 ** ** failed to converge within FIFTY iterations ** ** ** ** The last calculated value of the FOS was 22. 0875 ** ** This will be ignored for final summary of results ** ************************************************************* Circular surface (FOS= 22.0875) is defined by: xcenter = 244 .33 ycenter = 95.09 Init. Pt. = 201.77 Seg. Length = 3.00 ************************************************************* ** Factor of safety calculation for surface # 152 ** ** failed to converge within FIFTY iterations ** ** ** ** The last calculated value of the FOS was 21.7292 ** ** This will be ignored for final summary of results ** ************************************************************* Circular surface :FOS= 21 . 7292) is defined by: xcenter = 242. 96 ycenter = 97. 09 Init. Pt. _- 201.89 Seg. Length = 3.00 ************************************************************* ** Factor of safety calculation for surface 4 155 ** ** failed to converge within FIFTY iterations ** ** ** ** The last calculated value of the FOS was 25.3104 ** ** This will be ignored for final summary of results ** ************************************************************k Circular surface (FOS= 25. 3104) is defined by: xcenter = 245.73 ycenter = 97 . 38 Init. Pt . = 201. 94 Seg. Length = 3. 00 ************************************************************* ** Factor of safety calculation for surface # 156 ** ** failed to converge within FIFTY iterations ** ** ** ** The last calculated value of the FOS was 21.2199 ** ** This will be ignored for final summary of results ** ************************************************************* Circular surface (FOS= 21.2199) is defined by: xcenter = 239. 17 ycenter = 90. 81 Init. Pt. = 201. 94 Seg. Length = 3.00 ************************************************************* ** Factor of safety calculation for surface # 172 ** ** failed to converge within FIFTY iterations ** ** ** ** The last calculated value of the FOS was 25. 1289 ** ** This will be ignored for final summary of results ** ************************************************************* Circular surface (FOS= 25. 1289) is defined by: xcenter = 244 . 12 ycenter = 101. 96 Init. Pt. = 202. 15 Seg. Length = 3.00 ************************************************************* ** Factor of safety calculation for surface # 188 ** ** failed to converge within FIFTY iterations ** ** ** ** The last calculated value of the FOS was 25.2027 ** ** This will be ignored for final summary of results ** ************************************************************* Circular surface (FOS= 25.2027) is defined by: xcenter = 245. 04 ycenter = 115. 42 Init. Pt. = 202. 35 Seg. Length = 3. 00 ************************************************************* ** Factor of safety calculation for surface # 190 ** ** failed to converge within FIFTY iterations ** ** ** ** The last calculated value of the FOS was 25. 4757 ** ** This will be ignored for final summary of results ** *************##k*********************** ********************* Circular Circular surface (FOS= 25. 4757) is defined by: xcenter = 237 .77 ycenter = 93. 55 Init . Pt. = 202. 37 Seg. Length = 3. 00 *************k*********************************************k* ** Factor of safety calculation for surface # 192 ** ** failed to converge within FIFTY iterations ** ** ** ** The Last calculated value of the FOS was 31. 1574 ** ** This will be ignored for final summary of results ** ************************************************************* Circular surface (FOS= 31. 1574) is defined by: xcenter = 245.02 ycenter = 103.78 Init. Pt. = 202.40 Seg. Length = 3.00 ************************************************************* ** Factor of safety calculation for surface # 194 ** ** failed to converge within FIFTY iterations ** ** ** ** The last calculated value of the FOS was 33. 3465 ** ** This will be ignored for final summary of results ** ************************************************************* Circular surface (FOS= 33. 3465) is defined by: xcenter = 244 .77 ycenter = 100.51 Init. Pt. = 202.42 Seg. Length = 3. 00 ************************************************************* ** Factor of safety calculation for surface # 195 ** ** failed to converge within FIFTY iterations ** ** ** ** The last calculated value of the FOS was 22. 9262 ** ** This will be ignored for final summary of results ** Circular surface ;FOS= 22. 9262) is defined by: xcenter = 234 .36 ycenter = 91.72 Init. Pt. = 202. 45 Seg. Length = 3. 00 ************************************************************* ** Factor of safety calculation for surface # 200 ** ** failed to converge within FIFTY iterations ** ** ** ** The last calculated value of the FOS was 21 . 6551 ** ** This will be ignored for final summary of results ** ************kk*****************#**********x*********₹******** Circular surface (FOS= 21 . 6551) is defined by: xcenter = 230. 50 ycenter = 85.74 Init. Pt . = 202.50 Seg. Length = 3. 00 Factors of safety have been calculated by the : * * * * * SIMPLIFIED BISHOP METHOD * * * * * The most critical circular failure surface is specified by 14 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 200. 18 50.00 2 203. 18 49. 93 3 206. 16 50.23 4 209.09 50.89 5 211. 91 51. 91 6 214 . 58 53.26 7 217. 07 54. 94 8 219. 33 56. 91 9 221. 34 59.15 10 223. 05 61.61 11 224 . 44 64 .26 12 225. 50 67.07 13 226.21 69. 99 14 226.21 70.00 **** Simplified BISHOP FOS _.. 1. 646 **** *************s.*****************************₹*********************₹** ** ** ** Out of the 200 surfaces generated and analyzed by XSTABL, ** ** 12 surfaces were found to have MISLEADING FOS values. ** ** *+ *****************************₹*********************************x**₹* The following is a summary of the TEN most critical surfaces Problem Description : mining conditions - case 6 FOS Circle Center Radius Initial Terminal Resisting (BISHOP) x-coord y-coord x-coord x-coord Moment (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft-lb) 1. 1 . 646 202.26 74 .23 24 .32 200. 18 226.21 6.886E+05 2. 1. 649 202. 51 79. 16 26.40 201. 64 227 .27 5.874E+05 3. 1 . 722 204 . 47 73.00 22. 70 201.36 226. 96 6.264E+05 4 . 1.748 202. 84 75.52 25. 60 200. 78 227.81 7 .866E+05 5. 1.779 202. 59 77.50 27. 62 200.03 229. 14 8 . 86,7E+05 6. 1. 909 203.78 90. 07 39. 42 201.39 237. 68 1 . 362E+06 7. 1. 960 202 .00 91.01 33. 52 202.22 228 . 10 5. 090E+05 8 . 1. 975 203. 85 81.78 23.51 202. 32 224 . 16 2 . 999E+05 9. 1. 978 205. 58 77 . 88 26.24 201.54 230. 57 7 . 652E+05 10. 2. 131 204 . 16 79. 12 29. 36 200.43 232.02 1. 158E+06 * * * END OF FILE * * * Case 7 CASE7 1 -09-** 9:59 reclaimed condition—case 7 200 _ 1 most critical surfaces, MINIMUM BISHOP FOS = 1 .792 160 _ w- w 9 120 _ a) Q 80 _ I 40 _ 0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360 X-AXIS (feet) CASE7A 1-09-** 9:58 reclaimed condition—case 7a 200 _ 1 most critical surfaces, MINIMUM JANBU FOS = 1 .771 160 _ -1(1) 120 _ a) 4- Q 80 _ 40 _ 0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360 X-AXIS (feet) XSTABL File: CASE7 1-09-** 9:59 ****************************************** * XSTABL * * * * Slope Stability Analysis * * using the * * Method of Slices * * * * Copyright (C) 1992 A 96 * * Interactive Software Designs, Inc. * * Moscow, ID 83843, U.S.A. * * * * All Rights Reserved * * * * Ver. 5. 105a 95 A 1483 * ****************************************** Problem Description : reclaimed condition-case 7 SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES 5 SURFACE boundary segments Segment x-left y-left x-right y-right Soil Unit No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment 1 50.0 100.0 54 . 0 100 .0 1 2 54. 0 100. 0 180 .0 142 . 0 2 3 180. 0 142 . 0 190.0 142 . 0 2 4 190. 0 142 . 0 205.0 142 . 0 6 5 205. 0 142 . 0 360.0 142 . 0 4 11 SUBSURFACE boundary segments Segment x-left y-left x-right y-right Soil Unit No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment. 1 54.0 100. 0 148 .0 100.0 1 2 148. 0 100.0 190. 0 139.0 6 3 190. 0 139.0 204 . 0 139.0 6 4 204 . 0 139.0 350 . 0 139.0 3 5 148 . 0 100.0 165 .0 100.0 1 6 165 .0 100 . 0 170 .0 95. 0 1 7 170.0 95. 0 195 .0 95. 0 1 8 195 .0 95 . 0 200.0 100. 0 1 9 200.0 100 . 0 204 .0 135 .0 5 10 204.0 135 . 0 350.0 135.0 5 11 200. 0 100.0 360.0 100.0 1 A CRACKED ZONE HAS BEEN SPECIFIED Depth of crack below ground surface = 5.00 (feet) Maximum depth of water in crack = 1.00 (feet) Unit weight of water in crack = 62 .40 (pcf) Failure surfaces will have a vertical side equal to the specified depth of crack and be affected by a hydrostatic force according to the specified depth of water in the crack ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters 6 Soil unit (s) specified Soil Unit Weight Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Water Unit Moist Sat. Intercept Angle Parameter Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Ru (psf) No. 1 128 . 0 145.0 300.0 45.00 . 000 .0 1 2 115 . 0 128 .0 200.0 18.00 .000 .0 1 3 110 . 0 122 . 0 125.0 16 .00 .000 .0 1 4 112 .0 125 . 0 150.0 18 .00 .000 . 0 1 5 126.0 138. 0 .0 32.00 .000 . 0 1 6 118.0 130. 0 200. 0 16.00 .000 . 0 1 1 Water surface(s) have been specified Unit weight of water = 62 .40 (pcf) Water Surface No. 1 specified by 2 coordinate points ********************************** PHREATIC SURFACE, ********************************** Point x-water y-water No. (ft) (ft) 1 50. 00 135 .00 2 308.00 135 .00 BOUNDARY LOADS 2 load(s) specified Load x-left x-right Intensity Direction No. (ft) (ft) (psf) (deg) 1 300.0 302 .0 20800. 0 .0 2 306 . 0 308 .0 20800 . 0 . 0 NOTE - Intensity is specified as a uniformly distributed force acting on a HORIZONTALLY projected surface. A critical failure surface searching method, using a random technique for generating CIRCULAR surfaces has been specified. 800 trial surfaces will be generated and analyzed. 4 Surfaces initiate from each of 200 points equally spaced along the ground surface between x = 50.0 ft and x = 145.0 ft Each surface terminates between x = 200.0 ft and x = 300.0 ft Unless further limitations were imposed, the minimum elevation at which a surface extends is y = 50. 0 ft * * * * * DEFAULT SEGMENT LENGTH SELECTED BY XSTABL * * * * * 5 .0 ft line segments define each trial failure surface. ANGULAR RESTRICTIONS : The first segment of each failure surface will be inclined within the angular range defined by : Lower angular limit :_ -45.0 degrees Upper angular limit :_ (slope angle - 5.0) degrees Factors of safety have been calculated by the : * * * * * SIMPLIFIED BISHOP METHOD * * * * * REPORT OF A MINERAL EVALUATION FOR W. W. FARM WELD COUNTY ROAD 64 WELD COUNTY, COLORADO • • WEBSTER FEEDLOTS, INC. GREELEY, COLORADO PROJECT NO . 