The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20170141s� J&T Consulting, Inc. LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL RECEIVED Date: January 5, 2017 File No:16116 Job Name: Bennett Pit To: Weld County Clerk to the Board 1150 O Street Greeley, CO 80632 > Attention: Clerk to the Board WE ARE SENDING YOU: Copies JAN 06 21t7 WELD cOUNTt. COMMISSIONER' 1 Phone: 970-336-7204 Fax: 970-336-7233 x 4021 • Description Bennett Pit - Application for a Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Permit for a Regular (112) Construction Materials Extraction Operation THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: For Approval For your use As requested For review and comment For Bids Due REMARKS: Approved as submitted Approved as noted Returned for corrections Other: Resubmit Submit Return copies for approval copies for distribution corrected prints Please find attached a copy of an application for a Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Permit for a Regular (112) Construction Materials Extraction Operation for the Bennett Pit to be filed for public review. Please feel free to contact us with any questions you may have. Regards, J.C. York Signed: iii 305 Denver Avenue - Suite D • Fort Lupton, CO 80234 • Ph: 303-857-6222 • Fax: 303-857-6224 PLCCanm/rej Pobtic.��'� c ERm ls c)t oct! L, 2017-0141 Application for: DRMS 112 Reclamation Operation Bennett Pit ar _ a NORTHERN COLORADO CONSTRUCTORS, INC. 9075 WCR 10 Ft Lupton, CO 80621 (303) 857-1754 Prepared By: MI J&T Consulting, Inc. 111 305 Denver Avenue — Suite D Fort Lupton, CO 80621 Ph: 303-857-6222 / Fax: 303-857-6224 www.j-icons u Iii ng.com STATE OF COLORADO DIVISION OF RECLAMATION, MINING AND SAFETY Department of Natural Resources 1313 Sherman St., Room 215 Denver, Colorado 80203 Phone: (303) 866-3567 FAX: (303) 832-8106 CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS REGULAR (1 12) OPERATION RECLAMATION PERMIT APPLICATION FORM COLORADO DIVISION OF RECLAMATION MINING SAFETY CHECK ONE: [J There is a File Number Already Assigned to this Operation Permit # M - - (Please reference the file number currently assigned to this operation) It_ New Application (Rule 1.4.5) IT Amendment Application (Rule 1.10) ri__ Conversion Application (Rule 1.11) Permit # M - - (provide for Amendments and Conversions of existing permits) The application for a Construction Materials Regular 112 Operation Reclamation Permit contains three major parts: (1) the application form; (2) Exhibits A -S, Addendum 1, any sections of Exhibit 6.5 (Geotechnical Stability Exhibit; and (3) the application fee. When you submit your application, be sure to include one (1) complete signed and notarized ORIGINAL and one (1) copy of the completed application form, two (2) copies of Exhibits A -S, Addendum 1, appropriate sections of 6.5 (Geotechnical Stability Exhibit, and a check for the application fee described under Section (4) below. Exhibits should NOT be bound or in a 3 -ring binder; maps should be folded to 8 1/2" X 1 1 " or 8 1/2" X 14" size. To expedite processing, please provide the information in the format and order described in this form. GENERAL OPERATION INFORMATION Type or print clearly, in the space provided, ALL information requested below. 1 Applicant/operator or company name (name to be used on permit): Northern Colorado Constructors, Inc. 2. 1.1 Type of organization (corporation, partnership. etc.): Corporation Operation name (pit, mine or site name): Bennett Pit 3. Permitted acreage (new or existing site): 3.1 Change in acreage (+) 3.2 Total acreage in Permit area 4. Fees: 4.1 4.2 4.4 4.5 New Application New Quarry Application Amendment Fee Conversion to 112 operation (set by statute) 5. Primary commoditie(s) to be mined: Sand Gravel 163.32 permitted acres 163.32 acres 163.32 acres $2,696.00 $3,342.00 $2,229.00 $2,696.00 application fee quarry application amendment fee conversion fee 5.1 Incidental commoditie(s) to be mined: 1. - lbs/Tons/yr 2. / lbs/Tons/yr 3. / lbs/Tons/yr 4. / lbs/Tons/yr 5. / lbs/Tons/yr 5.2 Anticipated end use of primary commoditie(s) to be mined: Construction Aggregates 5.3 Anticipated end use of incidental commoditie(s) to be mined: N/A Name of owner of subsurface rights of affected land: Pioneer Land Company, LLC If 2 or more owners, "refer to Exhibit O". 7. Name of owner of surface of affected land: Pioneer Land Company, LLC 8. Type of mining operation: p Surface Underground 9 Location Information: The center of the area where the majority of mining will occur: COUNTY: Weld PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN (check one): ✓ 6th (Colorado) 10th (New Mexico) Ute SECTION (write number): S 12 TOWNSHIP (write number and check direction): T 2 ✓ North El South 10. RANGE (write number and check direction): R 67 East 111 West QUARTER SECTION (check one): ✓ ► LI L -I SW SECTION ch ✓ QUARTER/QUARTER (check one): NE NW SE _ SW GENERAL DESCRIPTION: (the number of miles and direction from the nearest town and the approximate elevation): 3 miles SSW of Platteville, CO. Elevation = 4835 Primary Mine Entrance Location (report in either Latitude/Longitude OR UTM): Latitude/Longitude: Example: (N) 39° 44' 12.98" (W) 104° 59' 3.87" Latitude (N): deg 40 Longitude (W): deg 104 OR Example: (N) 39.73691° (W) -104.98449° min 09 sec 34 .78 decimal (2 places) min 50 sec 54 .39 (2 decimal places) Latitude (N) (5 decimal places) Longitude(W) (5 decimal places) OR Universal Tranverse Mercator (UTM) Example: 201336.3 E NAD27 Zone 13 4398351.2 N UTM Datum (specify NAD27, NAD83 or WGS 84) Nad 83 Zone 13 Easting Northing n 3 1 1. Correspondence Information: APPLICANT/OPERATOR (name, address, and phone of name to be used on permit) Contact's Name: Company Name: Street/P.O. Box: City: State: Telephone Number: Fax Number: Chris Zadel Northern Colorado Constructors, Inc. Title: Project Manager 9075 Weld County Road 10 P.O. Box: Fort Lupton Colorado (303 (303 _ 857-1754 Zip Code: 80621 ) _ 857-2933 PERMITTING CONTACT (if different from applicant/operator above) Contact's Name: J.C. York Company Name: Street/P.O. Box: City: State: Telephone Number: Fax Number: INSPECTION CONTACT Contact's Name: Company Name: Street/P.O. Box: City: State: Telephone Number: Fax Number: J&T Consulting, Inc. Title: Principal / Owner 305 Denver Avenue, Suite D Fort Lupton P.O. Box: Colorado (303 ) _ 857-6222 303 ) - 857-6224 Zip Code: 80621 Same As Applicant/Operator Title: P.O. Box: Zip Code: CC: STATE OR FEDERAL LANDOWNER (if any) Agency: N/A Street: City: State: Zip Code: Telephone Number: ( ) - CC: STATE OR FEDERAL LANDOWNER (if any) N/A Agency: Street: City: State: Telephone Number: ( Zip Code: 4 12. Primar future (Post -mining) land use (check one): yi Cropland(CR) ral Rangeland(RL) ElResidential(RS) ___E Developed Water Resources(WR) rlPastureland(PL) ral General Agriculture(GA) jai Forestry(FR) Wildlife Habitat(WL) Recreation(RC) Industrial/Commercial(IC) jai Solid Waste Disposal(WD) 13. Primary present land use (check one : Cropland(CR) Pastureland(PL) General Agriculture(GA) ra Ra.ngeland(RL) Forestry(FR) Wildlife Habitat(WL) Residential(RS) _EIRecreation(RC) ri Industrial/Commercial( IC) Developed Water Resources(WR) i 14. Method of Mining: Briefly explain mining method (e.g. truck/shovel): Excavation by Excavator, Loader, or Dozer and taken to processing area via haul trucks and/or conveyor. 15. On Site Processing: ill_Crushing/Screening 13.1 Briefly explain mining method (e.g. truck/shovel): On -site crushing/screening fed by loader. List any designated chemicals or acid -producing materials to be used or stored within permit area: N/A 16. Description of Amendment or Conversion: If you are amending or converting an existing operation, provide a brief narrative describing the proposed change(s). N/A 1 -,y Maps and Exhibits: Two (2) complete, unbound application packages must be submitted. One complete application package consists of a signed application form and the set of maps and exhibits referenced below as Exhibits A -S, Addendum I, and the Geotechnical Stability Exhibit. Each exhibit within the application must he presented as a separate section. Begin each exhibit on a new page. Pages should be numbered consecutively for case of reference. If separate documents are used as appendices, please reference these by name in the exhibit. With each of the two (2) signed application forms, you must submit a corresponding set of the maps and exhibits as described in the following references to Rule 6.4. 6.5, and 1.6.2(1)(b): EXHIBIT A EXHIBIT B EXHIBIT C EXHIBIT U EXHIBIT E EXHIBIT F EXHIBIT G EXHIBIT H EXHIBIT i EXHIBIT J p,XI IIBIT K EXHIBIT L EXHIBIT M EXHIBIT N EXHIBIT O EXHIBIT P EXHIBIT [XI IiE3I"i R EXHIBIT S Rule 1.6.2(1)(b) Rule 6.5 Legal Description Index Map Ike -Mining and Mining Plan Map(s) of Affected Lands Mining Plan Reclamation Plan Reclamation Plan Map Water Information Wildlife Information Soils Information Vegetation Information Climate Information Reclamation Costs Other Permits and I eicenses Source of Legal Right -To -Enter Owners of Record of Affected Land (Surface Area) and Owners of Substance to be Mined Municipalities Within 'I wO Miles Proof of Mailing of Notices to County Commissioners and Conservation District Proof of Filing with County Clerk or Recorder Permanent Man -Made Structures ADDENDUM i - Notice Requirements (sample enclosed) Geotechnical Stability Exhibit (any required sections) The instructions for preparing Exhibits A -S, Addendum I, and Geotechnical Stability Exhibit are specified under Rule 6.4 and 6.5 and Rule 1.6.'(1)(b) of the Rulcs and Regulations. Ifyou have any questions on preparing the Exhibits or content ofthe information required, or would like to schedule a pre -application meeting you may contact the Office at 303-866-3567. Responsibilities as a Permittee: Upon application approval and permit issuance, this application becomes a legally binding document. Therefore, there are a number of important requirements which you, as a permittee, should fully understand. These requirements arc listed below. Please read and initial each requirement, in the space provided, to acknowledge that you understand your obligations. I f you do not understand these obligations then please contact this Office for a full explanation. 1 . Your obligation to reclaim the site is not limited to the amount of the financial warranty. You assume legal liability for all reasonable expenses which the Board or the office may incur to reclaim the affected lands associated with your iiiining operation in the event your permit is revoked and financial warranty is forfeited; d_L z v_cf_2 2. The Board may suspend or revoke this permit, or assess a civil penalty, upon a finding that the permittee violated the terms or conditions of this permit, the Act, the Mineral Rules and Regulations, or that information contained in the application or your permit misrepresent important material facts; 3. If your mining and reclamation operations affect areas beyond the boundaries of an approved permit boundary, substantial civil penalties, to you as permittee can result; 72,- 4. Any modification to the approved mining and reclamation plan from those described in approved your ppr oved application requires you to submit a permit modification and obtain approval from the Board or Office; 5. It is your responsibility to notify the Office of any changes in your address or phone number; 6. Upon permit issuance and prior to beginning on -site mining activity, you must post a sign at the entrance of the mine site, which shall be clearly visible from the access road, with the following information (Rule 3.1. l 2): a. the name of the operator; b. a statement that a reclamation permit for the operation has been issued by the Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Board; and, c. the permit number. 7. The boundaries of the permit boundary area must be marked by monuments or other markers that are clearly visible and adequate to delineate such boundaries prior to site disturbance. 8. It is a provision of this permit that the operations will be conducted in accordance with the terms and conditions listed in your application, as well as with the provisions of the Act and the Construction Material Rules and Regulations in effect at the time the permit is issued. 9. Annually, on the anniversary date of permit issuance, you must submit an annual fee as specified by Statute, and an annual report which includes a map describing the acreage affected and the acreage reclaimed to date (if there arc changes from the previous year), any monitoring required by the Reclamation Plan to be submitted annually on the anniversary date of the permit approval. Annual fees are for the previous year a permit is held. For example, a permit with the anniversary date of July 1, 1995. the annual fee is for the period of July 1 1994 through June 30. 1995. Failure to submit your annual fee and report by the permit anniversary date may result in a civil penalty, revocation of your permit, and forfeiture of your financial warranty. It is your responsibility, as the permittee, to continue to pay your annual fee to the Office until the Board releases you from your total reclamation responsibility. 10. 1 -or joint ‘enitire'partnership operators: the signing representative is authorized to sign this document and a power of attorney (provided by the partner(s)) authorizing the signature of the representative is attached to this application. NOTE TO COMMENTORS/OBJECTORS: It is likely there will be additions, changes, and deletions to this document prior to final decision by the Office. Therefore, if you have any comments or concerns you must contact the applicant or the Office prior to the decision date so that you will know what changes may have been made to the application document. The Office is not allowed to consider comments, unless they are written, and received prior to the end of the public comment period. You should contact the applicant for the final date of the public comment period. If you have questions about the Mined Land Reclamation Board and Office's review and decision or appeals process, you may contact the Office at (303) 866-3567. Certification: As an authorized representative of the applicant, I hereby certify that the operation described has met the minimum requirements of the following terms and conditions: 1. To the best of my knowledge, all significant, valuable and permanent man-made structure(s) in existence at the time this application is filed, and located within 200 feet of the proposed affected area have been identified in this application (Section 34-32.5-1 15(4)(e), C.R.S.). 2. No mining operation will be located on lands where such operations are prohibited by law (Section 34-32.5-115(4)(f), C.R.S.: 3. As the applicant/operator, I do not have any extraction/exploration operations in the State of Colorado currently in violation of the provisions of the Colorado Land Reclamation Act for the Extraction of Construction Materials (Section 34-32.5-120, C.R.S.) as determined through a Board finding. 4. I understand that statements in the application are being made under penalty of perjury and that false statements made herein are punishable as a Class 1 misdemeanor pursuant to Section 18-8-503, C.R.S. This form has been approved by the Mined Land Reclamation Board pursuant to section 34-32.5-112,CR.S., of the Colorado Land Reclamation Act for the Extraction of Construction Materials. Any alteration or modification of this form shall result it voiding any permit issued on the altered or modified form and subject the operator to cease and desist orders and civil penalties for operating without a permit pursuant to section 34-32.5-123, C R.S. Signed and dated this Z ZlieLL day of Northern Colorado Constructors, Inc. P Applicant/Operator or Company Name Signed: Title: State of a -pit, rCuj 0 ss. County of UJ2LcL ) If Corporation Attest (Seal) Corporate Secretary or Equivalent Town/City/County Clerk The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ?e?"artel day of ()a. QC_ Mber ?ULM by J o11" IVI. • - as Pits\ cie.&k- MELISA HANSFORD NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF COLORADO NOTARY ID 20074038662 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES OCT.14, 2019. Notary Public of UoMi. ten C'c(oredo 6214 t tr)IPCM/S, -c My Commission expires: LOA y// et SIGNATURES MUST BE IN BLUE INK You must post sufficient Notices at the location of the proposed mine site to clearly identify the site as the location of a proposed mining operation. The following is a sample of the Notice required for Rule 1.6.2(1)(b) that you may wish to use. NOTICE This site is the location of a proposed construction materials operation. (Name of the Applicant/Operator) whose address and phone number is (Address and Phone Number of the Applicant/Operator) Northern Colorado Constructors 'nc 9 9075 Weld County Road 10. Fon Lupton. CO 80621 (303) 357.1754 5 has applied for a Reclamation Permit with the Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Board. Anyone wishing to comment on the application may view the application at the (County Name) Weld County Clerk and Recorder's Office, (Clerk and Recorder's Office Address) 1150 0 Street, Greeley, CO 80632 , and should send comments prior to the end of the public comment period to the Division of Reclamation. Mining, and Safety, 1313 Sherman St, Room 215, Denver, Colorado 80203. Certification: '1'' h elscihereby certify that Iposted a signcontaining y the above notice for the proposed permit area known as the (Name of Operation) Bennett Pit , on (Date Posted) 12. 122- i! 6 StGMATURE Iztzz..l1(0 DATE EXHIBIT A Legal Description The permit boundary is located in the SE quarter of Section 1 and North 1/2 of Section 12, Township 2 North, Range 67 West of the Sixth P.M. in Weld County, Colorado as described below. The TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING being the NW corner of Section 12, Township 2 North, Range 67 West of the 6th P.M.; Thence along the north line of Section 12, S 88° 55' 48.64" E for a distance of 2623.10 feet to the SW corner of the SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4, Section 1, Township 2 North, Range 67 West of the 6th P.M Thence along the west line of the SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4, Section 1, N 00° 13' 17.41" E for a distance of 1330.46 feet to the NW corner of the SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4, Section 1; Thence along the north line of the SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4, Section 1, S 89° 00' 32.02" E for a distance of 1311.89 feet to the NE corner of the SW 1 of the SE 1/4, Section 1; Thence along the east line of the SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4, Section 1, S 00° 14' 02.00" W for a distance of 1332.22 feet to the NE corner of the NW 1 of the NE 1/4, Section 12, Township 2 North, Range 67 West of the Sixth P.M.; Thence along the east line of the NW '/4 of the NE 1/4, and the east line of the SW 1/4 of the NE I/4, Section 12, S 00° 05' 20.86" E for a distance of 2616.53 feet to the SE corner of the SW '/4 of the NE 1, Section 12; Thence along the south line of the SW 1 of the NE 1/4, and the south line of the SE '/4 of the NW 1/4, Section 12, N 89° 13' 33.57" W for a distance of 1798.13 feet to a point on the south line of the SE % of the NW 1/4, Section 12; Thence, N 07° 54' 52.00" W for a distance of 561.90 feet to the beginning of a curve; Said curve turning to the right through an angle of 01° 09' 00.20", having a radius of 11,459.30 feet, and whose long chord bears N 07° 20' 22.00" W for a distance of 230.01 feet to a point of intersection with a non -tangential line; Thence, N 06° 48' 52.00" W for a distance of 1739.33 feet to a point on a line; Thence N 88° 56' 03.65" W a distance of 1827.00 feet to a point on the west line of the NW 1, Section 12; Thence, N 00° 09' 16.80" W for a distance of 119.96 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. Said permit boundary includes 163.32 acres +/-. ill Consulting, Inc. Northern Colorado Constructors Bennett Pit DRMS 112 Permit Application EXHIBIT B Vicinity Map itt Consulting, Inc. Northern Colorado Constructors Bennett Pit DRMS 112 Permit Application 2 co O O r- r - O N O CO r- r- C_ U_ C P:116116 Bt TO02N ROb7W 305 Denver Avenue - Suite D Fort Lupton, CO 80621 303-857-6222 CR 22 1 /2 rlimEr Exhibit B 2000 1000 SCALE IN FEET Northern Colorado Constructors, Inc. Bennett Pit Vicinity Map Drawn: 07.14.16 16116 CMSH 2000' Of: 1 EXHIBIT C Pre-Mining/Mining Plan Map See attached map. Lactry, I O v .car- s; Z -e d • P(ecxsed s o See. ri i r pQ4trCleo IL 1 j&T Consulting, Inc. Northern Colorado Constructors Bennett Pit DRMS 112 Permit Application EXHIBIT D Mining Plan Mining Limits The permit boundary will encompass a total of approximately 163.32 acres. An aggregate processing plant area and a concrete and asphalt batch plant area will be located within the mining area as shown on the Mining Plan Map. These areas will contain stockpiles and storage bins and silos as necessary to support the plant operations. Designated locations for concrete truck washout and excess concrete product dumping will be provided to ensure that waste materials are recycled and kept from entering the stormwater flows on the site. The concrete truck washout area will be a 30 foot by 20 foot three cell concrete structure. Concrete trucks will wash the residual product from their mixing drums and chutes into the first cell of the structure. The first cell spills into the second cell, which spills into the third cell. This allows the aggregate and suspended fines to settle into the cells over time. The water and settled material in the three cells is then removed as required and recycled into the concrete batch plant. Generally, the cells are cleaned on a weekly schedule. The excess product dumping area will be approximately 50 feet by 100 feet and have an exterior berm to limit the migration of stormwater flows to and from the surrounding areas. Excess product that is deposited in this area will be allowed to cure for approximately 90 days until it becomes inert. It will then be crushed and recycled. All local, State, and Federal rules and regulations will be followed for the storage and handling of any fuel, asphalt, cement, flyash, and admixtures required for the batching facilities. Various setbacks from adjacent roads, adjacent structures, and oil and gas infrastructure will be maintained as mining occurs. All setbacks specified in the surface use agreements with the oil/gas companies will be followed. Attached are draft surface use agreements with the pertinent oil/gas companies. The final executed agreements are expected to be obtained in the near future and will be forwarded to the Division when they are available. A minimum 150 foot setback from any existing oil/gas facility will be maintained until that time. See the Mining Plan Map, and the Slope Stability Report for the mining limit configuration and information on setbacks and their locations. P roducts S and and gravel will be the primary product produced from the mining activities, and gold will be the incidental product produced from the mining activities. The principal intended use for the sand and gravel will be as construction aggregates. S ubsurface drilling and testing has verified that the site contains a significant commercial deposit of sand and gravel. The depth of the soil and overburden ranges from 2 to 10 feet. The depth of the aggregate material ranges from 2 to 52 feet. 1 Consulting. Inc. Northern Colorado Constructors Bennett Pit DRMS 112 Permit Application Mining Methods The deposit will be dry mined and a slurry wall will be constructed around the perimeter of the mining area prior to exposing groundwater. Design specifications for the slurry wall and quality control procedures used during construction will ensure that the reclaimed reservoir meets State Engineer's Office (SEO) performance standards. To enable dry mining there will be a dewatering pond / process water pond installed in each cell as it is mined. The depth of the ponds will vary as the mining progresses deeper into the alluvium in order to maintain the groundwater level below the active mining bottom surface, and therefore minimize the exposed groundwater surface area. Dewatering flows from the ponds will be pumped into either the slough on the west side of the site which discharges into the South Platte River, or directly into the river. Water from these ponds will be also be pumped to the processing plant and used for washing of the mined material. Water exiting the wash plant will be carried by a trench to a sedimentation pond. After sedimentation, the clean water will be discharged to the slough. The equipment and facilities may include, but are not limited to the following: Processing Equipment Screens, crusher, conveyors, stackers, and other miscellaneous processing equipment. Earth Moving Equipment Dozers, loaders, scrapers, excavators, and compactors will be used for mining and earth moving operations. Miscellaneous Equipment Dewatering pumps, electrical trailer, generator trailer, small portable generators and watering trucks will be used as needed. As mining progresses, topsoil and overburden will be stripped to expose the aggregate product below. All soil and overburden material will be used on -site for reclamation or sold; so long-term stockpiling of these materials is not anticipated. Overburden stockpiles will be located within the proposed mining area. Mining of the aggregate will progress down to the underlying bedrock. Since reclamation will occur concurrently with mining, it is not anticipated that overburden will be stockpiled long-term prior to use in the reclamation slopes and in production of road base. The mining face will have a 3H:1 V slope from the top of the mining slope to the bottom of the future reclaimed reservoir. The processed aggregate material will be temporarily stockpiled near the processing plant. All local, State, and Federal rules and regulations will be followed for the storage and handling of any fuel for the facilities. Topsoil Handling Plan As stated previously the topsoil will be stripped to expose the aggregate product underlying the topsoil. The average depth of the topsoil is approximately twelve inches over the mining areas. The topsoil will be stripped using scrapers and stockpiled in a topsoil stockpile on the west side of the south cell area, adjacent to the access road. The total volume of topsoil in the mining area that will be stripped is approximately 165,000 cubic yards. The majority of this volume will be sold, with a sufficient quantity retained in the stockpile to reclaim the phases as mining is completed. Approximately 25%, or 42,000 cubic yards, will be stockpiled at any given time & IConsulting, Inc. Northern Colorado Constructors Bennett Pit DRMS 112 Permit Application during the mining activities. The topsoil stockpile is anticipated to be approximately 20 to 25 feet tall. Mine Phasing NCCI anticipates mining and reclaiming the site in 2 phases, taking approximately 10 to 15 years. Phase 1 will include mining the north cell area, constructing the access road, implementing the plant site areas, and an area along the west side of the south cell for a topsoil / overburden storage stockpile. Phase 2 will include mining the south cell area. Annual production is expected to be between 500,000 to 750,000 tons depending on market demands. The topsoil/overburden stockpile will remain on the site during the duration of the mining activities. The topsoil/overburden stockpile will be placed parallel to the floodplain in order to limit the effects on it. hi Consulting, Inc. id I Northern Colorado Constructors Bennett Pit DBMS 112 Permit Application SURFACE USE AGREEMENT This Surface Use Agreement ("Agreement") is made and entered into effective this day of , 2016, by and between , with an address of , (hereinafter referred to as "Owner") and Kerr-McGee Oil & Gas Onshore LP, whose address is 1099 18th Street, Suite 1800, Denver, CO 80202 (hereinafter referred to as "KMG" or "Operator"). Owner and Operator are sometimes referred to each as a "Party" or collectively as the "Parties." WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Owner owns the surface estate described on Exhibit A attached hereto (the "Lands"); and WHEREAS, Owner has plans to develop portions of the Lands which plans may include mining for , commercial, industrial and other development; and WHEREAS, there are existing Oil and Gas Leases covering the mineral estate beneath the Lands ("Existing Leases"); and WHEREAS, there are existing Kerr-McGee wells on the Lands, including the Glover 12-27D, Glover V 12-18D, and Kuipers V 12-2 ("Existing Wells"); and WHEREAS, Operator plans to drill future oil and gas wells on the Lands at different times from two (2) Oil and Gas Operations Area (OGOAs), inclusive of a Permanent Operations Area and Ancillary Area as defined herein, in accordance with the terms of this Agreement ("Wells"); WHEREAS, the parties seek to minimize the impact from KMG's drilling on the mining of the Lands by agreeing that KMG will drill the Wells in locations other than those required by Rule 318A of the COGCC's Rules and Regulations; and NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows: 1. Right of Use. Owner hereby agrees to set aside and grants to Operator the exclusive right to use the OGOAs, flowline easements, electrical easements and pipeline easements ("Easements") as set forth herein and as reflected on Exhibit B. The OGOAs and Easements are for exclusive use by Operator, its agents, employees, drilling contractors, and related service companies, subject to the terms of this Agreement which provides below in Sections 1, 5, and 6 for non-exclusive use of roads and easements, for the purpose of drilling, completing, and producing one or more oil and gas Wells. The OGOAs and related easements for access, flow line and electrical facilities may be used to construct and maintain one or more access roads ("Access Roads"), well sites, tank batteries, and pipelines in connection with the oil or gas Wells to be drilled by Operator upon the Lands (each a "Facility" or collectively, the "Facilities"), all in accordance with, and subject to the limitations set forth in, this Agreement. Owner reserves the right to use all access roads, and all surface and subsurface uses of the Lands, with the exception of the OGOAs, and to grant successive easements on or across the Lands, with the exception of the OGOAs, on such terms and conditions as Owner deems necessary or advisable, provided that Owner's use and all other uses authorized by Owner do not unreasonably interfere with the operations of Operator, as determined by Operator. Owner shall not occupy or mine any portion of the OGOAs for any purpose, it being specifically agreed that the OGOAs are for the exclusive use of Operator except as provided in this Agreement. Operator acknowledges that the Ancillary Area outside the Permanent Operations Area may be used by Owner for the planting and maintenance of shallow -root landscaping provided that Operator shall have no liability for damage to such landscaping and that such landscaping shall not unreasonably interfere with Operator's operations on the Lands. Operator acknowledges that Owner may place perpendicular utility crossings within flowline, pipeline, waterline, and electric easements so long as such crossings do not unreasonably interfere with the operations of Operator and are constructed in accordance with Kerr-McGee Gas Gathering LLC ("KMGG") construction guidelines, such guidelines attached hereto as Exhibit D. Owner further grants and conveys to KMG the right to drill horizontal, vertical, or directional oil and gas wells on the OGOA that may produce, drain and transport oil, gas and other hydrocarbons from the Wells and the Lands, as well as oil and gas from lands other than the Lands covered by current and future oil and gas Lease(s) that includes all or a portion of the Lands or leases that are not pooled with the leases for the Lands. Specifically, Owner agrees KMG may use the OGOAs, the Access Roads, Easements, and Facilities to produce oil and gas Wells not on the Lease or the Lands; provided however, the OGOAs and the setbacks set forth in this Agreement shall not be expanded in area for operations to explore, drill, complete and produce minerals outside the Lands. 2. Release of Surface Rights. In consideration of this Agreement and in consideration of Ten Dollars ($10.00), the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, KMG hereby permanently releases to Owner all of KMG's rights to enter upon, access, or otherwise use the surface of the Lands, including but not limited to the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission ("COGCC") established Greater Wattenberg Area drilling windows located in the NENW, NWNE, SWNE, and a portion of the Center of the NE of Section 12, Township 2 North, Range 66 West West and SESW of Section 1, Township 2 North Range 66 West, Weld County, Colorado, except as otherwise provided in this Agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, KMG expressly reserves, retains and excludes from this release of surface rights all of its working interests in all zones, depths, and formations or any other mineral interest it may own currently or in the future in the Lands. KMG reserves all necessary subsurface easements to produce the mineral estate in the Lands and adjacent lands. KMG reserves a subsurface easement for passage of any portion of a wellbore including the right to occupy and use the subsurface and the subsurface pore space displaced by the wellbore and the subsurface casing, pipe, and cementing appurtenant thereto. KMG retains and reserves in connection with its mineral rights in the Lands the right to develop through vertical, horizontal or directional drilling or otherwise its mineral interest from the OGOAs, provided, however, such mineral interest development is consistent with this Agreement. 3. Oil and Gas Operations Area ("OGOA"). KMG shall have the right to drill Wells on the Lands through the use of two (2) OGOAs as depicted on Exhibit B. The two (2) OGOAs shall be utilized for drilling, completion, reworking/recompleting and production activities. Additionally, there shall be Easements discussed herein below. As shown in greater detail on Exhibit B, the OGOAs shall be as follows: A. OGOAs located in the [specific quarter sections] of Section , Township 2 North Range 66 West, Weld County, Colorado: Each OGOA shall include a Permanent Operations Area consisting of 10 acres and an Ancillary Area of approximately acres. Respective setbacks are reflected on Exhibit B and are agreed as set forth below in Section 3(e). The parties understand that ground water issues and site conditions may require KMG to import more material to stabilize the operations area to make such area conducive to drilling and production activities. In the event Operator is unable to utilize the entire Permanent Operations Area and Ancillary Area in the [specific quarter sections] of Section , Township 2 North Range 66 West Weld County, Colorado as depicted on Exhibit B, for whatever reason, including permit or regulatory issues with the COGCC, the State, County, Army Corp of Engineers, the Town of Fort Lupton or any other governmental or regulatory entities that retain jurisdiction over such approval, the Parties agree that said OGOA shall be replaced with another location on the property or alternative property provided by the Owner. The new locations selected will need to accommodate current technological limitations as well as be economically feasible for the Operator. The Parties agree to the following concerning the respective Permanent and Ancillary Operations Areas within the OGOAs as depicted on Exhibit B. (a) The Permanent Operations Area. The Permanent Operations Area shall be the area the Operator may locate all future wells to be drilled within the property and may also be used for the location of tanks, separators, dehydrators, compressors and all other associated oil and gas drilling and production equipment and facilities, flowlines, electrical equipment, temporary above ground waterlines and portions of pipeline easements and for all related oil and gas operations and facilities and other industry standard facilities as may be authorized by COGCC permit, rules and regulations. The Permanent Operations Area is for the exclusive use of the Operator for its oil and gas operations and the location of Wells and Facilities. Prior to drilling and completions activities, maintenance of the Permanent Operations Area shall be the responsibility of the Owner. Once Operator commences surface disturbing activities associated with drilling and completions. Operator will assume responsibility for maintenance of the Permanent Operations Area. (b) The Ancillary Operations Area. The Ancillary Operations Area shall be the area the Operator may conduct operations related to the preparation, drilling and completion of wells to be drilled at locations within the OGOA and for the temporary location of drilling and production equipment and facilities for such wells. Except for portions of flowlines, access roads and pipeline easements and related electric and water lines, the Operator may not locate wells or permanent production facilities within the Ancillary Operations Area without the permission and consent of Owner, but may use the Ancillary Operations Area only for temporary uses related to the drilling and completion of wells and the temporary location of drilling and production equipment and facilities. Owner may not put any above ground permanent structures in the Ancillary Area. Owner is responsible for maintenance of the Ancillary Area and agrees to keep said area reasonably free of weeds and debris after interim reclamation is complete. Operator will only be responsible for maintenance of the Ancillary Area during times of operations in the Ancillary Area. (c) To facilitate Operator's subsequent operations on the Wells located within the Permanent Operations Area, Owner agrees not to construct any permanent structures or improvements, including landscaping (other than native grasses not requiring irrigation) within the Permanent Operations Area or Ancillary Operations Area. The Operator shall in no event be liable for damages to such landscaping caused by its oil and gas operations. (d) Owner and Operator agree that applicable setbacks are those shown on Exhibit B. If not otherwise depicted on Exhibit B, then applicable setbacks shall be 500 feet from each Permanent Operations Area to associated roads and 500 feet between any production equipment and a building or building unit. (e) To the extent permitted by applicable law, Owner waives any or all of Fort Lupton's oil and gas regulations that become inconsistent with this agreement, including any local rules and regulations that the town/City has implemented. (f) In the event that the COGCC, State, County, Army Corp of Engineers, the Town of Fort Lupton or any other governmental or regulatory entities that retains jurisdiction authority, refuses to approve the OGOAs as described herein and depicted on Exhibit B, Owner and Operator shall then engage in good faith negotiations to determine alternate locations for the rejected OGOA(s) and shall amend this Agreement to remain consistent with its purposes as provided herein. The new locations will be selected upon evaluation of current technological limitations as well as economic feasibility as determined by KMG and a modification of operations will not be unreasonably withheld by Owner. 4. Extraction in Vicinity of Oil and Gas Operations Areas; Setback Requirements In the event that Owner elects to mine the sand, gravel, and aggregate within 150' of an OGOA, Owner shall notify KMG in writing no less than sixty (60) days prior to commencing mining operations and shall first place temporary concrete barriers around any Well or Facility as directed by KMG prior to commencing any mining operations on the Lands. Owner shall not stockpile topsoil, overburden, or any construction aggregate materials within the OGOAs. In the event that KMG intends to drill a Well or construct Facilities within the OGOA prior to any mining by Owner, it shall give Owner written notice of its intent to drill at least sixty (60) days prior to the date upon which KMG could commence drilling. The 60 -day notice period may be waived by Owner in which case KMG may commence its operations immediately. The 60 -day period shall commence upon Owner's receipt of KMG's written notice of intent to drill a Future Well. Owner and KMG agree that at the end of the 60 -day period, KMG may commence its operations without additional notice to Surface Owner. At the end of the 60 -day period KMG shall have priority to drill Wells in the OGOAs and it may require Owner to adjust temporarily the timing and location of mining adjacent to affected portions of Oil and Gas Operations Areas as reasonably necessary or convenient to conduct oil and gas operations in a safe and efficient manner. Owner hereby agrees that KMG may, in the construction of its drillsites for the Wells, excavate and use such top soils and overburden as may be necessary for the construction of the drillsites. Prior to the construction of the drillsites, KMG and Owner will consult as to the extent of any such excavation, which will be subject to the prior approval of Owner. To the extent KMG may require sand, gravel or any other processed construction aggregate material for its operations it shall endeavor to purchase such products from Owner or its affiliate. 4. Regulatory Requirements. Provided Owner is in compliance with this Agreement, Operator agrees that it will not object, oppose or seek to prevent Owner from (i) obtaining any required approvals and/or permits to develop the Lands for such mining, commercial, industrial and other uses as currently proposed, or (ii) so developing the Lands, subject to Operator's rights under this Agreement. If necessary, Operator agrees to provide written support for Owner's applications as long as it is consistent with this Agreement. Likewise, provided Operator is in compliance with this Agreement, Owner will not oppose any permit application Operator submits to the COGCC or any state or local entity having jurisdiction of some or all of Operator's activities hereunder or under applicable Oil and Gas Leases so long as said application or permit is consistent with this Agreement, and, if necessary, Owner will reflect its support, in writing or as necessary, to applicable local government designees ("LGDs") or others to permit or obtain approvals concerning Operator's activities on the Lands and adjoining oil and gas development. As provided in COGCC Rule 318A or any successor rule or amendment adopted by the COGCC, or in any rule or ordinance of a local jurisdiction, relating to the location of wells within the Greater Wattenberg Area (GWA), Owner hereby consents to, and waives its right to protest or object to surface well locations that are outside of designated GWA windows and surface well locations that are more than 50 feet from an existing well. Owner understands and acknowledges that rules and regulations of the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission ("COGCC") govern the distance between a wellhead and public roads, production facilities, buildings, building units and surface property lines, among other things. To the fullest extent possible, Owner and its successors and assigns hereby waive all setback and notification requirements in COGCC Rules 305, 306, 603 and 604 and any successor rules or amendments, including Exception Zone setbacks and any other state or local setback requirements or other laws, requirements or regulations that would prohibit or interfere with the rights of Operator and its successors and assigns to explore for and produce oil and gas from the Lands and to locate wells and production facilities anywhere on the Lands. Owner further agrees not to object to the location of wells and production facilities on the Lands on the basis of setback requirements in the noted COGCC rules and regulations and any state or local setback requirement. Owner and its successors and assigns acknowledge that Operator and its successors and assigns may cite the waivers in this Waiver in order to obtain exceptions and variances from the COGCC or from any other state or local body having jurisdiction over oil and gas operations. Owner and its successors and assigns agree that this Waiver satisfies any requirement for a waiver, consent to an exception or variance signed by the Owner, Building Unit Owner (as that term is defined in the COGCC Rules and any successor rules or amendments), homeowner or the like and agrees that Operator and its successors and assigns may provide a copy of this Waiver to the COGCC or to any other state or local body in satisfaction of such requirement. In addition, Owner and its successors and assigns, agree to execute and deliver to Operator and its successor and assigns any additional consents and waivers requested, including waivers required from Building Unit Owners, homeowners and the like, required for the exploration and production of oil and gas from the Lands and the location of wells and production facilities on the Lands. In addition, Owner shall provide notice to all buyers and assignees of an interest in the Lands (or any portion thereof), including all builders, property owners, property owners' associations, and special districts (each, a "Future Owner") of the existence of this Waiver. In addition, Owner will notify Future Owners that, as successors in interest to Owner, Future Owners will be bound by this Waiver and will assume the obligations undertaken by Owner pursuant to this Waiver, including but not limited to the waiver of all setbacks and the obligation to provide notice to subsequent Future Owners. It is expressly understood and agreed by Owner and Operator that the waivers, notice requirements and the obligations assumed by Future Owners as set forth in this Waiver are, and shall be construed to be, covenants that run with the Lands. As a condition to any sale or assignment of the Lands (or any portion thereof) by Owner and its successors and assigns, Owner and its successors and assigns will require that the buyer or assignee provide to Operator and its successors and assigns all waivers required in the preceding section of this Agreement. 