7390-88 1 f BY EMPIRE LABORATORIES, INC. 301 NORTH HOWES STREET FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80521 TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents Letter of Transmittal ii Report 1 Appendix A A-t Test Boring Location Plan A-? Key to Borings A-3 Log of Borings A-4 Empire Laboratories, Inc. CORPORATE OFFICE Pia Box 503.I3031484-0359 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING 8 MATERIALS TESTING 301 Na Howes.Fort Collins.Colorado 80522 February 23, 1988 Webster Feedlots, Inc. P. O. Box 1850 Greeley, Colorado 80632-1850 Gentlemen: We are pleased to submit our Report of a Mineral Evaluation prepared for the proposed W. W. Farm property located on Weld County Road 64, northwest of Greeley, Colorado. The accompanying report presents our findings. Very truly yours, ..ry^ EMPIRE LABORATORIES, INC. ! ,'; e erred • Senior Engineering Geologist Reviewed by: 2CcS Chester C. Smith, P.E. • President cic • %ltoR4'o Branch Offices t PO.Box 18859 PO.Box 1135 PO.Box 1744 PO.Box 5659 Colorado Syringe CO 60935 Longmont.CO 60502 'Greeley.CO 80632 Cheyenne.WY 82003 1303)597.2116 13031776-3921 1303)351.0460 1307)632.9224 — ilselerk Member of Consulting Engineers Council REPORT OF A MINERAL EVALUATION SCOPE This report presents the results of a mineral evaluation prepared for the proposed 242-acre site located on Weld County Road 64, northwest of Greeley, Colorado. The evaluation was carried out by I means of test borings, engineering evaluation, and preparation of this report. 1 The objectives of this evaluation were to (1) determine the depth of overburden and thickness of sand and gravel encountered at the site and (2) determine the approximate quantities of overburden and sand and gravel encountered at the site. SITE EXPLORATION The field exploration, carried out on February 16 and 17, 1988, consisted of drilling, logging, and sampling twenty (20) test borings. The locations of the test borings are shown on the Test Boring Location Plan included in Appendix A of this report. Boring logs prepared from the field logs are shown in Appendix A. These logs show soils encountered, location of sampling, and groundwater at the time of the investigation. The borings were advanced with a four-inch diameter, continuous- type, power-flight auger drill. During the drilling operations, a geotechnical engineer from Empire Laboratories, Inc. was present and made continuous observations of the soils encountered. SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION The proposed site is located south of County Road 64, east of Weld County Road 27 and north of the Cache La Poudre River, northwest of Greeley, Colorado. More particularly, the site is described as a tract of land situate in Section 32, Township 6 North , Range 66 West of the Sixth P.M. , Weld County, Colorado. -1- The site consists of irrigated farm and pasture land. The Cache La Poudre River forms the southern and southeastern boundaries of the property . Cottonwood trees border the banks of the river. Several wet or marshy areas are located in the southern portion of the site. The northern edge of the site is elevated approximately ten (10) to fifteen (15) feet above the flood plain of the river. The remainder of the area is relatively flat and has minor to poor drainage to the south-southeast toward the Cache La Poudre River. Several farm buildings are located along County Road 64 near the center of the site and near the northeast • corner of the property. The west portion of the site is bounded by County Road 27, and the east portion of the site is bounded by a farm lane and the river. Several oil storage tanks and an oil well are located ' in the western part of the property. A pipeline runs north-south through the site, overhead power lines run along County Road 27 and through the property. SOIL AND GROUND WATER CONDITIONS The soil profile at the site consists of strata of materials arranged in different combinations. In order of increasing depths, they are as follows: (1 ) Silty Topsoil: The majority of the area tested is overlain by a six (6) inch layer of silty topsoil. The topsoil has been penetrated by root growth and organic matter. (2) Sandy Silty Clay: This stratum underlies the topsoil in all but Borings 7 and 20 and extends to the silty sand and/or sand and gravel stratum below. The silty clay is plastic, contains l varying amounts of sand and is damp to moist in situ. (3) Sandy Silt-Silty Sand: The sand and/or silt stratum underlies the topsoil and upper clays in Borings 7, 8, 14, 18, and 20 at depths of one-half (1 /2) to four (4) feet below the surface and extends to the bedrock below. -2 • - TEST BORING LOCATION PLAN Z I II} �ioo II"7--- ., Pte+ Zo e • i / —Lig • 2. :lit.'s, 8 e _ _ .0 t e - - item 0 11,. a- mg) eJ� ®.I>� Q5 e 1.� -------) , _. ,., 4 } 1 41 lit e, �.I {.L� �.> I 1�0 0 0 11 � C13l #) U / Lk: -- IJo. Iv IS It, e e 07: ` s f�a I h! vU 0 tJA (o Fla �D� ' 0 0 iijejr #och -JTy foAD Z'I A The sandy silt varies to a silty sand , is nonplastic to slightly plastic and is damp to near saturated in its natural condition. (4) Sand , Gravel and Cobbles: The gravel stratum was encountered in all borings below the upper subsoils at depths of two and one-half (2-1 /2) to eleven and one-half (11-1 /2) feet below the surface and extends to the bedrock below. The sand and gravel is well graded, contains cobbles ranging in size up to six (6) to eight (8) inches in diameter, traces of silt and is medium dense to dense in situ. • (5) Sandstone-Siltstone Bedrock: The bedrock was encountered in all borings at depths eleven and one-half (11-1 /2) to forty-one (41 ) feet below the surface and extends to greater depths. The upper one-half (1 /2) to one (1 ) foot of the bedrock is highly weathered; however, the underlying interbedded sandstone and siltstone is firm to dense. (6) Ground Water: At the time of the investigation, free ground water was encountered at the site at depths of one and one-half (1-1 /2) to thirteen and one-half (13-1 /2) feet below the surface. Water levels in this area are subject to change due to seasonal variations, irrigation demands on the site and the volume of flow in the Cache La Poudre River adjacent to the project area. RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISCUSSION Test borings drilled at the site indicate that the sand and gravel stratum at the site varies in thickness from four (4) to thirty and one-half (30-1/2) feet. The overburden thickness at the site varies in thickness from two and one-half (2-1 /2) to eleven and one-half (11-1 /2) feet below the surface. Average thickness of the gravel is twenty-two (22) feet along the northern edge of the site in the area of Borings 1 through 5 and nine and one-half (9-1 /2) feet throughout the remainder -3- of the site. The average overburden thickness is nine and one-half (9-1 /2) feet along the northern edge of the site and five (5) feet over the majority of the property. Based on the test borings drilled at the site, The property contains approximately four million three hundred and fifty thousand (4,350,000) cubic yards of gravel. Two million cubic yards of overburden will have to be removed to obtain the sand and gravel. This gives a ratio of gravel to overburden of approximately 2.2:1 . Since the majority of the sand and gravel encountered is below ground water, the area being quarried will have to be dewatered or the gravel will have to be excavated by use of drag line. Based on a visual inspection of the sand, gravel and cobbles encountered in the test borings, it is our opinion that this material is good quality aggregate suitable for use in and as construction materials. GENERAL COMMENTS Variations in soil and groundwater conditions may exist between test borings. These variations may not become evident until quarrying operations take place. It should be noted that the quantities presented in this report are based on an average thickness of overburden and sand and gravel interpolated between test borings at the site. Additional test borings, test pits, and laboratory analysis may be needed prior to proposed quarrying operations to more accurately evaluate the quantity and quality of the granular materials encountered at the site. • -4- APPENDIX A. KEY TO BORING LOGS r',j' TOPSOIL ® GRAVEL FILL ® SAND & GRAVEL use SILT ® SILTY SAND & GRAVEL 0 CLAYEY SILT tse COBBLES � • i' SANDY SILTkol/ •� SAND,GRAVEL& COBBLES _, CLAY A WEATHERED BEDROCK 151 SILTY CLAY n SILTSTONE BEDROCK JO SANDY CLAY Ea CLAYSTONE BEDROCK ;:.. SAND p SANDSTONE BEDROCK •' /. SILTY SAND �� LIMESTONE 1IIIIII Wil CLAYEY SAND MI fin GRANITE litti WA SANDY SILTY CLAY al SHELBY TUBE SAMPLE STANDARD PENETRATION DRIVE SAMPLER o WATER TABLE 0 HOURS AFTER DRILLING C HOLE CAVED 5/12 Indicates that 5 blows of a 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches was required to penetrate 12 inches- LOG OF BORINGS r- j , - . ,. 5 6/12 e 4/12- .. 6/12 • 0 ./►'�• 3/12 -r .'07 / ,• :• , / 1► ► , 10 . / 19/12 "!:. . '�. / -- • 33/12 >• ' �,,s .,/ c 15 ♦ 50/10 g•oi' 17/12 A • 22/12 "'/ sir Iv . .,• ' !',../ • •% %ms' 20 •. Y l•. / •• /. . 1r / . j.- ..). P5 50 6 ` ; 37 12 - - • . ,per :d/• /. , .1 % 'it-:/♦• ► •'P 7 . a ► 30 50/5 ` ' !• I.•✓ ..!. 7 '. v 35 30/3 'I. .. tiJ ► •1 J5 4 40 _ 45 50/3 _n_n LOG OF BORINGS 4 k s C0._ - 1O1_ 4f :71( --,S2-- ..i.� /L/ . , 5 3/12 23/12 4r 3/12 /'! 4/12 ;� O.D . ! s. 7. Y.I .. :p RA r• o r . 1 . '! c u1 o a0' .O. D i.� • I7� "rD n�ti• 10 4/12 44 1//12 I ' 3/12 '�'► 33/12 q --4 15 ei 41/12 •: e 50/9 50/10 - ®'.� • -.a .l O' •, • "b 1.0 ?v. .* to ° 50/7 -1 - S 20 •O ' - . 9/ n,0. 25 44/12 T'•"4S 12; ) •• r 0 . 30 ► . . O-,, t) 9 Q• • D 35 D I .D • I . fr r.� I � '' Q• . 40 l e° . .5. - 45 50/4 i-- - A_r LOG OF EIORINGS 0 I.I - .�I—I -se—, ' . i — • / 22/12 „ y / �7 5 28 2 rt •0 3 12 - V —= 3 12 °-o ,. :i. . •.• •.C• P. ► V.O.. 4. O. jf� •°• • .0 b • ► ♦ O > w ' ° P•> • ? •�t�.,�is O b 27/12 4P 10 O�a 14/12 i'. '• 9/12 ri• ► ► ► o riz ° y y - P_ : w �.> Q .� 15 30/12s �/' 49/12 T —' 50/7 • 'o V •0 •/' r /; 20 v r, • � V •s 25 6/12 v ° -- 30 50/3 35 A_r, LOG Of BORINGS o e e '7 , o I' 9 .� :�; 19/12 :his A. 3/12 •i5 . O a. O . i o A -. •.� , '�. 10 y' -. - � P " " -cv G • 0: r' a`^ O n b 29/12 E_ .o . . . S.. 25/12 50/9 50/11 'Y® 50 11 15 20 - - LOG OF BORINGS cq _ELIl �alE, Fla 11 I _ LO 0 a •/.•i — eo.• y. 5 11/12 I: 3/12 ' 17/121 25/12 °°a . O.. . e. nl,b t.10 20/12 " 0 22/12 . 'n •ewe ►a,. n. ' J.1, n . D y -r .O. ►. • o . 4 •n w .P 15 50/11 1 T 4G/12 32/12 1._ 9- - 50/7 20 A-4 7 I 77 ��. � s7i / CC; 3/, „ 3/y d/ / 7 z-.0 -5<� 1,c) - -f � _z 7 Xi r 4t / T c4,/ //C >/ 3/4 (a7 7 I- 1/i co, s7 2. '01l T 6'O G=S ;� 32 4126 ICJ 6/ s// 72_ &(./ 34- .mss_ 7/ 11 -/-//9 C.c) 75-3 1Y6/ V 74-14-2 % 5% ::://SL:Za Lc / fi 3� JT 7722 53 K.. 797-O 6 Crc ct j yOttS -t - deV,«7; ) / 2 �� GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION PROPOSED GRAVEL MINE WELD COUNTY ROADS 64 & 29 TERRACON PROJECT NO. 21995030 April 9, 1999 Prepared for Orr Land Company 826 9th Street Greeley, Colorado 80631 Attn: Mr. Ed Orr Prepared by: Terracon 1289 First Avenue Greeley, Colorado 80631 : rro 91 ler a :..._ April 9, 1999 P.O.Box 1744.1289 First Avenue Greeley,Colorado 80632-1744 (970)351-0460 Fax:(970)353-8639 Orr Land Company 826 9th Street Greeley, Colorado 80631 Attn: Mr. Ed Orr Re: Geotechnical Exploration Proposed Gravel Mine Terracon Project No. 21995030 Terracon has completed a geotechnical exploration for the proposed gravel mine to be located at near the intersection of Weld County Roads 64 and 29. This study was performed in general accordance with our proposal number 2199p024 dated March 1, 1999. The results of our study, including the boring location diagram, laboratory test results, and test boring records are attached. The subsurface soils at the site consisted of sandy lean clay and/or clayey sand that is underlain by silly sand and well graded sand with gravel and cobbles. Generally, the overburden consisted of 3 to �. 3t of sandy lean clay or clayey sand. In approximately half the test borings the clay was underlain by silty sand to a depth of 7 to 8 feet. The clay and silty sand overlies well graded sand with gravel and cobbles which extend to depths of 111/2 to 18 feet. There appears to be economically feasible quantities of gravel at the site. We appreciate being of service to you in the geotechnical engineering phase of this project, and are prepared to assist you during the construction phases as well. If you have any questions concerning this report or any of our testing, inspection, design and consulting services, please do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely, TERRACON Pr ared by: -,• `o y Reviewed by:(1-_ Ze Doug Lea ren, •... �4., ''. .. oQ�.? , r E William J. Attwooll, P.E. Office nager/' •nior G ` �w�s�' Senior Geotechnical Engineer Cocies to: a,tdresse (Z, Arizona ■ Arkansas ■ Colorado ■ Idaho ■ Illinois • Iowa ■ Kansas ■ Minnesota • Missoud • Montana Nebraska ■ Nevada ■ New Mexico IN North Dakota ■ Oklahoma • Tennessee ■ Texas ■ Utah ■ Wisconsin ■ Wyoming Quality Engineering Since 1965 TABLE OF CONTENTS Terracon Page No. Letter of Transmittal ii INTRODUCTION 1 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION 1 SITE EXPLORATION 1 Field Exploration 1 Laboratory Testing 2 SITE CONDITIONS 2 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 3 Geology 3 Soil and Bedrock Conditions 3 Field Test Results 3 Groundwater Conditions 3 ENGINEERING ANALYSES AND CONCLUSIONS 3 GENERAL COMMENTS 4 APPENDIX A Site Plan Logs of Borings APPENDIX B Laboratory Test Results APPENDIX C: General Notes Unified Soil Classification 1 Terracon GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT PROPOSED GRAVEL MINE WELD COUNTY ROADS 64 &29 TERRACON PROJECT NO. 21995030 APRIL 9, 1999 INTRODUCTION This report contains the results of our geotechnical engineering exploration for the proposed gravel mine to be located near the intersection of Weld County Roads 64 and 29. The site is located in the east half of Section 32 and the west half of Section 33, Township 6 North, Range 66 West of the 6th Principal Meridian. The purpose of these services is to provide information and geotechnical engineering recommendations relative to: • subsurface soil and bedrock conditions • groundwater conditions T'ne recommendations contained in this report are based upon the results of field and laboratory :ing, experience with similar soil conditions and our understanding of the proposed project. PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION The site is being proposed as a gravel mine. It is our understanding that mining can not take place within 25 feet of property boundaries or 100 feet of the Cache La Poudre River. SITE EXPLORATION The scope of the services performed for this project included a site reconnaissance by an engineering geologist, a subsurface exploration program and laboratory testing. Field Exploration A total of 13 test borings were drilled on March 9, 1999. The borings were drilled to approximate depths of 14 to 19% feet at the locations shown on the Site Plan, Figure 1. All borings were advanced with a truck-mounted drilling rig, utilizing 4-inch diameter solid stem augers. The borings were located in the field by pacing from property lines and/or existing site features. The accuracy of boring locations should only be assumed to the level implied by the methods used to determine each. Geotechnical Engineering Report Terracon Proposed Gravel Mine Terracon Project No. 21995030 Continuous lithologic logs of each boring were recorded by the engineering geologist during the drilling operations. At selected intervals, samples of the subsurface materials were taken by driving split- spoon samplers. Penetration resistance measurements were obtained by driving the split-spoon into the subsurface materials with a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches. The penetration resistance value is a useful index in estimating the consistency, relative density or hardness of the materials encountered. Groundwater conditions were evaluated in each boring at the time of site exploration, and two days after the drilling. Laboratory Testing All samples retrieved during the field exploration were returned to the laboratory for observation by the project geotechnical engineer and were classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System described in Appendix C. At that time, the field descriptions were confirmed or modified as necessary and an applicable laboratory testing program was formulated to determine engineering properties of the subsurface materials. Boring logs were prepared and are presented in Appendix A. Laboratory tests were conducted on selected soil samples and are presented in Appendix B. The test • ~ults were used for the geotechnicai engineering anaiyses, and the aeveiopment of foundation and ,...ithwcrk recommendations. All laboratory tests were performed in general accordance with the applicable ASTM, local or other accepted standards. Selected soil samples were tested for the following engineering properties: • Water Content • Grain size • Plasticity Index SITE CONDITIONS The site is currently split into two parcels of land by the Cache La Poudre River which flows west to east across the southern third of the property. The ground north of the river is currently cultivated, while the land south of the river is pasture. The northern edge of the property is located on a modestly sloped piece of ground that climbs out of the floodplain of the river. The site is bordered to the north and east by county roads 64 and 29 respectively. A development is being constructed south of the site, and agricultural land is located to the west. Geotechnical Engineering Report Terracon Proposed Gravel Mine .Terracon Project No. 21995030 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Geology The site is located within the Colorado Piedmont section of the Great Plains physiographic province. The Colorado Piedmont, formed during Late Tertiary and Early quaternary time (approximately 2.000.000 years ago), is a broad. erosional trench which separates the Southern Rocky Mountains from the High Plains. Structurally, the site lies near the axis of the Denver Basin. During the Late Mesozoic and Early Cenozoic Periods (approximately 70,000,000 years ago), intense tectonic activity occurred, causing the uplifting of the Front Range and associated downwarping of the Denver Basin to the east. Relatively flat uplands and broad valleys characterize the present-day topography of the Colorado Piedmont in this region. The site is underlain by the Cretaceous Fox Hills Formation. The Fox Hills consists of interbedded sandstone and siltstone units. Holocene (Recent) alluvial deposits overlie the Fox Hills. Soil and Bedrock Conditions As presented on the Logs of Boring, surface soils to depths of 2 to 7'/2 feet consisted of sandy lean clay and/or clayey sand. Silty sand was encountered below the clay in approximately half the test borings and extended to well graded sand with gravel and cobbles that was encountered at !roximately 7 to 8 feet. The well graded sand with gravel extended to the bedrock that was encountered at depths of 11'/2 to 18 feet. • Field Test Results Field test results indicate that the clay soils are medium stiff in consistency. The sand soils vary from loose to dense in relative density. The bedrock was weathered in hardness. Groundwater Conditions Groundwater was encountered at approximate depths of 3 to 6 feet in the test borings at the time of field exploration and when checked 2 days after the drilling. Groundwater levels can be expected to fluctuate with varying seasonal and weather conditions. ENGINEERING ANALYSES AND CONCLUSIONS Based on the average thicknesses of the soils encountered in the test borings and the approximate surface area of the site that can be used for gravel mining operations, the following estimated quantities were obtained: _ 3 LOG OF TEST BORING NO. 1 Page 1 of 1 G!.IENT I ARCHITECT/ENGINEER On-Land Company SITE Weld County Roads 64 & 29 PROJECT Weld County, Colorado Gravel Study p I SAMPLES I TESTS C.; -I m )- F F w U C C it:, Lcl cn Z DESCRIPTION to > Zr) c tu z h ' ma o , 3 Q oz < v c r U Fo >-u a—� a .., in oa.—I — Pk.) z-� CS Approx. Surface Elev.: ft. a ' Z ce inn Oo. =:n a. 0.5 TO SOIL 6" CL 1 SS 18" 4 16 - % SANDY LEAN CLAY / Brown, moist, medium 1/2 // — ,i, 4.6 _ISW 2 SS , 12" 20 1D ' 0 ° WELL GRADED SAND WITH GRAVEL 5 1I ' 7 AND COBBLES 1 L..`-o Tan, moist to wet, medium dense = Cobbles 3-4" max typical , C c — ' 3 SS ' 12" 14 15 \ < 10 - • •.,:] - }v J I o 4 SS In 19 11 15 H1 P • U c, C 18.0 WEATHERtD SILTSTONE ��N-; 19.0 Tan, moist, soft BOTTOM OF BORING I I I p TilE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL AND ROCK TYPES: IN-SITU,THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL. WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS BORING STARTED 3-9-99 \CL IS 6.2' N.D. 7_C 6.0' A.B. BORING COMPLETED 3-9-99 wt I err acon RIG CME-75 FOREMAN DML WL i Water Checked 2 Days A.B. APPROVED DML pion,-. 