5. Road Construction and Use. Subject to Section 1 and 3 above, any roads constructed or used by Operator on the Lands shall be constructed or used to the following specifications: (a) Access is included but not limited to that which is depicted on Exhibit B. So long as Operator does not interfere with Owner's mining plans, it may use access points from property other than the Lands, in order to fully develop the Wells and the OGOAs. (b) Unless paved, the surface of all roadways shall be made of compacted gravel, and shall comply with all regulations or laws applicable to such roadways. All interior roadways, within the OGOAs, shall not exceed thirty (30') feet in width for traveled surface. All roadways along the section lines of the Lands shall be thirty (30') feet in width for traveled surface. Operator shall control dust from all private and public (subject to COGCC and local governmental approval) roadways through the application of an appropriate dust suppressant. Any roads constructed by Operator shall be improved as 4 may be necessary and Owner and Operator agree that once surface development begins, the parties will consult with each other and agree on how the roads used in the operations of the oil and gas activities will be merged into the development roads. Any shared roads authorized by Owner to be used by other parties within the development that require upgraded material for transitions between standard oil and gas roads (streets, aprons and sidewalks) will be paid for by the Owner or future developers of the Lands. (c) If requested by Owner, access to the Lands of Owner from any public road, or from the land of any adjoining Landowner, shall be controlled by a swinging metal gate in addition to a cattle guard. (e) Unless provide otherwise herein, the use and construction of roads by Operator on the Lands is a non-exclusive use, and Owner may allow other parties to use said roads so long as such use does not unreasonably impede Operator's activities in the OGOAs and Operator consents to such use, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. Operator may charge third parties for use of the roads and Operator shall have the right to assess other non-agricultural users of the roads (except for Owner) for their share of maintenance work performed by Operator. (f) Owner may lock gates across its private roads so long as such gates do not impede Operator's activities in the OGOAs and provided that Operator shall have the right to place its own locks on such gates. (h) Owner shall have the right to relocate any roads in the future at Owner's cost and expense so long as Operator has convenient and uninterrupted access. 6. Pipelines, Flowlines, Waterline, and Electrical Easements. Subject to Section 1 and 3, any pipelines constructed by Operator on the Lands shall be constructed and maintained to the following specifications: (a) Subject to the limitations herein, KMG and KMGG or other designated gas gatherer, has a continuing right and entitlement to own, operate, maintain, repair and replace all flowlines, gathering lines and other pipelines that may be necessary or convenient to their operations on the Lands. KMG and KMGG shall also be entitled to locate temporary above ground waterlines. Although this Agreement is intended to generally confine the placement of pipelines or other necessary lines to certain specified locations within the Lands, nothing herein shall be construed as a limitation on the rights of KMG, KMGG or other designated gas gatherer's ultimate right to make all necessary well connections to any well that is drilled on or falls within the Lands or lands adjacent thereto. (b) Pipeline Easements shall be at the locations identified on Exhibit B so long as practical and feasible. If a certified survey has not been completed for an existing pipeline or future pipeline, the locations of such pipelines as depicted on Exhibit B are approximate locations. In the event that KMG or KMGG prepares a certified survey for a pipeline, KMG and KMGG shall furnish a copy of the survey to Owner upon its written request. (c) Locations of pipelines and easements may be changed by mutual agreement of Owner and KMG or KMGG; provided, however, all costs and expenses of such relocations shall be borne by the Party which requests the relocation. KMG or KMGG, as applicable, and Owner shall enter into a separate relocation agreement for the relocation of pipelines and easements, all costs and expenses of such relocations to be paid by the Party which requests the relocation. Pipeline easements shall be as depicted on Exhibit B attached hereto for all operations, maintenance and transportation activities. Within the OGOAs, KMG may locate pipelines at its sole discretion. (d) Owner shall have the right to cross pipeline easements with roadways and other utilities; provided that, such crossing is made at an angle of between 60 degrees and 90 degrees. Unless stated otherwise in this Agreement, Owner shall also have the right to install and maintain easements that are both adjacent to and within the easements identified herein, for utility lines, including those for water, gas, sewer, electric, telephone, cable, television, and fiber optic and other pipelines. Owner will notify each utility company that, except in cases of emergency, KMG must be contacted at least ten (10) business days prior to commencement of any trenching or digging activities within ten feet (10') of KMG's easement areas. (e) Owner acknowledges that it has received a copy of a document from KMG titled "General Guidelines for Design and Construction Activities On or Near Kerr-McGee Gathering LLC and Kerr-McGee Rocky Mountain Corporation Pipelines and Related Facilities" with which Owner agrees to comply and that is attached hereto as Exhibit D. (f) Owner shall grant the pipeline easements reflected on Exhibit B (for production from the Property and/or other adjacent lands) to KMG or, at the request of KMG, to KMGG, at the time KMG request them and at no cost to them, such pipeline right-of-way grant to be substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit C and consistent with this Agreement. (g) Owner will provide KMG with at least thirty (30) days advance written notice before it begins to pave streets and access routes where intrusion upon access routes and/or pipeline easements provided for herein may occur in order to allow KMG or KMGG, as applicable, the opportunity to lay new pipelines that cross underneath the streets or access routes. If Owner fails to provide notice required herein, 5 and commences paving or other activity which requires KMG to bore underneath the paved streets and access routes to lay new lines, then KMG is entitled to reimbursement from Owner for such boring costs. (h) If Owner's development plans anticipate that roadways will or may in the future cross over pipelines that are then installed on the Property, Owner will pothole or request that KMG pothole the existing pipelines to check the depth of such pipelines. Prior to Owner's installation of a new roadway, KMG or KMGG will lower, the affected pipelines to sufficient depth for the road elevations at Owner's expense. This will include the reasonable cost of inspecting and lowering the pipelines, as well as the reasonable cost of any sub -grade work required to achieve the road construction specifications. Owner shall not install the portion of the road that crosses a pipeline until the pipeline has been lowered. To avoid this occurrence, and to the extent pipelines are not otherwise installed, the Parties, when possible, will coordinate installation of new roads with the installation of new pipelines, and Owner will provide KMG engineered drawings identifying road elevations so that KMG can endeavor to locate its pipelines at such a depth that pipelines will not have to be lowered. (1) The top of each pipeline shall be buried at least forty-eight inches (48") below the surface of the ground and shall be constructed in such a manner to safely permit Owner to construct roads and utilities over such pipeline in such locations as may be designated by Owner and shall be double ditched with soil compaction and restoration of topsoil to the surface. Owner shall not allow any stockpile of soil to be placed over any Pipeline of KMGG. (j) Owner will not allow any extraction to occur, commencing at the surface of the original ground, closer than twenty-five feet (25') from any Pipeline of KMGG unless a soils stability report prepared by an engineer licensed in the state of Colorado indicates that a lesser setback will be adequate for preservation of the integrity of said Pipeline and provided that upon completion of such extraction, Owner shall back fill and level the area within twenty-five feet (25') from any Pipeline. Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, in no event shall Owner allow any extraction to occur, commencing at the surface of the original ground, closer than fifteen feet (15') from any Pipeline without KMGG's prior written approval. Owner reserves the rights to occupy, use, and cultivate the lands affected by such pipelines, and to grant such rights to others, so long as such use does not interfere with Operator's operations or rights and easements granted in the Agreement. No habitable structures may be built by Owner within fifteen (15) feet of any pipeline or within the pipeline easement. (k) In the event that such relocation is necessary to Owner's use of the Lands, and provided mutually acceptable alternate locations are agreed upon in writing by Owner and Operator, Owner may request that Operator relocate any roads, pipelines, power lines, or other surface or underground facilities (excluding any Well) upon hundred and eighty (180) days prior written notice to Operator. Operator will consider such relocation so long as the alternative location is technologically and operationally feasible. All relocation expenses will be borne by Owner and Operator will not be required to move any of its facilities until provision has been made for the payment of such expenses to the reasonable satisfaction of Operator. (I) Owner grants to KMG the right to locate on the Lands at the locations shown on Exhibit A an easement and right of way for above -ground and subsurface utilities for use related to operations on the Lands. Owner agrees to execute, when requested by KMG, the form of easement and right-of-way attached to this Agreement and labeled Exhibit E. 7. Power Lines. Subject to Section 1 and 3 above, any power lines constructed on the Lands shall be constructed and maintained to the following specifications: (a) Operator will consult with Owner and with the independent power company with respect to the location of power lines prior to construction, and shall obtain Owner's written consent for such locations which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. Power lines will be constructed so as to cause the least interference reasonably possible with Owner's existing and planned future uses of the Lands, and, to the extent reasonably possible, power lines will be constructed along fence lines, roads, access roads, flowlines, pipelines or property lines. Owner shall be entitled to receive payment from Operator's electricity provider for power lines. (b) Buried power lines shall be installed at least thirty-six (36) inches below the surface of the ground, and shall be constructed in such a manner to safely permit Owner to construct roads and utilities over such power line in such locations as may be designated by Owner. (c) At the time of construction or installation Operator agrees that when reasonably possible it will not construct power lines that will interfere with irrigation in those portions of the Lands which are developed or are being irrigated or cultivated or which may, in the future, be developed or irrigated or cultivated or which are fallow as part of a crop rotation or management program. (d) Operator or its electrical supplier may install above ground poles or electric facilities located within thirty (30) feet of an existing overhead power line and above ground circuit boxes and transformers within the OGOA, easements, including but not limited to pipeline, waterline, and electrical easements, and the Production Equipment Area. 8. Temporary Waterlines. Subject to Section 1 and 3 above, any above ground water lines constructed on the Lands shall be constructed and maintained to the following specifications: 6 (a) In addition to those lines anticipated in 6(b), temporary above ground pipeline easements shall be at the locations agreed upon by the parties and/or identified on Exhibit B. If a certified survey has not been completed for existing and future pipeline corridors, the locations of such pipelines as depicted on Exhibit B are approximate locations. In the event that KMG or KMGG prepares a certified survey for a pipeline, KMG and KMGG shall furnish a copy of the survey to Owner upon its written request. (b) Temporary waterline easements can be used by the operator during the duration of the hydraulic fracturing and completion life cycle of the Wells drilled in the identified OGOAs. This easement shall be as depicted on the Exhibits attached hereto for all operations, maintenance and transportation activities. (c) Locations of waterline easements may be changed by mutual agreement of Owner and KMG; provided, however, all costs and expenses of such relocations shall be borne by the Party which requests the relocation. KMG or KMGG, as applicable, and Owner shall enter into a separate relocation agreement for the relocation of pipelines and easements, all costs and expenses of such relocations to be paid by the Party which requests the relocation. Owner may use the Above Ground Waterline Easements for grazing, agricultural and landscaping during those times that the area is not being used by the Operator for its oil and gas operations and/or its temporary location of facilities; provided, however, Operator shall in all events and at all times have priority in the use of the easements. The Operator shall in no event be liable for damages to such landscaping areas caused by its oil and gas operations. 9. Subsurface Easements Surface Owner hereby grants and conveys to KMG and its successors and assigns, non-exclusive, perpetual subsurface easements through the Lands for the placement of wellbores for the purpose of drilling, operating and producing oil and gas wells that produce and drain hydrocarbons from other lands. Upon request of KMG or its successor and assigns, Surface Owner agrees to execute, acknowledge and deliver to KMG and its successor and assigns separate subsurface easements reflecting the foregoing grant on the form attached to this SDA as Exhibit F. 10. Drilling and Completion Operations KMG shall diligently to pursue any drilling operations to minimize the total time period and to avoid rig relocations or startup during the course of drilling. Surface Owner waives any objection to continuous (i.e., 24 -hour) drilling operations, so long as such continuous operations are consistent with or have been approved by the COGCC, Weld County, and any other governmental authority with jurisdiction over KMG' s operations. 11. Designated Contact Person. Operator and Owner will each from time to time designate an individual, with appropriate 24 -hour telephone and fax numbers, who is to be the primary contact person for discussions and decisions concerning matters related to this Agreement. Current contact information is as follows: Owner: Operator: Kerr-McGee Oil & Gas Onshore, LP 1099 18t Street, Suite 1800 Denver, CO 80202-1918 Phone: 720-929-6000 Attn: Wattenberg Surface Land Manager 12. Limitation of Liability, Release, and Indemnity. a. Except as to claims arising out of pollution or environmental damage (which claims are governed by Section 13 below) or out of other provisions of this Agreement (which claims shall be governed by the terms of this Agreement), each party shall be and remain responsible for its own liability for all losses, claims, damages, demands, suits, causes of action, fines, penalties, expenses and liabilities, including without limitation attorneys' fees and other costs associated therewith (all of the aforesaid herein referred to collectively as "Claims"), to the extent such Claims arise out of or are connected with such party's ownership or operations on the Property, no matter when asserted, subject to applicable statutes of limitations. Operator and Owner shall release, defend, indemnify and hold the other parties, their officers, directors, employees, successors and assigns harmless against any and all such Claims. This provision does not, and shall not be construed to, create any rights in persons or entities not a party to this Agreement, nor does it create any separate rights in parties to this Agreement other than the right to be indemnified for Claims as provided herein; b. This Agreement may be assigned, provided that the assignee shall expressly assume all duties and obligations hereunder. Upon the assignment or conveyance of a party's entire interest in the Property, that party shall be released from its indemnification or responsibility in Section 12.a. above, for all actions or occurrences happening after such assignment or conveyance. c. KMG's and KMGG's obligation to indemnify as stated herein shall cease in all manner and respect upon the termination of the Leases or operations (whichever occurs later) that are being conducted pursuant to this Agreement. Owner's obligation to indemnify as stated herein shall cease in all manner and respect upon the date of release of the reclamation bond Owner is required to post with the Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Board before commencing its mining operations on the Lands. 13. Environmental Indemnity. 7 The provisions of Section 12 above shall not apply to any environmental matters, which shall be governed exclusively by the following: a. "Environmental Claims" shall mean all Claims asserted by the parties, governmental bodies or other third parties for pollution or environmental damage of any kind, arising from operations on or ownership of the Lands or ownership of the oil and gas leasehold interest, whichever is applicable, and all cleanup and remediation costs, fines and penalties associated therewith, including but not limited to any Claims arising from Environmental Laws or relating to asbestos or to naturally occurring radioactive material. Environmental Claims shall not include the costs of any remediation undertaken voluntarily by any party unless such remediation is performed under imminent threat to health or safety. b. "Environmental Laws" shall mean any laws, regulations, rules, ordinances, or order of any governmental authority(ies), which relate to or otherwise impose liability, obligation, or standards with respect to pollution or the protection of the environment, including, but not limited to, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, as amended (42 U.S.C. § 9601 et seq.), the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (42 U.S.C. §§ 6901 et seq.), the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. §§ 466 et seq.), the Safe Drinking Water Act (14 U.S.C. §§ 1401 1450), the Hazardous Material Transportation Act (49 U.S.C. §§ 1801 et seq.), the Clean Air Act, and the Toxic Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 2601 2629). c. Environmental Indemnification. KMG shall protect, indemnify, and hold harmless the other parties from any and all Environmental Claims relating to the Lands or oil and gas leasehold thereunder that arise out of KMG's leasehold interests, including but not limited to operation of the OGOA, KMG's ownership and operation of its Wells, Facilities, Pipelines, and Easements or KMG's rights -of -way on the Property. Owner shall protect, indemnify and hold harmless the other parties from any and all Environmental Claims relating to the Lands that arise out of their respective development or use of the Lands. d. Without limiting the foregoing, if the presence of any contamination or hazardous material on the Lands caused or permitted by Operator or Owner results in any contamination of the Lands, Owner or Operator, respectively, shall promptly take all actions, at its sole expense, as are necessary to return the Lands to the condition existing prior to the introduction of any such environmental contamination or hazardous material to the Lands. 14. Exclusion from Indemnities The indemnities or benefits of the parties herein shall not cover or include any amounts which the indemnified or benefiting party is actually reimbursed by any third party. The indemnities or benefits in this Agreement shall not relieve any party from any obligations to third parties. 15. Notice of Claim for Indemnification If a Claim is asserted against a party for which another party would be liable under the provisions of Section 12 or 13 above, the indemnified party shall give the indemnifying party written notice of such Claim setting forth all particulars of the Claim, as known by the indemnified party, including a copy of the Claim (if it is a written Claim). The indemnified party shall make a good faith effort to notify the indemnifying party within five (5) days of receipt of a Claim and shall affect such notice in all events within such time as will allow the indemnifying party to defend against such Claim. 16. Assignment. This Agreement shall run with the Lands and shall be assigned by Operator in connection with any assignment of Operator's oil and gas leasehold rights under all or a portion of the Lands described on Exhibit A. 17. As is/Where is. Operator acknowledges that it is aware of all natural and manmade hazards on the Lands. Operator takes the Lands subject to all such hazards, as is, where is. 18. Recording and Covenant Running with Land. Owner and Operator will jointly execute a Memorandum of this Agreement for the purpose of placing third parties on notice of this Agreement. The parties understand and agree that the Memorandum of this Agreement and any amendments thereto will be recorded in Weld County, Colorado at the sole cost and expense of Operator. This Agreement constitutes a covenant running with the Land and will be binding upon and inure to the benefit of, and be enforceable by, the Owner and Operator and their respective successors, representatives, affiliates, administrators, trustees, executors and assigns. 19. Notice to Property Owners and Builders. Owner shall deliver to all buyers of the Lands a plat or map showing the proposed Wells, OGOAs, access roads and easements identified on Exhibit B. In addition, Owner shall provide notice to all builders, property owners, property owners' associations, special districts and other buyers of the Lands that: (a) There may be ongoing oil and gas operations and production in the OGOAs on the surface of the Property including drilling of additional wells; (b) Heavy equipment may be used by KMG from time to time for oil and gas production operations and that such operations may be conducted on a 24 hour basis upon access roads and within the OGOAs; (c). If applicable, future purchasers of all or a portion of the Lands, as successors in interest to Owner, will be acquiring a proportionate interest in Owner's rights under this Agreement and assume those obligations undertaken by Owner pursuant to this Agreement; and 8 (d) Property owner associations, special districts and buyers of individual lots, as successors in interest to Owner, will be subject to the waivers contained herein, and the covenants contained prohibiting the location of any building or structure within the OGOAs or the easements and waiving objection to any setback rules of the COGCC or any local jurisdiction (e) Owner may comply with such notice obligation by including the above items as notes on the final plat of proposed development. 20. Title and Authority. Owner represents and warrants to KMG that Owner is the sole owner in fee simple of the surface estate of the Lands and has fully power, right, and authority to enter into, execute and deliver this Agreement and authorizations granted herein. 21. Binding Effect. This Agreement is binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the successors and assigns of the parties. 22. Counterparts. This Agreement may be signed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be considered an original for all purposes, with the same effect as if the signatures thereto and hereto were upon the same instrument. 23. Term. This Agreement shall continue until the termination of the relevant Oil and Gas Lease covering the Lands, and leases in which the Lands may be pooled, or which allow for development of these or adjacent lands, at which time this Agreement shall terminate. All of Operator's obligations and liabilities under this Agreement shall survive the termination of the relevant said Oil and Gas Lease. 24. Applicable Law. This Agreement shall be construed under the laws of the State of Colorado. 25 Authority of Signatories. The signatories below declare, warrant and represent that they have the authority to enter into this Agreement on behalf of their respective principals, if any. 26. Successors. This Agreement constitutes a covenant running with the Lands and will be binding upon and inure to the benefit of, and be enforceable by, the Parties and their respective successors, affiliates, administrators, trustees, executors and assigns. 9 DATED as of the year and date first above written. OWNER: By: ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: STATE OF ) ss. COUNTY OF The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2016, by individually, and as Witness my hand and official seal. [SEAL] Notary Public My Commission Expires: 10 OPERATOR: KERR-MCGEE OIL & GAS ONSHORE, LP By: Name: Ronald H Olsen Title: Agent and Attorney in Fact STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. COUNTY OF The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2016, by Ronald H Olsen as Agent and Attorney in Fact of Kerr-McGee Oil & Gas Onshore, LP. Witness my hand and official seal. [SEAL] Notary Public My Commission Expires: 11 KERR-MCGEE GATHERING LLC ,011k By: Name: Title: STATE OF ) ss. COUNTY OF The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2016, by as of Kerr-McGee Gathering LLC. Witness my hand and official seal. [SEAL] Notary Public My Commission Expires: EXHIBIT A To Surface Use Agreement [The Lands] EXHIBIT B To Surface Use Agreement [Oil and Gas Operations Area] 13 EXHIBIT C To Surface Use Agreement [Pipeline Right -of -Way Grant] RIGHT-OF-WAY GRANT THIS RIGHT-OF-WAY GRANT ("Grant) is made this day of , 20_, from with an address of ("Grantor") to KERR-MCGEE GATHERING LLC, a Colorado limited liability company, whose address is 1099 18th Street, Suite 1800, Denver, Colorado 80202 ("KMGG"). The parties agree as follows: For and in consideration of Ten Dollars ($10.00) and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, Grantor hereby grants, conveys and warrants unto "KMGG", its successors and assigns, an exclusive perpetual right-of-way and easement to survey, construct, maintain, inspect, operate, repair, replace, relocate, modify, change the size of, reconstruct, mark, monitor, abandon or remove and release, at KMGG's election, one or more pipelines, electric power lines, data transmission lines and equipment, and all appurtenances, below and/or above ground, necessary or convenient for the transportation or transmission of oil, gas, petroleum products, water, electricity, electronic data, hydrocarbons and any other substances, whether electronic, fluid, solid or gaseous, and any products, derivatives, combinations or mixtures of any of the foregoing, in, on, over, under, or through the lands situated in County, State of Colorado, being described as follows: TOWNSHIP NORTH, RANGE WEST Section : The specific route and course of the right-of-way and easement conveyed hereby ("Right -of -Way Lands") are more particularly described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof The parties have agreed that the width of the Right -of -Way Lands is seventy five (75') feet during construction, and subsequent to the activities described immediately above, the width of the Right -of - Way Lands will be fifty feet (50'). After the initial construction of the pipeline(s) KMGG may require, from time to time, temporary additional work space parallel and adjacent to the Right -of -Way Lands to survey, construct, maintain, inspect, operate, repair, alter, replace, modify, change the size of, reconstruct, mark, monitor, abandon or remove the pipeline(s) together will all appurtenances. Grantor agrees to negotiate in good faith with KMGG to allow KMGG the use of this temporary additional work space. The Grantor represents and warrants to KMGG that Grantor is the sole owner in fee simple of the Right -of -Way Lands, subject to the burden of the Right -of -Way and has full right, power and authority to enter into this Grant. The pipeline(s) constructed hereunder shall be placed at a depth of not less than 36 inches below the surface of the ground. Grantor agrees not to increase or decrease the surface elevation on the Right - of -Way Lands without KMGG's prior written permission. KMGG shall repair and/or restore any fence on or adjacent to the Right -of -Way Lands removed or severed by KMGG in the course of the operations provided for in this Grant to the condition such fence was in prior to the removal by KMGG. If necessary to prevent the escape of Grantor's livestock, KMGG shall construct temporary gates or fences in those areas affected by KMGG's operations as provided for in this Grant. To the extent reasonably practicable and within a reasonable period of time after completion of construction, KMGG shall level and restore any lands affected by KMGG's operations that have excessive settling and shall sufficiently compact the soil to the condition that existed at the time immediately prior to the placement of KMGG's pipeline(s). Grantor agrees not to build, create, construct or permit to be built, created or constructed, any obstruction, building, fence, reservoir, engineering works or other structures or improvements over, under, on or across the Right -of -Way Lands without the prior written consent of KMGG. The Grantor shall have the right to cross pipeline easements with roadways and other utilities provided that such crossing is made at an angle of not less than 60 degrees and not more than 90 degrees. Grantor shall also have the right to install and maintain easements that are both adjacent to, and/or within, the pipeline easements for utility lines, including those for water, gas, sewer, electric, telephone, cable, television, and fiber optic and other pipelines; provided, however: i) any new underground facilities that travel along a pipeline easement shall be located a distance horizontally of at least ten (10) feet from parallel existing pipelines; ii) any new underground facilities shall have at least twenty-four (24) inches of vertical clearance between such new facility and a pipeline; and iii) any overhead power lines shall be at least 14 twenty (20) feet above the ground. Grantor agrees that it will notify each utility company that, except in case of emergency, KMGG must be contacted at least ten (10) business days prior to commencement of any trenching or digging activities within ten (10) feet of their easement areas. KMGG shall have all rights, privileges, and benefits necessary or convenient for the full use and enjoyment of this Grant including access to the Right -of -Way from the roads shown on Exhibit A. KMGG shall be obligated to pay for, repair, replace or otherwise compensate Grantor for any damages resulting from KMGG's activities and operations on the Right -of -Way Lands, except for any damage to structures or improvements placed in the Right -of -Way Lands contrary to the terms contained herein; and, Grantor shall pay for, reimburse, indemnify and hold KMGG harmless from any and all claims or damages resulting from Grantor's activities on the Right -of -Way Lands. Grantor shall have the right to use and enjoy the Lands, subject to the rights herein granted. This Grant cannot be modified, except by an instrument in writing signed by Grantor and the authorized representatives of KMGG. The rights granted herein may be assigned in whole or in part, and the terms, conditions, and provisions of this Grant are a covenant running with the land and shall extend to and be binding upon the successors, and assigns of Grantor and KMGG. KMGG shall record an original of this Right -of -Way Grant in the records of the County in which the Right -of -Way Lands are located. By recording this Right -of -Way Grant, KMGG shall be deemed to have accepted all of the terms and conditions hereof This Grant may be executed in counterparts each of which shall be considered one and the same agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Grantor has executed and delivered this Right -of -Way Grant as of the date first above written. Grantor: By: STATE OF ) ss. COUNTY OF The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this Witness my hand and official Seal. day of ,20_,by Notary Public My Commission Expires: 15 • • 16 0 EXHIBIT D To Surface Use Agreement 441/4(firjr err Gee General Guidelines for Design and Construction Activities On or Near Kerr- McGee Gathering LLC & Kerr-McGee Rocky Mountain Corporation Pipelines and Related Facilities This list of design, construction and contractor requirements. including but not limited to the following, is fcr the design and installation of foreign utilities or improvements on Kerr McGee Gathering LLC (KMG) right-of-way (ROW). ishese are not intended to, nor do they waive or modify any rights K11G may have under existing easements or ROW agreements_ For information regarding KMG's rights and requirements as they pertain to the existing easements. please reference existing easements and amendments documents. This list of requirements S applicable for KMG facilities on easement. and in road rights of ways only. Enoachments on fee property should be referred to the Land & ROW Department. My reference to KMG in the below requirements is meant to include and apply to any Kerr McGee entity Design • KIMG shall be provided sufficient prior notice of planned activities involving excavation, blasting, or any type of construction on KMG's ROW or near its facilities. This is to determine and resolve any location, grade or encroachment problems and allow for the protection of KMG's facilities and the general public. This prior notification is to be made before the actual work is to take place. $ The encroaching entity shall provide KMG with a set of drawings for review and a set of final oonstnuction drawings showing all aspects of the proposed fa ities in the vicinity of KMG's ROW. The encroaching entity shall also provide a set of -as-built drawings' and submit to KMG, showing the facilities in the vicinity of KMG's ROW upon completion of the work. • Only facilities shown on drawings reviewed by KMG will be approved for installation on KMG's ROW. Al drawing revisions that affect facilities proposed to be placed on KMG s ROW must be approved by K MG in writiing_ KMG shall approve the design of all permanent road crossings • Any repair to surface facilities following future pipeline maintenance or repair work by KMG on its `prior rights" ROW will be at the expense of the developer or landowner. In addition, any repair to surface facilities fo4owing future pipeline maintenance or repair work by KMG on replacement ROW granted to relocate KMG facilities will also be done at the expense of the developer or landowner unless expressly addressed in surface use agreements and approved in writing by PaiG. + The depth of cover over the KMG pipelines shall not be increased or reduced nor surface modified for drainage without Ivti1G s written approval. ▪ Construction of any permanent structure within les1G pipeline easement is not remitted without written approval by KMG. • Planting of shrubs and trees is rot permitted on Kfr1G pipeline easement without written approval by KMG. • Irrigation equipment i.e. back -flow prevent devices, meters, valves, valve boxes. etc. shall not be located on KMG easement without written approval by KT.1G. • Foreign utility installations, lE, distribution gas. oil and gas gathering, water, electric, telephone, cable and sewer line, etc., may cross perpendicular to KUG's pipeline within the ROW. provided that a minimum of eighteen inches (18') of vertical clearance is maintained between KMG pipeliine(s) and the foreign utility. Any installation by a foreign utility with less than IS. of vertical separation is not allowed without written approval by KMG. In no case win vertical separation be less than 1T whether written or not_ Constant line elevations must be maintained across KMG's entire ROW width, gravity drain lines. are the only exception and must be approved in writing. Foreign line crossings below the KMG pipeline must be evaluated by KMG to ensure that a significant length of the KMG tine is not exposed and unsupported during construction. Foreign line crossings above the KMG pipeline with less than 1$' of clearance must be evaluated by KMG to ensure that additional support is not necessary to prevent settling on top of the KIVIG natural gas pipeline. A KMG representative must be on she during any crossing activities to verify clearance depths and to assure the integrity and support of the KMG facility. All installations of foreign crossings done by boring and or jacking require the KMG facility to be exposed to verify clearances. Pace 1 of 4 Revision 310112001 0 [Pipeline Guidelines] Ken=!'