21995030 CI Co WELD COUNTY ROAD 64 No.1 No.2 5 No.3S No.4S tri No.55 _.. C O No.699 9 K 0 No.7S No.85co ro 0'q ® No.11 No 999 No.10 & L4 er No.12 5 i)$ \ No.13 5 IIIIOp,, fIpIIII FIGURE 1: SITE PL D COUNTY ROADS 64 & 9� lull°^ r II�I1 vvELD COUNTY, COLORADO SCALE In = soo TERRACON PROJECT No. 21995030 Geotechnical Engineering Report Terracon Proposed Gravel Mine ' erracon Project No. 21995030 0.5 million cubic yards of overburden 0.3 million cubic yards of silty sand 1.1 million cubic yards of well graded sand with gravel. The ratio of overburden to sand and gravel is approximately 1 to 2.8. It is our opinion that this ratio may allow for an economically feasible gravel mine. The gravel appears to be composed of durable metamorphic and igneous rock fragments. Based on the test borings that were performed at the site, it is our opinion that the sand and gravel encountered at the site is suitable for use as a construction aggregate. It snouic be notea that these estimates are basea on widely spacea test borings ana variations in the soil profile may be encountered when excavations are performed. The individual contractor(s) is responsible fcr designing and constructing stable, temporary excavations as required to maintain stability of both the excavation sides and bottom. All excavations should be sloped or shored in the interest of safety following local, and federal regulations, including current OSHA excavation and trench safety standards. GENERAL COMMENTS The analysis and recommendations presented in this report are based upon the data obtained from the borings performed at the indicated locations and from other information discussed in this report. is report does not reflect variations which may occur between borings or across the site. The nature and extent of such variations may not become evident until construction. If variations appear, it will be necessary tc reevaluate the recommendations of this report. The scope of services for this project does not include either specifically or by implication any environmental assessment of the site or identification of contaminated or hazardous materials er conditions. If the owner is concerned about the potential for such contamination, other studies should be undertaken. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of our client for specific application to the project discussed and has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices. No warranties, either express or implied, are intended or made. In the event that changes in the nature, design, or location of the project as outlined in this report, are planned, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid unless Terracon reviews the changes, and either verifies or modifies the conclusions of this report in writing. 4 t. LOG OF TEST BORING NO. 2 Page 1 of CLIENT ARCHITECT/ENGINEER Orr Land Company SITE Weld County Roads 64 & 29 PROJECT Weld County, Colorado Gravel Study SAMPLES TESTS o .a H O r• O� iQ } w z- DESCRIPTION t 2 u a z i F G n > z� zz f- v, w o , 3 to o W } U �� `C HI_ Z vi Approx. Surface Elev.: ft. CI z F x vim 2 an. atop. J 0.5 TOPSOIL 6" - SC CLAYEY SAND - Brown, moist to wet, loose - — %;✓ - y — 4.0 I - 14 I SMp 1 SS 12" 3 32 SILTY SAND Brown, wet, loose 5 — 1 — I 8.0 WELL GRADED SAND WITH GRAVEL — -N,' AND COBBLES _SW 2 SS 12" 24 8 r Tan, wet, medium dense 10 C Cobbles 3-4" max typical _l I I d i I _ — _ 'ry Q 3 SS 12" 13 20 )� 15 � 19 - : j. 17.5 WEATHERED SILTSTONE 7_ y. y- Tan, moist, soft 19.5 I I 4 i SS I 6" 50/.5 I 23! BOTTOM OF BORING THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL AND ROCK TYPES: IN-SITU.THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL. WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS - BORING STARTED 3-9-99 WL 4,0' W.D.I3 3.T A.B. BORING COMPLETED 3-9-99 SA'L I err acon RIG CME-75 I FOREMAN DIN Q, w'L Water Checked 2 Days A.B. APPROVED DML I JOB a 21995030 'S LOG OF TEST BORING NO. 3 Page 1 of 1 CLIENT ARCHITECT/ENGINEER Orr Land Company . ITE Weld County Roads 64 & 29 j PROJECT Weld County, Colorado Gravel Study SAMPLES TESTS O O F Fes- 0 i•-•>< U DESCRIPTION 2 'e w S z„ EuJ h ca W O 23 ti a Oz �t-.Z v co 0 Approx. Surface Elev.: ft. za 0 Z E- z vaq 2 qa ='v30., :la.t-- -/,,A] 0.5 TOPSOIL 6" _ SC 1 SS 18" 5 17 33/7/45 �' SILTY CLAYEY SAND _SM '' Brown, moist, loose ,!/, 3.0 — SILTY SAND I — • Brown, moist to wet SM.', 2 SS 12"- 2 26 Very loose 5 8.0 — ✓° WELL GRADED SAND WITH GRAVEL -I AND COBBLES _I SW 3 SS 12" 14 12 G.Q Tan, wet, medium dense 10 Cobbles 3-4" max typical 1J_ Q nC ,; ,2 _ cQ - r _ 7 14.0 — WEATHERED SILTSTONE 4 SS 12" 19 24 15.0 Brown, moist, soft / 15 BOTTOM OF BORING I THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL AND ROCK TYPES. IN-SITU,THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL. WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS •�BORING STARTED 3-9-99 WL t 3,7' W.D.IY 3 6, A.B. BORING COMPLETED 3-9-99 M. I lerraconRIG CME-75 FOREMAN DML WL I Water Checked 2 Days A.B. APPROVED Diva i JOB; 21995030 i LOG OF TEST BORING NO. 4 Page 1 of 1 ,_. CLIENT ARCHITECT/ENGINEER Orr Land Company SITE Weld County Roads 64 & 29 PROJECT Weld County, Colorado Gravel Study SAMPLES I TESTS O O 0 U 1DESCRIPTION t } uaa a z oZ'N L T • = w o z3 •., ° oz 4 Ly C w F� p a° zaL J Approx. Surface Elev.: ft. 0 = Z H a coon a 0o. =Lv n. •„.j 0.5 TOPSOIL 6" SC ',/,/ CLAYEY SAND �0 Brown, moist, very loose — /j ,/,4 4.5 y J Styli1 SS 12" 3 21 II — SILTY SAND 5 1 -! - Tan, wet. very loose it 7.5 =II:4 el WELL GRADED SAND WITH GRAVEL — 1 s CAND COBBLES — Tan, wet, medium dense SWI 2 SS 12" 16 1 15 - -o`_i Cobbles 3-4" max typical 10 _ I E � J 3 SS 12" 27 I 11 r, n 15.0 . 15 V WEATHERED SILTSTONE/CLAYSTONE — V% Tan, moist, soft ' S 18.0 BOTTOM OF BORING I THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES .-.. BET1\EE♦ SOIL AND ROCK T1 PES IN SITU.THE TRANSITION NMA1 BE GRADL AL. WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS BORING STARTED 3-9-99 1BORI1\L i_ ,1,j' N'.D.I$ 4.5' A.B. NG COMPLETED 3-9-99 11 112ff RIG Cb1E-7j jFOREMAN DML 1�T I Water Checked 2 Days A.B. APPROVED DiVIL 1308// 21995030 t LOG OF TEST BORING NO. 5 Page 1 of 1 -r LIENT ARCHITECT/ENGINEER Orr Land Company SITE Weld County Roads 64 & 29 PROJECT Weld County, Colorado Gravel Study SAMPLES TESTS 4 �' I5 zz o DESCRIPTION — x u z x vi > zca P m zCD a, c cm `a w o . 3 - owz ce w cV. = r w ob"._a O cz� zaw. O Approx. Surface Elev.: ft. 4 Z E- w, rn co 7 no. mina 0.5 TOPSOIL 6" CL - SANDY LEAN CLAY — — // Brown, moist to wet, medium /,',/ 1 SS 12" 4 26 // 5 j _ 7.5 — 4 WELL GRADED SAND WITH GRAVEL 4 Tan, wet, medium dense _SW 2 SS 12" 23 16I v 10 ; =0 7 — '>> \'`'„ 13.0 WEATHERED SANDSTONE Tan, moist, poorly cemented �� 15.0 — 3 SS 12" 19 32 BO'T'TOM OF BORING 15 I � THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES 3E`N\EEN SOIL AND ROCK TYPES. IN-SITU,THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL. \CATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS - BORING S'I ARTED 3.9-99 \\I- I= 4,5' W.D.IY 4 21 A.B. BORING COMPLETED 3-9-99 \\'L I err acon RIG CME-75 I FOREMAN DML - \\'L I Water Checked 2 Days A.B. APPROVED DMl, I JOB# 21995030 I' LOG OF TEST BORING NO. 6 Page I of cm IENT I ARCHITECT/ENGINEER Orr Land Company SITE Weld County Roads 64 & 29 PROJECT Weld County, Colorado Gravel Study I SAMPLES TESTS o o F w '' t Iui rn Zr,u DESCRIPTION C x `n - c z t= E cc > Z� = n Zz rn w o . 3 vp o _, C a vVi Z J: w yg O xv zc4L:. U Approx. Surface Elev.: ft. O a Z H a rum qa- 0y:6- 0.5 TOPSOIL 6" CL - SANDY LEAN CLAY - ./!/ Brown, moist, medium - - �/ 4.5 & J 1 SS 13" 6 27 V.L WELL GRADED SAND WITH GRAVEL 5 :'Y' AND COBBLE -'o Tan, wet, medium dense to dense j (.r1 Cobbles 3-4" max typical J - i C 15W 2 SS NR 31 k .p^ — G 13.5 — WEATHERED SANDSTONE T 15.0 Tan, moist, poorly cemented 3 SS L" 45 BOTTOM OF BORING 15 I I y THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BET).ESN SOIL AND ROCK TYPES: IN-SITU.THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL. WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS BORING STARTED 3999 \\'L 4,5' 6i'.D.'X 4.4' A.B. BORING COMPLETED 3-9-99 N'L RIG CM&75 FOREMAN DML \VL I Water Checked 2 Days A.B. APPROVED mu. /GB ?1995030 LOG OF TEST BORING NO. 7 Page 1 of 1 r-!ENT ARCHITECT/ENGINEER On Land Company SITE Weld County Roads 64 & 29 PROJECT Weld County, Colorado Gravel Study SAMPLES TESTS s > A E7 u > w C Zz DESCRIPTION > a uza `C4 Z u,F'>o ,3 wA zz w to o Ell co 1:- w a-) o c() Zcw J Approx. Surface Elev.: ft. A z I— n coca a Mo. AvEiC- 0.5 TOPSOIL 6" JCL SANDY LEAN CLAY Brown, moist, medium — / ,// — 1 SS 12" 11 26 5.0 5 2 BS WELL GRADED SAND WITH GRAVEL AND COBBLES ! ' o Tan, wet, medium dense to dense _ o-C Cobbles 3-4" max typical Composite Sample at 5 - 14' _1SW 3 SS 12" 11 13 10 <7 ✓ - - 14.0 — WEATHERED SANDSTONE —� ' SS 12" 24 2c 15.0 Tan, moist, poorly cemented 15 1 BOTTOM OF BORING THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL AND ROCK TYPES: IN-SITU.THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL. HATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS • BORING STARTED 3-9-99 U L 5.0' W.D.1 5,0' A.B. BORING COMPLETED 3-9-99 WL I enacon RIG CME-75 I FOREMAN DAII,. WL I Water Checked 2 Days A.B. APPROVED DML IJOB# 21995030 4 + '? or IEcr 92 ' '2 'kin, s? rage A O, s CLIENT I ARCHITECTiENGINEER Orr Land Company SITE Weld County Roads 64 & 29 PROJECT Weld County, Colorado Gravel Study SAMPLES TESTS ,pj I p2 b\' F C) E Jai z; DESCRIPTION I 2 x w x z i— h n up cal z -- N > z z cep ' C. N = } O i-o o }u. UN, C Approx. Surface Elev.: ft. I A > Z i— x ccaz qa wFia 0.5 TOPSOIL 6" CL ///2/ — %/ LEAN CLAY WITH SAND — /7/ Brown, moist, medium ./.// , — //// 3.5 — + SILTY SAND SM I SS 12" 5 22 Tan, wet, loose • 2 BS I Composite Sample at 5 - 14' L 7.0 7 r:c.�° WELL GRADED SAND WITH GRAVEL - ?�' / Tan, wet, medium dense _ - C SW 3 SS 12" 17 15 ≤• Sit r,„ U<° -N•A ):, -\.Q 14.5 4 SS 1T• 30 8 ,;:,:.„--,1 1c.0 WEAIHI R:D SANDS-I ONE 15 i i \Tan, moist, poorly cemented -1 BOTTOM OF BORING I I I I THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES ii T\LEN SOIL AND ROCK TYPES. IN-SITU,THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL. WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS 1 BORING STARTED 3-9-99 WL I= 3.6' W•D•IX 3.5i A.B. BORING COMPLETED 3-9-99 errwt. RIG CME-75 IFOREMAN DML WL 1 Water Checked 2 Days A.B. APPROVED DML JOB# 21995030 N I LOG OF TEST BOR!NG NO. 9 t .&age Gi 1 ' I CLIENT . ARCHITECT/ENGINEER Orr Land Company SITE Weld County Roads 64 & 29 PROJECT Weld County, Colorado Gravel Study SAMPLES i TESTS * >" 4 r • F o DESCRIPTION - a w ex z cz^„H z m > zz H A zz f v w o . 3 h o[ , c W En Z sc r w FQ _4 � za,.w„ :7 i Approx. Surface Elev.. ft. A 4 I Z 'r c •r,� z 4c. I v._ i 0.5 TOPSOIL 6" CL SANDY LEAN CLAY Brow, moist, medium � _ 3.0 SILTY SAND — Tan, moist to wet, loose SM 1 SS 12" 6 6 S 6.5 — C WELL GRADED SAND WITH GRAVEL — AND COBBLES ..'co Tan, wet, medium dense — Cobbles 3-4" max typical rr�p _ SW 2 SS 12" 14 11 ;t' c 10 — — , 1 i,J aP.o c 14.5 3 SS 12" 27 27 ' < 15.0 WEA I HERED CLAYSTONE/SIL I STONL l5 — p ,Gray, moist, moderately hard / BOTTOM OF BORING I i THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES IDErICEEN SOIL AND ROCK TYPES. IN-SITU,THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL. a _ATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS W BORING STARTED 3-9-99 WL 1= 6.2' W.D.IT 63' A.B. BORING COMPLETED 3-9-99 WL err acon RIG CME_75 I FOREMAN DML WL I Water Checked 2 Days A.B. APPROVED DML I JOB# 21995030 LOG OF TEST BORING NO. 10 Page 1 of .::.CLIENT ARCHITECT/ENGINEER On Land Company SITE Weld County Roads 64 & 29 PROJECT Weld County, Colorado Gravel Study I SAMPLES TESTS V -.1 O pm s Fes- Q >-. rte.. W to ZZ aDESCRIPTION a j Z� (4 ZO E c .. E O , z Q Ou c La = m �3 O N� zxu. J i Approx. Surface Elev.: ft. O O Z H tnm 2 ❑a I=17,g2 0.5 TOPSOIL 6" CL V/; - SANDY LEAN CLAY 1� 2.0 Brown, moist, medium — SANDY SILT — Tan, moist to wet, soft SMI 1 SS 12" 3 21 5 7.0 - I II).- WELL GRADED SAND WITH GRAVEL - AND COBBLES — o Tan, wet, dense .�:4 Cobbles 3-4" max typical _ SW 2 i SS ' 12" 35 12 ' 10 j , 7 - „. 11.5 ;/%F — ;4>, WEATHERED CLAYSTONE/SILTSTONE Gray, moist, soft — 21/4,,,, 14.0 BOTTOM OF BORING .� I THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL AND ROCK TYPES: IN-SITU THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL. RATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS r .BORING STARTED 3-9-99 wt. H. 6.0' R.D.iS 5.7' A.B. BORING COMPLETED 3-9-99 IX r RIG CIM1E-75 (FOREMAN DA7"]:, «'L Water Checked 2 Days A.B. lenAPPROVED y3 1O6 21995030 LOG OF TEST BORING NO. 11 Page 1 of 1 .. CLIENT i ARCHITECT/ENGINEER On O Land Company SITE Weld County Roads 64 & 29 i PROJECT Weld County, Colorado Gravel Study SAMPLES TESTS O I m } F s iz. DESCRIPTION w c4 t a v _ a o z3 ° oZ o Approx. Surface Elev.: ft. k n = z H a v)ca 2 aa. =r.,c, -}" 0.5 TOPSOIL 6" SC - ! Y CLAYEY SAND - • *27 Brown, moist, loose I - 2.5 - _ SILTY SAND 1 BS Tan, moist to wet, loose Y I Composite Sample at 3 - 10' — SM 2 SS 12" 7 —'21 ' 5.0 I `1 I c.<'' WELL GRADED SAND WITH GRAVEL I' AND COBBLES `o Tan, wet, medium dense ' Cobbles 3-4" max typical -7 ICI !SW 3 SS 12" 18 11 10 ;.,0 7 i _ Irto - — p-° 14.0 WEATHERED SANDSTONE I 4 SS 12" 30 23 15.0 Tan, moist, poorly cemented 13 I BOTTOM OF BORING I I THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL AND ROCK TYPES. IN-SITU.THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL. WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS v a BORING STARTED 3-9-99 W L 1 4.0' W.D.Is 4.0' A.B. BORING COMPLETED 3-9-99 WL I 8834! RIG CME-75 (FOREMAN DIM, \A Water Checked 2 Days A.B. fl4 8 APPROVED MIL I JOB x 21995030 • LOG OF TEST BORING NO. 12 Page 1 of 1 CLIENT ARCHITECT/ENGINEER Orr Land Company SITE Weld County Roads 64 & 29 PROJECT Weld County, Colorado Gravel Study SAMPLES TESTS O p b F W —r C1 - DESCRIPTION r z u Fz z a v g a > Z3 ul E., Ln z clI;z c� w v, = >- uJ �a C au zcau" ci j- Approx. Surface Elev.: ft. G. = z i-. a cluz 2 q:, Dv)C"' acs 0.5 TOPSOIL 6" - SM 1 SS 18" 9 10 NV/NP/40 SILTY SAND — Brown to tan, moist to wet Loose to medium dense _ , ) rSS ' I2"I 'n ii IS, I Y 5 7.0 — '• 0Y WELL GRADED SAND WITH GRAVEL ;, 1; j7: Tan, wet, dense — G o i _SW 3 SS 12" 34 11 �0 10 s0 — r, dL — ,i4:20 13.0 — WEATHERED SILTSTONE/CLAYSTONE j Tan, moist, moderately hard —1 4- I 4 SS 12" 30 18 — >4y 15.0 15 BOTTOM OF BORING THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES a v BETWEEN SOIL AND ROCK TYPES. IN-SITU,THE TRANSITION MAN BE GRADUAL. WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS _T, r BORING STARTED 3-9-99 N1 I— 5.0' N.D.IY 5.0' n-u. BORING COMPLETED 3-9-99 lt'L Ierraran RIG CME-75 I FOREMAN DML `1 L Water Checked 2 Days A.B. _ APPROVED DMIL I JOB,Y 21995030 N LOG OF TEST BORING NO. 13 Page1of1 CLIENT I ARCHITECT/ENGINEER Orr Land Company SITE Weld County Roads 64 & 29 PROJECT Weld County, Colorado Gravel Study SAMPLES TESTS , ^ O F w )- L i _z- U DESCRIPTION ET_ W ZN IL. U v) 7 Lu O . 3 a oW y v' >, IU t# O C a z a ri U Approx. Surface Elev.: ft. = Z H z v» z G1a, v)a 0.5 TOPSOIL 6" CL //j SANDY LEAN CLAY �� Brown, moist, medium /I 3.0 SILTY SAND i Tan, moist to wet, loose E ' 1 6.0 — --::•`:,'9 WELL GRADED SAND WITH GRAVEL — Tan, we:. Q_a3z SW 2 SS 12" 33 12 10 —•<<,- _ rZo — .1- 13.0 _•/‹ WEATHERE SANDSTONE Gray, moist, cemented 15.0 3 SS 12" 42 20 BOTTOM OF BORING 1: I THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL AND ROCK TYPES: IN-SITU,THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL, WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS W BORING STARTED 3-9-99 - wL § 4.3' W•D.IT- 4.1' A.B. [err BORING COMPLETED 3-9-99 N'L I acon RIG CME-75 FOREMAN DML WL I Water Checked 2 Days A.B. APPROVED Dryn, 'JOB ft 21995030 U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES I U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS I HYDROMETER 6 4 3 2 5 1 34t,..1.1:8/2 3 4 6 810 1416 20 30 40 50 70 100140 200 100 I I 1 I [ III I I I I I I i `\J I I I' I I_I - 90 I iA NI i ! ! ! . 80 9 x� IiI ! i i i J I I , i ER \ - I \ I R 70 \ E _ _ N \\ I \ II T 60 � ` I __ _ _ - E � N i E 50 B III I I - Y 40 II I It 1 1 E \ --- l1 , 1 _ - ! I , , 30 H T HI I20 - I I I I I III I II I I I I I I I I I II I I \\si. 10 I II li VIII I i 100 10 I 0.1 - - 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS GRAVEL SAND COBBLES coarse fine coarse I medium I fine SILT OR CLAY Specimen Identification Classification MC% LL _i PL PI Cc Cu el 2 9.0 8 0.74 36.8 MI 7 5.0 I 0.86 136.6 A ITI 8 5.0 1.74 12.9 I I I I I Specimen Identification i D100 I D60 D30 D10 I %Gravel %Sand %Silt I %Clay Or 2 9.0 37.50 6.34 0.900 0.1723 I 45.0 I 49.0 6.0 1, 7 5.0 50.00 5.50 0.841 I 0.1500 44.0 49.0 7.0 ♦i 8 5.0 19.00 1.94 0.711 0.1500 19.0 I 74.0 7.0 I I I I I I PROJECT Gravel Study - Weld County Roads 64 & 29 JOB NO. 21995030 DATE 4/9/99 GRADATION CURVES Terracon Greeley, Colorado J U.S.SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES ; U.S.SIEVE NUMBERS NYDRONIETER 6 4 3 2 ,r.3/4 1/2 3/8 3 4 6 810 1416,20 30 40 50 70 100140 200 10(} I l r E � r ' r r r rr r [ I ' ll , , 1 ,o l I I i I l'a ( I r I f I ; ' I I ' : )I \ II ! ! I 1 I I I l go I \ �.,,. , " f I l J I II I t III I '\.. I H I H I I H I\'':,1 II R7Q • 1 -• _ _ T 6Ui 1 1 1J' I ' l i, N I1 ! I I I I II I I \ NV l i , C ; illf • R 50 N Li - I i Y4 Ir �JI1 , I I 1 i H30 I I ► I -7 � T I I ! _ II ' Ii l III I - I I 20l l � � � • I HI l i l :1011 Ii \Hr I 0 II III LI I 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS COBBLES GRAVEL I SAND coarse I fine coarse I medium I fine II SILT OR CLAY Specimen Identification - Classification 'MC% f LL PL P1 Cc Cu 'ell 10 _ 9.0 12 ii 0.93 68.2 I 11 - 3.0 I I 1.08 5.1 Specimen Identification D l00 D60 D30 I D10 I %Gravel ! %Sand %Silt I %Clay �1 10 9.0 37.50 6.08 0.711 I 0.0892 45.0 46.0 + 9.0 11 3.0 I 25.00 0.92 0.419 0.1784 17.0 78.0 J 5.0 ! PROJECT Gravel Study - IA eld Count. Roads 64 : 29 JOB NO. 21995030 DATE 4/9/99 ------ GRADATION CURVES Terracon Greeley. Colorado DRILLING AND EXPLORATION DRILLING &SAMPLING SYMBOLS: RS : Ring Sampler-2.42"I.D. SS : Split Spoon- 11.0., 2"O.D., unless otherwise noted PS : Piston Sample ST: Thin-Walled Tube-2-1/2"I.D., unless otherwise noted WS :Wash Sample PA: Power Auger FT: Fish Tail Bit HA: Hand Auger RB : Rock Bit DB : Diamond Bit=4", N, B BS : Bulk Sample AS :Auger Sample PM: Pressure Meter HS : Hollow Stem Auger DC : Dutch Cone WB :Wash Bore Penetration Test: Blows per foot of a 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches on a 2-inch O.D. split spoon, except where noted. WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENT SYMBOLS: WL : Water Level WS :While Sampling WCI :Wet Cave in WD :While Drilling DCI : Dry Cave in BCR: Before Casing Removal AB :After Boring ACR:After Casting Removal Water levels indicated on the boring logs are the levels measured in the borings at the time indicated. In pervious soils, the indicated levels may reflect the location of groundwater. In low permeability soils, the accurate determination of groundwater levels is not possible with only short term observations. DESCRIPTIVE SOIL CLASSIFICATION: Soil Classification is based on the Unified Soil Classification system and the ASTM Designations D-2487 and D-2488. Coarse Grained Soils have more than 50% of their dry weight retained on a #200 sieve; they are described as: boulders, cobbles, gravel or sand. Fine Grained Soils have less than 50% of their dry weight retained on a #200 sieve; they are described as: clays, if they are plastic, and silts if they are slightly plastic or non-plastic. Major constituents may be added as modifiers and minor constituents may be added according to the relative proportions based on grain size. In addition to gradation, coarse grained soils are defined on the basis of their relative in-place density and fine grained soils on the basis of their consistency. Example: Lean clay with sand, trace gravel, stiff(CL); silty sand,trace gravel, medium dense(SM). CONSISTENCY OF FINE-GRAINED SOILS: RELATIVE DENSITY OF Unconfined Compressive COARSE-GRAINED SOILS: Strength,Qu,psf Consistency N-Blows/ft. Relative Density < 500 Very Soft 0-3 Very Loose 500- 1,000 Soft 4-9 Loose 1,001 -2,000 Medium 10-29 Medium Dense 2,001 -4,000 Stiff 30-49 Dense 4,001 -8,000 Very Stiff 50-80 Very Dense 8,001 -16,000 Very Hard 80+ Extremely Dense RELATIVE PROPORTIONS OF SAND AND GRAVEL GRAIN SIZE TERMINOLOGY Descriptive Term(s) Major Component (of Components Also Percent of of Sample Size Range Present in Sample) Dry Weight Boulders Over 12 in. (300mm) Trace < 15 Cobbles 12 in. to 3 in. With 15 -29 (300mm to 75mm) Modifier > 30 Gravel 3 in. to#4 sieve (75mm to 4.75mm) RELATIVE PROPORTIONS OF FINES Sand #4 to#200 sieve Descriptive Term(s) (4.75mmto .075mm) (of Components Also Percent of Silt or Clay Passing#200 Sieve Present in Sample) Dry Weight (0.075mm) Trace < 5 With 5 - 12 Modifier > 12 lierracon • GENERAL NOTES Sedimentary Rock Classification DESCRIPTIVE ROCK CLASSIFICATION: • Sedimentary rocks are composed of cemented clay, silt and sand sized particles.The most common minerals are clay, quartz and calcite. Rock composed primarily of calcite is called limestone; rock of sand size grains is called sandstone, and rock of clay and silt size grains is called mudstone or claystone,siltstone,or shale.Modifiers such as shaly,sandy,dolomitic, calcareous,carbonaceous,etc.are used to describe various constituents. Examples: sandy shale; calcareous sandstone. LIMESTONE Light to dark colored,crystalline to fine-grained texture,composed of CaCo1, reacts readily with HCI. DOLOMITE Light to dark colored, crystalline to fine-grained texture, composed of CaMg(CO3)2, harder than limestone, reacts with HCI when powdered. CHERT Light to dark colored,very fine-grained texture, composed of micro-crystalline quartz(S10:), brittle, breaks into angular fragments, will scratch glass. SHALE Very fine-grained texture, composed of consolidated silt or clay, bedded in thin layers. The unlaminated equivalent is frequently.referred to as siltstone, claystone or mudstone. SANDSTONE Usually light colored,coarse to fine texture,composed of cemented sand size grains of quartz, feldspar,etc.Cement usually is silica but may be such minerals as calcite, iron-oxide,or some other carbonate. CONGLOMERATE Rounded rock fragments of variable mineralogy varying in size from near sand to boulder size but usually pebble to cobble size(1/2 inch to 6 inches).Cemented