#Gee General Guidelines for Design and Construction Activities On or Near Kerr- McGee Gathering LLC & Kerr-McGee Rocky Mountain Corporation Pipelines and Related Facilities • Foreign utilities shall not run parallel to KMG pipelines within the KMG easement without valuer. permission by Klh1G. A minimum of 10.0 feet of horizontal separation must be maintained in parallel installations whether the foreign utility is placed within the KMG easement or adjacent to the KMG easement Any deviation from the 10.0' horizontal requirement must be approved in writing by KMG and an as but surveys' provided to KMG after installation • The foreign utility should be advised that KMG maintains cathodic protection on its pipeline_ and facilities. The foreign utility must coordinate their cathodic protection system with KMG's_ At the request of KMG, foreign utilities shall install (or allow to be installed) cathodic protection test leads at all crossings for the purposes of monitoring cathodic protection in 0P 1. The KMG CP technician and the foreign utility CP technician shall perform post construction CP interference testing. Interference issues shall be resolved by mutual agreement between foreign utility and KMG. All costs associated , the correction of cathodic protection interference issues on KMG pipelines as a result of the foreign utility crossing shall be borne by the foreign utility for a period of one year from date the foreign utility is put in service_ + The developer shall understand that KMG whether specifically required per federal law, or by company standard, will mark the routing of its underground facilities with aboveground pipeline markers and test leads and maintain those markers and test lead. flarkers will be installed at every point the pipeline route changesdirection and adequate markers will be installed on straight sections of pipeline to insure, in the sole opinion of KMG, the safety of the public contractor, KMG personnel and KMG facilities. • On all foreign utility crossings and r or encroachments, metallic foreign lines shall be coated with a suitable pipe coaling for a distance of at least 10 feet on either side of the crossing. • AC Electrical lines must be installed in conduit and property insulated. • On all foreign pipelines, DOT approved pipeline markers shall be installed so as tc indicate the route c4 the foreign pipeline across the KMG ROW. • No power poles, light standards, etc. shall be installed in the KMG easement without written approval by KMG. + K lG installs above ground appurtenances at various locations that are used in the operation of its facilities. Kerr McGee will install protective enclosures at the above ground appurtenances to protect them from outside damage. The design and placement of these above ground appurtenances and protective enclosures is done at KMG's sole discretion, and may exceed any regulatory requirements. Construction • If KMG will be relocating KMG facilities for any entity, grading in the new KMG ROW shall be +I- 6 inches before KMG will mobilize to complete the relocation. Final cover after the completion of the project will net be less than 48" nor more than 77. All cover that exceeds 72" or less than 48' will be approved in writing by KMG Cover during all construction activities will NEVER be less than 38' unless approved in writing and a KMG representative is on site during the time cover is reduced. • The entity requesting relocation shall survey top of pipe after installation but before bacldtti to determine proper final elevation of KLIG facilities. The entity requesting relocation is solely responsible for the final depth of cover over the relocated KMG facility. Any deviation from cover requirements as outlined above will be corrected at the sole expense of the entity requesting relocation. • Contractors she be advised of 1441G's requirements and be contractually obligated to comply • The continued integrity of KMG's pipelines and the safety of all individuals in the area of proposed work near KMG's facilities are of the utmost importance. Therefore_ contractor must meet with KIM representatives prior to oortst w11 n to provide and receive notification listings for appropriate area operations and emergency personnel KMG's on -site representative will require discontinuation of any work that, in his or her opinion, endangers the operations or safety of personnel, pipelines or facilities. Page 2 c f 4 Revision 3/O b2004 Alt Gee General Guidelines for Design and Construction Activities On or Near Kerr- McGee Gathering LLC & Kerr-McGee Rocky Mountain Corporation Pipelines and Related Facilities • The Contractor must expose all KMG pipelines prior to crossing to determine the exact alignment and depth of the lines. A KMG representative must be present • The use of probing rods for pipeline locating shall be performed by KMG representatives only, to prevent unnecessary damage to the pipeline coating. A KMG representative shall do all fine locating. • Notification shall be given to KMG at least 72 hours before start of construction. A schedule of activities for the duration of the project must be made available at that time to facilitate the scheduling of KMGs work site representative. Any Contractor schedule changes shall be provided to KMG immediately. • Heavy equipment vrill not be elloveed to operate directly over KMG pipelines or in KL4G ROW unless written approval is obtained from KMG. Heavy equipment shall only be allowed to cross 1I.1G pipelines at locations designated by KMG. Haul roads will be constructed at all crossings. The haul roads will be constructed using lightweight equipment. The existing depth of cover over the pipeline must be verified. Cover will be added such that a total of 8' of fill exists over the pipeline and extends a minimum of 1D' on each side of the pipeline_ Depth of cover will then taper as required for equipment access_ Steel plates may be used for load dissipation only if approved in writing by KMG. • Contractor shall comply with all precautionary measures required by KMGJO its sole discretion to protect it pipelines. When inclement weather exists. provisions must be made to compensate for soil displacement due to subsidence of tires • Excavating or grading which might result in erosion or which could render the KMG ROW inaccessible shall not be permitted unless the contractor agrees to restore the area to its original condition and provide protection to KMG's facility. At no time will cover be reduced to less than 36' without written approval by KMG and a KMG representative on site. • A KMG representative shall be on -site to monitor any construction activities within twenty --free (25) feet of a KMG pipeline or aboveground appurtenance. The contractor shall not work within this distance without a KMG representative being on site. Contractor shall use extreme caution and take any appropriate measures to protect KMG facilities. • Ripping is only allowed when the position of the pipe is known and not within ten (13) feet of KIM facility. KK,AMG personnel must be present. • Temporary support of any exposed KMG pipeline by Contractor may be necessary if required by KMG's on -site representative. Backfrll below the exposed lines and 12" above the lines shall be replaced with sand or other selected material as approved by KMGs on site representative and thoroughly compacted in 12' lifts to 95% of standard proctor dry density minimum or as approved by KMG 's on -site representative. This is to adequately protect against stresses that may be caused by the settling of the pipeline. • No blasting shall be allowed within 1000 feet of KMGs facilities unless blasting notification is given to KMG Including complete Blasting Plan Data. A pre -blast meeting shall be conducted by the organization responsible for blasting. laiG shall be indemnified and held harmless from any loss, cost of liability for personal injuries receiveddeath caused or property damage suffered or sustained by any person resulting from any blasting operations undertaken within 5&J feel of its facilities. The organization responsible for blasting shall be liable for any and all damages caused to KMG's facilities as a result of their activities whether or not KMG representatives are present. KMG shall have a signed and executed Blasting Indemnification Agreement before authorized permission to blast can be given. Nc blasting shall be allowed within 2C0 feet of KMG's facilities unless blasting notification is given to KMG a minimum of one week before blasting. The organization responsible for blasting must complete Blasting Plan Data. KMG shall review and analyze the blasting methods_ A written blasting plan shall be provided by the organization responsible for blasting and agreed to in writing by KMG. A written emergency plan shall be provided by the organization responsible for blasting. Page 3 of 4 Revision 3101/2001 19 0 kr,Ari KeriNt-Gee General Guidelines for Design and Construction Activities On or Near Kerr- McGee Gathering LLC & Kerr-McGee Rocky Mountain Corporation Pipelines and Related Facilities IQW$G shall have a signed and executed Blasting Indemnification Agreement before authorized permission to blast can be given. A pre -blast meeting shall be conducted by the organization responsible for blasting. ▪ Any contact with any KMS facility, pipeline, valve set, etc. shall be reported immediately to KitolG. If repairs to the pipe are necessarythey vrill be made and inspected before the section is re -coated and the line is back -filled. • 'CMG personnel shall install all test leads on KLIG fa lilies. Local Kerr-McGee Gathering LLC Representation: Field Foreman: Brad Engler Foreman Don Marshall Pipeline Foreman: Thomas Ishida Emergency Contacts: IOC (Incident Operations Center — Toll Free DC (Incident Operations ggater,,�, Local Utility Notification Center of Ccorada Phone: Q70-515-1307 Phone: 97D -525-130Q Phone: 97D-525-1271 Phone: Ce£ 5D4-8184 Phone: 970-5C+3-EQ8a Phone: Ell Page 4 of 4 Revision 10112004 EXHIBIT E To Surface Use Agreement RECORDING INFORMATION ABOVE GRANT OF EASEMENT (collective known as "Grantor"),whose address is , in consideration of Ten Dollars ($10.00) and other valuable consideration, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, grants and conveys unto "GRANTEE", whose address is , its successors and assigns, subject to all pre-existing permitted uses, a perpetual easement and the right to construct, operate, maintain, replace, enlarge, reconstruct, improve, inspect, repair and remove electrical and communication facilities for the purpose of transmission or distribution of electricity and appurtenances thereto, as may from time to time be useful to, or required by Grantee, on, over, under, and across the following described property in the County of Weld, State of Colorado to -wit: Easement description as set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Those facilities will be overhead, underground and / or at grade and may include, but not be limited to, poles, cables, conduits, wire, conductors, transformers, manholes and supports of whatever materials, including braces, guides, and other fixtures or devices used or useful in connection therewith. Grantee shall have the right of ingress and egress over and across the lands of the Grantor to and from the above described property, and the right to clear and keep cleared all trees and obstructions as may be necessary. The right and authority of Grantee hereunder may be exercised by its successors, assigns, licensees, contractors and permitees. Grantor reserves the right to occupy, use, and landscape said easement for all purposes not inconsistent with the rights granted to Grantee so long as said use does not damage or interfere with the Grantee's facilities or the maintenance, repair and replacement thereof After the date of this Grant of Easement, Grantor shall not install permanent structures or facilities of any kind on, over, under, or across said easement without the written approval of Grantee. Grantee shall pay Grantor for any damages to fences, crops, landscaping and personal property caused by the construction and maintenance of Grantee's facilities. Upon completion of construction, Grantee shall restore the surface of Grantor's property as nearly as practicable to the same condition that existed prior to construction. SIGNED AND SEALED BY GRANTOR this day of , 20 GRANTOR • 21 ******************************************* STATE OF ) )ss COUNTY OF ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of by Witness my hand and official seal. Notary Public My commission expires EXHIBIT "A" This Exhibit "A" attached to and made part of that certain Grant of Easement dated the _ day of , 20 by and between 5 whose address is , as "Grantor", , as "Grantee" in and for the new pipeline described below. INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK An as -built survey will be completed by a professional land surveyor and placed in this space prior to the document being recorded with the County Clerk. 0 23 Ii • • • 24 9 EXHIBIT F To Surface Use Agreement SUBSURFACE EASEMENT AGREEMENT This SUBSURFACE EASEMENT AGREEMENT (this "Agreement") dated and effective , 20 (the "Effective Date") is from ("Surface Owner"), having an address of , Colorado , to KERR-MCGEE OIL & GAS ONSHORE LP, a Delaware limited partnership ("KMG"), having an address of 1099 18t Street, Suite 1800, Denver, CO 80202, and its successors and assigns. RECITALS A. Surface Owner owns all of the right, title and interest in and to the surface estate described as follows: Township North, Range West of the 6th P.M. Section : (the "Property") B. Surface Owner intends by this Agreement to grant KMG a perpetual subsurface easement to drill through the Property as provided herein. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows: 1. Grant of Subsurface Easement Surface Owner hereby grants and conveys to KMG, its successors and assigns, a perpetual subsurface easement under and through the Property for the placement of wellbores through the Property for the purposes of drilling, completing and producing oil and gas wells. 2. Assignment The rights granted herein may be assigned in whole or in part, and the terms, conditions, and provisions of this Grant are a covenant running with the land and shall extend to and be binding upon the successors and assigns of Surface Owner and KMG. 3. Memorandum KMG or its successors and assigns may, but shall not be required to, record a memorandum showing the location of the subsurface easement under and through the Property. 4. Counterparts This Agreement may be executed in counterparts each of which shall be considered one and the same agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement as of the day first written above. KERR-MCGEE OIL & GAS ONSHORE LP By: By: Name: Name: Title: STATE OF COUNTY OF Agent & Attorney -in -Fact ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ) ss. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 20, by as Agent & Attorney -in -Fact for Kerr-McGee Oil & Gas Onshore LP. Witness my hand and official seal. Notary Public My Commission Expires: 25 STATE OF ) ) ss. COUNTY OF ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 20, by Witness my hand and official seal. Notary Public My Commission Expires: 26 EXHIBIT E Reclamation Plan Reclamation Limits The mine will be reclaimed as a slurry . wall lined water storage reservoir with two cells. The configuration of the final reclaimed reservoir will be as shown in Exhibit F, Reclamation Plan Map. Methods and Criteria of Reclamation Activities At this time a slurry wall design has not been completed. A copy of the slurry wall design will be submitted to the Division when it is complete. This liner will satisfy the requirements of the "State Engineer's Guidelines for Lining Criteria for Gravel Pits." Reclamation Timing A phased and cumulative bonding approach is proposed to ensure that NCCI has posted sufficient bond to reclaim the site at any point during the mining activities. Each reservoir cell will be reclaimed upon the completion of the mining of the cell. See Exhibit L, Reclamation Cost, for details of the phased reclamation costs. ,l& I Consulting, Inc. 1 Northern Colorado Constructors Bennett Pit DRMS 112 Permit Application EXHIBIT F Reclamation Plan Map See attached map. L. arty.1 avers; zed neat pleases 45e,e- Or i di ra.t, po*s_r IL IJ&'T Consulting, Inc. Northern Colorado Constructors Bennett Pit DRMS 112 Permit Application EXHIBIT G Water Information Introduction The Bennett Pit is located in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 1 and the North 1/2 of Section 12, Township 2 North, Range 67 West of the 6th P.M. in Weld County, Colorado. The proposed mining site is located directly adjacent to the west side of the South Platte River, as shown on Figure G-1. The operation will consist of sand and gravel production and will impact the South Platte River in the form of depletions due to evaporation and operational losses associated with mining. Mining of the Bennett Pit will last for approximately 10-15 years. Once reclamation is complete, a reservoir will be created with 2 cells with a total surface area of approximately 98 acres. The depth to groundwater ranges from five to eleven feet. The site will be mined down to approximately 52 feet, thus exposing groundwater to the atmosphere. This exposed groundwater, along with the operational losses associated with the extraction of sand and gravel deposits, will impact the South Platte alluvial aquifer. These impacts will cause river depletions that must be augmented. To enable dry mining at Bennett Pit, there will be a dewatering pond / process water pond installed in each cell as it is mined. These ponds will be 100 feet x 100 feet. Water from these pond will be used for washing of the mined material. Water exiting the wash plant will be carried by a 200 feet x 6 feet trench to a 0.25 -acre sedimentation pond. After sedimentation, the clean water will be discharged to the slough on the west side of the site, which outlets directly into the South Platte River. Water Requirements Water use at the Bennett Pit will include evaporation from exposed groundwater, dust control of haul roads and stockpiles, and water retained in material removed from the site. Evaporative Loss Evaporative losses are dependent on the exposed water surface area, which may shift throughout the mining operation, but will not exceed the maximum.. Exposed surface area at the Bennett Pit will include groundwater exposed in the dewatering / process water ponds, wash water discharge ditch, and sedimentation pond. The maximum exposed surface area at the site during mining is estimated at 0.5 acres. NCCI will keep the site dewatered throughout the life of the mine. Evaporation data was taken from NOAH Technical Report NWS 33, Evaporation Atlas for the 48 Contiguous United States. The annual gross evaporation was determined to be 45 inches for this location. Monthly evaporation percentages are established by guidelines set by the State Engineer's Office. To determine precipitation, data from the National Weather Service for both the Fort Lupton weather station (1950-1975) and the Brighton weather station (1976-2005) were used. Missing data was replaced with the average for the period. The long-term average precipitation at Bennett Pit is estimated at 13.4 inches. Effective precipitation is calculated as ('()insulting, Inc. Northern Colorado Constructors Bennett Pit DRMS 112 Permit Application 70% of the total precipitation. The net evaporation is the difference between gross annual evaporation and effective precipitation. The resulting net evaporation is 3.0 feet. The maximum evaporative loss from the 0.5 acres is 1.5 ac -ft. Operational Loss The average annual production from the Bennett Pit site is estimated at 625,000 tons. Using 4% moisture content, the total associated consumptive use for water retained in the material mined is 18.4 ac -ft. Dust control use is 10,000 gal/day, 5 days/week, 4 weeks/month for 10 months of the year. This equates to 6.2 ac -ft. Maximum operational loss is estimated to be 24.6 ac -ft. The maximum annual consumptive use at this site during the mining operation is estimated to be 26.1 ac -ft Replacement Water The replacement of consumptive uses will be accounted for in a substitute water supply plan (SWSP) that NCCI will submit for approval to the State Engineer. NCCI will not expose groundwater until approval of the SWSP for the Bennett Pit is obtained from the State Engineer. Surrounding Water Rights Figure G-1 shows the permitted wells within 600 feet of the site. The well information and locations were obtained from the Well Look database at the Division of Water Resources and water rights tabulation. This well and water rights information was cross checked with the State's CDSS. Between the sources, all permitted and decreed wells are included. Table G-1 is a corresponding list of wells as numbered in Figure G-1. Water Quality An application for an NPDES Permit will be submitted to the Water Quality Control Division at the Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment for the Bennett Pit. Impacts to Groundwater/Hydrologic Balance NCCI will monitor the groundwater levels surrounding the site and provide groundwater recharge via perimeter ditches/ponds if necessary. Because NCCI will be constructing a slurry wall liner around each phases prior to mining, the surrounding groundwater levels should not be adversely affected during the mining. If monitoring well readings indicate that a significant change to groundwater levels outside the mine occurs, a perimeter drain pipe will be designed and installed to mitigate the changes in groundwater levels. NCCI will discharge dewatering flows into existing adjacent ditches or directly to the river to limit the disturbance to the surrounding lands. Li 1 La Consulting, inc. Northern Colorado Constructors Bennett Pit DRMS 112 Permit Application P:116116 Bennt 24 1/2 1'A NIN WCR 24 600 C PERM 01 c FT OFFSET OF T BOUNDARY ---\, (1"1* **C6 MINING PERMIT BOUNDARY Cl CC WCR 22 1/2 • S C 0 )2N RO67W id i j&T Consulting, Inc. 305 Denver Avenue - Suite D Fort Lupton, CO 80621 303-857-6222 (4) 12, Figure G-1 1000 500 0 PLATTE tft i 1000 SCALE IN FEET Northern Colorado Constructors, Inc. Bennett Pit Surrounding Wells Date: 11.29.16 Job No: 16116 Drawn: CMSH Scale: 1" = 1OOO Sheet: 1 br: 1 't 0 a) CO i— c_ Q Q Q U C9 0 N o m us) o� Nl"-- D_ %—i N CD O 00 Tel N lD O 00 O L11 CO O 00 r1 N CD O 00 CC_YCC C. O Q O _ a U t CO O a O _ a O a D STRUCTURE ID WELL NAME OWNER ADDRESS O J J J J J CD Q N v U D O cn C) CC 4 4_, al L 4-# +-1 .4--+ LL LL LL LL LL LL 1S t709 00E Xo9 Z Th 92Z Xo9 'O'd EZ 2IDM 917T T EZ 2iJM 9TOTI L a) 4J >(0 O c O in Howard and Veronica Cantrell William Lewis Ronald F Zaruba John Kuipers Rollie J Vincent Rollie J Vincent 11176 Well Zaruba 2-67-1 Sump #2 CO d' Lmn 00 NJ 00 N N L Lc) m Cr) N N in 0 M l D o0 U , LL 1 ri N CO Cr Ln LID 2 Cl_ L9 O O ri N lD O 00 C O 4-0 -J 40 LL U_. 00 N ri LID N c O ro O c No Additiona 00 EXHIBIT H Wildlife Information A Threatened and Endangered Species screening was conducted for the site by Ecological Resource Consultants for all Federal and State listed threatened and endangered species. See the attached Screening Report for details on their findings and opinions of the impact that the mining operation will have on wildlife in the area. During the course of the screening, potential habitat for the Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse was observed within the South Platte River and Meadow Island Levee Ditch No. 1 areas on the site. Mining activities are not planned in these areas so this species will not be adversely affected by the mining activities. A portion of an active black -tailed prairie dog colony was observed on the western portion of the site. This is potential habitat for the Western Burrowing Owl between March 15 and October 31. Mining activities in this area will ensure that the owls are not adversely affected. ('(insulting, Inc. Northern Colorado Constructors Bennett Pit DRMS 112 Permit Application Ecological Resource Consultants, Inc. 5672 Juhls Drive at Boulder, CO ^' 80301 ^' (303) 679-4820 Screening Report for Federal and State Listed Threatened and Endangered Species BENNETT PROPERTY Weld County, Colorado September 23, 2016 Prepared for: J&T CONSULTING, INC. Contact: J.C. York, P.E. 305 Denver Avenue, Suite D Fort Lupton, CO 80621 ERC Project #420-1602 ERC Bennett Property Threatened and Endangered Species Screening Screening Report for Federal and State Listed Threatened and Endangered Species Bennett Property Weld County, Colorado September 23, 2016 Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 2.0 GENERAL SITE DESCRIPTION 1 3.0 SCREENING METHODOLOGY 6 4.0 GENERAL WILDLIFE HABITAT (NON -REGULATED) 6 5.0 MIGRATORY BIRD TREATY ACT 7 6.0 SPECIES PROTECTED UNDER THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT OF 1973 8 COLORADO BUTTERFLY PLANT (LAURA NEOMEXICANA VAR. COLORADENSIS) 9 PREBLE'S MEADOW JUMPING MOUSE (ZAPUS HUDSONIUS PREBLEI) 9 UTE LADIES' -TRESSES (SPIRANTHES DILUVIALIS) 10 7.0 STATE THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES 11 BURROWING OWL (ATHENE CUNICULARIA) 12 RIVER OTTER (CONTRA CANADENSIS) 12 8.0 SUMMARY 13 9.0 REFERENCES 15 Figures FIGURE 1 -VICINITY MAP FIGURE 2 -SITE LOCATION MAP FIGURE 3 - VEGETATION COMMUNITY MAP � ERC Bennett Property Threatened and Endangered Species Screening 1.0 INTRODUCTION Ecological Resource Consultants, Inc. (ERC) has prepared this report at the request of the project Engineer, J&T Consulting, Inc. The approximately 191 -acre property referred to as the Bennett Property is located in unincorporated Weld County, Colorado (Site). The Site is under consideration for potential future land use changes which will likely alter a majority of the current Site landscape, therefore this report has been prepared to identify potential federal and state listed threatened and endangered species and/or habitat that could exist on or immediately surrounding the Site. In addition, this report provides a cursory screening of general wildlife use characteristics and existing vegetation community types. This report has been prepared in accordance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), Endangered Species Act (ESA) and Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) Colorado Statute Title 33. 2.0 GENERAL SITE DESCRIPTION The Site is generally located to the northeast of the intersection of County Road 22 /2 and County Road 25 in Sections 1 and 12, Township 2 north, Range 67 west, near the town of Fort Lupton in Weld County, Colorado (latitude 40.157031° north, longitude -104.838420 ° west). The Site is bordered by County Road 22 /4 to the south, by the South Platte River to the east and by undeveloped agricultural land to the west and north (refer to Figures 1 and 2). The Site comprises approximately 191 acres and has an average elevation of 4,835 feet above mean sea level. The Site is currently undeveloped and consists primarily of cultivated cropland/fallow agricultural land with smaller areas of wet meadow/marsh on the western portion of the Site and forested habitat along the floodplain of the South Platte River, on the eastern portion of the Site. The US Geological Survey (USGS) topographic map also depicts an irrigation ditch known as the Meadow Island Levee Ditch No. 1 on the far western portion of the Site. Meadow Island Levee Ditch No.1 flows south to north through the Site and originates from the South Platte River approximately 3 miles southeast of the survey area. The ditch flows offsite to Beeman Ditch and Saint Vrain Creek before joining the South Platte River approximately 9 miles north of the Site. Two primary vegetation communities exist within the Site and are comprised of Cultivated Cropland- Ruderal Herbaceous vegetation, and Western Great Plains Riparian Woodland, Shrubland and Herbaceous vegetation (CNHP 2005) (refer to Figure 3). Cultivated Cropland (includes wheat and corn row crops) and Ruderal Herbaceous (uncultivated agricultural land) comprise most of the uplands within the central, northern, southern, and western portions of the Site. The central portion is currently planted with corn and the northern and southern portions have been harvested/mowed so currently contain very little natural vegetation other than few grasses and weedy species. The western portion of the Site comprises fallow agricultural land exhibiting species such as annual ragweed and western wheatgrass. The eastern portion of the Site within the floodplain of the South Platte River can be described as Western Great Plains Riparian Woodland, Shrubland, and Herbaceous vegetation. Within this habitat type occurs both riparian wetland habitat and mesic upland habitat. Upland forested areas are dominated by eastern cottonwood (Populus deltoides) overstory trees with a mixed upland herbaceous understory. Riparian wetland habitat associated with the South Platte River is comprised mainly of shrub and forested habitat exhibiting species of eastern cottonwood, narrowleaf willow (Salix exigua), and reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea). Western Great Plains Riparian Woodland, Shrubland, and Herbaceous vegetation also 1 .�� ERC Bennett Property Threatened and Endangered Species Screening occurs in the western portion of the Site within a number of wetland habitats. These wetland habitats include herbaceous wet meadow and open water marsh wetland habitats dominated by monocultures of cattails in addition to species of spotted ladysthumb, dock -leaf smartweed, three -square, fox -tail barley, and freshwater cordgrass. E # . f ) COI N T\ -thorne O 4, Platter* OS Leciend Approxiamate Site Location Site Boundary (191 acres) Prepared By. 5672 Juhrs Drive Boulder 00 80301 0303) 679-4820 ERC 020-1602 FIGURE 1. LOCATION MAP BENNETT PROPERTY WELD COUNTY, COLORADO Prepared For: J8 T Gonsulbng. inc. September 23. 2015 2 .,f � ERC Prepared By 5672 Juhts Drive Boulder. CO 80301 (303) 679-4820 Bennett Property Threatened and Endangered Species Screening ,< <,rra.z.v.,f_ riormmormawimmoronfronts" ^a?a7i6S"nstrirrNTrrar?9,1 alkI CM1iPr'PI;ITATOf NNTAMO+Q\CDngnaM14pAr.VA,4V:1G^µ191 UOICiSAMANOWYMIIXd.knik "auM, STAY .7 £% FIGURE 2. USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP BENNETT PROPERTY WELD COUNTY, COLORADO 0 Approxiamate Site Location Site Boundary (191 acres) x� 0.25 C5 IIW les Prepared For J&T Consulting. Inc September 23. 2016 AL ERC Bennett Property Threatened and Endangered Species Screening Refer to Photos 1-6 below for typical characteristics within the Site. Photo 1. View southeast at the Western Great Plains Riparian Woodland, Shrubland, and Herbaceous vegetation community situated on the eastern portion of the Site near the South Platte River. _ II a `!C�'" y.; ..ry .. f. '. • -or' •-• . "y Y.-:", �' i 4 AY/ iv, 4. '`C T 'OP y F 1 4,4 Photo 3. View east at the Cultivated Cropland vegetation community within the Site. The dominant living vegetation is annual ragweed and cheatgrass. Photo 2. Overview looking north at the Western Great Plains Riparian Woodland, Shrubland, and Herbaceous vegetation community in the southeast portion of the Site. Photo 4. View northwest at open water cattail marsh characterized as Western Great Plains Riparian Woodland, Shrubland, and Herbaceous in the western portion of the Site. Photo 5. Overview of the South Platte River from the Photo 6. View west across Cultivated Cropland community. northeastern portion of the Site. The South Platte River and Species include western wheatgrass, annual ragweed, and its riparian habitat form the eastern boundary of the Site. smooth brome intermixed with a variety of weeds. 4 Ak Prepared By A ERC 5672 Juhls !?rive Boulder. CO 80301 (303) 679-4820 t HC ow;o-:o) Bennett Property Threatened and Endangered Species Screening Legend Site Boundary 19' acras Vegetation Communities Cultivated Crop)and;Ruderal Herbaceous (83% of site) VVestorn Great Plains Riparian Woodland Shrubland & Herbaceous (17% ot Site) FIGURE 3. VEGETATION COMMUNITIES BENNETT PROPERTY WELD COUNTY, COLORADO 0 `c) 500 Fact Prepared For J&T Consulting. Inc. September 23. 2016 ERC Bennett Property Threatened and Endangered Species Screening 3.0 SCREENING METHODOLOGY ERC conducted a literature review as part of initial data collection for preparation of this report. Among others, ERC reviewed the available literature sources including; CPW information and the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Federal Register. A field inspection was subsequently conducted on August 23-26, 29, and 31, 2016 to identify and document the presence of natural vegetation communities, general wildlife use and potential for threatened and endangered species/habitat. Upon review of all available resources, including literature and field inspections, ERC provides the following determination for the Site. 4.0 GENERAL WILDLIFE HABITAT (NON -REGULATED) Wildlife utilizes the general landscape in a multitude of ways and uses a variety of habitats as areas of permanent inhabitance, seasonal inhabitance, breeding grounds, migratory routes, for foraging purposes, or as a temporary shelter. Potential wildlife habitat includes lands characterized as Western Great Plains Riparian Woodland, Shrubland and Herbaceous vegetation and Cultivated Cropland/Ruderal Herbaceous vegetation. The Western Great Plains Riparian Woodland, Shrubland and Herbaceous vegetation community can be considered somewhat valuable to wildlife by providing shelter, foraging habitat, nesting habitat, and act as a movement corridor for various small to mid -size mammals, amphibians, birds, and reptiles. Cultivated Cropland and ruderal uplands are not typically considered of high ecological value to wildlife, but this habitat type has beneficial values to certain wildlife species. These areas at a minimum are considered "open space" providing limited foraging and hunting grounds, refuge and nesting. Historic and current land use practices have restricted the development of any significant natural vegetation communities within a majority of the Site, which limits the overall quality of potential wildlife habitat. Non-native species or ruderal native species which permeate the vegetation communities generally do not provide quality habitat for most wildlife. Although somewhat degraded and lacking in native biodiversity, the ruderal herbaceous vegetation community within the Site does provide a number of wildlife benefits within the larger regional landscape. Such lands often serve as a buffer between natural areas, providing food, cover, nesting and open -space habitat which allow movement and exchange of plant and animal populations. The Western Great Plains Riparian Woodland, Shrubland and Herbaceous vegetation community within the Site occupies a small percentage of the Site (17%) along the eastern and western boundary. This habitat in the eastern portion of the Site is a forested riparian area exhibiting overstory canopy trees, midstory shrubs and dense herbaceous understory cover. Overstory canopy trees and midstory shrubs, situated near an agricultural landscape, can provide potential roosting and nesting habitat for visiting and residential raptors and smaller migratory birds. This area can provide a variety of wildlife habitat features such as cover, forage and nesting habitat, and acts as a movement corridor for various mammals, amphibians, birds, and reptiles. Some local wildlife species that may use this habitat within the Site includes coyote (Canis latrans), red fox (Vulpes vulpes), rabbit (Lepus sp.), cottontail (Sylvilagus sp.), raccoon (Procyon lotor), muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus), long-tailed weasel (Mustela frenata), black tailed prarie dog (Cynomys ludovicianus), white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), western rattlesnake (Crotalus viridis), deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus), meadow vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus), turkey (Meleagris gallopavo), barn owl (Tyto alba), hawks (Buteo sp.), and osprey (Pandion haliaetus). Wetland habitat characterized as Western Great Plains Riparian Woodland, Shrubland and Herbaceous vegetation community in the western portion of the Site differ from the eastern portion of the site in that 6 .,ffi. ERC Bennett Property Threatened and Endangered Species Screening the western portion is characterized by a cat -tail marsh and wet meadow habitat. Wetlands situated in the western portion of the Site are somewhat unique in the fact that they are mostly open water with herbaceous vegetation and few trees/shrubs on the outer fringe. These trees/shrubs provide suitable habitat for small mammals, birds, amphibians and reptiles using the drainage corridor. These wetlands appear to be flooded throughout the year and are directly connected to the South Platte River, providing a year-round water source. Given their connection to the South Platte River it also provides an unfragmented movement corridor to the river and access to additional wildlife habitat within the riparian corridor and adjacent areas. Some local wildlife species that may use this habitat within the Site includes Canada geese (Branca canadensis), common mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), red -winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), killdeer (Charadrius vociferous), western meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta), Great Plains toad (Anaxyrus cognatus), snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina), garter snake (Thamnophis sp.), and various other species of fish and aquatic invertebrate. A Great Plains toad was directly observed in the western portion of the site near a cat -tail marsh during the site visit. • A small (<2 acre) active black -tailed prairie dog colony was observed in the western portion of the Site (Figure 3). Currently, Weld County and the CPW (2016) do not have any regulations regarding the conservation of prairie dog habitat. Therefore future landuse changes would not require further management for this species. • Generally, there are features on the Site and the surrounding area that provide general habitat for local songbirds, raptors, waterfowl, amphibians, reptiles, aquatic invertebrate and small to mid -size mammals. However, the majority of the habitat on Site is classified as cultivated cropland and ruderal herbaceous vegetation which is somewhat degraded from a wildlife perspective by historic and current land use practices. Within the Site, the western Great Plains riparian woodland and shrubland community along with connected wetlands occupies a small percentage of the Site but still provides a variety of important wildlife habitat values. 51) miGRAroRy BIRD TREATY ACT Migratory birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) (16 U.S.C. 730-712). The MBTA makes it illegal for anyone to take, possess, import, export, transport, sell, purchase barter, or offer for sale, purchase, or barter any migratory bird, or the parts, nests, or eggs of such a bird except under the terms of a valid permit issued pursuant to Federal regulations. In Colorado, all birds except for the European starling (Sturnus vulgaris), house sparrow (Passer domesticus) and rock pigeon (Columba livia) are protected under the MBTA. A total of 523 migratory bird species are known to occur in the Mountain - Prairie Region (USFWS Region 6, Montana, Wyoming, Utah, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas and Colorado); 320 of the 523 migratory bird species are known to breed in USFWS Region 6. Migratory birds likely exist within the Site. The mature overstory cottonwood trees and open shrub midstory within the Western Great Plains Riparian Woodland, Shrubland and Herbaceous vegetation community on the eastern portion of the Site provide potential habitat for migratory birds. Several migratory birds were also directly observed on the Site, including western meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta) and Red -winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus). Such birds are protected under the MBTA, and killing or possession of these birds (or their parts and nests) is prohibited under the MBTA. • Based upon literature review and an onsite assessment of the Site, ERC has determined that some migratory birds likely utilize the Site. These birds are protected under the MBTA, and killing or possession of these birds is prohibited. Future land use changes that may occur on Site which remove 7 Bennett Property Threatened and Endangered Species Screening vegetation should first ensure that active nests are not disturbed. Generally, the active nesting season for most migratory birds in this region of Colorado occurs between April 1 and August 31. • In addition, raptor nest sites further protected by the CPW. The CPW has established recommended buffer zones and seasonal activity restrictions for a variety of Colorado raptors. While no active nests were observed and no CPW mapped buffer zones are located within the Site (CPW 2016), raptors could potentially establish nesting in the vicinity of the Site. Future land use changes should ensure that no active raptor nest sites have established generally (depending on species) within a /2 mile of the Site. 6.0 SPECIES PROTECTED UNDER THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT OF 1973 The ESA of 1973 was enacted by the United States to conserve endangered and threatened species and the ecosystems that they depend on. Under the ESA, species may be listed as either "endangered" or "threatened"; both designations are protected by law. The ESA is administered by the USFWS. The USFWS has developed project specific species lists, available online by request, identifying threatened, endangered, and proposed species, designated critical habitat, and candidate species protected under the ESA that may occur within the boundary of the proposed project and/or may be affected by the proposed project (USFWS 2016) (Tracking Number: 06E24000-2016-SLI-0973). The species list for the Site has identified a total of nine threatened or endangered species within the project area. Species Not within Range of the Site The following federally listed threatened and endangered species are identified to occur within Weld County. However, these species are not known to exist within the specific vicinity of the Site and/or have specific habitat requirements (i.e., elevation range) that are not common in the vicinity of the Site. Common Name Mexican spotted owl Scientific Name Strix occidentalis lucida Status Federally Threatened • The Site does not contain the specific habitat characteristics necessary to support the species listed above. The species are not likely to occur within the Site therefore any future land use changes would not likely adversely affect the continued existence or available habitat of the species. Water Depletions Species The USFWS under the ESA has determined that water depletions in the South Platte River Basin are considered an adverse effect to the listed species identified below. The Site is considered to be located within the South Platte River Basin. Common Name Scientific Name Status Least tern Sternula antillarium Federally Endangered Pallid sturgeon Scaphirhycchus albus Federally Endangered Piping plover Charadrius melodus Federally Threatened Western prairie fringed orchid Platanthera praeclara Federally Threatened Whooping crane Grus Americana Federally Endangered Any water related project conducted in the Platte River Basin that has a federal nexus; such as federal funding or a federal permits (i.e., Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 Permit), is subject to ESA Section 7 8 ERC Bennett Property Threatened and Endangered Species Screening Consultation with the USFWS. The consultation is a mandate for water depletion projects that may adversely affect threatened and endangered species that rely on the South Platte River. • The Site does not contain the specific habitat characteristics necessary to support the species listed above. The species do not occur within the Site therefore any future land use change will not directly adversely affect the continued existence or available habitat of the species. • Any future project which may be water related or determined to be a water depletion to the South Platte River Basin may potentially be considered an adverse effect to these species. The specific details of a future project must be reviewed to determine water depletion status. Species Potentially within Range of the Site The following federally listed threatened and endangered species are identified to occur or historically occur within Weld County (USFWS 2015). The Site is located within the potential known range for these species to occur. Further analysis was conducted to determine if the species or habitat has the potential to exist on the Site considering site -specific conditions and characteristics. A brief explanation is provided as to the species life cycle, habitat requirements and potential occurrence on the Site. The Site is not within designated critical habitat of any federally listed species. Common Name Scientific Name Status Colorado butterfly plant Gaura neomexicana var. coloradensis Federally Threatened Preble's meadow jumping mouse Zapus hudsonius preblei Federally Threatened Ute Ladies' -tresses orchid Spiranthes diluvialis Federally Threatened COLORADO BUTTERFLY PLANT (GAURA NEOMEXICANA VAR. COLORADENSIS) The Colorado butterfly plant is listed as federally threatened under the ESA. This plant species is a short- lived, perennial herb endemic to moist soils in mesic or wet meadows of floodplain areas in southeastern Wyoming, north central Colorado, and extreme western Nebraska. This early to mid-seral stage species occurs primarily in habitats created and maintained by streams active within their floodplains, with vegetation that is relatively open and not overly dense or overgrown. The conversion of natural wet meadows and natural riparian corridors to agricultural land and urban development is the primary threat to the continued existence of the species (Federal Register 2000). • The riparian and wetland habitats within the Site do not exhibit typical habitat of the Colorado butterfly plant. The wetlands are mostly overgrown with dense herbaceous vegetation and/or tree/shrub canopy cover. Furthermore, the Colorado butterfly plant is known to occur at elevations of 5,000-6,400 feet which is not within the elevation range of the Site (Federal Register 2000). Neither individuals nor potential habitat for the Colorado butterfly plant were observed on or immediately surrounding the Site. Any future land use changes on the Site is not likely to adversely affect the continued existence or potential habitat of this species. PREBLE'S MEADOW JUMPING MOUSE (ZAPUS HUDSONIUS PREBLEI) On May 13, 1998 the US Fish and Wildlife Service issued a final rule to list the Preble's meadow jumping mouse (PMJM) as a federally threatened species under the ESA. PMJM range extends from southwestern Wyoming through eastern Colorado generally below 7,600 feet. Armstrong et al. (1997) described typical PMJM habitats as "well -developed plains riparian vegetation with relatively undisturbed grassland and a water source in close proximity." Also noted was a preference for "dense herbaceous vegetation 9 ERC Bennett Property Threatened and Endangered Species Screening consisting of a variety of grasses, forbs and thick shrubs" (USFWS 1999). This species is known to regularly travel into adjacent uplands to feed and hibernate. The PMJM hibernates in an underground burrow from September to May. PMJM bears two to three litters per year, averaging five young per litter, in a grass - lined nest. In general, PMJM surveys are recommended for areas with suitable habitat in Weld County below 7,600 feet and within 300 feet of vegetated irrigation canals, ditches, and wetlands. Areas that are highly disturbed or modified (including landscaped lots and paved areas) or wetland areas dominated by cattails are excluded from this recommendation. No populations of the PMJM are known to occur within the vicinity of the Site (UDFCD 2010). Further, the South Platte River or Meadow Island Levee Ditch No. 1 are not designated as Critical Mouse Habitat by the USFWS (CPW 2016). The nearest known critical habitat of PMJM is over 20 miles from the Site on South Boulder Creek. The USFWS Mouse Block Clearance Map for the Denver Metro Area (USFWS 2010) which identifies areas exempt from further review for PMJM habitat, shows the Site does not occur within the Block Clearance Zone, indicating a potential presence of the PMJM within the site. • No PMJM individuals were observed on or surrounding the Site. The majority of the Site (central and west) is comprised of cultivated cropland (mowed)/ruderal herbaceous vegetation thus does not provide habitat suitable for this species. However, a small portion of the eastern side of the Site does comprise well -developed forested, shrub, and herbaceous habitat along the South Platte River which is considered potentially suitable habitat for this species. In addition, the Meadow Island Levee Ditch No. 1, located on the far western portion of the Site, also provides potentially suitable habitat by means of a vegetated irrigation ditch. The USFWS recommends that projects within 300 feet of 100 - year floodplains associated with rivers, creeks, and their tributaries be assessed as to their potential direct impacts and indirect impacts to PMJM habitat (USFWS 2004). Any future land use changes within the Western Great Plains Riparian Woodland, Shrub & Herbaceous vegetation community along the South Platte River or within the Meadow Island Levee Ditch No. 1, may require further evaluation to assure PMJM individuals or potential habitat is not adversely affected. Any land use changes outside of the South Platte River/Meadow Island Levee Ditch No. 1, are not likely to adversely affect the continued existence or potential habitat of this species. UTE LADIES' -TRESSES (SPIRANTHES DILUVIALIS) The Ute ladies' -tresses is listed as federally threatened under the ESA. The Ute ladies' -tresses occurs in seasonally moist soils and wet meadows near springs, lakes, or perennial streams and their associated floodplains below 6,500 feet in elevation in certain areas of Utah, Colorado, Idaho, Wyoming, and Nevada. Typical sites include early successional riparian habitats such as point bars, sand bars, and low lying gravelly, sandy, or cobbly edges. They seem to require "permanent subirrigation", conditions where the water table is close to the surface, but they are not tolerant of permanent standing water. Typical habitat is open and sparsely vegetated, populations decline if trees and shrubs invade the habitat. They do not compete well with aggressive species such as reed canary grass or monocultures of cattails. • A majority of the Site is comprised of upland agricultural land or herbaceous wetland habitat dominated by monocultures of cattails or dense herbaceous vegetation which is not conducive of this species. However, the active floodplain within the channel of the South Platte River does provide potentially suitable habitat for this species. No Ute ladies' -tresses were identified in the Site. Any future land use changes within the active floodplain of the South Platte River may warrant further evaluation to assure Ute ladies' -tresses or potential habitat is not adversely affected. Any land use changes outside of the South Platte River floodplain are not likely to adversely affect the continued existence or potential habitat of this species. 