together with various cemen- ting agents. Breccia is similar but composed of angular, fractured rock particles cemented together. PHYSICAL PROPERTIES: DEGREE OF WEATHERING BEDDING AND JOINT CHARACTERISTICS Slight Slight decomposition of parent Bed Thickness Joint Spacing Dimensions material on joints. May be color Very Thick Very Wide >10' change. Thick Wide 3' - 10' Moderate Some decomposition and color Medium Moderately Close V - 3' change Thin Close 2" - 1' throughout. Very Thin Very Close .4" - 2" High Rock highly decomposed,may be ex- Laminated — .1„ - .4" tremely broken. Bedding Plane A plane dividing sedimentary rocks of the same or different lithology. HARDNESS AND DEGREE OF CEMENTATION Joint Fracture in rock, generally more or Limestone and Dolomite: less vertical or transverse to bedding, along which no appreciable move- Hard Difficult to scratch with knife. ment has occurred. Moderately Can be scratched easily with knife, Seam Generally applies to bedding plane Hard cannot be scratched with fingernail. with an unspecified degree of Soft Can be scratched with fingernail. weathering. Shale, Siltstone and Claystone Hard Can be scratched easily with knife, SOLUTION AND VOID CONDITIONS cannot be scratched with fingernail. Solid Contains no voids. Moderately Vuggy (Pitted) Rock having small solution pits or Hard Can be scratched with fingernail. cavities up to 1/2 inch diameter, fre- Soft Can be easily dented but not molded quently with a mineral lining. with fingers. Porous Containing numerous voids,pores,or other openings, which may or may Sandstone and Conglomerate not interconnect. Well Capable of scratching a knife blade. Cavernous Containing cavities or caverns,some- Cemented times quite large. Cemented Can be scratched with knife. Poorly Can be broken apart easily with Cemented fingers. Form rr . It0—fi 85 r, � '. UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM Soil Classification Criteria for Assigning Group Symbols and Group Names Using Laboratory TestsA Group Group Names Symbol Coarse-Grained Soils Gravels Clean Gravels Cu a 4 and 1 s Cc s 3E GW Well-graded gravelF More than 50% retained on More than 50% of coarse Less than 5% fines° No.200 sieve fraction retained on Cu < 4 and/or 1 > Cc > 3E GP Poorly graded gravelF No.4 sieve Fines classify as ML or MH GM Silty gravelE N.H Gravels with Fines More than 12% fines° Fines classify as CL or CH GC Clayey gravelF,a." Sands Clean Sands Cu a 6 and 1 s Cc s 3E SW Well-graded sand' 50% or more of coarse Less than 5% finesE Cu < 6 and/or 1> Cc > 3E SP Poorly graded sand' No.4 sieve Fines classify as ML or MH SM Silty sand°'H.I Sands with Fines More than 12%, fines° Fines classify as CL or CH SC Clayey sand°.H.I Fine-Grained Soils Silts and Clays inorganic PI > 7 and plots on or above"A"lined CL Lean clay"'L,"' 50% or more passes the Liquid limit less than 50 -- No.200 sieve PI < 4 or plots below "A" lined ML Silt".L"' g Liquid limit —oven dried < 075 OL Organic clay".1.M,N organic Liquid limit — not dried Organic silt"'L.M,0 Silts and Clays inorganic P! plots on or above"A" line CH Fat clay".L M Liquid limit 50 or more PI plots below "A" line MH Elastic silt"-4 M g Liquid limit — oven dried < 0.75 OH Organic clay"'L M,F organic _ Liquid limit— not dried Organic slit".4 M.0 Highly organic soils Primarily organic matter,dark in color,and organic odor PT Peat °Based on the material passing the 3-in. ECu = D /D Cc = (O�)2 "If soil contains 15 to 29% plus No.200, add (75-mm)sieve. w 1s O x O "with sand"or"with gravel",whichever Is elf field sample contained cobbles or F 10 B° predominant. boulders,or both,add "with cobbles or If sail contains ≥ 15% sand,add "with sand"to 4f soil contains a 30% plus.No. 200 boulders,or both" to group name. group name. _. o predominantly sand,add"sandy"to group °Gravels with 5 to 12% fines require dual If fines classify as CL-ML,use dual symbol GC- name. symbols: GM,or SC-SM. GW-GM well-gradedgravel with silt HIf fines are organic, add"with organic fines"to M soil predominantly nlys a el% plus"gravelly"a 20 to gravel,add to group GW-GC well-graded gravel with clay group name. name. GP-GM poorly graded gravel with silt If soil contains a 15% gravel,add "with gravel"to "al a 4 and plots on or above"A"line. GP-GC poorly graded gravel with clay group name. °pl < 4 or plots below"A" line. °Sands with 5 to 12% fines require dual 'If Atterberg limits plot in shaded area,soil is a CL- Pp1 plots on or above"A" line. symbols: ML,silty clay. SW-SM well-graded sand with silt °PI plots below"A"line. • SW-SC well-graded sand with clay SP-SM poorly graded sand with silt SP-SC poorly graded sand with clay 60 For classification of tine•gralned soils and fine-grained fraction of coarse- 50 _grained soils ___. ...s.‘,44 Equation of "A"-line \a— la. Horizontal at PI = 4 to LL = 25.5. /l \�� l then PI = 0.73(LL-20) , O-J � „P W40 -Equation of"U" -line - - '- / C1 Vertical at LL = 16 to PI = 7, Z then PI = 0.9(LL-8)y 30 _ _- N 20 >ZOHl 10 ' t I a - — CL ML I ML OR OL 0 1 I I I i 0 10 16 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 LIQUID LIMIT (LL) • rerracon Form 111-6.85 ;::{rp;:r.:'•5F:•::::{{.4:::::::::::::;•::Z:‘,Yry :•::.%•:.':':'::.}juSSfl ;e2Sjjfr !g : {: ::{{.:.{.:'.::.i}i:::::•::r. . . ::.i:• r r :r'r'..,.. f, :t. ,yip .: �::.:<. it ::•}}.:.}:.}.{r.}.:::....;. : '.•:'tY�,F.'• r'.gp,gp •: ..w...; .o}':' .t ri v.I' ?` • 'r.:•:S>*: ;;:.; :.rvr:::::::1.; . •f #K.9::SS:S'S::SS•y :•• ` # :.:.:./�::>: i;'';:;'i ::Siid�5:::::r::S:;:::i:::::�::i::::: ::i:::::::.: , •:. ::.o:>:.>}::>}:i::::::�:.>:::>xi^::::::��:>:.> > :.tge.. :. . . . :: . :::::: .;.: ::.}::•:}............... . , ' 4 { , >: f � . ••••�Y Fy ..?'$e f :rA<'.........:::-.::.::::2•:,:s a# . 3' y �f r �# , ' 2 1 f •• S :+ f f. Y':..(„ .w f:••••t >':—t b f4 :.]::::*nfr : '� . f f j' .,sr.L4 ...r �f� 9P l 3 S { . ?g. F 70S1:Q l b� / l Ckliv'LL (1: 32 ] EXHIBIT .._ I . R . A . M . • (Families for Responsible Aggregate Mining) 30856 Rocky Rood • Greeley, CO 80631-9375 (970) 353-0545 • (970) 353-0611 • (970) 353-0613 (fax) • regwestco@aol.com (e-mail) February 4, 2000 Mr. Fred Walker, Chairman Weld County Planning Commission 1555 North 17th Avenue Greeley, CO 80631 Dear Mr. Walker: SUBJECT: AmU5R-897, Camas Colorado, Inc. Planning Commission Hearing slated for February 15, 2000 It has been brought to my attention that objectors who wish to speak at Hearings .are typically allowed five to eight minutes in which to impart their information. The purpose of this letter is to formally request permission to exceed that time limit. Many of us living on or adjacent to the Rocky Road Subdivision have spent numerous hours researching the files and impacts of Camas' plans. In the interest of fairness to those of us permanently impacted by Camas' plans, we respectfully request the Planning Commission grant additional time in which to address the salient issues of paramount importance to us. As Chairperson of FRAM, the families within the affected area, I request 20 minutes in which to cover the technical aspects of the application and current permit; four other FRAM members intend to speak and request they each be allotted ten minutes. Because we are now preparing our presentations we would appreciate receiving confirmation by February 9, 200C) from either you or Kim Ogle that these extensions have been granted. Regards, l aid County Planning Dept. FEB 0 2000 Kim Davis, FRAM Chairperson RECE pc: Kim Ogle, Planner I\, FI) Bruce T. Barker, Weld County Attorney .. ......:................................ ..................................... F . R . A . M . • (Families for Responsible Aggregate Mining) 30856 Rocky Road • Greeley, CO 80631 -9375 (97O) 353-0545 • (97O) 353-0611 • (97O) 353-0613 (fax) • regwestco@aol.com (e-mail) . did County Planning Dep, PEB 07 2000 February 4, 2000 R C I V D Mr. Kim Ogle, Planner Weld County Department of Planning Services 1555 North 17th Avenue Greeley, CO 80631 Dear Mr. Ogle: SUBJECT: AmU5R-897, Camas Colorado, Inc. I thought you might be interested in the attached letter from the DMG to Camas Colorado, Inc. dated January 20, 2000. Although only a preliminary review of Camas' Slope Stability Analysis submitted January 12, 2000, the letter does contain pertinent information concerning Camas' mining plans. The DMG, ever diligent in their mission, has quite succinctly pointed out numerous technical deficiencies in not only the proposal, but in the submitted underlying data. We would appreciate this being included in the file. Regards, Kim Davis, FRAM Chairperson Attachment f'.F"'E:j Y E1 JAN 2 6 me STATE OF COLORADO DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY Department or Natural Resources I31 3 Sherman St., Room 215 Dom cc, Colorado 80203 DIVISION OF Phone.13033 865.356- MINERALS FAA:130 31 113 2-1 06 GEOLOGY January 20, 2000 RECLAMATION r I • e r Mr. Mike Refer Bill Owens CAMAS Co. Inc. Governor t her 7108-M South Alton Way Greg tive erect exe��r�,e Director Englewood, CO 80112 Michael e_ions Division Director RE: Technical Adequacy Review of Slope Stability Analysis for New 112 Reclamation Permit Application, Permit No. #M-99-098, Riverview Resources Dear Mr. Refer, This letter is being written address technical issues in the Slope Stability Analysis submitted January 12, 2000, for the new 112 application submitted by your company, Permit No. #M-99- 098, Riverview Resources Pit. These issues must be resolved before the Division of Minerals and Geology (DMG) can approve this application. However, this is only a preliminary review of this slope stability analysis, pending the submittal of a full analysis of the hydrological concerns detailed in the Technical Adequacy Review dated December 16, 1999. Specifically, items 3, 5, and 6 of the main DMG review, and items 1, 2b, 7, 8 and 9 in Tom Schreiner's review must be addressed before any final determination regarding slope stability at the site can be made. Please address the following concerns prior to the due date of February 4, 2000. 1) The presence of de-watering trenches was not included in any of the case analyses. Since the presence of water at the toe of the excavated slopes could effect the phreatic surface within the mined areas, this must be included in all cases. 2) The 0.5-foot to 3-foot thick weathered claystone layer directly above the claystone bedrock was omitted from all analyses, and must be included. The soil boring logs indicate that the average thickness of this layer on the west side of the site is 0.7 feet, and that an average of 1.6 feet is present on the east side of the site. Analyses should be done for the maximum thicknesses as well as the average values of these layers, assuming zero cohesion and detailing the appropriate effective friction angles and strength values. 