10 ERC Bennett Property Threatened and Endangered Species Screening 7.0 STATE THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES Species identified as state threatened or endangered are protected by the CPW under Colorado Statute Title 33. State regulations prohibit "any person to take, possess, transport, export, process, sell or offer for sale, or ship and for any common or contract carrier to knowingly transport or receive for shipment" any species or subspecies listed as state endangered or threatened. The CPW also has identified State Species of Special Concern, which are species or subspecies of native wildlife that are currently vulnerable in their Colorado range and have the potential to become threatened or endangered (CPW 2010). Species of Special Concern are not protected under State regulations but the `take' of individuals and disturbance of their habitat is strongly discouraged. All state listed species were screened as potential inhabitants of the Site based on general habitat requirements and CPW Species Profiles (CPW 2015). ERC evaluated the species listed by CPW as threatened or endangered that could potentially exist on the Site. All animal species listed above as threatened or endangered by the USFWS are also listed by the CPW as threatened or endangered, respectively, therefore were not duplicated below. Species Not within Range of the Site The following listed threatened and endangered species are identified to occur within the state (CPW 2015). However, these species are not known to exist within the specific vicinity of the Site and/or have specific habitat requirements (i.e., elevation range) that are not common in the vicinity of the Site (CPW 2015 and USFWS 2014). Common Name Scientific Name Status Boreal toad Bufo boreas boreas State Endangered Southwestern flycatcher willow Empidonax traillii extimus State Endangered Lesser prairie -chicken Tympanuchus pallidicinctus State Threatened Arkansas darter Etheostoma cragini State Threatened Bonytail i Gila elegans State Endangered Razorback sucker Xyrauchen texanus State Endangered Humpback chub Gila cypha State Threatened Colorado pikeminnow Ptychocheilus lucius State Threatened Greenback cutthroat trout Oncorhynchus clarki stomias State Threatened Rio grande sucker Catostomus plebeius State Endangered Lake chub Couesius plumbeus State Endangered Plains minnow Hybognathus placitus State Endangered Suckermouth minnow Phenacobius mirabilis State Endangered Northern redbelly dace Phoxinus eos State Endangered Southern redbelly dace Phoxinus erythrogaster State Endangered Brassy minnow Hybognathus hankinsoni State Threatened Common shiner Luxilus cornutus State Threatened Gray wolf Canis lupus State Endangered Black -footed ferret Mustela nigripes State Endangered Grizzly bear Ursus arctos State Endangered Lynx _ Lynx canadensis State Endangered 11 ERC Bennett Property Threatened and Endangered Species Screening Common Name Scientific Name Status Wolverine Gulo gulo State Endangered Kit fox Vulpes macrotis State Endangered • The Site does not contain the specific habitat characteristics necessary to support the species listed above. The species are not likely to occur within the Site and therefore, any future land use changes would not likely adversely affect the continued existence or available habitat of the species. Species Potentially within Range of the Site The following state listed threatened and endangered species are identified to occur or historically occur within Weld County. The Site is located within the potential known range for these species. Further analysis was conducted to determine if the species or habitat has the potential to exist on the Site considering site -specific conditions and characteristics. A brief explanation is provided as to the species life cycle, habitat requirements and potential occurrence on the Site. Common Name Scientific Name Status Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia State Threatened River otter Lontra canadensis State Threatened BURROWING OWL (ATHENE CUNICULARIA) The burrowing owl (Owl) is listed as a state threatened species in Colorado. The Owl is small (length of 24 centimeters), long-legged, boldly spotted, and barred with brown and white. The Owl is a breeding species across the plains of eastern Colorado however rarely winters in the state. Nesting habitat is abandoned burrows, especially prairie dog colonies, located in grasslands, mountain parks, well -drained steppes, deserts, prairies and agricultural lands from late March through October. The Owl can usually be observed on low perches such as fence posts, dirt mounds or the ground. Clutch size of this Owl averages six to seven and incubation lasts up to 30 days. The owlets usually run and forage at 4 weeks and fly at 6 weeks. Primary threats to existence of this species are habitat loss due to intensive agriculture, habitat degradation and fragmentation due to control of burrowing mammals and predation by cats and dogs. • No Owl individuals were observed on or surrounding the Site. The Site is located within the overall range of the black -tailed prairie dog and an active or colony was observed on the western portion of the Site. Due to the presence of a prairie dog colony (although active), there is potential that the Owl exists within the Site. Any future land use changes that disturb the prairie dog colony between March 15 and October 31 should ensure that Owls are not adversely affected. Owl surveys can be conducted during this time frame in order to verify the presence/absence of the species. RIVER OTTER (LONTRA CANADENSIS) The river otter is listed as a state threatened species in Colorado. River otters vary in length from 26-42 inches, with males larger than females. Their long tapered tails make up about one-third of their length. River otters historically ranged throughout most of the United States and Canada but were extirpated from much of their range in the west. Reintroductions of otter to Colorado began in 1976, and they are n ow found in small numbers throughout most of western Colorado with a more scattered distribution in e astern Colorado (CPW 2016). River otters may inhabit nearly every aquatic habitat however, they are 12 ,as. ERC Bennett Property Threatened and Endangered Species Screening most likely to occupy beaver ponds, stream channels, and warm water sloughs exhibiting healthy riparian vegetation, woody debris, and log jams (CPW 2016). • No river otter individuals were observed on or surrounding the Site. River otter populations are listed as known to occur in Weld County (CPW 2016). However, individuals and populations are still rare occurrences within the front range and eastern plains. Further, preferred habitat is usually associated with beaver activity and structures which do not exist within the Site. Any future land use changes on the Site are not likely to adversely affect the continued existence or available habitat of the species. 8.0 SUMMARY ERC has conducted this screening for federal and state threatened, endangered and species of concern for the approximately 191 -acre Site. The following provides key items identified as part of this report: 1. Two primary vegetation communities exist within the Site and are comprised of Cultivated Cropland- Ruderal Herbaceous vegetation, and Western Great Plains Riparian Woodland, Shrubland and Herbaceous vegetation (CNHP P 2005) 2. Generally, there are features on the Site and the surrounding area that provide general habitat for local songbirds, raptors, waterfowl, amphibians, reptiles, aquatic invertebrate and small to mid -size mammals. However, the majority of the habitat on Site (83%) is classified as cultivated cropland and ruderal herbaceous vegetation which is somewhat degraded from a wildlife perspective by historic and current land use practices. Within the Site, the Western Great Plains Riparian Woodland, Shrubland and Herbaceous vegetation community occupies a smaller percentage of the Site (17%) but provides a variety of important wildlife values. 3. Based upon literature review and field evaluation of the Site, ERC has determined that some migratory birds likely utilize the Site. These birds are protected under the MBTA, and killing or possession of these birds is prohibited. Generally, the active nesting season for most migratory birds in this region of Colorado occurs between April 1 and August 31. Any future land use changes that may occur on Site that remove vegetation during the active nesting season should first ensure that active nests are not disturbed. 4. Raptor nest sites are further protected by the CPW. The CPW has established recommended buffer zones and seasonal activity restrictions for a variety of Colorado raptors. While no active nests were observed and no CPW mapped buffer zones are located within the Site, raptors could potentially establish nesting in the vicinity of the Site. Future land use changes should ensure that no active raptor nest sites have established generally (depending on species) within a %2 mile of the Site. 5. Federally listed threatened and endangered species and/or habitat protected under the ESA were evaluated for the Site. The Preble's meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius preblei) (PMJM) was identified as potentially present on the Site. The PMJM is listed as federally threatened under the ESA. The well -developed Western Great Plains Riparian Woodland, Shrubland and Herbaceous habitat along the South Platte River, within the eastern portion of the Site is considered potentially suitable habitat for this species. In addition, the Meadow Island Levee Ditch No. 1, located on the far western portion of the Site, also provides potentially suitable habitat by means of a vegetated irrigation ditch. Any future land use changes within the Western Great Plains Riparian Woodland, Shrub & Herbaceous 13 � ERC Bennett Property Threatened and Endangered Species Screening vegetation community along the South Platte River or within the Meadow Island Levee Ditch No. 1, may require further evaluation to assure PMJM individuals or potential habitat is not adversely affected. Any land use changes outside of the South Platte River/Meadow Island Levee Ditch No. 1, are not likely to adversely affect the continued existence or potential habitat of this species. 6. Any future project which may be water related or determined to be a water depletion to the South Platte River Basin may potentially be considered an adverse effect to water depletion species. The specific details of a future project must be reviewed to determine water depletion status and compliance with the ESA. 7. Upon review of species identified as State endangered or threatened, protected by the CPW under Colorado Statute Title 33, only the western burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia hypugaea) was identified as potentially present on the Site. The burrowing owl is listed as a state threatened species in Colorado. The Site is located within the overall range of the black -tailed prairie dog and an active colony was observed on the western portion of the Site. Due to the presence of a prairie dog colony (although active), there is potential that the Owl exists within the Site. Any future land use changes that disturb the prairie dog colony between March 15 and October 31 should ensure that Owls are not adversely affected. Owl surveys can be conducted during this time frame in order to verify the presence/absence of the species. No other individuals or habitat for state listed threatened and endangered species would likely be impacted by any future land use changes. This report has been prepared by: ECOLOGICAL RESOURCE CONSULTANTS, INC. Kyle Medash, Ecologist Reviewed and approved by: David J. Blauch, V.P., Senior Ecologist 0 14 � ERC Bennett Property Threatened and Endangered Species Screening 9.0 REFERENCES Andrews, J.M., and R. Righter. 1992. Colorado Birds: a reference to their distribution and habitat. Denver Museum of Natural History, Denver. Armstrong, D.M., et al. Edited by M.E. Bakeman. May 1997. Report on Habitat Findings of the Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse. Presented to the US Fish And Wildlife Service and the Colorado Division of Wildlife. Birds of North America Online. Cornell Lab of Ornithology. April 19, 2007. http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/BNA/. CPW. Colorado Parks and Wildlife. 1992. Wildlife in Danger: The status of Colorado's Threatened or Endangered Fish, Amphibians, Birds and Mammals. CPW. Colorado Parks and Wildlife 2016. River Otter Fact Sheet. Available online at: https://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/LandWater/WetlandsProgram/PrioritySpecies/Factsheet-and- H ab itat-Scoreca rd_AI I. pdf . 2007. Recommended Survey Protocol and Actions to Protect Nesting Burrowing Owls When Conducting Prairie Dog Control. Revised March. Available at https://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/WildlifeSpecies/Profiles/BUOWSurveyProtocol2007.pdf . 2008. Recommended Buffer Zones and Seasonal Restrictions for Raptors. Available online at: https://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/WildlifeSpecies/LivingWithWildlife/RaptorBufferGuidelines2OO 8.pdf . 2014. Species Activity Mapping (SAM), Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Data. Updated December. Available online at: http://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=190573c5aba643a0bc058e6f7f0510b7 . 2015. Threatened and Endangered List. Available at http://cpw.state.co.us/learn/Pages/SOC- ThreatenedEndangeredList.aspx Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP). May 1999. Conservation Status Handbook: Colorado's Animals, Plants, and Natural Communities of Special Concern. Volume 3, Number 2. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Room 254 General Services Building, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, 80523. Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP). 2005. Ecological System Descriptions and Viability Guidelines for Colorado. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. Available online at: http://www.cnhp.colostate.edu/projects/eco_systems/pdf/IMB_Semi-Desert_Grassland.pdf. ERO Resources Corp. 2010. Prebles Meadow Jumping Mouse (PMJM), Ute Ladies Tresses Orchid (ULTO) and Colorado Butterfly Plant (CBP) Block Clearances for the Denver Metropolitan Area. Revised 2010. Prepared for Denver Urban Drainage and Flood Control District. ERO Resources Corp., 1842 Clarkson Street, Denver, CO 80230. June 17. 15 ..�► ERC Bennett Property Threatened and Endangered Species Screening Federal Register. May 2000. Vol. 65, Number 96, pages 31298-31299. Proposed Rules: Endangered and Threatened Species: Colorado Butterfly Plant. Department of the Interior. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Grunau, L., et. al. October 26, 1999. Conservation and Management Plan for Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse on the U.S. Air Force Academy. Colorado Natural Heritage Program. Colorado State University, 254 General Services Building, Fort Collins, CO, 80521. Kingery, Hugh. Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas. Colorado Bird Atlas Partnership 1998. Kartesz, J.T. 2013. Floristic Synthesis of North America, Version 1.0 Biota of North America Program (BONAP). (in press). Available online at http://www/bonap.org/. NatureServe 2016. NatureServe Explorer Central Database. Ecological Association Comprehensive Report. Available online at: http://explorer.natureserve.org. September. USFWS. US Fish & Wildlife Service. 1992. Interim Survey Requirements for Spiranthes diluvialis. Colorado State Office. November 23. Available online at: http://www.fws.gov/mountain- prairie/endspp/protocols/UteLadiesTress1992.pdf. Accessed April 2012. . October 2000. Federal Register Volume 65, Number 96, pages 62302-62310. Final Listing: Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Threatened Status for the Colorado Butterfly Plant (Gaura neomexicana ssp. coloradensis) From Southeastern Wyoming, Northcentral Colorado, and Extreme Western Nebraska. . 2004. Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse Survey Guidelines. Revised April 2004. USFWS Ecological Services Colorado Field Office, Lakewood, CO. . 2004a. News Release. Critical Habitat Proposed for the Colorado Butterfly Plant. August 6, 2004. Available online at: http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/pressrel/04-55.htm. . 2010. Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse Block Clearance Map for the Denver Metro Area. November 23. Available online at: http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/preble/BLOCK_ CLEARANCE/11-23- 2010_USFWS_Prebles_Block_Clearance_Map_for _the_Denver_Metro_Area.pdf . 2010a. Recovery Outline for Gaura neomexicana ssp. Coloradensis (Colorado Butterfly Plant) May 2010. Available online at: http://www.fws.gov/mountain- prairie/species/plants/cobutterfly/RecoveryOutlineFinalMay2010.pdf. . 2016. Official Species List. List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project location, and/or may be affected by your proposed project. Consultation Tracking Number 06E24000-2016-SLI-0973. Aug 19. 16 EXHIBIT I Soils Information According to the Soil Survey of Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part (United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service, Web Soil Survey, National Cooperative Soil Survey), there are 7 major soil types within the proposed permit area: Map Unit 1 Map Unit 2 Map Unit 3 Map Unit 10 Map Unit 46 Map Unit 68 Map Unit 85 Altvan loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes Altvan loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes Aquolls and Aquents, gravelly substratum Bankard sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes, frequently flooded Olney fine sandy loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes Ustic Torriorthents, moderately steep Water The location of these soil types is illustrated on the attached Natural Resources Conservation Service maps and legends. Brief descriptions of each soil type are also attached Jael' Consulting, Inc. id I Northern Colorado Constructors Bennett Pit DRMS 112 Permit Application Southern Part O ID (U L O 0 0 > a) 3 C o c U a) 5 E z C D (U 2 MAP LEGEND were mapped at 0 a) a U) E O CD a wo 80 a) 0 (U C (13 O et 0 E 0 (47) 4- O a3 O 0 Cu m I' a) a) g O w. O C U U CD cU a) 0) U L C U R3 a (U a. 0 (� E E (U u) U) — C) a) sa CC a) a (U n- O E ca a).4_ 4_, > .C O O C 0 O °) C >'-O U) >+ CL ID _ (U U) 4-1 '4-- E o (U E rH o a) rn E a) .C L c as = (U 'N C 5 w E_ a) O°) a 13 a) CD a) E as C 0 N a) a) 13 0 4-0 Q) U) • (U a) C U (% 0 C -cu o w 8. N ui Q Q. O 0 4- 4E". c w (1) Cr 0 M w Area of Interest (AO') x Interstate Highways Soil Rating Polygons 4- C 0 H 0 N US Routes 0 0 >. 0 0 E 0 0 Cu as Local Roads Not rated or not available '1Y 1. • 4- 0 a O O E E O O c o c as (13 O 5 Q 1 to 3 percent ten a Soil Rating Points c E o - c Q its as w 0 0 an -al Q Cr) (U E O a cso (U C a) U L 0 a) C O C Via) v N U E Aerial Photography 4- C 0 a 0 O O C c13 (1) 8- < a) > O U � (U Cn C nv)N O (U C a) a) C z U:Ln (n8 .n L a) 0 a)CL L CD z 1 to 3 percent O C (U Q a) O L as 2 0 O Cu O N (13 a r N c a> o (� Cu cn Q O CO co Q) w U) O -C _� : j a co R3a) L C CU a - 0 • cU U O a) C U O La O (U (A O O a) a) a -o O U w U a•E O °' < C CL ▪ R3 (U • O U L m (U (U a U n3 tU c- .0 O a) U U LeC .W (U (I] O j -_ UU at Q (U 0 0 O O O 0 O 0 • = 0 a) E . N - .� U cr =as) (U (U O a) O 4- O E 0 0 C o 0 c a) a a Or - N CD (U CD a) Lcz U z O a) E a) o.l 13 13 a) a) U) 2Na) C a) CD 'U U .0 (eh a) O a_ a) U _c L "- H O 0 c a) 75 o U 0 o E 0 (U C a) o O N 2 N o N O Cl U cn a o c 0 .o a) a) > 0 CZ Not rated or not avai ows) for map scales 76 a) a U) CD a) cU a) (U a) (U C b.- = O (U O E O O (O r N a) CU DOOM DOOO? O O Cu O 0 0 ▪ a0 c 0 0 - 0 C (� 0 O C O • Cl. m in 9- O O E 0 0 C a rn c v. 0 a E c a) O r ■ 4- O O 0 405 0 (u 0 E Not rated or not available Soil Rating Lines c c O 0 o 0 O 0 a a �- M O O O E E O _O C 0 C Q) > Q -at- `c- E 0CT Q N .n 'C N Cu O > E2 < 0) x images were photographed: 0 E n L O a) 112 C O W Q 'a a - CO (n (IS >, co a) °Oi �CUE� _o O U c t... a a) w _c w - a) c •-c ()Nom O CD N C O >, = (U O - CU _Q L C O• - a) Cl- cU U) — • La E o t 11)a �O O.ao cU m N a) E CD E in � - vo ._ o CO 'St a O N N CU 0 Map Unit Name Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part Bennett Pit Map Unit Name Map Unit Name Summary by Map Unit — Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part (CO618) Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 1 Altvan percent loam, slopes 0 to 1 Altvan percent loam, slopes 0 to 1 117.8 65.4% 2 Altvan loam, percent slopes 1 to 3 Altvan loam, percent slopes 1 to 3 4.4 2.4% 3 Aquolls gravelly and substratum Aquents, Aquolls gravelly and substratum Aquents, 14.0 7.70,E 10 Bankard 3 frequently percent sandy slopes, flooded loam, 0 to Bankard 3 frequently percent sandy slopes, flooded loam, 0 to 34.0 18.9% 46 Olney to 1 fine sandy percent loam, slopes 0 Olney to 1 fine sandy percent slopes loam, 0 1.0 0.5% 68 Ustic moderately Torriorthents, steep Ustic moderately Torriorthents, steep 1.6 0.9% 85 Water Water 7.4 4.1% Totals for Area of Interest 180.1 100.0% Description A soil map unit is a collection of soil areas or nonsoil areas (miscellaneous areas) delineated in a soil survey. Each map unit is given a name that uniquely identifies the unit in a particular soil survey area. Rating Options Aggregation Method: No Aggregation Necessary Aggregation is the process by which a set of component attribute values is reduced to a single value that represents the map unit as a whole. A map unit is typically composed of one or more "components". A component is either some type of soil or some nonsoil entity, e.g., rock outcrop. For the attribute being aggregated, the first step of the aggregation process is to derive one attribute value for each of a map unit's components. From this set of component attributes, the next step of the aggregation process derives a single value that represents the map unit as a whole. Once a single value for each map unit is derived, a thematic map for soil map units can be rendered. Aggregation must be done because, on any soil map, map units are delineated but components are not. For each of a map unit's components, a corresponding percent composition is recorded. A percent composition of 60 indicates that the corresponding component typically makes up approximately 60% of the map unit. Percent composition is a critical factor in some, but not all, aggregation methods. t Est ),n Natural Resources Web Soil Survey Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey 8/1/2016 Page 3 of 4 Map Unit Name Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part Bennett Pit The majority of soil attributes are associated with a component of a map unit, and such an attribute has to be aggregated to the map unit level before a thematic map can be rendered. Map units, however, also have their own attributes. An attribute of a map unit does not have to be aggregated in order to render a corresponding thematic map. Therefore, the "aggregation method" for any attribute of a map unit is referred to as "No Aggregation Necessary". Tie -break Rule: Lower The tie -break rule indicates which value should be selected from a set of multiple candidate values, or which value should be selected in the event of a percent composition tie. [ism Natural Resources Web Soil Survey a Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey 8/1/2016 Page 4 of 4 Map Unit Description (Brief, Generated) ---Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part Bennett Pit Map Unit Description (Brief, Generated) The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions in this report, along with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit. A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the landscape, however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class. Areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without including areas of other taxonomic classes. Consequently, every map unit is made up of the soils or miscellaneous areas for which it is named and some minor components that belong to taxonomic classes other than those of the major soils. The Map Unit Description (Brief, Generated) report displays a generated description of the major soils that occur in a map unit. Descriptions of non -soil (miscellaneous areas) and minor map unit components are not included. This description is generated from the underlying soil attribute data. Additional information about the map units described in this report is available in other Soil Data Mart reports, which give properties of the soils and the limitations, capabilities, and potentials for many uses. Also, the narratives that accompany the Soil Data Mart reports define some of the properties included in the map unit descriptions. Report Map Unit Description (Brief, Generated) Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part Map Unit: 1 Altvan loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes Component: Altvan (90%) The Altvan component makes up 90 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 0 to 1 percent. This component is on terraces. The parent material consists of old alluvium. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is well drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches (or restricted depth) is low. Shrink -swell potential is low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. There is no zone of water saturation within a depth of 72 inches. Organic matter content in the surface horizon is about 2 percent. This component is in the R067BY002CO Loamy Plains ecological site. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 4e. Irrigated land capability classification is 3s. This soil does not meet hydric criteria. The calcium carbonate equivalent within 40 inches, typically, does not exceed 3 percent. USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey a Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey 8/1/2016 Page 1 of 6 Map Unit Description (Brief, Generated) ---Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part Bennett Pit 0 Component: Cascajo (9%) Generated brief soil descriptions are created for major soil components. The Cascajo soil is a minor component. Component: Aquic Haplustolls (1%) Generated brief soil descriptions are created for major soil components. The Aquic Haplustolls soil is a minor component. Map Unit: 2 Altvan loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes Component: Altvan (90%) The Altvan component makes up 90 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 1 to 3 percent. This component is on terraces. The parent material consists of old alluvium. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is well drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches (or restricted depth) is low. Shrink -swell potential is low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. There is no zone of water saturation within a depth of 72 inches. Organic matter content in the surface horizon is about 2 percent. This component is in the R067BY002CO Loamy Plains ecological site. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 4e. Irrigated land capability classification is 3e. This soil does not meet hydric criteria. The calcium carbonate equivalent within 40 inches, typically, does not exceed 3 percent. Component: Cascajo (9%) Generated brief soil descriptions are created for major soil components. The Cascajo soil is a minor component. Component: Aquic Haplustolls (1%) Generated brief soil descriptions are created for major soil components. The Aquic Haplustolls soil is a minor component. Map Unit: 3 Aquolls and Aquents, gravelly substratum Component: Aquolls (55%) st .)..‘ Natural Resources Web Soil Survey al Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey 8/1/2016 Page 2 of 6 Map Unit Description (Brief, Generated) ---Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part Bennett Pit The Aquolls component makes up 55 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 0 to 3 percent. This component is on flood plains, swales, major streams. The parent material consists of recent alluvium. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is poorly drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches (or restricted depth) is moderate. Shrink -swell potential is low. This soil is frequently flooded. It is not ponded. A seasonal zone of water saturation is at 27 inches during March, April, May, June, July. Organic matter content in the surface horizon is about 2 percent. This component is in the R067BY035CO Salt Meadow ecological site. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 6w. This soil meets hydric criteria. There are no saline horizons within 30 inches of the soil surface. Component: Aquents, gravelly substratum (30%) The Aquents, gravelly substratum component makes up 30 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 0 to 3 percent. This component is on stream terraces. The parent material consists of recent alluvium. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is poorly drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches (or restricted depth) is moderate. Shrink -swell potential is low. This soil is frequently flooded. It is not ponded. A seasonal zone of water saturation is at 15 inches during March, April, May, June, July, August, September. Organic matter content in the surface horizon is about 1 percent. This component is in the R067BY035CO Salt Meadow ecological site. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 6w. Irrigated land capability classification is 6w. This soil meets hydric criteria. The calcium carbonate equivalent within 40 inches, typically, does not exceed 5 percent. The soil has a very slightly saline horizon within 30 inches of the soil surface. Component: Bankard (10%) Generated brief soil descriptions are created for major soil components. The Bankard soil is a minor component. Component: Ustic Torrifluvents (5%) Generated brief soil descriptions are created for major soil components. The Ustic Torrifluvents soil is a minor component. Map Unit: 10 Bankard sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes, frequently flooded Component: Bankard, frequently flooded (80%) c i ).\ Natural Resources Web Soil Survey al Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey 8/1 /2016 Page 3 of 6 Map Unit Description (Brief, Generated) ---Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part Bennett Pit The Bankard, frequently flooded component makes up 80 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 0 to 3 percent. This component is on flood plains on river valleys. The parent material consists of sandy alluvium. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is somewhat excessively drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches (or restricted depth) is low. Shrink -swell potential is low. This soil is frequently flooded. It is not ponded. There is no zone of water saturation within a depth of 72 inches. Organic matter content in the surface horizon is about 1 percent. This component is in the R067BY031 CO Sandy Bottomland ecological site. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 6s. Irrigated land capability classification is 6s. This soil does not meet hydric criteria. The calcium carbonate equivalent within 40 inches, typically, does not exceed 5 percent. There are no saline horizons within 30 inches of the soil surface. Component: Glenberg, rarely flooded (8%) Generated brief soil descriptions are created for major soil components. The Glenberg soil is a minor component. Component: Kitcarson, frequently flooded (5%) Generated brief soil descriptions are created for major soil components. The Kitcarson soil is a minor component. Component: Alda, frequently flooded (5%) Generated brief soil descriptions are created for major soil components. The Alda soil is a minor component. Component: Alda, frequently flooded (5%) Generated brief soil descriptions are created for major soil components. The Alda soil is a minor component. Component: Las Animas, frequently flooded (2%) Generated brief soil descriptions are created for major soil components. The Las Animas soil is a minor component. Map Unit: 46 —Olney fine sandy loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes Component: Olney (85%) i ism Natural Resources Web Soil Survey gall Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey 8/1 /2016 Page 4 of 6 Map Unit Description (Brief, Generated) ---Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part Bennett Pit The Olney component makes up 85 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 0 to 1 percent. This component is on smooth plains. The parent material consists of mixed deposit outwash. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is well drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches (or restricted depth) is moderate. Shrink -swell potential is low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. There is no zone of water saturation within a depth of 72 inches. Organic matter content in the surface horizon is about 1 percent. This component is in the R067BY024CO Sandy Plains ecological site. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 4c. Irrigated land capability classification is 3e. This soil does not meet hydric criteria. The calcium carbonate equivalent within 40 inches, typically, does not exceed 10 percent. There are no saline horizons within 30 inches of the soil surface. Component: Zigweid (8%) Generated brief soil descriptions are created for major soil components. The Zigweid soil is a minor component. Component: Vona (7%) Generated brief soil descriptions are created for major soil components. The Vona soil is a minor component. Map Unit: 68 Ustic Torriorthents, moderately steep Component: Ustic Torriorthents (85%) The Ustic Torriorthents component makes up 85 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 9 to 15 percent. This component is on terrace breaks, escarpments. The parent material consists of gravelly alluvium. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is excessively drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches (or restricted depth) is very low. Shrink -swell potential is low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. There is no zone of water saturation within a depth of 72 inches. Organic matter content in the surface horizon is about 1 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 7s. This soil does not meet hydric criteria. The calcium carbonate equivalent within 40 inches, typically, does not exceed 3 percent. There are no saline horizons within 30 inches of the soil surface. Component: Columbo (10%) Generated brief soil descriptions are created for major soil components. The Columbo soil is a minor component. Component: Eckley (3%) Generated brief soil descriptions are created for major soil components. The Eckley soil is a minor component. Component: Otero (2%) USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey a Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey 8/1/2016 Page 5 of 6 Map Unit Description (Brief, Generated) ---Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part Bennett Pit Generated brief soil descriptions are created for major soil components. The Otero soil is a minor component. Map Unit: 85 Water Component: Water (95%) Generated brief soil descriptions are created for major soil components. The Water is a miscellaneous area. Component: Aquolls (5%) Generated brief soil descriptions are created for major soil components. The Aquolls soil is a minor component. Data Source Information Soil Survey Area: Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part Survey Area Data: Version 14, Sep 22, 2015 trim Natural Resources Web Soil Survey a Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey 8/1/2016 Page 6 of 6 EXHIBIT J Vegetation Information The project site was surveyed for both general vegetation and for the presence of possible wetland areas by Ecological Resource Consultants (ERC). The site is currently cultivated cropland. ERC's wetland delineation report is attached which includes descriptions of the general vegetation found on the site and wetlands found in the area. Note that jurisdictional wetlands were found on the site. NCCI is applying for and will comply with an Army Corps of Engineers Nationwide Permit for the minor disturbances to any jurisdictional wetlands that will result from the construction of an access road to the site. No other disturbances to potential jurisdictional wetlands will occur from the mining activities. L. hi( onsulting, Inc. Northern Colorado Constructors Bennett Pit DRMS 112 Permit Application Ecological Resource Consultants, Inc. 5672 Juhls Drive ^' Boulder, CO ^' 80301 ~ (303) 679-4820 AQUATIC RESOURCE DELINEATION REPORT FOR BENNETT PROPERTY SEPTEMBER 23, 2016 Prepared By: Kyle Medash, Project Ecologist, WPIT Ecological Resource Consultants, Inc. (ERC) 5672 Juhls Drive Boulder, Colorado 80301 (303) 679-4820 x105 kyle@erccolorado.net Prepared For: J&T Consulting, Inc. 305 Denver Avenue, Suite D Fort Lupton, CO 80621 Office: (303) 857-6222 Mobile: (303) 222-9530 FAX: (303) 857-6224 ERC Project #420-1602 S ERC Bennett Property Aquatic Resource Delineation Report EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report summarizes the delineation of aquatic resources completed by Ecological Resource Consultants, Inc. (ERC) for the Bennett Property. ERC conducted a formal routine onsite delineation of aquatic resources within the 191 -acre survey area located in unincorporated Weld County, Colorado on August 23-26, 29, and 31, 2016. A total of 21.85 acres of aquatic resources were identified and mapped within the survey area which include: 8.18 acres characterized as PFO/PSS/Riverine wetland habitat including 1,360 feet of stream channel; 0.27 acres characterized as PFO wetland habitat; 6.29 acres characterized as POW/PEM marsh habitat; 6.96 acres characterized as PEM wetland habitat; 0.08 acres characterized as a POW man-made pond habitat and 0.07 acres (130 linear feet) characterized as irrigation ditch The aquatic resource areas were delineated and mapped as A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, and M. Aquatic Resources A, C, D, E, G, H, I, and M appear to contain a direct surface connection to downstream traditional navigable waters (TNWs), the South Platte River approximately 0.5 miles north from the survey area. Aquatic Resources B, F, J, K, and L do not appear to contain a direct surface connection to other wetlands or waters of the US. Within and bordering the eastern portion of the survey area is approximately 1,360 linear feet of waters classified as TNW and mapped as a portion of Aquatic Resource A, which is identified on the USGS topographic map as the South Platte River. In addition, approximately 130 linear feet of man-made irrigation ditch, identified on the USGS topographic map as Meadow Island Levee Ditch No. 1, occurs within the survey area. The Meadow Island Levee Ditch No. 1 appears to be historically excavated wholly in uplands. Meadow Island Levee Ditch No. 1 flows north for approximately 4 miles to Beeman Ditch, which flows northwest approximately 3 miles to the confluence with Saint Vrain Creek which joins the South Platte River approximately 2 miles to the northwest (CDOT 2004). Also, approximately 7,026 linear feet of concrete ditch occurs within the survey area which appears to have been historically constructed wholly in uplands for irrigation purposes and was not characterized as an aquatic resource as part of this delineation. All areas that have been investigated in the field are mapped on the Aquatic Resource Delineation Map dated September 23, 2016 (Appendix A). Table 1 below summarizes the Aquatic Resources mapped within the survey area and their potential connections to wetlands or waters of the U.S. Table 1. Summary of Aquatic Resource Connectivity. Aquatic Resource Name 'Connection to Waters A Flows to S. Platte River within the survey area C, D, E, G, H, I, and M2 Flows to S. Platte River outside the survey area B, F, J, K, and L No direct connection observed Notes: 1Connection based on Google Earth 2016 2 Connection based on CDOT 2004 � ERC Bennett Property Aquatic Resource Delineation Report CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 2.0 LOCATION 1 3.0 METHODOLOGY 4 4.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS 5 4.1 LANDSCAPE SETTING 5 4.2 AQUATIC RESOURCES 5 4.3 UPLAND HABITAT 16 5.0 REFERENCES 20 APPENDIX A Aquatic Resource Delineation Maps — Overview, Sheets 1-3 APPENDIX B ERC Wetland Determination Data Forms j ERC 1.0 INTRODUCTION Bennett Property Aquatic Resource Delineation Report This report summarizes the delineation of aquatic resources completed by Ecological Resource Consultants, Inc. (ERC) for the Bennett Property. The purpose of this report is to provide a formal delineation of aquatic resources within the approximately 191 -acre survey area established for this Site. This report facilitates efforts to document aquatic resource boundary determinations for verification and jurisdictional review by the US Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE). Report Prepared for: J&T Consulting, Inc. (Project Engineer) 305 Denver Avenue, Suite D Fort Lupton, CO 80621 Office: (303) 857-6222 Mobile: (303) 222-9530 FAX: (303) 857-6224 2.0LOCATION The survey area is located on the northern side of County Road 221/2 in unincorporated Weld County, Colorado in the Town of Platteville - South Platte River watershed (HUC 101900030603). More specifically, the majority of the survey area is located in Section 12, Township 2 North, Range 67 West, and the northernmost portion of the survey area is located Section 1, Township 2 North, and Range 67 West in Weld County (latitude 40.152317° north, longitude -104.835936° west). From Hwy 52, the survey area can be accessed by heading north for approximately 4.9 miles on County Road 23, then east on County Road 22 %2 for approximately 0.7 miles. The survey area is located on the north side of County Road 22%2, and is accessible through a locked gate on an unpaved access road. The survey area comprises approximately 191 acres. Refer to Figure 1 and Figure 2 for a location map and US Geological Survey (USGS) topographic map of the survey area. 9/23/2016 1 ERC Bennett Property Aquatic Resource Delineation Report NS LID t \ I.. .11 h Collins • Cr eeley L()wont Boulder Denver -thorne O SOPS Platte., Off. Legend Approxiamate Location Survey Area (191 acres) Prepared By. .a [11 5672 Juhls Drive Boulder. CO 80301 (303) 679-4820 LRC 11420-1502 FIGURE 1. LOCATION MAP BENNET PROPERTY WELD COUNTY, COLORADO 0 0.5 1 1 Miles Prepared For J&T Consulting. Inc September 23. 2016 9/23/2016 2 � ERC Prepared By: ERC 5672 Juhls Drive Boulder. CO 80301 (303) 679-4820 ERC #420-1602 FIGURE 2. USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP BENNET PROPERTY WELD COUNTY, COLORADO Bennett Property Aquatic Resource Delineation Report 0 •+9r�er awl atalY'Ke��rMrwr m[ov@[-uiv.�evrnaer. twwYMWeiflritaw.m'r961SYw4imNw.RweatteeIR•tia Survey Area (191 acres) 025 05 IMiles Prepared For: J&T Consulting. Inc. September 23, 2016 9/23/2016 3 Aik ERC 3.0 METHODOLOGY Bennett Property Aquatic Resource Delineation Report The aquatic resource delineation was conducted following the methodology enumerated in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Great Plains Region (Version 2.0) (herein referred to as "Supplement") (Environmental Laboratory 1987, USACE 2010). During the field inspection, dominant vegetation was recorded, representative hydrologic indicators were noted and soil samples were examined for hydric indicators. Delineation field work for the survey area was completed on August 23-26, 29, and 31, 2016. The weather during the delineation was sunny with afternoon thunderstorms at approximately 75 degrees Fahrenheit. At the time of the field evaluation, the conditions observed within the survey area were typical for the region and sufficient indicators of vegetation, soils and hydrology were observed to make a wetland determination. The USACE and the Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) jointly define wetlands as: "those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions" [40 CFR 230.3(t)]. Three general environmental parameters define a wetland. These parameters must include the presence of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology. Except under certain situations, evidence of a minimum of one positive wetland indicator from each of the above parameters must be identified in order to make a positive wetland determination. In addition, waters of the US are also defined as areas that "include essentially all surface waters such as rivers, streams and their tributaries, all wetlands adjacent to these waters, and all ponds, lakes and reservoirs". The boundaries of some waters of the US (i.e., such as streams or lakes) are further defined by the ordinary high water mark (OHWM). The OHWM is characterized as "the line on the shores established by the fluctuations of water and indicated by physical characteristics such as: a clear natural line impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in the character of the soil, wetland vegetation, the presence of litter and debris, and other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas" (USACE 2005). These definitions are the basis of this delineation method. Areas that do not meet any one of the wetland parameters (hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils and/or wetland hydrology) or non -vegetated stream channel/open water (OHWM) were classified as a non -wetland (upland) and mapped as such. Any area determined to be potential waters of the US was delineated in the field with pink pin flags and ribbon and sequentially labeled alpha -numerically (i.e. Al, A2...). Each wetland determination point was recorded using a hand-held Trimble GeoXH global positioning system (GPS) receiver. The resulting GPS data were post processed using GPS Pathfinder Office 5.3 software. Post processing differential correction provided an average horizontal mapping accuracy of +/- 2 feet. Post -processed GPS data were imported into ArcMap Geographic Information Systems (GIS) (Version 10.4) for spatial analysis and mapping. All aquatic resources delineated within the survey area are depicted on the Aquatic Resource Delineation Maps dated September 23, 2016 provided as Appendix A. Wetland Determination data sheets are provided in Appendix B. 9/23/2016 4 ERC 4.