3) The reference source used to determine the assumed strength values, angles of internal friction, and cohesion values for the soils used in this analysis is not clear, because the soils are not classified under standard ASTM labels. Please submit the name of the reference work from which these values were obtained, or submit site-specific values from standard soil strength tests done at the site. A lithographic profile of the soils, including wet and dry density, soil composition, internal friction angles, cohesion, and phreatic surface, is recommended. 4) No stability analysis was done of the drainage tiles, as mentioned in the previous Technical Adequacy Review. Please submit a stability analysis of the 10' proposed setback, or an agreement with the structure owner that allows excavation within 200' of these structures. 5) Case 5 Mining Conditions — Fish Hatcheries —does not state whether or not there are any unlined ponds, lagoons, or nearby holding facilities which lie within 200' of the excavation face. If any unlined structures holding water fall within the 200' minimum setback, they should be included as water surfaces in the slope stability analyses, and the effects of mining on their stability should also be analyzed. 6) Fences qualify as permanent structures that must be included in geotechnical stability analyses if the structure owners perceive them as `valuable', in accordance with Rule 6.4.19 of the Construction Materials Rules and Regulations. If a letter from the landowner stating that the structure has no significant value can not be obtained, then the Operator is reminded that the residential setbacks must apply to all structures which the landowners wish to be left undisturbed. 7) In Case 4 Mining Conditions—Surrounding private homes, it is stated that typical foundation loading (3000psf) has been added to the stability model for these cases. Please evaluate these cases for site-specific conditions, including frame and brick houses, and cite the sources of these loading values. 8) No analyses were done under pseudo-static conditions. Please analyze these scenarios using a seismic factor of 0.05, to evaluate slippage under these conditions. 9) Slope stability analyses for the final unlined, reclaimed slopes of Cells 1 and 5 were not included. Please submit analyses of the stability of these embankments with regard to critical structures. 10)The phreatic surfaces assumed for these analyses are inconsistent with the soil borings taken at the site and included in the two geotechnical evaluations done by Empire Laboratories and Terracon. The average phreatic surface along the northern boundary of the site is consistent with that used in Case 1 for the west side of the site (Empire Laboratories analysis), but in all other cases, the phreatic surface is much closer to the surface than that used in these stability analyses. Please re-analyze all cases with the appropriate worst case scenario water levels, using the values noted in the geotechnical evaluations. 11)It is assumed that the consistent use of the 0.5H:1.0V slope in these analyses constitutes a commitment to refrain from excavating the slopes at a steeper angle at any time. Please confirm this in writing. If this condition of your permit is ever changed, the setback requirements must be re-evaluated at that time, and the Operator is reminded that failure to comply with this condition would constitute a serious violation of the permit. 12)It is also assumed that the analyses of the western and eastem boundaries, in which the maximum depth of the excavation is 22 feet, also constitutes a commitment to refrain from • 2 mining any deeper along these excavation limits. Please confirm this in writing. If this condition of your permit is ever changed, the setback requirements must be re-evaluated at that time, and the Operator is reminded that failure to comply with this condition would constitute a serious violation of the permit. 13)Since no Case 3 —Mining Conditions —Cache Le Poudre River—was submitted, it is assumed that the Operator is choosing to comply with the requirements for the 100' and 200' riverbank setbacks outlined in Tom Schreiner's technical adequacy review of December 16. Please state this in writing. 14)No details about the construction of the liner, its installation, or the quality control measures to be taken during the process of installing it have been furnished. Details about the liner core and the embankment material have also been omitted. Soil specifications, compaction requirements, and a quality assurance plan (including liner testing frequency and a monitoring plan) must be submitted to DMG prior to any approval of embankment design. This is in accordance with Rule 6.4.5(2)(a) of the Construction Materials Rules and Regulations. See item number 10 of Tom Schreiner's December 16 review, also. 15)For backfilled slopes, please submit a backfilling plan, along with compaction specifications, that meets the requirements of Rule 3.1.5(9) of the Construction Materials Rules and Regulations. Also, please see question 4 of Tom Schreiner's December 16 review memo. Again, additional issues may be raised by the submittal of the requested floodplain and hydrological modeling analyses for this site. This is only a preliminary response to the soil stability analysis, and is not meant to be taken as the final review of soil stability at the site. Please address these concerns prior to the currently scheduled due date of February 4, 2000. If these concerns are not dealt with, or the decision date extended by February 4, DMG will be forced to deny your application. At this time, the Division is anticipating holding a Pre-Hearing Conference on February 14, on the assumption that we will be able to give our decision on this application on February 4. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me at (303) 866-3567. Sincerely, a Christina L. Kamnikar Environmental Protection Specialist Cc: Carl B. Mount, DMG Shani Eastin, Tuttle-Applegate Inc. Connie Davis, CAMAS US Fish &Wildlife Service US Army Corps of Engineers Objection List 3 Shani Eastin • Tuttle-Applegate, Inc. 11990 Grant St.,Suite 304 Denver, CO 80233 Connie Davis, CAMAS (see above) Objectors: Myron and Mabel Cunning 442 N. Brisbane Ave. Greeley, CO 80634 Troy and Jean Kyne 517 N.71"Ave. Greeley,CO 80634 Richard Goetzel 13489 WCR#66 Greeley, CO 80631 Joe and Helen Lohnes 13804 Weld County Road#64 Greeley,CO 80631-9331 Ronald J. Spurlin 541 Brisbane Ave. Greeley,CO 80634 Matt and Lisa Geib 13742 Rocky Road Greeley, CO 80634 Matt and Lisa Geib 1218 48th Ave. Greeley, CO 80634 Wayne L. and Joyce A.Dawson 30878 Rocky Road Greeley,CO 80631 Kim Davis 30856 Rocky Road Greeley,CO 80631-9375 Jonathan Cragle 13648 WCR#64 Greeley, CO 80631 City of Greeley Kim Scope',Natural Resources Planner 1100 10th St. Greeley, CO 80631 MEMORANDUM To:Case FileIlha February 9, 2000 COLORADO From: Monica Daniels Mika, AICP Subject: Meeting with surrounding property owners USR 897 On February 3, 2000, I had the opportunity to meet with Kim Davis and Joe Lohnes. During this meeting, we discussed the previous process associated with this case. I explained that this case had been heard by Planning Commission (12-89), and then by the Board of County Commissioner (3-90). In 1994, the department sent a letter to the applicant stating that the case would be closed. In September of 1998, the department requested that this case be sent to a Show Case hearing for the revocation of the permit. The Board denied this request and afforded the applicant the opportunity to meet the conditions of approval. In a letter, dated March 15, 1999, to Shani Eastin, representative for the applicant, I extend the applicant one more month to meet the Conditions of Approval. On April 9, 1999, USR 897 was recorded with the Clerk and Recorder's Office. Ms. Davis had several concerns pertaining to her lack of awareness of the mining activities at the time of the purchase of her home. Ms. Davis expressed frustration and concern regarding the possibility of incompatibility of mining and residential uses. It was apparent from our conversation that Ms. Davis and Mr. Lohnes had spent a great deal of time researching the mining activities. Ms. Davis asked that planning staff present a case chronology of circumstances associated with this site. I concurred that this would be helpful. I explained that despite the concerns presented USR 897 had been approved and was a lawful use; and that should the amendment be denied the previous county permit was valid. Ms. Davis raised concern regarding the applicant's permits with the state. I stated that it was my understanding that the applicants did have lawful permits with the state, but this issue would also be looked at prior to the hearing. usr897 SERVICE,TEAMWORK,INTEGRITY,QUALITY Wayne L.& Joyce A. Dawson 30878 Rocky Road Greeley, Colorado 80631 February 14, 2000 Kim Ogle, Planner Weld County Department of Planning Services 1555 North 17th Avenue Greeley, Colorado 80631 RE: Am USR-897 (Camas Colorado, Inc.) Dear Mr. Ogle, As we stated in our November 17, 1999 letter to you, one of our major concerns with the proposed mining around un is the increase in the truck traffic on "O" Street and 83rd Avenue. As indicated in the application, the majority of the truck traffic will exit the mining site and travel south on 83rd Avenue to Highway 34. The intersection of 83rd Avenue and Highway 34 is presently controlled only by stop signs on 83rd Avenue. According to the Greeley Police Department there have been 14 accidents, 4 of which involved injuries, at this intersection or within one block of it in the past 2 years. Enclosed you will find current traffic count reports compiled by the City of Greeley one for "G" Street and one for three sections of 83rd Avenue between 10th Street(Highway 34)to north of"O" Street. We use the intersection of 83rd Avenue and Highway 34 on a daily basis and know how dangcro is it is now. There is currently a large volume of traffic on this road and with the increase in the truck traffic that this mining operation will generate the danger is substantially increased. Add to this the fact that 83rd Avenue is slated to eventually become Two Riven Parkway. This route has been planned to expedite traffic from the Tri-City area to the Denver Metro area and will generate even more traffic. Pieces of this project are already in place and the remaining portions are to be developed in the future. There will also be an increase in the amount of truck traffic that travel.,on "O" Street. The intersection of"O" Street and 59th Avenue will also have the potential of becoming a traffic hazard. To help safeguard the lives and health of the general public as well as the Camas drivers and employees, we ask the you require a traffic light be installed at 83rd Avenue and Highway 34 if this permit is granted. Sincerely, / CIeuJI y �c 1/rLCl/t' — ®� - Wayne L. & Joyce✓✓✓ A. Dawson 'Veld County Planning .: enc. »»»:.>::.>:.»:::::::::,.. FEB 14 2000 . . :;.: REC I \/ ...................................... . . ......... 02/10/00 Page : 1 11:30:07 CITY OF GREELEY 1000 10TH STREET -. - - GREELEY CO £8631.. *** Count Dump with 241u Totals (43O9) *** K K*** K** ****************Ic*:K***.K KV<**** Ic*.K***1 V K*.K Jc-< c 81 K.YA 1 ****.J= K Ki **V<* 1 * * . * Site ID : 83AVE N 4Sl Data Starts : 00 :00 on Into 1 : Data Ends . 23 :00 on 4.. / /CC) Info 2 : Ad r .. Factor- : 1 .000 **:fit*:K****:I .K* i.*:IcgK********** K:K** icy *** K F **'k Ic:KAul�{ lc*****aK:Bc�..1_.K: *:Ic;I* **=I* I -1u1c*:K s{c ac** K Lane DI Into : SG Lane Mode : Directional Sensor Used : Axto **.K*************;***********(f*:Ic **** KK 6*I:**6 K n** * K K:Icl ** K Ic*** i K# d<** Ic** K:I<* 1Vry *Vc Lane t12 Info : NB Lane Mode : Directional Sensor Used : Axle *:K** K**********:I<*******'K:IcK:k**+K*.Ic K*VcKVc.Hc V 6*Va Ic K'K*Veit Ie c*K*** K K K:4((:K 1.K:K*** 6 ( 6**=1ce Ac{:** 'K*****************::K* Lanes 1 & 2 Count Doug with 24hr iotal.:s * f********** * **t* Date Time 41 #-2 02/09/00 00:00 ,_. Wed 01. ::00 2 9 02:00 0 2 03:00 2 4 04 :00 1 .... 05: 00 6 39 06:00 18 .124 07:00 91 91 O8: )0 90 09:00 bl. 46 1.0:.06 51. 53 11 :00 4 1.2:00 54 6 ;{ 13 :00 43 6:I 14:0C) '5.1. 75 1.r;:OiC 61. 87 16:00 61 67 60 9.. 18 :00 2'8 10 :00 3,5 70:00 14 1S 21. :00 4 16 22:00 7 1.7 23 :00 6 241P TOICM 803 10 13 10/29/99 Page: 1 10.53:20 CITY OF GREELEY 1000 10TH STREET GREELEY CO 80631 *** Count Dump with 24hr Totals (#309) *** ***************************************************'K**************Ac********IK**** Site ID : 83AVE N LOST Data Starts : 13:00 on 10/20/99 Info 1 : Data Ends : 13.00 on 10/20/99 Info 2 : Adj _ Factor : 1. 000% ******************************************************************'K****'K*******{< Lane #1 Info : Lane Mode : Normal Sensor Used : Axle ::K********************* Lane 1 Count Dump with 24hr Totals *** **'K*************** Date Time #1 Record Interval : 01:00 • 10/20/99 13:00 88 Wed 14:00 130 15:00 106 16:00 137 17:00 164 18:00 90 19:00 46 20:00 26 21 :00 21 22:00 11 23:00 13 00:00 11 01:00 8 02:00 C) 03:00 2 04:00 7 05:00 55 06:00 119 07:00 182 • 08:00 152 • 09:00 117 10:00 91 11: 00 9.5 12:00 95 24HR TOTAL 1766 10/20/99 13:00 103 24HR TOTAL 103 GRAND TOTAL - 32687 02/10/00 Page: 1 11: 28:00 CITY OF GREELEY 1000 10TH STREET GREELEY CO 80631 *,a* Count Dump with 24hr Totals (4309 ) *** * k k*** 61< ic* Ic** k 1 ***I ******:g,{c:{c*.I< K*;IcK N<:k K.Ic**lc** * % ** I a¢ k,K*'f<K.K** ** *** ' c Ic k,F Site ID 830vE N 0. 'L Data Starts 00:00 or 02/0H/Of Info ] _ Data fEnds 23 .00 on �ST CO Info 2 : Adj. Factor _ 1.0002: g***i*******:I1< K *********** ***** Ic6*** < Ic***L* K*#****K***-1cd<a YIcy:Yc*'4:** ttf******xc*** Lane #1. info SR Lane Mode i Directional Sensor Used ******* K is 8c*:1::* Ic * l7:,lu{c***** *)t*:Ic**'.Y•**tit*****icac** *lc*****A:* 1 b I * ** is*:k*?Ic I<'{c H:K*=1c1: *:<* Lane 42 Info : NH Lane Mode : Directional tion,al Sensor- l!.: ! 1 :: H)4' e tic:Ik*:Ic IC*4 Ac*ac ***********-g;K*ac {c**'K"lu{c.t Icd.;H'*** k:K** * 1<y,*** K lc**IC* h'AC*** I(* it:k*:K I k** -iK*;.Ic*******:***'la****.# Lanes 1, 8 2 Count Dump with 24hr 'totals *;Ic*****Y<1<: ** i *8*** Date ( l.mne I1: L #2 LY2/O8/00 Or)::00 "; 4 1 ;le 01. :00 LI 02:00 .1 057.00 .L. 1. 04:00 1. 9 _... 05:00 11. 51 06::0:) 4._' L49 07:00 1 . .. 58 as::Cj :) 68 28 i)9:00 10 00 1 .t :0p 4C) 15 , 13 :00 5 / i4 :1)1J OO t7 : '.") F IJ F 0 I / I4c°C 02/03/00 Pao ° : 1 11:45:55 CITY OF GREELEY 1000 1.0TI-I STREET GR.EELEY CO 80631. *** Count: Dump with 24hr Totals (1t309) **:* ***********:K************:K K* K**** K****0 K4 K**:KKK**********r*****'KI ****:K** {, K****is* 0* Site ID OST E S3AVE Data Starts, _ 00.00 on 02/02/00 Info 1 : Data Ends : 23:00 on 02/02/I10 Info Info 2 :. FAdi ,. Factor _ 1.0002; ****{ ****acKac**********;K*** 0K**** K****** **luKY'1K'KA-AaK.K{c.K*** IK-K.K:K:K:1 *y,:K:KyF lc-K;.**0 0 L Lane ail. Info : WE3 Lane Mode : Direr:l ion<). 1. Sensor Used : (ode ********************* 0****** I:.IC** K.K:6:K:K:6 I.K i4Acq[4: KKK*Sc.ic***6*ye* K*K.r***'K.K*"K y:441, h qc:{<*'1� Lane t#2 Info : E R Lane Mode . Directional Sensor Used _ Axle *******************.r. P ** Kf: KK.K*4i K* K** kKK* 0*** ****** KA. E*** ,*:ic K*,i.{.'{,PA<bl, i. I: 0*( 00; * **'******** ****v**** Lan ; :I & 2 Count: D'lihp wi I h 24hr lot.at S * K* ***0* *. K (t*I: Ki<g : Date Time i# l. E,..2 02/02/00) 00:00 4 ... Wed 01::00 C) 02:00 E, 04 :01) 7 05::00 `3C) }r ()7 ::Oi) O`:, 08::00 'I 09 :00 L0::00 :11 ',.8 L :00 12:00 3C) 25 I.3rlaC) 2r) ] 4:00 34 44 L`r: 0(:) 1?) bti 17 -00 )0 1. I ._ . _l^e) : Lm) I () __2 : OU 23:m0 :,..4'I I2 I O T P.I. Ivi 1371 a f II:* DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES PHONE (970)353-6100, EXT.3540 O FAX(970)304-6498 E-mail address: kogle@CO.Weld.CO.US COLORCOLORADO WELD COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES ADO 1555 N. 17TH AVENUE GREELEY, COLORADO 80631 February 15, 2000 CHRONOLOGY OF USR 897 and AmUSR 897 February 15, 2000 Planning Commission hearing February 3, 2000 Applicant provided DPS Slope Stability Analysis for project site January 31, 2000 Applicant submitted Flood Hazard Development Permit application January 18, 2000 Planning Commission hearing, continued Applicant's representative and Attorney's for SPOs jointly requested a continuance January 7, 2000 Applicant amends application to reflect the removal of all lands south of the Cache La Poudre River. Lands to the north of the river remain in the application. Amended land holdings are 55 acres more or less. December 7, 1999 Planning Commission hearing, continued Planning Staff did not meet posting requirements October 11, 1999 Application received for AmUSR 897 April 9, 1999 USR 897 recorded at the Weld County Clerk & Recorders Office :>< , : ' `a �.. Page 2, Camas Colorado March 23, 1999 Letter from Jiricek to Eastin WCHD approves Groundwater Level Monitoring Plan March 15, 1999 Letter from Daniels to Eastin One month extension granted, diligent effort to meet COAs Letter from BCC to Applicant Approval of Off-Site Road Improvements and Maintenance Agreement for Camas, CO March 12, 1999 Letter from Eastin to Daniels Revisions made to WW Farms mylars (USR 897) March 11, 1999 Letter from Daniels to Eastin WW Farms mylars returned to applicant Memorandum from Hempden to Clerk to Board Add agenda item for BCC hearing of March 15, 1999 Letter from Jiricek to Eastin Groundwater Level Monitoring Plan Inadequate, applicant shall fulfill requirements of COA#3b March 5, 1999 Letter from Eastin to Daniels COA status update March 3, 1999 Letter from State of CO (DPH&E) to Applicant Construction Permit - Initial Approval to Mine granted February 25, 1999 Letter from Hegeman (CO DPH&E) to Mergens (Camas) Certification of Colorado Wastewater Discharge Permit Permit# COG - 500000, Facility# COG - 500345 February 20, 1999 Fax from Rogstad to Daniels Text copy of agreement between DOW and Camas. Approved verbally by Eastin February 25, 1999 Page 3, Camas Colorado February 18, 1999 Letter from Daniels to Eastin Outline of items within COA that shall be addressed and met February 10, 1999 Letter from Eastin to Daniels Probable Cause Hearing of September 16, 1998 to consider if Permit is still valid. Board determined that the intent to mine the property not abandoned and mining shall commence prior to March 7, 1999 to validate Permit. Letter from Eastin to Rogstad Discussion and agreement regarding warm water slough diversion and (re)-location Letter from Davis (Camas) to Tuttle Discharge and Air Permit application submitted February 3, 1999 Letter from Hall (Colorado Division of Water) to Whitaker (Camas) Response to letter of January 8, 1999 regarding water February 1, 1999 Letter from Eastin to Scopel (City of Greeley) 100 foot right-of-way reservation for Poudre River Trail adjacent to southern boundary of the mining lakes agreed January 18, 1999 Letter from Whitaker to Hall Requested letter regarding water September 23, 1998 Signed Resolution by Board received for Probable Cause Hearing September 16, 1998 Memo from Daniels to Board of County Commissioners Chronological Order of events for USR 897 Memo from Daniels to Board of County Commissioners (Probable Cause Hearing) No activity has occurred on site within the 3-year time allocated by Zoning Ordinance, therefore not in compliance with Section 24.1.5 of WCZO. Planning Staff recommends a Show Cause Hearing to revoke Special Use Permit USR 897 Probable Cause Hearing by the Board of County Commissioners Board determines a six month extension shall be granted such that applicant can complete COAs. Board further directs Planning Staff to determine if further action is necessary. Page 4, Camas Colorado September 11, 1998 Letter from Eastin to Commissioner Kirkmeyer Copies of correspondence to date demonstrating Camas' interest in commencing project (USR 897) September 9, 1998 Letter from Tuttle /Applegate to Commissioner Kirkmeyer Request for a Probable Cause Hearing August 14, 1998 Letter from Patton to Eastin Direction from Planning to ask for a Probable Cause Hearing for USR 897 December 15, 1994 Department of Planning Services Closed Case number USR-897 November 15, 1994 Letter from Department of Planning Services to applicant requesting the Plat be recorded, or case would be closed in thirty days. May 1, 1990 Memo to Board of County Commissioners from Scheltinga (DPW) • Requesting a review/ work session with Board to discuss Off-Site Road Improvements and Maintenance Agreement for Camas CO March 7, 1990 Resolution by the Board of County Commissioners for Approval of USR 897 Vote was 3-2 March 3, 1990 Signed Agreement between Greeley Irrigation Ditch Company and C&M Aggregates February 28, 1990 Board of County Commissioners hearing continued Applicant failed to post sign within 10-day time-frame December 5, 1989 Planning Commission Hearing Planning Staff recommended in favor of request Planning Commission recommended denial, vote was 9-0 November 1, 1989 Application received for USR 897 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDIES All new residential developments with expected ADT>200 and all new commercial developments will be required to submit a traffic study as part of the review process. This study shall include a description of the project, vehicle trip generation and distribution, verification of adequate acceleration, deceleration and storage facilities at all impacted intersections, review of bridge capacity, intersection level of service analysis for existing and proposed conditions and recommendation for needed upgrades to transportation infrastructure to support the development M:\Diane\development\tis.wpd 'Veld County Planning L 3p FEB 1 , 2000 RECEIVED ..................................._ Hello