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS 4.1 LANDSCAPE SETTING Bennett Property Aquatic Resource Delineation Report raltar.11andaiiii, AileMORMININIKWISPOISIMMIr - The survey area is situated within the Great Plains ecoregion (Bailey 1976) at an approximate elevation of 4,835 feet above mean sea level (AMSL). The vicinity of the survey area is comprised largely of agricultural lands, gas and oil well development, and intermixed with residential homes. The survey area is zoned by Weld County as agricultural land. Land neighboring the survey area includes County Road 22 1/2 to the south, agricultural land to the northwest, forested area to the north, County Road 23 to the west and the South Platte River is situated along the eastern/northeastern boundary. The landscape within the survey area is predominantly characterized by the Cultivated Cropland ecological system (Comer et al. 2003). This non -natural system includes lands used for the production of annual crops where crop vegetation accounts for greater than 20 percent of the total vegetation and where the land is actively tilled. The eastern and central portions of the survey area are characterized as Western Great Plains Floodplain (Comer et al. 2003). This riparian system group is found in the floodplains of medium and large rivers of the western Great Plains and typically comprises a mix of wetland and upland habitats. Alluvial soils and periodic, intermediate flooding (every 5-25 years) typify this system. 4.2 AQUATIC RESOURCES Delineated aquatic resources were classified according to physical and biological characteristics using the Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (Cowardin Classification System) (Cowardin et al. 1979). Within the survey area, habitat types were classified based on field evaluation. The wetland habitats within the survey that were classified using the Cowardin Classification System are summarized below in Table A2. A total of 21.85 acres of aquatic resources, 1,360 linear feet of stream channel, and 130 linear feet of irrigation ditch were delineated by ERC within the survey area. A description of the aquatic resource habitat types is provided as follows. Refer to Table 3 for a list of vegetation identified within the survey area (Lichvar et al. 2016). The Aquatic Resource Delineation Maps dated September 23, 2016 are provided as Appendix A. Wetland Determination data sheets are provided in Appendix B. 9/23/2016 5 r F;RC Bennett Property Aquatic Resource Delineation Report Table A2. Summary of Aquatic Resources Delineated within the SurveArea. y Aquatic Resource Name Classification Linear Feet 1Cowardin Location (lat/long) lat/Ion Acres A PFO/PSS/R2 40.154887°N, -104.835963°W 8.18 1,360 B PFO 40.153038°N, -104.836050°W 0.23 - C POW/PEM 40.154054°N, -104.844223°W 3.93 - D POW/PEM 40.156213°N, -104.842473°W 0.96 - E PEM 40.155705°N, -104.844435°W 3.39 - F PEM 40.157452°N, -104.841590°W 0.44 - G PEM 40.158018°N, -104.841652°W 0.61 - H POW/PEM 40.159573°N, -104.844345°W 1.4 - I PEM 40.159819°N, -104.838966°W 1.13 - J PEM 40.159262°N, -104.835686°W 1.39 - K POW 40.160627°N, -104.835487°W 0.08 - L PFO 40.152472°N, -104.836053°W 0.04 - M Irrigation Ditch 40.159625°N, -104.846839°W 0.07 130 TOTAL ONSITE 1,490 21.85 ores 1 Habitat Type based on Cowardin et al. 1979. AQUATIC RESOURCE A (8.18 ACRES) Aquatic Resource A comprises the South Platte River and its associated riparian PFO/PSS wetland habitat situated along the eastern edge of the survey area. The South Platte River runs through the survey area for approximately 1,360 linear feet. The wetland boundary is bordered by an access road along the western side. The PFO and PSS portions of Aquatic Resource A are a typical riverine system occurring within the 100 -year floodplain and discharge to the South Platte River. Overall, the vegetation community of Aquatic Resource A is dominated by Eastern cottonwood (Populus deltoides), narrowleaf willow (Salix exigua), peachleaf willow (Salix amygdaloides), reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea), freshwater cord grass (Spartina pectinata), and spotted ladysthumb (Persicaria maculosa). These areas contain a seasonally flooded water regime. The dominant vegetation within the wetland areas consists of hydrophytic species (FACW-FAC). Soils within the wetland areas are silty clay loam, sandy loam, and loam textured meeting the criteria for the hydric soil indicator F3 (Depleted Matrix) and F6 (Redox Dark Surface). At the time of the delineation, primary wetland hydrology indicators of C3 (Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots) were observed along the wetland/upland boundary in addition to secondary indicators of D3 (Geomorphic Position) and D5 (FAC-Neutral Test). The wetland habitat within Aquatic Resource A meets the criteria for wetland based on the presence of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils and wetland hydrology. A portion of Aquatic Resource A comprises permanently flooded Riverine (R2) habitat associated with the South Platte River. The USACE considers the South Platte River a TNW. The aquatic resource boundary was established along the OHWM in areas where a defined bed and bank were present, but bordering wetlands were not present. 9/23/2016 6 � ERC Bennett Property Aquatic Resource Delineation Report co Aquatic Resource A comprises a total of 8.18 acres within the survey area. Refer to Photos 1-2 below for characteristics of Aquatic Resource A. S elk Photo 1. View northeast at the northern portion of the South Platte River (Aquatic Resource A) through the survey area. Photo 2. View northeast at the southern portion PFO/PSS wetland habitat of Aquatic Resource A. Approximate location of wetland data point DP -Ala shown in yellow and southern aquatic resource boundary depicted by the blue line. AQUATIC RESOURCE B (0.23 ACRES), AQUATIC RESOURCE L (0.04 ACRES) Aquatic Resource B and L consist of low-lying depressions dominated by PFO wetland habitat. The wetlands are located along the east and west sides of the survey area access road, respectively. Aquatic Resource B is separated from Aquatic Resource A by an upland forested habitat. Aquatic Resource L is located in a depression at the intersection of County Road 22 %z and the access road to the survey area. Aquatic Resource L is bordered by mowed agricultural land to the north. Both wetlands appear to collect hydrology from surface water runoff from surrounding upslope areas. Aquatic Resources B and L do not appear to contain a direct surface connection to other wetlands or waters of the US. Overall, the vegetation communities of Aquatic Resources B and L are dominated by species such as eastern cottonwood, peachleaf willow, reed canary grass, freshwater cord grass, and soft -stem club -rush (Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani). These areas contain seasonally flooded water regime. The dominant species within the wetland areas consists of hydrophytic species (OBL-FAC). Soils within the wetland areas are either silty clay loam, silt loam, or sandy loam textured meeting the criteria for the hydric soil indicator F3 (Depleted Matrix), F6 (Redox Dark Surface), and F8 (Redox Depressions). At the time of the delineation, primary wetland hydrology indicator of C3 (Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots) was observed within Aquatic Resource B and L in addition to secondary indicators of D3 (Geomorphic Position) and D5 (FAC-Neutral Test). The wetland habitat within Aquatic Resource B meets the criteria for wetland based on the presence of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils and wetland hydrology. Aquatic Resource B comprises a total of 0.23 acres within the survey area. Aquatic Resource L comprises a total of 0.04 acres within the survey area. Refer to Photos 3-4 below for characteristics of Aquatic Resources B and L. 9/23/2016 7 � ERC Photo 3. View east at PFO wetland habitat of Aquatic Resource B. Approximate location of data points DP-B1a (wetland) and DP-B1b (upland) shown above. Wetland boundary depicted by the blue line. Bennett Property Aquatic Resource Delineation Report Photo 4. View southwest at PFO wetland habitat of Aquatic Resource L (depicted by blue line). Approximate locations of data points DP-Lla (wetland) and DP-L1b (upland) shown above. AQUATIC RESOURCE C (3.93 ACRES), AQUATIC RESOURCE D (0.96 ACRES), AND AQUATIC RESOURCE H (1.4 ACRES) Aquatic Resource C, D, and H comprise POW/PEM wetland marsh habitat situated in the western portion of the survey area. Fallow agricultural land surrounds the boundaries of Aquatic Resources C, D, and H. A culvert beneath an access road to an oil well conveys flows from Aquatic Resource C to Aquatic Resource D and H. Aquatic Resources D and H encompass the same wetland but were delineated separately to stay within the limits of the survey area. Aquatic Resources C, D, and H appear from aerial imagery (Google Earth 2016) to drain to the South Platte River approximately 0.5 miles north of the survey area. The majority of habitat within Aquatic Resources C, D and H comprise a series of open water impoundments (POW) with a narrow PEM wetland fringe. Overall, the vegetation community in the PEM fringe areas of Aquatic Resources C, D, and H are dominated by nearly monotypic stands of broad -leaf cat -tail with a permanently flooded water regime. Other dominant species that occur within the dryer outer fringe areas include dock -leaf smartweed (Persicaria lapathifolia), spotted ladysthumb, and soft -stem club -rush. These areas contain a semi -permanently flooded water regime. The dominant vegetation within the wetland areas consists of hydrophytic species (OBL- FACW). Soils within the wetland areas are gravelly loam to gravelly clay loam textured meeting the criteria for the hydric soil indicator F6 (Redox Dark Surface). At the time of the delineation, primary wetland hydrology indicators of A3 (Saturation), A2 (High Water Table), Al (Surface Water), B7 (Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery), and C3 (Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots) were observed along the wetland/upland boundary in addition to secondary indicators of C9 (Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery), D3 (Geomorphic Position) and D5 (FAC-Neutral Test). The water table was present and observed at the surface in the saturated outer fringe areas. The wetland habitat within Aquatic Resources C, D, and H meets the criteria for wetland based on the presence of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils and wetland hydrology. Aquatic Resource C comprises a total of 3.93 acres within the survey area. Aquatic Resource D comprises a total of 0.96 acres within the survey area. Aquatic Resource H comprises a total of 1.4 acres within the survey area. Refer to Photos 5-6 below for characteristics of Aquatic Resources D and H. 9/23/2016 8 � ERC Photo 5. View north at Aquatic Resource D from the oil well access road. This is an example of the POW wetland habitat that occupies the western portion of the survey area. AQUATIC RESOURCE E (3.39 ACRES) Bennett Property Aquatic Resource Delineation Report Photo 6. View east at Aquatic Resource H which is dominated by a monotypic stand of cattails (boundary depicted by blue line). Wetland data point DP-Hla and paired upland DP-Hlb are shown above. Aquatic Resource E comprises a large wet meadow PEM wetland located in the western portion of the survey area. Aquatic Resource E is located approximately 300 feet west from Aquatic Resources C and D but all were observed as connecting to Aquatic Resource H, outside the survey area to the north. The vegetation community of Aquatic Resource E is dominated by species such as three -square (Schoenoplectus pungens), fox -tail barley (Hordeum jubatum), and alkali muhly (Muhlenbergia asperifolia) within the interior portion. The eastern outer portion is dominated by coastal salt grass (Distichlis spicata). These areas contain a seasonally flooded water regime. The dominant vegetation within the wetland area consists of hydrophytic species (OBL-FACW). Within Aquatic Resource E soils are silty clay textured meeting the criteria for the hydric soil indicator F6 (Redox Dark Surface). At the time of the delineation, primary wetland hydrology indicator of C3 (Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots) were observed throughout Aquatic Resource E in addition to secondary indicator of DS (FAC- Neutral Test). The primary source of hydrology for Aquatic Resource E is likely groundwater in combination with surface water runoff from surrounding upslope areas. The wetland habitat within Aquatic Resource E meets the criteria for wetland based on the presence of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils and wetland hydrology. Aquatic Resource E comprises a total of 3.39 acres within the survey area. Refer to Photos 7-8 below for characteristics of Aquatic Resource E. 9/23/2016 9 � ERC Photo 7. View south of Aquatic Resource E (depicted by blue line). Dominant vegetation in the eastern outer portion (center of photo) is nearly all coastal salt grass. Location of data points DP-E1a (wetland) and DP-E1b (upland) shown above. Bennett Property Aquatic Resource Delineation Report Photo 8. Overview northwest of Aquatic Resource E. Dominant vegetation in this portion includes three -square, fox -tail barley, and alkali muhly. The wetland connects with Aquatic Resource H approximately 900 feet to the north. AQUATIC RESOURCE F (0.44 ACRES), AQUATIC RESOURCE G (0.61 ACRES) Aquatic Resource F and G consist of PEM wetland habitat situated on the west side of the survey area within a linear topographic depression in a powerline corridor. Aquatic Resource F is separated from Aquatic Resource G by a dirt road to access an agricultural field to the west. No culverts or connections were observed between Aquatic Resources F and G. Aquatic Resource G appears to be connected to downslope Aquatic Resource H outside of the survey area to the north. The vegetation community of Aquatic Resource F is dominated by herbaceous species such as three -square, soft - stem club -rush, and common spike-rush (Eleocharis palustris). Aquatic Resource F also exhibits a monotypic stands of broadleaf cat -tail mainly within the northern and southern portions. A small patch of narrowleaf willow shrubs and Russian olive trees was observed along the southeast boundary. This area contains a seasonally flooded water regime. The dominant vegetation within Aquatic Resource F consists of hydrophytic species (OBL). The vegetation community of Aquatic Resource G is dominated by a nearly monotypic stand of broad -leaf cat -tail. Russian olive trees were observed along the eastern boundary. This area contains a semi -permanently flooded water regime. The dominant vegetation within Aquatic Resource G consists of hydrophytic species (OBL). Soils within the wetland areas are clay loam to gravelly loam textured meeting the criteria for the hydric soil indicator F3 (Depleted Matrix). At the time of the delineation, primary wetland hydrology indicators of A3 (Saturation) and A2 (High Water Table) were observed along the wetland/upland boundary of Aquatic Resource G in addition to secondary indicators of D2 (Geomorphic Position) and D5 (FAC-Neutral Test). Aquatic Resource F exhibited primary wetland hydrology indicator of C3 (Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots) in addition to secondary indicators of D2 (Geomorphic Position) and D5 (FAC-Neutral Test). The water table was present and observed at the surface in Aquatic Resource G. The wetland habitat within Aquatic Resources F and G meets the criteria for wetland based on the presence of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils and wetland hydrology. Aquatic Resource F comprises a total of 0.44 acres within the survey area. Aquatic Resource G comprises a total of 0.61 acres within the survey area Refer to Photos 9-10 below for characteristics of Aquatic Resources F and G. 9/23/2016 10 Ak ERC Photo 9. View north of Aquatic Resource F (depicted by blue line). This portion of the PEM wetland is dominated by herbaceous species such as three -square, soft -stem club -rush, and common spike-rush. Approximate location of data point DP -Fla (wetland) shown above. AQUATIC RESOURCE I (1.13 ACRES) Bennett Property Aquatic Resource Delineation Report Photo 10. View south along the western boundary of Aquatic Resource G (depicted by blue line). Nearly the entire resource is dominated by broad -leaf cattail. Approximate location of data point DP-G1a (wetland) shown above. Aquatic Resource I consists of PEM wetland habitat within a low-lying drainage Swale, situated along the northwestern boundary of the survey area. The wetland is bordered by fallow agricultural fields to the east and west and likely receives most of its hydrology through surface water runoff from precipitation and nearby irrigation practices. Based on aerial imagery (Google Earth 2016) and field observations, Aquatic Resource I appears to extend to the north (offsite) to POW wetland habitat which then flows to the South Platte River approximately 0.2 miles from the survey area. Overall, the vegetation community of Aquatic Resource I is dominated by species such as spotted ladysthumb, reed canary grass, and showy milkweed (Asclepias speciosa). The dominant vegetation within the wetland areas consists of hydrophytic species (FACW-FAC). Soils within the wetland are silt loam and clay loam textured meeting the criteria for the hydric soil indicator F6 (Redox Dark Surface). At the time of the delineation, primary wetland hydrology indicators of B9 (Water -Stained Leaves) and C3 (Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots) were observed within Aquatic Resource I in addition to secondary indicators of D2 (Geomorphic Position) and DS (FAC-Neutral Test). The wetland habitat within Aquatic Resource I meets the criteria for wetland based on the presence of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils and wetland hydrology. Aquatic Resource F comprises a total of 1.13 acres within the survey area. Refer to Photos 11-12 below for characteristics of Aquatic Resource I. 9/23/2016 11 � ERC Photo 11. View north at PEN/ wetland habitat within a low- lying drainage swale of Aquatic Resource I (depicted by blue line). The wetland extends north along fallow agricultural fields. Data points DP-I1a (wetland) and DP-llb (upland) shown above. Bennett Property Aquatic Resource Delineation Report Photo 12. View north at The PEN' wetland habitat of Aquatic Resource I (depicted by blue line). Photo is located at the northern survey area boundary where Aquatic Resource drains to POW wetland outside of the survey area which then flows north into the South Platte River. AQUATIC RESOURCE J (1.39 ACRES) Aquatic Resource J consists of flood irrigated PEM wetland habitat, situated within an active agricultural field currently planted with corn and the uncultivated fallow edge of the field. Aquatic Resource J receives hydrology by diverting flows from a concrete ditch to the west. The concrete ditch has been blocked with a tarp to catch the flowing water (typical local flood irrigation practices). The backed up water then spills east into the field, creating the hydrology for Aquatic Resource J. Hydrology within Aquatic Resource J is solely influenced by flood irrigation practices. The eastern boundary of Aquatic Resource J is formed by the upland berm for the access road to the survey area. In addition, approximately 500 linear feet of concrete ditch forms the northern upland/wetland boundary however, the concrete ditch is not included as part of Aquatic Resource J. The remainder of the upland/wetland boundary consists of an active corn field. No culverts or hydrologic connections were observed that connect Aquatic Resource J to other downslope wetlands or waters of the US. The vegetation community within Aquatic Resource J is dominated by species such as spotted ladysthumb, freshwater cord grass, and reed canary grass. The main portion of Aquatic Resource J appears to have been partially cultivated with corn row crops. The dominant vegetation within the wetland areas consists of hydrophytic species (FACW). Soils within the wetland are sandy loam textured meeting the criteria for hydric soil indicator F3 (Depleted Matrix). At the time of the delineation, secondary hydrology indicators of D2 (Geomorphic Position) and D5 (FAC-Neutral Test) were observed at the location of data point DP-J1a however, the western and central portion of the Aquatic Resource J exhibited 1-2 inches of surface water and saturation at the surface solely due to flood irrigation. No groundwater or other sources of hydrology were observed at the time of the delineation. The wetland habitat within Aquatic Resource I meets the criteria for wetland based on the presence of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils and wetland hydrology. Aquatic Resource J comprises a total of 1.39 acres within the survey area. Refer to Photos 13-14 below for characteristics of Aquatic Resource J. 9/23/2016 12 lik ERC Photo 13. View east at a tarp blocking and diverting water flows within a concrete ditch creating hydrology for the PEM wetland habitat of Aquatic Resource J. Bennett Property Aquatic Resource Delineation Report Photo 14. View northeast at the central portion of Aquatic Resource J. Surface water and saturation due to flood irrigation were observed in this portion of the wetland and can be seen in the photo. AQUATIC RESOURCE K (0.08 ACRES) Aquatic Resource K comprises a small, man-made open water pond (POW) located in the eastern portion of the survey area within a maintained lawn. The wetland is situated approximately 175 feet from the South Platte River but appears to have been historically excavated wholly in uplands and no connection to wetlands or other waters of the US was observed. No vegetation was observed within the wetland boundary. Soil material appeared to be compacted and gravelly. Aquatic Resource K exhibited a clear line on the bank where the water level was present earlier in the growing season. Aquatic Resource K likely only receives hydrology through surface water runoff from precipitation and possibly from nearby irrigation practices. The boundary for Aquatic Resource K was established based on the presence of OHWM indicators. Aquatic Resource K comprises a total of 0.08 acres within the survey area. Refer to Photos 15-16 below for characteristics of Aquatic Resource I. 9/23/2016 13 A ERC Photo 15. View south at Aquatic Resource K which is man- made POW habitat, located in a maintained lawn. Bennett Property Aquatic Resource Delineation Report Photo 16. View north of Aquatic Resource K. A clear line on the bank indicating OHWM can be seen at the left of the photo. AQUATIC RESOURCE M (0.07 ACRES) Aquatic Resource M comprises a man-made irrigation ditch, depicted on USGS mapping as Meadow Island Levee Ditch No. 1. The ditch bisects the western portion of the survey area and comprises approximately 0.07 acres and 130 linear feet within the survey area. The irrigation ditch originates from the South Platte River approximately 3 miles southeast of the survey area. The ditch then flows from south to north through the survey area. From the survey area, Meadow Island Levee Ditch No. 1 flows north for approximately 4 miles to Beeman Ditch, which flows northwest approximately 3 miles to the confluence with Saint Vrain Creek which joins the South Platte River approximately 2 miles to the northwest (CDOT 2004). The South Platte River is considered a TNW by the USACE. Aquatic Resource M was observed to contain approximately 3 feet of surface water with a gravelly compacted bottom at the time of the delineation. The ditch is approximately 8 feet wide through the survey area. The boundary for Aquatic Resource M was established based on the presence OHWM indicators. Aquatic Resource M comprises a total of 0.07 acres and 130 linear feet within the survey area. Refer to Photos 17- 18 below for characteristics of Aquatic Resource M. 9/23/2016 14 � ERC Bennett Property Aquatic Resource Delineation Report r : Photo 18. View southeast at Aquatic Resource M (Meadow .. ••••• - . $ . Photo 17. View northeast at Aquatic Resource M (Meadow Island Levee Ditch No. 1) which flows from south to north Island Levee Ditch No. 1). through the survey area. Table 3. Plant Species Found Within the Survey Area. Scientific Name Common Name WIS* Ambrosia artemisiifolia Apocynum cannabinum Asclepias speciosa Bassia scoparia Bromus inermis Bromus tectorum Chenopodium fremontii Cirsium arvense Cirsium undulatum Conium maculatum Convolvulus arvensis Conyza canadensis Descurainia incana Echinochloa crus-galli Elaeagnus angustifolia Eleocharis palustris Euphorbia esula Glycyrrhiza lepidota Grindelia squarrosa Helianthus annuus Hordeum jubatum Lactuca serriola Muhlenbergia asperifolia Annual Ragweed Indian -Hemp Showy Milkweed Mexican -fireweed Smooth brome Cheatgrass Fremont's Goosefoot Canada thistle Wavy -Leaf Thistle Poison -Hemlock Field Bindweed Canadian Horseweed Mountain Tansy -Mustard Large Barnyard Grass Russian -Olive Common Spike -Rush Leafy Spurge American Licorice Curly -Cup Gumweed Common Sunflower Fox -Tail Barley Prickly Lettuce Alkali Muhly FACU FAC FAC FACU UPL NL FACU FACU FACU FACW NL NL UPL FAC FACU OBL NL FACU UPL FACU FACW FAC FACW 9/23/2016 15 � ERC Bennett Property Aquatic Resource Delineation Report Scientific Name Common Name WIS* Pascopyrum smithii Persicaria lapathifolia Persicaria maculosa Phalaris arundinacea Populus deltoides 1 Populus tremuloides Portulaca oleracea Rum ex crispus Salix amygdaloides Salix exigua Schoenoplectus pungens Spartina pectinata Triticum aestivum Typha latifolia Verbena bracteata Xanthium strumarium Western -Wheat Grass Dock -Leaf Smartweed Spotted Ladysthumb Reed Canary Grass Eastern Cottonwood Quaking Aspen Little-Hogweed Curly Dock Peachleaf Willow Narrow -Leaf Willow Three -Square Freshwater Cord Grass Common Wheat Broad -Leaf Cat -Tail Carpet Vervain Rough Cockleburr FACU OBL FACW FACW FAC FAC FAC FAC NL FACW OBL FACW NL OBL FACU FAC * Wetland Indicator Status (WIS) OBL FACW FAC FACU UPL NI NL — Great Plains Regions: = occurs in aquatic resources > 99% of time = occurs in aquatic resources 67-99% of time = occurs in aquatic resources 34-66% of time = occurs in aquatic resources 1-33% of time = occurs in uplands > 99% of time = indicator status not known in this region = indicator status not listed WIS Source: Lichvar, R.W., D.L. Banks, W.N. Kirchner, and N.C. Melvin. 2016. The National Wetland Plant List: 2016 wetland ratings. Phytoneuron 2016-30: 1- 17. Published 28 April 2016. ISSN 2153 733X http://www.phytoneuron.net/ 4.3 UPLAND HABITAT Upland habitat within the survey area consists primarily of agricultural land across most of the survey area, a residential home with a maintained lawn within the northeastern portion, two (approximately one -acre) oil well sites - one in the eastern central portion and one in the western central portion, fallow agricultural land across the western portion, and a small forested area of cottonwoods situated in the southeastern portion of the survey area. Three vegetation communities are associated with upland habitats and include: smooth brome (Bromus inermis)- western wheatgrass (Pascopyrum smithi) ruderal herbaceous vegetation, cultivated cropland and upland woodland. 9/23/2016 16 .o► ERC Bennett Property Aquatic Resource Delineation Report The cultivated cropland community, located across the central, northern, and southern portions of the survey area, is characterized as non -natural system which includes lands used for the production of annual crops where crop vegetation accounts for greater than 20 percent of the total vegetation and where the land is actively tilled which comprises a large portion of the uplands within the survey area. The ruderal herbaceous vegetation community occurs widely through the Great Plains and has been commonly planted for pasture and hay fields (NatureServe 2016). Native species generally comprise less than 10% cover and include mixed -grass prairie grasses such as western -wheat grass. Other grasses and weedy species which dominate this community within the survey area include Mexican -fireweed (Bassia scoparia), smooth brome, cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), annual ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia), Fremont's goosefoot (Chenopodium fremontii), leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula), curly -cup gumweed (Grindelia squarrosa), common sunflower (Helianthus annuus), field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis), Indian -hemp (Apocynum cannabinum), Canadian thistle (Cirsium arvense), and Canadian horseweed (Conyza canadensis). The central portion of the survey area is currently used as cultivated cropland currently planted with corn and the species listed above are descriptive of the fallow edges of the cultivated fields and the uncultivated, fallow western portion. The remainder of the cultivated cropland portions in the northern and southern portions of the survey area have been mowed. The vegetation cover across this portion of the survey area is sparse, approximately 0% to 30% cover, and is also dominated by upland grasses and weeds. In general, the native species of this vegetation community are not conspicuous enough to identify the native plant association that could occupy the area (NatureServe 2016). The woodland area in the southeast corner of the site is characterized by The Western Great Plains riparian woodland, shrubland, and herbaceous vegetation community and is found in the riparian areas of medium and small rivers and streams throughout the Western Great Plains and common in Colorado throughout the eastern plains (CNHP 2005). This woodland area is located along a high terrace above the South Platte River and exhibits dominant tree and herbaceous species such as Eastern cottonwood, smooth brome, and intermixed ruderal herbaceous species. Tree canopy cover in this area is fair, approximately 50% cover but exhibits nearly 100% herbaceous cover. Even though this area is characterized as riparian in the overall landscape, no dominance of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soil, or wetland hydrology was observed therefore was considered upland habitat as part of this delineation. The majority of upland habitats across the survey area are dominated by FACU species with dry, light colored silt loam or sandy loam soils. Hydric soils, a dominance of hydrophytic vegetation, and/or wetland hydrology were not present in most upland habitats within the survey area. Some upland habitats were found to occur within topographic depressions and within the floodplain containing vegetation communities exhibiting FAC-FACW species such as Indian -hemp, Eastern cottonwood, and spotted ladysthumb. Although they contain some hydrophytes, the overall species composition within these areas was generally intermixed with some degree of UPL-FACU grasses and weeds such as smooth brome or common sunflower. Moreover, indicators of wetland hydrology and hydric soils were absent in these areas. In addition, approximately 7,026 feet of concrete lined irrigation ditch traverses the southern and central portions of the survey area and can be seen as a pink dotted line on the Aquatic Resource Delineation Maps dated September 23, 2016 provided as Appendix A. The ditch terminates in the southern portion of the survey area near wetland flag A48 and in the central portion of the survey area near wetland flag J25 which is in close proximity to 9/23/2016 17 Bennett Property Aquatic Resource Delineation Report the South Platte River however, no direct connection was observed. The ditch appears to have been historically installed wholly in uplands for irrigation purposes. The concrete ditch is the main source of hydrology for Aquatic Resource J but has not been included as a part of Aquatic Resource J. The concrete ditch is a man-made irrigation feature that was historically excavated from uplands and terminates and uplands therefore was not considered an aquatic resource as part of this wetland delineation. Refer to Photos 19-22 below for characteristics of upland habitats identified within the survey area. Photo 19. View east across fallow agricultural land within western portion of the survey area dominated by weedy species and grasses. Photo 21. View northeast across the uplands characterized by the Western Great Plains riparian woodland in the southeast portion of the survey area. Dominant species in this area include eastern cottonwood and smooth brome. Photo 20. View north at upland cultivated cropland vegetation community that has been mowed across the central and southern portions of the survey area. Photo 22. View south at the southern portion of the concrete lined irrigation ditch that flows through the survey area. Hydrology seen in this photo is diverted into cultivated cropland currently planted with corn and is the source of hydrology for Aquatic Resource J. 9/23/2016 18 Ark ERC This report has been prepared by: ECOLOGICAL RESOURCE CONSULTANTS, INC. Kyle Medash, Ecologist, WPIT (303) 679-4820 x105 Reviewed and approved by: 1 David J. Blauch, V.P., Senior Ecologist (PWS # 2130) Bennett Property Aquatic Resource Delineation Report 9/23/2016 19 Allik ERC 5.0 REFERENCES Bennett Property Aquatic Resource Delineation Report Bailey, R. G. 1976. Ecoregions of the United States, US Forest Service, Ogden, Utah. (Map only; scale 1:7,5000,000.) Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). 2004. ArcGIS Hydrography Dataset for the State of Colorado. Available online at: http://dtdapps.coloradodot.info/otis/catalog. December. Colorado Natural Heritage Program. Western Great Plains Riparian Woodland, Shrubland, and Herbaceous. Revised September 2005. Available online at: http://www.cnhp.colostate.edu/download/projects/ecosystems/pdf/WGP_Riparian_Woodland_and_S hrubland.pdf Corner, P., D. Faber-Langendoen, R. Evans, S. Gawler, C. Josse, G. Kittel, S. Menard, M. Pyne, M. Reid, K. Schulz, K. Snow, and J. Teague. 2003. Ecological Systems of the United States: A Working Classification of U.S. Terrestrial Systems. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Environmental Laboratory. 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1, U.S. Army Corps of Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, MS. Google Earth Imagery. 10/9/2015. Available online at: https://www.google.com/earth/ ITIS. Integrated Taxonomic Information System. 2014. The Integrated Taxonomic Information System. Available online at: www.itis.gov/. Lichvar, R.W., D.L. Banks, W.N. Kirchner, and N.C. Melvin. 2016. The National Wetland Plant List: 2016 wetland ratings. Phytoneuron 2016-30: 1-17. Published 28 April 2016. ISSN 2153 733X NatureServe 2016. NatureServe Explorer Central Database. Ecological Association Comprehensive Report. Available online at: http://explorer.natureserve.org. September. US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2005. Regulatory Guidance Letter, Subject: Ordinary High Water Mark. RGL 05-05. Department of the Army, Washington, D.C. http://www. usace.army.m it/Porta Is/2/docs/civilworks/RGLS/rg105-05.pdf. . 2010. USACE. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Great Plains Region (Version 2.0), ed. J. S. Wakeley, R. W. Lichvar, and C. V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR-10-1. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. Available online at: http://www.usace.army.mil/Portals/2/docs/civilworks/regulatory/reg supp/Rp supp.pdf 2016. Great Plains Regional Wetland Plant List, version 1. Available online at: http://rsgisias.crrel.usace.army.mil/nwpl_static/data/DOC/lists_2016/Regions/pdf/reg_GP_2016v1.pdf US Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS). 2016. Web Soil Survey. Available online at: http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/. 9/23/2016 20 co AI ERC 9/23/2016 APPENDIX A Bennett Property Aquatic Resource Delineation Report N • n v1 _7 :J its La a H. z �; t tit 2 (' h^. UU^ • 51 s x K p i uJ Ile Va yz a§ te et 9 .."I ts2 re w U ,▪ 71 zc6a �w ,_ �. Z to w MI x 2QJ v,Z �TSu3 U y ;7.5. Q I84ww () • u A~ a di t y`--wZ 2 c2 VI 1* w ▪ 2 14-6 tit Uµ,2 4 La' F: .• 4( a: • l 2 1) u. r ) ,.„ W K. le 0 a t 9 t rw IX ^I 'at cs ,ti gs a, w i i cos- k to 8t wa ►W u to a�I ti a1 INC)CINY1LAM `. 13M Its ets el) x W CJ N O G.3 i y00 CS °'CO el in O NI OI 7 tO a n,a 4t N,rs C3 1) 10 Isar CO not W m O am L R.C APPENDIX B 9/23/2016 Bennett Property Aquatic Resource Delineation Report Project/Site: Bennett Property WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Great Plains Region City/County: Unincorporated Weld County Sampling Date: 8/25/2016 Applicant/Owner: J&T Consulting, Inc_ investigator(s): K_Medash Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Toeslope State: Colorado Sampling Point: DP-A1a Section, Township, Range: S12, T2N, R67W Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 2-3 Subregion (LRR): Western Great Plains (LRR G) Lat: 40.154887° N Long: -104..835963° W Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Bankard sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes, frequently flooded Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes NWI classification: N/A No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? No Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ✓ No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? No (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes I/ No Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✓ No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes I No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: Riparian PFO Wetland located in the floodplain of the South Platte River_ Data point located in an extension of the wetland paralleling a portion of an access road. Feature is directly connected to and drains into the South Platte River. Pair with upland data point DP -Alb. VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size: 1 Populus deltoides 2. 3 4. Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: Salix exigua 2. 3. 4. 5. Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1. Phalaris arundinacea 2. Spartina pectinata 3. Persicaria maculosa 4. Glycyrrhiza lepidota 5. 6. _ 7. _ 8. _ 9. _ 10. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 1. 2. % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 5% Absolute Dominant Indicator % Cover Species? Status 50 Yes FAC 50 = Total Cover 80 Yes FACW 80 = Total Cover 35 Yes FACW 30 Yes FACW 20 Yes FACW 10 No FACU 95 = Total Cover = Total Cover Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC—): 5 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 5 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100% (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0' 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ✓ No Remarks: The vegetation community present at this data point is typical of a large portion of resource_ Meets the criteria for hydrophytic vegetation. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains - Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP-A1a Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth (inches) Matrix Redox Features Color (moist) 0-15 10YR 3/2 °/O 80 Color (moist) % Type' Loc2 10YR 4/6 20 C M Texture Remarks Silty clay loam Prominent redox concentrations 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Histosol (A1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Histic Epipedon (A2) Sandy Redox (S5) Black Histic (A3) Stripped Matrix (S6) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR F) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR F, G, H) Depleted Matrix (F3) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) ✓ Redox Dark Surface (F6) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Redox Depressions (F8) 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G, H) High Plains Depressions (F16) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR F) (MLRA 72 & 73 of LRR H) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR I, J) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR F, G, H) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR G) High Plains Depressions (F16) (LRR H outside of MLRA 72 & 73) Reduced Vertic (F18) Red Parent Material (TF2) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Other (Explain in Remarks) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: The soils present in this data point are characteristic of soils within this portion of the resource_ Meets the criteria for hydric soils. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Surface Water (A1) High Water Table (A2) Saturation (A3) Water Marks (B1) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Iron Deposits (B5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Water -Stained Leaves (B9) Salt Crust (B1 1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where not tilled) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Drainage Patterns (B10) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where tilled) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Geomorphic Position (D2) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) (LRR F) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Delineation has been performed in a dry portion of the growing season. Feature likely exhibits visible signs of hydrology earlier in the season. Meets the criteria for wetland hydrology. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains - Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Great Plains Region Project/Site: Bennett Property Applicant/Owner: J&T Consulting, Inc_ Investigator(s): K.Medash Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Floodplain Subregion (LRR): Western Great Plains (LRR G) City/County: Unincorporated Weld County Sampling Date: 8/25/2016 State: Colorado Sampling Point: DP-A1b Section, Township, Range: S12, T2N, R67W Local relief (concave, convex, none): Convex [at: 40.154721° N Long: -104..835914° W Soil Map Unit Name: Bankard sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes, frequently flooded Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? No NWI classification: N/A Slope (%): 1-3 Datum: NAD83 No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ✓ (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) No SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes Yes Yes N o N o N o ✓ ✓ Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: Upland located in a forested area within the floodplain of the South Platte River. Pair with wetland data point DP -Ala. VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size: 1 Populus deltoides 2. Salix amygdaloides 3. 4. Sapling/Shrub Stratum 1 2. 3. 4. (Plot size: 5. Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1 Bromus inermis 2. Bromus tectorum 3. Chenopodium fremontii 4. Glycyrrhiza lepidota 5. Apocynum cannabinum 6. _ 7. _ 8. _ 9. _ 10. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 1. 2. % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 0% Absolute Dominant Indicator % Cover Species? Status 50 Yes FAC 10 No NL 60 0 = Total Cover = Total Cover 40 Yes UPL 25 Yes NL 15 No FACU 10 No FACU 10 No FAC 100 = Total Cover = Total Cover Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC—): 1 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 3 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 33% (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0' 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: Vegetation community present in this data point is representative of the forested area across this portion of the site. Does not meet the criteria for hydrophytic vegetation. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains - Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP-A1b Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix (inches) Color (moist) 0-12 10YR 4/3 100 Redox Features Color (moist) °/0 Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks Silt loam 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR F) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR F, G, H) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G, H) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR F) Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) High Plains Depressions (F16) (MLRA 72 & 73 of LRR H) 'Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR I, J) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR F, G, H) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR G) High Plains Depressions (F16) (LRR H outside of MLRA 72 & 73) Reduced Vertic (F18) Red Parent Material (TF2) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Other (Explain in Remarks) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: Does not meet the criteria for hydric soil. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Surface Water (A1) High Water Table (A2) Saturation (A3) Water Marks (B1) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Iron Deposits (B5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Water -Stained Leaves (B9) Salt Crust (B11) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where not tilled) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Secondary Indicators minimum of two required Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Drainage Patterns (B10) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where tilled) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Geomorphic Position (D2) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) (LRR F) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Does not meet the criteria for wetland hydrology. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains - Version 2.0 Project/Site: Bennett Property WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Great Plains Region City/County: Unincorporated Weld County Sampling Date: 8/25/2016 Applicant/Owner: J&T Consulting, Inc. State: Colorado Sampling Point: DP-A1c 'nvestigator(s): K.Medash Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): FloodplainlToeslope Section, Township, Range: S12, T2N, R67W Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 2-4 Subregion (LRR): Western Great Plains (LRR G) Lat: 40.158616° N Long: -104.835254° W Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Bankard sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes, frequently flooded Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Are Vegetation Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? No NWI classification: R2UBG No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ✓ No naturally problematic? No (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes I No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: Riparian PFO Wetland located within the floodplain of the South Platte River. Paired with upland data point DP -A1 d. VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size: 1 Populus deltoides Absolute Dominant Indicator % Cover Species? Status 30 Yes FAC 2. Salix amygdaloides 15 Yes NL 3. 4. Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: Salix exigua 2. 3. 4. 5. 45 = Total Cover 60 Yes FACW Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Phalaris arundinacea 10. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 1 2. % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 0% 60 = Total Cover 100 Yes FACW 100 = Total Cover = Total Cover Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC—): 3 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 4 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 75°% (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FAC U species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation ✓ 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ✓ No Remarks: Vegetation community present at this data point is typical of this area of the resource. Meets the criteria for hydrophytic vegetation. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains - Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP-A1c Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth (inches) Matrix Redox Features Color (moist) 0-3 10YR 4/2 100 Color (moist) O/O Type' Loc2 3-20 10YR 6/2 80 7.5YR 4/6 20 C PL,M Texture Remarks Loam Sandy loam Prominent redox concentrations 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 'Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Histosol (A1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Histic Epipedon (A2) Sandy Redox (S5) Black Histic (A3) Stripped Matrix (S6) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR F) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR F, G, H) ✓ Depleted Matrix (F3) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Redox Depressions (F8) 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G, H) High Plains Depressions (F16) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR F) (MLRA 72 & 73 of LRR H) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR I, J) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR F, G, H) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR G) High Plains Depressions (F16) (LRR H outside of MLRA 72 & 73) Reduced Vertic (F18) Red Parent Material (TF2) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Other (Explain in Remarks) Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: Lower portion of the profile contained high content of fine sands which is typical in this portion of the floodplain. Meets the criteria for hydric soils. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply; Surface Water (A1) High Water Table (A2) Saturation (A3) Water Marks (B1) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Iron Deposits (B5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Water -Stained Leaves (B9) Salt Crust (B11) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where not tilled) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Drainage Patterns (B10) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where tilled) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Geomorphic Position (D2) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) (LRR F) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Area likely contains more indicators of hydrology earlier in the growing season. Meets the criteria for wetland hydrology. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains - Version 2.0 Project/Site: Bennett Property WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Great Plains Region City/County: Unincorporated Weld County Sampling Date: 8/25/2016 Applicant/Owner: J&T Consulting, Inc_ Investigator(s): K_Medash Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Depression Subregion (LRR): Western Great Plains (LRR G) State: Colorado Sampling Point: DP-A1d Section, Township, Range: S12, T2N, R67W Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Lat: 40.158387° N Long: -104.835254° W Soil Map Unit Name: Bankard sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes, frequently flooded Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes Slope (%): 0-1 Datum: NWI classification: R2USA NAD83 No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? No Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ✓ No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? No (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes Yes Yes No No No ✓ Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No I Remarks: Upland located in a forested area within the floodplain of the South Platte River. Hydric soils are likely present at this location due to the landscape position within the floodplain, however hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology were absent therefore was considered upland. Paired with wetland data point DP -A1 c. VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size: 1. Populus deltoides 2. 3. 4. Sapling/Shrub Stratum 1. 2. 3. 4. (Plot size: 5. Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1 Bromus tectorum 2. Pascopyrum smithii 3. 4. 5. 6. _ 7. _ 8. _ 9. _ 10. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 1. 2. % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 0% Absolute Dominant Indicator % Cover Species? Status 80 Yes FAC 80 0 70 = Total Cover = Total Cover Yes NL 30 Yes FACU 100 = Total Cover = Total Cover Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC—): 1 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 3 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 33% (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is S3.01 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: Vegetation community present at this data point is typical of the upland areas within this portion of the floodplain. Does not meet the criteria for hydrophytic vegetation. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains - Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP-A1d Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth (inches) Matrix Color (moist) % Redox Features Color (moist) % Type' Loc2 0-12 10YR 6/2 90 7.5YR 4/6 10 C M Texture Remarks Sandy loam Prominent redox concentrations 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR F) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR F, G, H) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G, H) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR F) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) High Plains Depressions (F16) (MLRA 72 & 73 of LRR H) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR I, J) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR F, G, H) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR G) High Plains Depressions (F16) (LRR H outside of MLRA 72 & 73) Reduced Vertic (F18) Red Parent Material (TF2) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Other (Explain in Remarks) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✓ No Remarks: Hydric soils are present due to the landscape position within the floodplain. Meets the criteria for hydric soil. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Surface Water (A1) High Water Table (A2) Saturation (A3) Water Marks (B1) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Iron Deposits (B5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Water -Stained Leaves (B9) Salt Crust (B11) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where not tilled) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Drainage Patterns (B10) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where tilled) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Geomorphic Position (D2) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) (LRR F) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No i Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No i Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe; Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Data point located within a floodplain however, no hydrology indicators were present. Does not meet the criteria for wetland hydrology. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains - Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Great Plains Region Project/Site: Bennett Property Applicant/Owner: J&T Consulting, Inc_ 'nvestigator(s): K.Medash Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Toeslope Subregion (LRR): Western Great Plains (LRR G) City/County: Unincorporated Weld County Sampling Date: 8/25/2016 State: Colorado Sampling Point: DP-B1a Section, Township, Range: S12, T2N, R67W Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Lat: 40.153038° N Long: -104.836050° W Soil Map Unit Name: Bankard sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes, frequently flooded Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ NWI classification: PFOA Slope (%): 1-2 Datum: NAD83 No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? No Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ✓ No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? No (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes Yes Yes ✓ No No No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: PFO Wetland located within a depression off the edge of an access road_ Paired with upland data point DP-B1b. VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size: Salix amygdaloides 2. Populus deltoides 3. 4. Sapling/Shrub Stratum 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. (Plot size: Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1. Phalaris arundinacea 2. Spartina pectinata 3. Chenopodium fremontii 4. Lactuca serriola 5. 6. _ 7. _ 8. _ 9. _ 10. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 1. 2. % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 0% Absolute Dominant Indicator % Cover Species? Status 20 Yes NL 10 30 0 60 Yes FAC = Total Cover = Total Cover Yes FACW 20 Yes FACW 10 No FACU 10 No FAC 100 = Total Cover = Total Cover Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC—): 3 (A) 4 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 75% (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation ✓ 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0' 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ✓ No Remarks: Meets the criteria for hydrophytic vegetation. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains - Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP-B1a Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) °/O Color 'moist) % Type' 0-10 10YR 5/2 75 7.5YR 4/6 10-20 10YR 3/2 80 7.5YR 4/6 Loc2 Texture Remarks 25 C PL,M 20 C M Sandy loam Prominent redox concentrations Silt loam Prominent redox concentrations 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 'Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR F) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR F, G, H) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G, H) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR F) (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) High Plains Depressions (F16) (MLRA 72 & 73 of LRR H) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR I, J) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR F, G, H) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR G) High Plains Depressions (F16) (LRR H outside of MLRA 72 & 73) Reduced Vertic (F18) Red Parent Material (TF2) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Other (Explain in Remarks) Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: Soil conditions present at this data point are consistent throughout the resource. Meets the criteria for hydric soils. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Surface Water (A1) High Water Table (A2) Saturation (A3) Water Marks (B1) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Iron Deposits (B5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Water -Stained Leaves (B9) Salt Crust (B11) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where not tilled) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Secondary Indicators minimum of two required) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Drainage Patterns (B10) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where tilled) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Geomorphic Position (D2) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) (LRR F) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Resource likely exhibits more indicators of hydrology earlier in the growing season. Meets the criteria for wetland hydrology. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains - Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Great Plains Region Project/Site: Bennett Property Applicant/Owner: J&T Consulting, Inc_ 'nvestigator(s): K_Medash Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Hillslope Subregion (LRR): Western Great Plains (LRR G) City/County: Unincorporated Weld County Sampling Date: 8/25/2016 State: Colorado Sampling Point: DP-B1b Section, Township, Range: S12, T2N, R67W Local relief (concave, convex, none): None [at: 40.153127° N Long: -104.835844° W Soil Map Unit Name: Bankard sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes, frequently flooded Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? No NWI classification: PFOA Slope (%): 1-3 Datum: NAD83 No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ✓ No (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes Yes Yes N o N o N o ✓ ✓ Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: Upland located in a forested area. Paired with wetland data point DP -B1 a. VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size: 1 Populus deltoides 2. 3. 4 Sapling/Shrub Stratum 1 2. 3. 4. (Plot size: 5. Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Bromus tectorum Pascopyrum smithii Glycyrrhiza lepidota Chenopodium fremontii 10. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 1. 2. % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 0% Absolute Dominant Indicator % Cover Species? Status 50 Yes FAC 50 0 = Total Cover = Total Cover 50 Yes NL 30 Yes FACU 10 No FACU 10 No FACU 100 = Total Cover = Total Cover Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC—): 1 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 3 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 33% (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.0' 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: Vegetation community present at this data point is typical of this portion of the site, a dense herbaceous community with moderate overstory canopy cover. Does not meet the criteria for hydrophytic vegetation. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains - Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP -B1 b Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth inches Matrix Redox Features Color ;moist) _ % Color ;moist) °/0 Type' 0-6 10YR 4/3 100 6-15 10YR 5/2 100 Loc2 Texture Remarks Sandy loam Sandy loam 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. ?Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR F) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR F, G, H) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G, H) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR F) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) High Plains Depressions (F16) (MLRA 72 & 73 of LRR H) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR I, J) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR F, G, H) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR G) High Plains Depressions (F16) (LRR H outside of MLRA 72 & 73) Reduced Vertic (F18) Red Parent Material (TF2) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Other (Explain in Remarks) 3lndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: Does not meet the criteria for hydric soils. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply' Surface Water (Al) High Water Table (A2) Saturation (A3) Water Marks (B1) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Iron Deposits (B5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Water -Stained Leaves (B9) Salt Crust (B11) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where not tilled) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Drainage Patterns (B10) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where tilled) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Geomorphic Position (D2) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) (LRR F) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No i Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No i Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Does not meet the criteria for wetland hydrology. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains - Version 2.0 Project/Site: Bennett Property WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Great Plains Region City/County: Unincorporated Weld County Sampling Date: 8/25/2016 Applicant/Owner: J&T Consulting, Inc. Investigator(s): K.Medash Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Hillslope State: Colorado Sampling Point: DP-C1a Section, Township, Range: S12, T2N, R67W Local relief (concave, convex, none): Convex Slope (%): 1-2 Subregion (LRR): Western Great Plains (LRR G) Lat: 40-154054° N Long: -104.844223° W Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Altvan loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ NWI classification: N/A No _ (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? No Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes _ If No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? No (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes Hydric Soil Present? Yes Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ N o N o N o Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks. Low-lying drainage POW/PEM Wetland located within fallow agricultural land. Data point located in PEM fringe that is likely inundated earlier in the growing season. Paired with upland data point DP -C1 b. VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size: 1. 2. 3. 4. Sapling/Shrub Stratum 1 2. 3. 4. 5. (Plot size: Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Persicaria lapathifolia Persicaria maculosa Typha latifolia Chenopodium fremontii Schoenoplectus tabemaemontani 10. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 1. 2. % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 5% Absolute Dominant Indicator % Cover Species? Status 0 0 = Total Cover = Total Cover 40 Yes OBL 25 Yes FACW 15 No OBL 10 No FACU 5 No OBL 95 = Total Cover = Total Cover Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC—): 2 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 2 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100% (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: ✓ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is s3.01 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ✓ No Remarks: Overall, the edges of Aquatic Resource C are dominated by cattails where surface water is present. The dominant species present in this data point are characteristic of portions of the resource that are likely inundated earlier in the growing season. Meets the criteria for hydrophytic vegetation. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains - Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP-C1a Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix (inches) Color (moist) 0-6 10YR 3/2 Redox Features Color (moist) % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks 80 10YR 4/6 20 C 6-20 10YR 4/2 100 M Gravelly loam Prominent redox concentrations Gravelly loam 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Histosol (Al) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR F) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR F, G, H) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G, H) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR F) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) High Plains Depressions (F16) (MLRA 72 & 73 of LRR H) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils' 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR I, J) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR F, G, H) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR G) High Plains Depressions (F16) (LRR H outside of MLRA 72 & 73) Reduced Vertic (F18) Red Parent Material (TF2) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Other (Explain in Remarks) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✓ No Remarks: Meets the criteria for hydric soils. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply: Surface Water (Al) High Water Table (A2) Saturation (A3) Water Marks (B1) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Iron Deposits (B5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Water -Stained Leaves (B9) Salt Crust (B11) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where not tilled) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Drainage Patterns (B10) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where tilled) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Geomorphic Position (D2) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) (LRR F) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No i Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No Remarks: This portion of the resource likely exhibits visible indicators of hydrology (surface water, saturation) earlier in the growing season. The main portion of the resource is inundated year-round. Meets the criteria for wetland hydrology. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains - Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Great Plains Region Project/Site: Bennett Property Applicant/Owner: J&T Consulting, Inc. nvestigator(s): K.Medash Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Toeslope Subregion (LRR): Western Great Plains (LRR G) Soil Map Unit Name: Altvan loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes City/County: Unincorporated Weld County Sampling Date: 8/25/2016 State: Colorado Sampling Point: DP -C1 b Section, Township, Range: S12, T2N, R67W Local relief (concave, convex, none): None Slope (%): 0-1 [at: 40.154007° N Long: -104.844521° W Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes NWI classification: NIA Datum: NAD83 No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? No Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ✓ No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? No (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No 1 Is the within Sampled a Wetland? Area Yes No ✓ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No 1 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No 1 Remarks: Upland located within a fallow agricultural land. Paired with wetland data point DP-C1a. VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum 1. 2. 3. 4. (Plot size: Sapling/Shrub Stratum 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. (Plot size: Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1. 2. Pascopyrum smithii Cirsium undulatum 3 Chenopodium fremontii 4 Lactuca serriola 5. 6. _ 7. _ 8. _ 9. _ 10. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 1. 2. % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 0% Absolute Dominant Indicator % Cover Species? Status 0 0 = Total Cover = Total Cover 80 Yes FACU 10 No FACU 5 5 No FACU No FAC 100 = Total Cover = Total Cover Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC—): 0 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 1 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0% (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is s3.0' 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: The vegetation community present is characteristic of uplands across this portion of the site. Does not meet the criteria for hydrophytic vegetation. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains - Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP -C1 b Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth (inches Matrix Redox Features Color (moist) °/O Color (moist) % Type' Loc2 0-6 10YR 4/2 100 6-12 10YR 4/3 90 10YR 4/6 10 C M Texture Remarks Silt loam Silt loam Distinct concentrations 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. ?Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR F) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR F, G, H) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G, H) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR F) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) High Plains Depressions (F16) (MLRA 72 & 73 of LRR H) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR I, J) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR F, G, H) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR G) High Plains Depressions (F16) (LRR H outside of MLRA 72 & 73) Reduced Vertic (F18) Red Parent Material (TF2) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Other (Explain in Remarks) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: Distinct redox conc. located in the lower portion of the profile likely due to close promixity to a wetland. Does not meet the criteria for hydric soils. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Surface Water (Al) High Water Table (A2) Saturation (A3) Water Marks (B1) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Iron Deposits (B5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Water -Stained Leaves (B9) Salt Crust (B11) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where not tilled) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Drainage Patterns (B10) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where tilled) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Geomorphic Position (D2) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) (LRR F) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No i Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No i Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No i Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Does not meet the criteria for wetland hydrology. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains - Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Great Plains Region Project/Site: Bennett Property Applicant/Owner: ..1&T Consulting, Inc_ 'nvestigator(s): K_Medash Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Depression Subregion (LRR): Western Great Plains (LRR G) Soil Map Unit Name: Water City/County: Unincorporated Weld County Sampling Date: 8/25/2016 State: Colorado Sampling Point: DP-D1a Section, Township, Range: S12, T2N, R67W Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave [at: 40.156213° N Long: -104.842473° W Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Slope (%): 1-2 Datum: NAD83 NWI classification: PEM1C No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ✓ No naturally problematic? No (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes Yes Yes ✓ ✓ N o N o N o Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: Low-lying drainage POW Wetland with PEM fringe located within fallow agricultural land_ Paired with upland data point DP -Dili VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size: 1. Elaeagnus angustifolia 2. 3. 4. Sapling/Shrub Stratum 1 2. 3. 4. 5. (Plot size: Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Typha latifolia Schoenoplectus tabemaemontani Schoenoplectus pungens Rumex crispus Persicaria lapathifolia 10. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 1 2. % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 0% Absolute Dominant Indicator % Cover Species? Status 20 Yes FACU 20 0 = Total Cover = Total Cover 40 Yes OBL 20 Yes OBL 10 No OBL 10 No FAC 10 No OBL 90 = Total Cover = Total Cover Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC—): (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 3 (B) 67% (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0' 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ✓ No Remarks: The vegetation community present in this data point is representative of the outer PEM fringe of the resource. The central portion of the resource contains open surface water with no vegetation present. Meets the criteria for hydrophytic vegetation. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains - Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP-D1a Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth 'inches) Matrix Redox Features Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Loc2 0-12 10YR 3/2 80 7.5YR 4/6 20 C PL, M Texture Remarks Gravelly loam 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Prominent redox concentrations ?Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Histosol (A1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Histic Epipedon (A2) Sandy Redox (S5) Black Histic (A3) Stripped Matrix (S6) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR F) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR F, G, H) Depleted Matrix (F3) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) ✓ Redox Dark Surface (F6) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Redox Depressions (F8) 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G, H) High Plains Depressions (F16) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR F) (MLRA 72 & 73 of LRR H) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR I, J) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR F, G, H) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR G) High Plains Depressions (F16) (LRR H outside of MLRA 72 & 73) Reduced Vertic (F18) Red Parent Material (TF2) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Other (Explain in Remarks) Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: Meets the criteria for hydric soils. HYDROLOGY • Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) ✓ Surface Water (A1) High Water Table (A2) Saturation (A3) Water Marks (B1) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Iron Deposits (B5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Water -Stained Leaves (B9) Salt Crust (B11) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where not tilled) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Drainage Patterns (B10) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where tilled) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Geomorphic Position (D2) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) (LRR F) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Water Table Present? Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Yes ✓ No Yes No Yes No Depth (inches): 40 ✓ Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No Remarks: Resource is likely inundated year-round. Meets the criteria for wetland hydrology. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains - Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Great Plains Region Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Project/Site: Bennett Property Applicant/Owner: J&T Consulting, Inc. Investigator(s): K.Medash Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Plain Subregion (LRR): Western Great Plains (LRR G) City/County: Unincorporated Weld County Sampling Date: 8/25/2016 State: Colorado Sampling Point: DP -D1 b Section, Township, Range: S12, T2N, R67W Local relief (concave, convex, none): None Lat: 40.155918° N Long: -104.842078° W Soil Map Unit Name: Bankard sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes, frequently flooded NWI classification: N/A Slope (%): 0-1 Datum: NAD83 Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ✓ significantly disturbed? No naturally problematic? No (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) No SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes Yes Yes No No No ✓ Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: Upland located within fallow agricultural land. Paired with wetland data point DP-D1a. VEGETATION Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum 1. 2. 3. 4. (Plot size: Sapling/Shrub Stratum 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. (Plot size: Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Convolvulus arvensis Bassia scoparia Ambrosia artemisiifolia Verbena bracteata 10. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 1. 2. % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 10% Absolute Dominant Indicator % Cover Species? Status 0 0 40 = Total Cover = Total Cover Yes NL 20 Yes FACU 15 No FACU 15 No FACU 90 = Total Cover = Total Cover Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC—): 0 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 2 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0% (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: The vegetation community present in this data point is representative of the upland fallow agricultural land across this portion of the site. Does not meet the criteria for hydrophytic vegetation. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains - Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP -D1 b Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth (inches) Matrix Color (moist) 0-12 10YR 3/2 % 100 Redox Features Color moist) 0 Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks Loam 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Histosol (Al) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR F) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR F, G, H) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G, H) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR F) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) High Plains Depressions (F16) (MLRA 72 & 73 of LRR H) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR I, J) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR F, G, H) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR G) High Plains Depressions (F16) (LRR H outside of MLRA 72 & 73) Reduced Vertic (F18) Red Parent Material (TF2) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Other (Explain in Remarks) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: Does not meet the criteria for hydric soils. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators ;minimum of one required; check all that apply) Surface Water (Al) High Water Table (A2) Saturation (A3) Water Marks (B1) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Iron Deposits (B5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Water -Stained Leaves (B9) Salt Crust (B11) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where not tilled) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Drainage Patterns (B10) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where tilled) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Geomorphic Position (D2) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) (LRR F) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No i Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No i Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Remarks: Data point located in a fallow agricultural field. Does not meet the criteria for wetland hydrology. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains - Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Great Plains Region Project/Site: Bennett Property Applicant/Owner: J&T Consulting, Inc. Investigator(s): K.Medash Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Toeslope Subregion (LRR): Western Great Plains (LRR G) Soil Map Unit Name: Aquolls and Aquents, gravelly substratum Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes City/County: Unincorporated Weld County Sampling Date: 8/25/2016 State: Colorado Sampling Point: DP-E1a Section, Township, Range: S12, T2N, R67W Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Lat: 40.155705° N Long: -14.844435° W NWI classification: N/A Slope (%): 0-1 Datum: NAD83 No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? No Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes _ Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? No (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) No SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes Yes Yes No No No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: Large wet meadow PEM wetland located within a fallow agricultural field. Paired with upland data point DP -E1 b. VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum 1. 2. 3. 4. (Plot size: ) Sapling/Shrub Stratum 1 2. 3. 4. 5. (Plot size: ) Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Schoenoplectus pungens ) Hordeum jubatum Muhlenbergia asperifolia Asclepias speciosa 10. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 1. 2. ) % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 10% Absolute Dominant Indicator % Cover Species? Status 0 0 30 25 = Total Cover = Total Cover Yes OBL Yes FACW 25 Yes FACW 10 No FAC 90 = Total Cover = Total Cover Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC—): 3 (A) 3 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100% (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: ✓ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes I No Remarks: The vegetation community present at this data point represents the central to western portion of the resource. The eastern portion is dominated by distichlis spicata (FACW). Meets the criteria for hydrophytic vegetation. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains - Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP-E1a Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-6 10Y R 3/1 80 10Y R 4/6 20 C PL, M 6-15 10YR 4/1 70 7.5YR 4/6 30 C M Silty Clay Silty Clay Prominent redox concentrations Prominent redox concentrations Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR F) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR F, G, H) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G, H) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR F) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) High Plains Depressions (F16) (MLRA 72 & 73 of LRR H) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR I, J) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR F, G, H) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR G) High Plains Depressions (F16) (LRR H outside of MLRA 72 & 73) Reduced Vertic (F18) Red Parent Material (TF2) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Other (Explain in Remarks) Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✓ No Remarks: Soils had high clay content which is likely aiding in moisture retention within the wet meadow. Meets the criteria for hydric soils. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Surface Water (A1) High Water Table (A2) Saturation (A3) Water Marks (B1) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Iron Deposits (B5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Water -Stained Leaves (B9) Salt Crust (B11) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (where not tilled) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Drainage Patterns (B10) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) C3) (where tilled) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Geomorphic Position (D2) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) (LRR F) ✓ Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No i Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Resource likely exhibits more indicators of hydrology earlier in the growing season. Meets the criteria for wetland hydrology. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains - Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Great Plains Region Project/Site: Bennett Property Applicant/Owner: J&T Consulting, Inc. 'nvestigator(s): ICMedash Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Plain City/County: Unincorporated Weld County Sampling Date: 8/25/2016 State: Colorado Sampling Point: DP-E1b Section, Township, Range: S12, T2N, R67W Local relief (concave, convex, none): None Subregion (LRR): Western Great Plains (LRR G) Lat: 40.155942° N Long: -104.844167° W Soil Map Unit Name: Aquolls and Aquents, gravelly substratum Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes Slope (%): 0-1 Datum: NAD83 NWI classification: PEM1A No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? No Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ✓ No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? No (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes Yes Yes N o N o N o Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: Upland located in a fallow agricultural field. Paired with wetland data point DP-E1a. VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum 1. 2. 3 4. (Plot size: Sapling/Shrub Stratum 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. (Plot size: Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1. Ambrosia artemisiifolia 2. Conyza canadensis 3. Xanthium strumarium 4 Asclepias speciosa 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 1. 2. % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 10% Absolute Dominant Indicator % Cover Species? Status 0 0 60 10 = Total Cover = Total Cover Yes FACU No NL 10 No FAC 10 No FAC 90 = Total Cover = Total Cover Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC—): 0 (A) 1 (B) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0°./0 (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: The vegetation community present in this data point represents uplands across this portion of the site. Does not meet the criteria for hydrophytic vegetation. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains - Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP-E1b Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth (inches) Color (moist) Matrix Redox Features 0-15 10YR 4/2 100 Color (moist) % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks 15-20 10YR 3/1 80 10YR 4/6 20 C M 'T .e: C=Concentration, D=De Gravelly loam Silty clay Prominent concentrations letion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. ?Location: PL=Pore Linin., M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Histosol (A1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Histic Epipedon (A2) Sandy Redox (S5) Black Histic (A3) Stripped Matrix (S6) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR F) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR F, G, H) Depleted Matrix (F3) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Redox Depressions (F8) 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G, H) High Plains Depressions (F16) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR F) (MLRA 72 & 73 of LRR H) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR I, J) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR F, G, H) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR G) High Plains Depressions (F16) (LRR H outside of MLRA 72 & 73) Reduced Vertic (F18) Red Parent Material (TF2) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Other (Explain in Remarks) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: Redox concentrations present lower in the profile likely due to close proximity to adjacent wetlands. Does not meet the criteria for hydric soils. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators 'minimum of one required; check all that apply; Surface Water (Al) High Water Table (A2) Saturation (A3) Water Marks (B1) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Iron Deposits (B5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Water -Stained Leaves (B9) Salt Crust (B11) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where not tilled) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Drainage Patterns (B10) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where tilled) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Geomorphic Position (D2) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) (LRR F) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Remarks: Data point taken in a fallow agricultural field. Does not meet the criteria for wetland hydrology. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains - Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Great Plains Region projectisite: Bennett Property City/County: Unincorporated Weld County Sampling Date: 8/25/2016 Applicant/Owner: J&T Consulting, Inc. nvestigator(s): K.Medash Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Linear Depression State: Colorado Sampling Point: DP-F1a Section, Township, Range: S12, T2N, R67W Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 0-2 Subregion (LRR): Western Great Plains (LRR G) Lat: 40.157452° N Long: -104.841590° W Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Altvan loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes NWI classification: N/A Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? No Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ✓ No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? No (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes Hydric Soil Present? Yes Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No No No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: PEM wetland located in a linear depression within a powerline corridor surrounded by agricultural fields. Paired with upland data point DP -F1 b. VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum 1 2. 3. 4 (Plot size: Sapling/Shrub Stratum 1 2. 3. 4. 5. (Plot size: Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Schoenoplectus pungens Schoenoplectus tabemaemontani Eleocharis palustris Rumex crispus Cirsium arvense 10. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 1. 2. % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 0% Absolute Dominant Indicator % Cover Species? Status 0 0 = Total Cover = Total Cover 30 Yes OBL 25 Yes OBL 25 Yes OBL 10 No FAC 10 No FACU 100 = Total Cover = Total Cover Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC—): 3 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 3 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100% (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes If No _ _ Remarks: Data point taken in a more diverse vegetation portion of resource. Large portion of resource is a monoculture of cattails, also few narrowleaf willow and Russian olive on eastern boundary. Meets the criteria for hydrophytic vegetation. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains - Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP-F1a Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-6 10YR 4/1 85 7.5YR 4/6 15 C PL,M 6-20 10YR 5/2 100 Clay loam Prominent redox concentrations Gravelly loam 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 'Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Histosol (A1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Histic Epipedon (A2) Sandy Redox (S5) Black Histic (A3) Stripped Matrix (S6) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR F) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR F, G, H) ✓ Depleted Matrix (F3) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Redox Depressions (F8) 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G, H) High Plains Depressions (F16) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR F) (MLRA 72 & 73 of LRR H) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR I, J) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR F, G, H) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR G) High Plains Depressions (F16) (LRR H outside of MLRA 72 & 73) Reduced Vertic (F18) Red Parent Material (TF2) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Other (Explain in Remarks) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: Meets the criteria for hydric soils_ HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Surface Water (A1) High Water Table (A2) Saturation (A3) Water Marks (B1) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Iron Deposits (B5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Water -Stained Leaves (B9) Salt Crust (B11) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3 (where not tilled) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Drainage Patterns (B10) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where tilled) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Geomorphic Position (D2) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) (LRR F) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Water Table Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): Yes No i Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No Remarks: Portions of resource near the cattails exhibited surface water (1") and saturation (0"), but not at the data point location. Meets the criteria for wetland hydrology. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains - Version 2.0 Project/Site: Bennett Property WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Great Plains Region City/County: Unincorporated Weld County Sampling Date: 8/25/2016 Applicant/Owner: J&T Consulting, Inc. 'nvestigator(s): iga for (s) : lC Medash Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Toeslope Subregion (LRR): Western Great Plains (LRR G) State: Colorado Sampling Point: DP-F1b Section, Township, Range: S12, T2N, R67W Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Lat: 40.155921° N Long: -104.841321° W Soil Map Unit Name: Bankard sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes, frequently flooded Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology NWI classification: N/A Slope (%): 1-3 Datum: NAD83 No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ✓ No naturally problematic? No (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes Yes Yes N o N o N o Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: Upland located in a powerline corridor at the toeslope of a berm for a gravel road. Paired with wetland data point DP -F1 a. VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum 1. 2. 3. 4. (Plot size: Sapling/Shrub Stratum 1 2. 3. 4. 5. (Plot size: Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Descurainia incana Ambrosia artemisiifolia Rumex crispus Asclepias speciosa 10. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 1 2. % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 40% Absolute Dominant Indicator % Cover Species? Status 0 0 20 20 = Total Cover = Total Cover Yes UPL Yes FACU 10 No FAC 10 No FAC 60 = Total Cover = Total Cover Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC—): 0 (A) 2 (B) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0% (A/ B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is s3.01 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: Does not meet the criteria for hydrophytic vegetation. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains - Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP -F1 b Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth (inches) Matrix Redox Features Color (moist) % Color 0-12 10YR 4/3 100 moist) % Type' Loc2 Texture Gravelly loam Remarks 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Histosol (Al) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR F) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR F, G, H) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G, H) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR F) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) High Plains Depressions (F16) (MLRA 72 & 73 of LRR H) Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Remarks: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR I, J) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR F, G, H) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR G) High Plains Depressions (F16) (LRR H outside of MLRA 72 & 73) Reduced Vertic (F18) Red Parent Material (TF2) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Other (Explain in Remarks) 3lndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Soils were gravelly and compacted likely due to its close proximity to a gravel road. Does not meet the criteria for hydric soils. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply; Surface Water (Al) High Water Table (A2) Saturation (A3) Water Marks (B1) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Iron Deposits (B5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Water -Stained Leaves (B9) Salt Crust (B11) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where not tilled) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Drainage Patterns (B10) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where tilled) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Geomorphic Position (D2) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) (LRR F) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No i Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No i Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Remarks: Does not meet the criteria for wetland hydrology. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains - Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Great Plains Region Project/Site: Bennett Property Applicant/Owner: J&T Consulting, Inc_ Investigator(s): K.Medash Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Linear Depression Subregion (LRR): Western Great Plains (LRR G) Soil Map Unit Name: Altvan loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes City/County: Unincorporated Weld County Sampling Date: 8/25/2016 State: Colorado Sampling Point: DP -G1 a Section, Township, Range: S12, T2N, R67W Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 0-1 Lat: 40.158018° N Long: -104-841652° W NWI classification: N/A Datum: NAD83 Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? No Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes _ Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? No (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) No SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes Yes Yes 1 No No No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes 1 No Remarks: PEM wetland located in a linear depression within a powerline corridor surrounded by agricultural fields. Paired with upland data point DP -G1 b. VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum 1. 2. 3. 4. (Plot size: Sapling/Shrub Stratum 1 2. 3. 4. 5. (Plot size: Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1. Typha latifolia 2. 3. 4. 5. 6 _ 7 _ 8. _ 9. _ 10. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 1 2. % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 0% Absolute Dominant Indicator % Cover Species? Status 0 0 100 = Total Cover = Total Cover Yes OBL 100 = Total Cover = Total Cover Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC—): 1 (A) 1 (B) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100% (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.0' 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes I No Remarks: The vegetation community consists of a monotypic stand of cattails throughout the wetland boundary. Few Eastern cottonwood, Russian olive, and narrowleaf willow along the southeastern boundary. Meets the rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains - Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP-G1a Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth (inches) Matrix Redox Features Color 'moist) 0-10 10YR 4/1 °/O 70 Color (moist' % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks 7.5YR 4/6 30 C PL,M Clay loam Prominent redox concentrations 10-20 10YR 4/1 70 7.5YR 4/6 30 C M Clay loam Prominent redox concentrations 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. ?Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR F) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR F, G, H) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G, H) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR F) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) High Plains Depressions (F16) (MLRA 72 & 73 of LRR H) Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Remarks: Meets the criteria for hydric soils. Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR I, J) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR F, G, H) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR G) High Plains Depressions (F16) (LRR H outside of MLRA 72 & 73) Reduced Vertic (F18) Red Parent Material (TF2) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Other (Explain in Remarks) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✓ No HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Surface Water (A1) High Water Table (A2) Saturation (A3) Water Marks (B1) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Iron Deposits (B5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Water -Stained Leaves (B9) Salt Crust (B11) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where not tilled) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Drainage Patterns (B10) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where tilled) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Geomorphic Position (D2) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) (LRR F) ✓ Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No f Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes i No Depth (inches): 0 Saturation Present? Yes i No Depth (inches): 0 (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Majority of resource exhibited saturation and a high water table. Meets the criteria for wetland hydrology. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains - Version 2.0 Project/Site: Bennett Property WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Great Plains Region City/County: Unincorporated Weld County Sampling Date: 8/25/2016 Applicant/Owner: J&T Consulting, Inc. Investigator(s): K.Medash State: Colorado Sampling Point: DP -G1 b Section, Township, Range: S12, T2N, R67W Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Plain Local relief (concave, convex, none): None Slope (%): 0-1 Subregion (LRR): Western Great Plains (LRR G) Lai: 40.157776° N Long: -104.841360° W Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Altvan silt loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes NWI classification: N/A Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? No Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ✓ No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? No (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No ✓ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No ✓ Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: Upland located in a mowed agricultural field. Paired with wetland data point DP-G1a. VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum 1. 2. 3. 4. (Plot size: Sapling/Shrub Stratum 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. (Plot size: Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Bassia scoparia Ambrosia artemisiifolia 10. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 1 2. % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 70% Absolute Dominant Indicator % Cover Species? Status 0 = Total Cover = Total Cover 20 Yes FACU 10 Yes FACU 30 = Total Cover = Total Cover Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC—): 0 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 2 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0% (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is s3.01 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: Data point taken in mowed agricultural field, 70% bare ground consists of dead crop vegetation and exposed ground. This vegetation community is representative of the mowed agricultural portions of the site, which accounts for a large portion of the site within the central and southern portions. Does not meet the criteria for hydrophytic vegetation. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains - Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP -G1 b Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Loc2 0-12 10YR 4/2 100 Texture Remarks Clay loam 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Histosol (Al) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR F) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR F, G, H) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G, H) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR F) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) High Plains Depressions (F16) (MLRA 72 & 73 of LRR H) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR I, J) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR F, G, H) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR G) High Plains Depressions (F16) (LRR H outside of MLRA 72 & 73) Reduced Vertic (F18) Red Parent Material (TF2) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Other (Explain in Remarks) Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: Soils were very dry and compacted due to the location in a recently cultivated agricultural field. Does not meet the criteria for hydric soils. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Surface Water (A1) High Water Table (A2) Saturation (A3) Water Marks (B1) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Iron Deposits (B5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Water -Stained Leaves (B9) Salt Crust (B11) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where not tilled) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Drainage Patterns (B10) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where tilled) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Geomorphic Position (D2) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) (LRR F) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Does not meet the criteria for wetland hydrology. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains - Version 2.0 Project/Site: Bennett Property WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Great Plains Region City/County: Unincorporated Weld County Sampling Date: 8/25/2016 Applicant/Owner: J&T Consulting, Inc_ Investigator(s): K_Medash Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Toeslope Subregion (LRR): Western Great Plains (LRR G) State: Colorado Sampling Point: DP-H1a Section, Township, Range: S12, T2N, R67W Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Lat: 40.159573° N Long: -104.844345° W Soil Map Unit Name: Bankard sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes, Frequently flooded Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes NWI classification: N/A Slope (%): 0-1 Datum: NAD83 No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? No Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ✓ No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? No (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes Yes Yes No No No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: Low-lying drainage PEM/POW Wetland located within fallow agricultural land and pasture. PEM portion is within the outer fringe. Paired with upland data point DP -H1 b. VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum 1. 2. 3. 4. (Plot size: Sapling/Shrub Stratum 1 2. 3. 4. 5. (Plot size: Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1. Typha latifolia 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. _ 7. _ 8. _ 9. _ 10. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 1. 2. % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 0% Absolute Dominant Indicator % Cover Species? Status 0 0 100 = Total Cover = Total Cover Yes OBL 100 = Total Cover = Total Cover Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC—): 1 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 1 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100% (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: ✓ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.0' 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ✓ No Remarks: Vegetation community is a nearly monotypic stand of cattails with open water and no vegetation in the central portion. Persicaria species are present within the outer fringe on southeastern and western boundaries. Meets the criteria for hydrophytic vegetation. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains - Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP -H1 a Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth (inches) Matrix Redox Features Color (moist Color (moist) % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-15 10YR 3/1 70 7.5YR 4/4 30 C PL,M Gravelly clay barn Prominent redox concentrations • 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR F) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR F, G, H) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G, H) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR F) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) High Plains Depressions (F16) (MLRA 72 & 73 of LRR H) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR I, J) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR F, G, H) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR G) High Plains Depressions (F16) (LRR H outside of MLRA 72 & 73) Reduced Vertic (F18) Red Parent Material (TF2) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Other (Explain in Remarks) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: Meets the criteria for hydric soils. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators ;minimum of one required; check all that apply; Surface Water (Al) High Water Table (A2) Saturation (A3) Water Marks (B1) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Iron Deposits (B5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Water -Stained Leaves (B9) Salt Crust (B11) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where not tilled) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Drainage Patterns (B10) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where tilled) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Geomorphic Position (D2) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) (LRR F) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes Water Table Present? Yes Saturation Present? Yes (includes capillarifringe) ✓ No Depth (inches): 36 ✓ No Depth (inches): 0 ✓ No Depth (inches): 0 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Resource is hydrologically connected to upslope wetlands mapped within the site (Wetlands C,D, and E). Meets the criteria for wetland hydrology. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains - Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Great Plains Region Project/Site: Bennett Property Applicant/Owner: J&T Consulting, Inc. 'nvestigator(s): K_Medash Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Footslope Subregion (LRR): Western Great Plains (LRR G) City/County: Unincorporated Weld County Sampling Date: 8/25/2016 State: Colorado Sampling Point: DP-H1b Section, Township, Range: S12, T2N, R67W Local relief (concave, convex, none): None Lat: 40.159567° N Long: -104.844679° W Soil Map Unit Name: Bankard sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes, frequently flooded Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology NWI classification: NIA Slope (%): 2-4 Datum: NAD83 No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ✓ No naturally problematic? No (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No 1Is the within Sampled a Wetland? Area Yes No ✓ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No 1 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No 1 Remarks: Upland located in a fallow agricultural land. Pair with wetland data point DP-H1a. VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum 1. 2. 3. 4. (Plot size: Sapling/Shrub Stratum 1 2. 3. 4. 5. (Plot size: Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Lactuca serriola Convolvulus arvensis Cirsium undulatum Rumex crispus Bromus tectorum 10. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 1. 2. % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 0% Absolute Dominant Indicator % Cover Species? Status 0 0 = Total Cover = Total Cover 35 Yes FAC 30 Yes NL 20 Yes FACU 10 No FAC 5 No NL 100 = Total Cover = Total Cover Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC—): 1 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 3 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 33% (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.0' 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: The vegetation community present represents the western upslope area within the Site. Does not meet the criteria for hydrophytic vegetation. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains - Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP -H1 b Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth (inches) Color (moist Matrix Redox Features 0-12 10YR 4/2 100 Color (moist; % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks Gravelly loam 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Histosol (A1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Histic Epipedon (A2) Sandy Redox (S5) Black Histic (A3) Stripped Matrix (S6) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR F) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR F, G, H) Depleted Matrix (F3) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Redox Depressions (F8) 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G, H) High Plains Depressions (F16) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR F) (MLRA 72 & 73 of LRR H) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR I, J) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR F, G, H) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR G) High Plains Depressions (F16) (LRR H outside of MLRA 72 & 73) Reduced Vertic (F18) Red Parent Material (TF2) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Other (Explain in Remarks) Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: Does not meet the criteria for hydric soils. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply, Surface Water (A1) High Water Table (A2) Saturation (A3) Water Marks (B1) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Iron Deposits (B5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Water -Stained Leaves (B9) Salt Crust (B11) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where not tilled) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Drainage Patterns (B10) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where tilled) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Geomorphic Position (D2) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) (LRR F) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No i Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No f Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No i Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Remarks: Does not meet the criteria for wetland hydrology. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains - Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Great Plains Region Project/Site: Bennett Property Applicant/Owner: J&T Consulting, Inc. Investigator(s): ICMedash Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Hillslope Subregion (LRR): Western Great Plains (LRR G) Soil Map Unit Name: Altvan loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes City/County: Unincorporated Weld County Sampling Date: 8/26/2016 State: Colorado Sampling Point: DP -11a Section, Township, Range: S12, T2N, R671/V Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Lat.: 40.159819° N Long: -104.838966° W Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? No (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) NWI classification: N/A Slope (%): 1-3 Datum: NAD83 No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes Yes Yes N o N o N o Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: Low -Lying Drainage PEM wetland located within a linear topographic depression on the edge of a fallow agricultural field. Paired with upland data point DP -I1 b. VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum 1. 2. 3. 4. (Plot size: ) Sapling/Shrub Stratum 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. (Plot size: ) Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Persicaria maculosa ) Phalaris arundinacea Asclepias speciosa Glycyrrhiza lepidota Chenopodium fremontii Cirsium arvense 10. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1 2. % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 0% Absolute Dominant Indicator % Cover Species? Status 0 0 40 25 = Total Cover = Total Cover Yes FACW Yes FACW 20 Yes FAC 5 5 5 No FACU No FACU No FACU 100 = Total Cover = Total Cover Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC—): 3 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 3 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100% (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = U PL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.0' 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: The vegetation community present is representative of the entire downslope portion of the resource. Meets the criteria for hydrophytic vegetation. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains - Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP-I1a Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth inches) Matrix Color (moist % Redox Features Color (moist) % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-6 10YR 3/2 80 7.5YR 4/6 6-15 10YR 3/2 70 7.5YR 4/6 20 C PL,M 30 C M Silt loam Prominent redox concentrations Clay loam Prominent redox concentrations 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 'location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR F) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR F, G, H) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G, H) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR F) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) High Plains Depressions (F16) (MLRA 72 & 73 of LRR H) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR I, J) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR F, G, H) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR G) High Plains Depressions (F16) (LRR H outside of MLRA 72 & 73) Reduced Vertic (F18) Red Parent Material (TF2) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Other (Explain in Remarks) 3lndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes I No Remarks: Soil conditions present at this data point are consistent throughout the downslope portion of the resource. Meets the criteria for hydric soils. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) ✓ Surface Water (A1) High Water Table (A2) Saturation (A3) Water Marks (B1) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Iron Deposits (B5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Water -Stained Leaves (B9) Salt Crust (B11) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where not tilled) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Drainage Patterns (B10) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where tilled) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Geomorphic Position (D2) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) (LRR F) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No i Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No i Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No i Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No Remarks: Resource likely exhibits more visible indicators of hydrology earlier in the growing season. Resource flows into a POW wetland just outside the northern site boundary. Meets the criteria for wetland hydrology. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains - Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Great Plains Region Project/Site: Bennett Property Applicant/Owner: J&T Consulting, Inc_ 'nvestigator(s) : K_Medash Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Plain Subregion (LRR): Western Great Plains (LRR G) Soil Map Unit Name: Altvan loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes City/County: Unincorporated Weld County Sampling Date: 8/26/2016 State: Colorado Sampling Point: DP-I1b Section, Township, Range: S12, T2N, R67W Local relief (concave, convex, none): None Lat: 40.159644° N Long: -104.838913° W Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes NWI classification: N/A Slope (%): 0-1 Datum: NAD83 No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? No Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ✓ No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? No (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No 1 Is the within Sampled a Wetland? Area Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No 1 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No I Remarks: Upland located in a fallow area adjacent to fallow (north) and mowed (south) agricultural fields. Paired with wetland data point DP-I1a. VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum 1 2. 3. 4. (Plot size: Sapling/Shrub Stratum 1 2. 3. 4. 5. (Plot size: Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1 2 Pascopyrum smithii Helianthus annuus 3. Ambrosia artemisiifolia 4 Asclepias speciosa 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 1. 2. % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 10% Absolute Dominant Indicator % Cover Species? Status 0 0 50 20 = Total Cover = Total Cover Yes FACU Yes FACU 10 No FACU 10 No FAC 90 = Total Cover = Total Cover Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC—): 0 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 2 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0% (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is s3.01 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: This vegetation community represents fallow areas adjacent to most of the resource. Does not meet the criteria for hydrophytic vegetation. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains - Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP -11b Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth :inches) Matrix Redox Features Color 'moist) o/ 0 Color (moist) % Type' Loc2 Texture 0-12 10YR 4/2 100 Loam Remarks 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR F) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR F, G, H) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G, H) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR F) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) High Plains Depressions (F16) (MLRA 72 & 73 of LRR H) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR I, J) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR F, G, H) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR G) High Plains Depressions (F16) (LRR H outside of MLRA 72 & 73) Reduced Vertic (F18) Red Parent Material (TF2) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Other (Explain in Remarks) Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: Does not meet the criteria for hydric soils. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators ;minimum of one required; check all that apply) Surface Water (A1) High Water Table (A2) Saturation (A3) Water Marks (B1) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Iron Deposits (B5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Water -Stained Leaves (B9) Salt Crust (B11) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where not tilled) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Drainage Patterns (B10) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where tilled) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Geomorphic Position (D2) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) (LRR F) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No i Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No i Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Remarks: Does not meet the criteria for wetland hydrology. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains - Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Great Plains Region Project/Site: Bennett Property City/County: Unincorporated Weld County Sampling Date: 8/26/2016 Applicant/Owner: J&T Consulting, Inc. 'nvestigator(s): IC_Medash State: Colorado Sampling Point: DP -J1 a Section, Township, Range: S12,12N, R67W Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Toeslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Subregion (LRR): Western Great Plains (LRR G) Lat: 40.159262° N Long: -104.835686° W Soil Map Unit Name: Altvan loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes NWI classification: N/A Slope (%): 1-3 Datum: NAD83 Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Yes significantly disturbed? Yes Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ✓ No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? No (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✓ No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: Flood irrigated PEM Wetland located within a cultivated corn field and the adjacent fallow edges of field. Paired with upland data point DP -J1 b. VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum 1. 2. 3. 4. (Plot size: Sapling/Shrub Stratum 1 2. 3. 4. 5. (Plot size: Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1. Persicaria maculosa 2. Spartina pectinata 3. Phalaris arundinacea 4 Helianthus annuus 5. 6. _ 7. _ 8. _ 9. _ 10. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 1 2. % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 5% Absolute Dominant Indicator % Cover Species? Status 0 0 = Total Cover = Total Cover 35 Yes FACW 30 Yes FACW 20 Yes FACW 10 No FACU 95 = Total Cover = Total Cover Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC—): 3 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 3 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100% (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0' 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ✓ No Remarks: Vegetation community present represents the eastern portion of the resource, the central partially cultivated portion exhibits species of dock, mannagrass, and purslane. Meets the criteria for hydrophytic vegetation. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains - Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP-J1a Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix (inches' Color moist) 0-12 10YR 5/2 Redox Features Color moist) % Type' Loc2 80 7.5YR 4/6 20 C M Texture Remarks Sandy loam Prominent redox concentrations 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR F) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR F, G, H) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G, H) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR F) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) High Plains Depressions (F16) (MLRA 72 & 73 of LRR H) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR I, J) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR F, G, H) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR G) High Plains Depressions (F16) (LRR H outside of MLRA 72 & 73) Reduced Vertic (F18) Red Parent Material (TF2) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Other (Explain in Remarks) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: Meets the criteria for hydric soils. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Surface Water (A1) Salt Crust (B11) High Water Table (A2) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Saturation (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Water Marks (B1) Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Drift Deposits (B3) (where not tilled) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Iron Deposits (B5) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Water -Stained Leaves (B9) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Drainage Patterns (B10) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where tilled) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Geomorphic Position (D2) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) (LRR F) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No i Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No i Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No i Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes I No Remarks. Wetland hydrology indicators present represent the eastern portion of the resource. Wetland receives hydrology through flood irrigation from a diverted concrete lined ditch. Water was flowing into the resource at the time of delineation. The central and western portions of the resource exhibited 1-2" of surface water and saturation to the surface solely due to flood irrigation practices. Meets the criteria for wetland hydrology. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains - Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Great Plains Region Project/Site: Bennett Property Applicant/Owner: J&T Consulting, Inc. Investigator(s): KMedash Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Toeslope Subregion (LRR): Western Great Plains (LRR G) Soil Map Unit Name: Altvan loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes City/County: Unincorporated Weld County Sampling Date: 8/26/2016 State: Colorado Sampling Point: DP -J1 b Section, Township, Range: S12, T2N, R67W Local relief (concave, convex, none): None Slope (%): 1-2 Lat: 40.158831° N Long: -104.835802° W Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ NWI classification: N/A Datum: NAD83 No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? No Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ✓ Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? No (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. No Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes Yes Yes N o N o N o ✓ ✓ Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: Upland located in a fallow area on the edge of a cultivated corn field_ Paired with wetland data point DP -J1 a. VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size: 1 Populus deltoides 2 Salix amygdaloides 3. 4. Sapling/Shrub Stratum 1 2. 3. 4. 5. (Plot size: Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1 Pascopyrum smithii 2. Bassia scoparia 3 Apocynum cannabinum 4. Asclepias speciosa 5. Chenopodium fremontii 6. _ 7. _ 8. _ 9. _ 10. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 1 2. % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 5% Absolute Dominant Indicator % Cover Species? Status 30 Yes FAC 10 40 Yes NL = Total Cover 0 40 20 = Total Cover Yes FACU Yes FACU 15 No FAC 10 No FAG 10 No FACU 95 = Total Cover = Total Cover Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC—): 1 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 4 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 25% (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: The vegetation community present is representative of the fallow edges of the cultivated corn field in this portion of the site. Does not meet the criteria for hydrophytic vegetation. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains - Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP -J1 b Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix (inches) Color (moist) 0-12 10YR 4/3 100 Redox Features Color (moist) % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks Sandy loam 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR F) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR F, G, H) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G, H) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR F) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) High Plains Depressions (F16) (MLRA 72 & 73 of LRR H) Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Remarks: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR I, J) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR F, G, H) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR G) High Plains Depressions (F16) (LRR H outside of MLRA 72 & 73) Reduced Vertic (F18) Red Parent Material (TF2) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Other (Explain in Remarks) Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Sandy soils present due to alluvial material likely deposited by the South Platte River. Does not meet the criteria for hydric soils. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Surface Water (A1) High Water Table (A2) Saturation (A3) Water Marks (B1) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Iron Deposits (B5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Water -Stained Leaves (B9) Salt Crust (B11) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living (where not tilled) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Roots (C3) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required' Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Drainage Patterns (B10) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where tilled) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Geomorphic Position (D2) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) (LRR F) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No it Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Does not meet the criteria for wetland hydrology. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains - Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Great Plains Region Project/Site: Bennett Property City/County: Unincorporated Weld County Sampling Date: 8/26/2016 Applicant/Owner: J&T Consulting, Inc. State: Colorado Sampling Point: DP-K1a ;nvestigator(s): K.Medash Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Man-made depression Section, Township, Range: S12, T2N, R67W Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 0-2 Subregion (LRR): Western Great Plains (LRR G) Lat: 40.160627° N Long: -104.835487° W Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Altvan loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes NWI classification: N/A Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? No Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ✓ No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? No (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes Hydric Soil Present? Yes Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes N o N o N o ✓ ✓ Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: POW, man-made open water pond located in a maintained lawn. Resource is a non -vegetated open water feature, the boundary was defined by OHWM indicators such as a clear line on the bank indicating water levels earlier in the growing season. Feature appears to be excavated wholly in uplands and no outlet or connectivity to other waters of the US was observed. Does not meet the criteria for wetland due to lack of vegetation and soils VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum 1 2. 3. 4. (Plot size: Sapling/Shrub Stratum 1 2. 3. 4. 5. (Plot size: Herb Stratum 1 2. 3. 4. 5. (Plot size: 6. _ 7. _ 8. _ 9. _ 10. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 1. 2. % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 0% Absolute Dominant Indicator % Cover Species? Status 0 = Total Cover 0 0 = Total Cover = Total Cover = Total Cover Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC—): (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is s3.01 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: No vegetation within flagged aquatic resource boundary. Species consisting of curly dock, cockleburr, ragweed, and barnyard grass on the tops of the banks outside the aquatic resource boundary. Does not meet the criteria for hydrophytic vegetation. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains - Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP-Kla Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators. Depth Matrix Redox Features inches) Color (moist) % Color 1 T .e: C=Concentration, D=De moist) % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks letion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 'Location: PL=Pore Linini, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR F) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR F, G, H) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G, H) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR F) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) High Plains Depressions (F16) (MLRA 72 & 73 of LRR H) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR I, J) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR F, G, H) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR G) High Plains Depressions (F16) (LRR H outside of MLRA 72 & 73) Reduced Vertic (F18) Red Parent Material (TF2) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Other (Explain in Remarks) 3lndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: Wetland inundated, soils samples were not taken but appeared the pond had a compacted gravelly bottom. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) ✓ Surface Water (A1) High Water Table (A2) Saturation (A3) Water Marks (B1) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Iron Deposits (B5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Water -Stained Leaves (B9) Salt Crust (B11) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where not tilled) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Drainage Patterns (B10) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where tilled) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Geomorphic Position (D2) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) (LRR F) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Water Table Present? Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Yes Yes Yes N o N o ✓ Depth (inches): N o d Depth (inches): Depth (inches): 3648 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No Remarks: No connection to other wetlands or waters observed, appears to have been historically excavated entirely within uplands. Pond appears to collect hydrology from surface water runoff from surrounding upslope areas. Meets the criteria for wetland hydrology, but due to lack of hydrophytic vegetation and hydric soil, this data point is representative of waters of the US_ US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains - Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Great Plains Region Project/Site: Bennett Property Applicant/Owner: J&T Consulting, Inc. nvestigator(s): K.Medash Landform (hilislope, terrace, etc.): Toeslope Subregion (LRR): Western Great Plains (LRR G) Soil Map Unit Name: Altvan loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes City/County: Unincorporated Weld County Sampling Date: 8/26/2016 State: Colorado Sampling Point: DP-K1b Section, Township, Range: S12, T2N, R67W Local relief (concave, convex, none): None Slope (%): 1-2 Lat: 40.160371° N Long: -104.835385° W NWI classification: N/A Datum: NAD83 Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? No naturally problematic? No (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) No SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes Yes Yes No No No ✓ ✓ Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: Upland, fallow area located between a maintained yard and agricultural fields. Paired with wetland data point DP-K1a. VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size: 1 Populus tremuloides 2. 3. 4. Sapling/Shrub Stratum 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. (Plot size: Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Pascopyrum smithii Ambrosia artemisiifolia Helianthus annuus Conyza canadensis Phalaris arundinacea Rumex crispus Hordeum jubatum 10. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 1. 2. % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 0% Absolute Dominant Indicator % Cover Species? Status 10 Yes FAC 10 0 = Total Cover = Total Cover 30 Yes FACU 20 Yes FACU 20 Yes FACU 10 No NL 10 No FACW 5 5 No FAC No FACW 100 = Total Cover = Total Cover Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC—): 0 (A) 3 (B) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0% (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is s3.01 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: The vegetation community present is generally representative of transitional upland fallow areas across the site. Does not meet the criteria for hydrophytic vegetation. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains - Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP -K1 b Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth (inches) Matrix Redox Features Color (moist) % Color 0-12 10YR 4/3 100 'moist) Type 1 Loc2 Texture Remarks Silt loam 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR F) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR F, G, H) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G, H) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR F) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) High Plains Depressions (F16) (MLRA 72 & 73 of LRR H) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR I, J) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR F, G, H) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR G) High Plains Depressions (F16) (LRR H outside of MLRA 72 & 73) Reduced Vertic (F18) Red Parent Material (TF2) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Other (Explain in Remarks) 3lndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: Soil conditions are typical of uplands across the site. Does not meet the criteria for hydric soils. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators 'minimum of one required; check all that apply) Surface Water (A1) High Water Table (A2) Saturation (A3) Water Marks (B1) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Iron Deposits (B5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Water -Stained Leaves (B9) Salt Crust (B11) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where not tilled) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Drainage Patterns (B10) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where tilled) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Geomorphic Position (D2) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) (LRR F) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No d Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No i Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe; Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Does not meet the criteria for wetland hydrology. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains - Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Great Plains Region Project/Site: Bennett Property Applicant/Owner: J&T Consulting, Inc. Investigator(s): lCMedash Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Depression City/County: Unincorporated Weld County Sampling Date: 8/29/2016 State: Colorado Sampling Point: DP-L1a Section, Township, Range: S12, T2N, R67W Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 1-2 Subregion (LRR): Western Great Plains (LRR G) Lat: 40.152472° N Long: -104.836053° W Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Bankard sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes, frequently flooded NWI classification: N/A Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? No Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes _ Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? No (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) No SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ✓ No Is the within Sampled a Wetland? Area Yes ✓ No Hydric Soil Present? Yes I No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes I No Remarks: PFO Wetland in a topographic depression on the northwestern side of the intersection of the access road to the site and C.R. 22 1/2, adjacent to mowed agricultural field. Paired with upland data point DP -L1 b. VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size: 1 Salix amygdaloides 2. 3. 4. Sapling/Shrub Stratum 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. (Plot size: Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1 Phalaris arundinacea Absolute Dominant Indicator % Cover Species? Status 30 Yes NL 30 0 = Total Cover = Total Cover 60 Yes FACW 2 Schoenoplectus tabemaemontani 30 Yes OBL 3. Conyza canadensis 10 No NL 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 1. 2. % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 0% 100 = Total Cover = Total Cover Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC—): 2 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 3 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 67% (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation ✓ 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is 63.01 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ✓ No Remarks: Meets the criteria for hydrophytic vegetation. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains - Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP-L1a Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Loc2 0-15 10YR 3/2 90 7.5YR 4/6 10 C PL,M Texture Remarks Silty clay loam Prominent redox concentrations 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Histosol (Al) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Histic Epipedon (A2) Sandy Redox (S5) Black Histic (A3) Stripped Matrix (S6) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR F) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR F, G, H) Depleted Matrix (F3) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) ✓ Redox Dark Surface (F6) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ✓ Redox Depressions (F8) 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G, H) High Plains Depressions (F16) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR F) (MLRA 72 & 73 of LRR H) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR I, J) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR F, G, H) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR G) High Plains Depressions (F16) (LRR H outside of MLRA 72 & 73) Reduced Vertic (F18) Red Parent Material (TF2) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Other (Explain in Remarks) Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✓ No Remarks: Meets the criteria for hydric soils. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required, check all that apply) Surface Water (A1) High Water Table (A2) Saturation (A3) Water Marks (B1) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Iron Deposits (B5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Water -Stained Leaves (B9) Salt Crust (B11) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where not tilled) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Drainage Patterns (B10) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where tilled) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Geomorphic Position (D2) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) (LRR F) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Small depressional wetland adjacent to two gravel roads. Likely receives hydrology from surface water runoff from the roadsides. No observed connection to other wetlands or waters. Meets the criteria for wetland hydrology. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains - Version 2.0 Project/Site: Bennett Property WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Great Plains Region City/County: Unincorporated Weld County Sampling Date: 8/29/2016 Applicant/Owner: J&T Consulting, Inc. Investigator(s): K_Medash State: Colorado Sampling Point: DP -L1 b Section, Township, Range: S12, T2N, R67W Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Toeslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 0-1 Subregion (LRR): Western Great Plains (LRR G) Lat: 40.152637° N Long: -104.836036° W Datum: NADB3 Soil Map Unit Name: Bankard sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes, frequently flooded NWI classification: wA Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? No Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ✓ No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? No (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No ✓ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No ✓ ✓ Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: Upland within a fallow linear depression between the access road to the Site and a mowed agricultural field. Paired with wetland data point DP -L1 a. VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum 1. 2. 3. 4. (Plot size: Sapling/Shrub Stratum 1 2. 3. 4. 5. (Plot size: Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Bromus tectorum Bromus inermis Lactuca serriola Ambrosia artemisiifolia 10. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1 2. % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 0% Absolute Dominant Indicator % Cover Species? Status 0 = Total Cover 0 = Total Cover 50 Yes NL 30 Yes UPL 10 No FAC 10 No FACU 100 = Total Cover = Total Cover Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC—): 0 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 2 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0% (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.0' 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: Does not meet the criteria for hydrophytic vegetation. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains - Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP -Lib Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators. Depth (inches Matrix Redox Features Color (moist' 0-12 10YR 4/3 % 100 Color (moist) % Type' Loc2 Texture Loam Remarks 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Histosol (Al) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR F) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR F, G, H) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G, H) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR F) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) High Plains Depressions (F16) (MLRA 72 & 73 of LRR H) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR I, J) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR F, G, H) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR G) High Plains Depressions (F16) (LRR H outside of MLRA 72 & 73) Reduced Vertic (F18) Red Parent Material (TF2) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Other (Explain in Remarks) 3lndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: Soil conditions are typical of the linear depression along the western side of the the access road to the Site. Does not meet the criteria for hydric soils. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Surface Water (A1) High Water Table (A2) Saturation (A3) Water Marks (B1) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Iron Deposits (B5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Water -Stained Leaves (B9) Salt Crust (B11) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where not tilled) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Drainage Patterns (B10) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where tilled) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Geomorphic Position (D2) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) (LRR F) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Does not meet the criteria for wetland hydrology. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains - Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Great Plains Region Project/Site: Bennett Property Applicant/Owner: J&T Consulting, Inc_ Investigator(s): K_Medash Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Floodplain Subregion (LRR): Western Great Plains (LRR G) City/County: Unincorporated Weld County Sampling Date: 8/29/2016 State: Colorado Sampling Point: DP -U1 Section, Township, Range: S12, T2N, R67W Local relief (concave, convex, none): None [at: 40.154103° N Long: -104.835332° W Soil Map Unit Name: Bankard sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes, Frequently flooded Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology NWI classification: PFOA Slope (%): 0-1 Datum: NAD83 No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ✓ No naturally problematic? No (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is the Sampled within a Wetland? Area Yes No ✓ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No 1 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Remarks: Upland within a forested area with herbaceous vegetation. VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size: 1. Populus deltoides 2. 3. 4. Sapling/Shrub Stratum 1. 2. 3. 4. 5 (Plot size: Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1 Bromus tectorum 2. Euphorbia esula 3. 4. 5. 6. _ 7. _ 8. _ 9. _ 10. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 1. 2. % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 0% Absolute Dominant Indicator % Cover Species? Status 50 Yes FAC 50 0 80 20 = Total Cover = Total Cover Yes NL Yes NL 100 = Total Cover = Total Cover Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC—): 1 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 3 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 33% (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: The herbaceous vegetation community across this forested area is a mix of grasses and weedy species comprising 100% cover through most of the area. Does not meet the criteria for hydrophytic vegetation. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains - Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP -U1 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features inches) Color (moist 0-8 10YR 4/3 100 8-20 10YR 5/2 100 Color (moist) % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks Sandy loam Sandy loam 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Histosol (A1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Histic Epipedon (A2) Sandy Redox (S5) Black Histic (A3) Stripped Matrix (S6) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR F) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR F, G, H) Depleted Matrix (F3) Depleted Below Dark Surface (All) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Redox Depressions (F8) 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G, H) High Plains Depressions (F16) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR F) (MLRA 72 & 73 of LRR H) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR I, J) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR F, G, H) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR G) High Plains Depressions (F16) (LRR H outside of MLRA 72 & 73) Reduced Vertic (F18) Red Parent Material (TF2) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Other (Explain in Remarks) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: Soils had high sand content likely due to alluvial material deposited by the nearby South Platte River. Does not meet the criteria for hydric soils. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Water (Al) Salt Crust (B11) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Saturation (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where tilled) Drift Deposits (B3) (where not tilled) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Iron Deposits (B5) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Geomorphic Position (D2) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Water -Stained Leaves (B9) Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) (LRR F) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No i Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Does not meet the criteria for wetland hydrology. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains - Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Great Plains Region Project/Site: Bennett Property Applicant/Owner: J&T Consulting, Inc_ Investigator(s): K_Medash Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Toeslope Subregion (LRR): Western Great Plains (LRR G) Soil Map Unit Name: Altvan loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes City/County: Unincorporated Weld County Sampling Date: 8/29/2016 State: Colorado Sampling Point: DP -U2 Section, Township, Range: S12, T2N, R67W Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Lat: 40.152989° N Long: -104.840852° W Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ NWI classification: N/A Slope (%): 1-2 Datum: NAD83 No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? No Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ✓ No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? No (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes Yes Yes N o N o N o ✓ ✓ Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: Upland located in a linear depression within a powerline corridor. VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum 1 2. 3. 4. (Plot size: Sapling/Shrub Stratum 1. 2. 3. 4. (Plot size: 5. Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1 Grindelia squarrosa 2. Conyza canadensis 3 Ambrosia artemisiifolia 4 Lactuca serriola 5. Conium maculatum 6. Asclepias speciosa 7. _ 8. _ 9. _ 10. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 1. 2. % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 10% Absolute Dominant Indicator % Cover Species? Status 0 = Total Cover 0 25 20 = Total Cover Yes UPL Yes NL 20 Yes FACU 10 No FAC 10 No FACW 5 90 No FAC = Total Cover = Total Cover Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC—): 0 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 3 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0% (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is s3.01 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: The vegetation community present is representative of uplands within the powerline corridor through the site_ Does not meet the criteria for hydrophytic vegetation. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains - Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP -U2 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Loc2 0-12 10YR 4/2 100 Texture Remarks Silt loam 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. ?Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR F) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR F, G, H) Depleted Below Dark Surface (All) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G, H) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR F) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) High Plains Depressions (F16) (MLRA 72 & 73 of LRR H) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR I, J) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR F, G, H) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR G) High Plains Depressions (F16) (LRR H outside of MLRA 72 & 73) Reduced Vertic (F18) Red Parent Material (TF2) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Other (Explain in Remarks) Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: Does not meet the criteria for hydric soils. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Surface Water (A1) High Water Table (A2) Saturation (A3) Water Marks (B1) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Iron Deposits (B5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Water -Stained Leaves (B9) Salt Crust (B11) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where not tilled) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Drainage Patterns (B10) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where tilled) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Geomorphic Position (D2) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) (LRR F) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: No hydrology indicators observed within this portion of the powerline corridor. Does not meet the criteria for wetland hydrology. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains - Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Great Plains Region Project/Site: Bennett Property City/County: Unincorporated Weld County 8/29/2016 y y: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: J&T Consulting, Inc. Investigator(s): K.Medash State: Colorado Sampling Point: DP -U3 Section, Township, Range: S12, T2N, R67W Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Plain Local relief (concave, convex, none): None Slope (%): 0-1 Subregion (LRR): Western Great Plains (LRR G) Lat: 40.156051° N Long: -104.838476° W Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Altvan loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes NWI classification: N/A Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? No Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ✓ No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? No (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No ✓ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No ✓ Remarks: Upland located in a mowed agricultural field. VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants. Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Tree Stratum 1. 2. 3. 4. (Plot size: ) Sapling/Shrub Stratum 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. (Plot size: ) Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1. Helianthus annuus ) Absolute Dominant Indicator % Cover Species? Status 0 0 = Total Cover = Total Cover 15 Yes FACU 2. Triticum aestivum 10 Yes NL 3. Echinochloa crus-galli 4. Portulaca oleracea 5. 6. _ 7. _ 8. _ 9. _ 10. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 1. 2. ) % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 65% 5 No FAC 5 No FAC 35 = Total Cover = Total Cover Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC—): 0 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 2 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0% (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: Data point taken in mowed agricultural field which dominates the landscape across this portion of the site. 65% bare ground consists of dead vegetation and exposed ground. Does not meet the criteria for hydrophytic vegetation. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains - Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP -U3 Protile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features 'inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' L 0-12 10YR 4/3 100 oc2 Texture Remarks Loam 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Histosol (A1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Histic Epipedon (A2) Sandy Redox (S5) Black Histic (A3) Stripped Matrix (S6) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR F) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR F, G, H) Depleted Matrix (F3) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Redox Depressions (F8) 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G, H) High Plains Depressions (F16) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR F) (MLRA 72 & 73 of LRR H) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR I, J) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR F, G, H) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR G) High Plains Depressions (F16) (LRR H outside of MLRA 72 & 73) Reduced Vertic (F18) Red Parent Material (TF2) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Other (Explain in Remarks) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Remarks: Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Soil conditions are representative of the mowed agricultural field portions of the site_ Does not meet the criteria for hydric soils. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Surface Water (A1) High Water Table (A2) Saturation (A3) Water Marks (B1) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Iron Deposits (B5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Water -Stained Leaves (B9) Salt Crust (B11) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where not tilled) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Drainage Patterns (B10) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where tilled) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Geomorphic Position (D2) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) (LRR F) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): ',includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Does not meet the criteria for wetland hydrology. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains - Version 2.0 Project/Site: Bennett Property WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Great Plains Region City/County: Unincorporated Weld County Sampling Date: 8/29/2016 Applicant/Owner: J&T Consulting, Inc_ Investigator(s): K.Medash Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Plain State: Colorado Sampling Point: DP -U5 Section, Township, Range: Si, T2N, R67W Local relief (concave, convex, none): None Slope (%): 0-1 Subregion (LRR): Western Great Plains (LRR G) [at: 40.162793° N Long: -104.838657° W Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Aquolls and Aquents, gravelly substratum NWI classification: N/A Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? No Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ✓ No naturally problematic? No (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No 1 Hydric Soil Present? Yes No ✓ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No 1 Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: Upland located within a mowed agricultural field. VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum 1 2. 3. 4. (Plot size: Sapling/Shrub Stratum 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. (Plot size: Herb Stratum (Plot size: Absolute Dominant Indicator % Cover Species? Status 0 0 = Total Cover = Total Cover 1 Euphorbia esula 30 Yes NL 2. Helianthus annuus 3. Ambrosia artemisiifolia 20 Yes FACU 20 Yes FACU 4 Convolvulus arvensis 20 Yes NL 5. 6. _ 7. _ 8. _ 9. _ 10. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 1 2. % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 10% 90 = Total Cover = Total Cover Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC—): 0 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 4 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0% (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = U PL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: Does not meet the criteria for hydrophytic vegetation. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains - Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP -U5 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth (inches Matrix Redox Features Color (moist) % Color 0-12 10YR 4/2 100 T �e C=Concentration, D=De moist) °/0 Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks Clay loam letion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. ?Location: PL=Pore Linin•, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR F) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR F, G, H) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G, H) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR F) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) High Plains Depressions (F16) (MLRA 72 & 73 of LRR H) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR I, J) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR F, G, H) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR G) High Plains Depressions (F16) (LRR H outside of MLRA 72 & 73) Reduced Vertic (F18) Red Parent Material (TF2) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Other (Explain in Remarks) 3lndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: Does not meet the criteria for hydric soils. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply: Surface Water (A1) High Water Table (A2) Saturation (A3) Water Marks (B1) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Iron Deposits (B5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Water -Stained Leaves (B9) Salt Crust (B11) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living (where not tilled) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Roots (C3) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Drainage Patterns (B10) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where tilled) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Geomorphic Position (D2) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) (LRR F) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Remarks: Does not meet the criteria for wetland hydrology. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains - Version 2.0 Project/Site: Bennett Property WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Great Plains Region City/County: Unincorporated Weld County Sampling Date: 8/29/2016 Applicant/Owner: J&T Consulting, Inc. Investigator(s): K_Medash Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Toeslope Subregion (LRR): Western Great Plains (LRR G) Soil Map Unit Name: Altvan loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes State: Colorado Sampling Point: DP -U6 Section, Township, Range: S12, T2N, R67W Local relief (concave, convex, none): None Slope (%): 1-3 [at: 40.155351° N Long: -104.835091° W Datum: NAD83 NWI classification: N/A Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? No Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ✓ No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? No (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes Yes Yes N o N o N o Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: Upland in fallow area along edge of agricultural field. VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants. I Tree Stratum 1 2. 3. 4. (Plot size: ) Sapling/Shrub Stratum 1 2. 3. 4. 5. (Plot size: ) Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1. Helianthus annuus ) 2. Apocynum cannabinum 3. Persicaria maculosa 4. Bromus inermis 5. Spartina pectinata 6. Phalaris arundinacea 7. _ 8. _ 9. _ 10. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 1. 2. ) % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 0% Absolute Dominant Indicator % Cover Species? Status 0 = Total Cover 0 = Total Cover 30 Yes FACU 25 Yes FAC 20 Yes FACW 10 No UPL 10 No FACW 5 No FACW 100 = Total Cover = Total Cover Remarks: Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC—): 2 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 3 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 67% (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation ✓ 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is s3.01 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ✓ No Data point located at the end of a concrete irrigation ditch and the toeslope of an access road likely causing enough moisture for presence of some FACW-FAC vegetation. However, hydric soils and wetland hydrology were not present therefore the area was considered upland. Meets the criteria for hydrophytic vegetation. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains - Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP -U6 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Loc2 0-15 10YR 3/2 100 Texture Remarks Clay loam 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Histosol (Al) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR F) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR F, G, H) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G, H) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR F) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) High Plains Depressions (F16) (MLRA 72 & 73 of LRR H) 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR I, J) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR F, G, H) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR G) High Plains Depressions (F16) (LRR H outside of MLRA 72 & 73) Reduced Vertic (F18) Red Parent Material (TF2) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Other (Explain in Remarks) 3lndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: Does not meet the criteria for hydric soils. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Surface Water (A1) High Water Table (A2) Saturation (A3) Water Marks (B1) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Iron Deposits (B5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Water -Stained Leaves (B9) Salt Crust (B11) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where not tilled) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Drainage Patterns (B10) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where tilled) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Geomorphic Position (D2) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) (LRR F) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Remarks: No hydrology indicators observed_ Does not meet the criteria for wetland hydrology. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains - Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Great Plains Region Project/Site: Bennett Property City/County: Unincorporated Weld County 8/29/2016 y y: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: J&T Consulting, Inc. Investigator(s): K.Medash Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Hillslope State: Colorado Sampling Point: DP -U7 Section, Township, Range: S12, T2N, R67W Local relief (concave, convex, none): None Slope (%): 2-4 Subregion (LRR): Western Great Plains (LRR G) Lat: 40.159563° N Long: -104.847103° W Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Altvan loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes NWI classification: N/A Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? No Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ✓ No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? No (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No 1 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: Upland in a field of cultivated wheat. VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum 1 2. 3. 4 (Plot size: Sapling/Shrub Stratum 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. (Plot size: Herb Stratum (Plot size: Absolute Dominant Indicator % Cover Species? Status 0 = Total Cover 0 = Total Cover 1 Triticum aestivum 80 Yes NL 2. Lactuca serriola 3. 4. 5. 6. _ 7. _ 8. _ 9. _ 10. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 1. 2. % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 15% 5 No FAC 85 = Total Cover = Total Cover Remarks: Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC—): 0 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 1 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0% (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = U PL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is s3.01 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No The vegetation community represents the portion of the site west of Meadow Island Levee Ditch No. 1, mapped as Aquatic Resource M. Does not meet the criteria for hydrophytic vegetation. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains - Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP -U7 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix inches) Color (moist) 0-12 10YR 4/3 100 Redox Features Color (moist) % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks Silt loam 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR F) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR F, G, H) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G, H) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR F) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) High Plains Depressions (F16) (MLRA 72 & 73 of LRR H) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR I, J) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR F, G, H) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR G) High Plains Depressions (F16) (LRR H outside of MLRA 72 & 73) Reduced Vertic (F18) Red Parent Material (TF2) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Other (Explain in Remarks) Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: Does not meet the criteria for hydric soils. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Surface Water (A1) High Water Table (A2) Saturation (A3) Water Marks (B1) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Iron Deposits (B5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Water -Stained Leaves (B9) Salt Crust (B11) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living (where not tilled) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Roots (C3) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Drainage Patterns (B10) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where tilled) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Geomorphic Position (D2) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) (LRR F) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No i Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No i Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Remarks: Data point located in a field of cultivated wheat, no indicators of hydrology present_ Does not meet the criteria for wetland hydrology. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains - Version 2.0 EXHIBIT K Climate Climate information was available for the Fort Lupton 2 SE, CO weather station from the Western Regional Climate Center. The climate data collected from 1971 through 2000 indicates the average total annual precipitation at the site to be approximately 13.79 inches per year and annual mean temperature to be approximately 48 degrees Fahrenheit. This weather station has not been updated. Monthly average temperature and precipitation data for the 29 -year period of record are provided in the following table: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Temperature Average Max. (F) 42.5 49.3 55.6 61.6 72.5 83.9 89.1 87.7 77.0 68.0 48.5 41.3 64.9 Temperature Average Min. (F) 11.8 19.0 23.9 30.2 40.1 49.0 53.4 51.3 41.8 32.8 19.2 10.9 32.0 0.48 0.32 0.87 1.84 2.19 1.83 1.17 1.50 1.45 0.94 0.74 0.47 13.79 Average Precipitation Total (in.) litid UT Consulting, Inc. Northern Colorado Constructors Bennett Pit DRMS 112 Permit Application EXHIBIT L Reclamation Cost A phased and cumulative bonding approach is proposed for the Bennett Pit operation. The financial warranty required for each phase is the warranty required to completely reclaim that phase The financial warranty required for each phase of mining includes a cost component for the slurry wall required to close the current mined area should the project be stopped. This accurately calculates the additional financial warranty required for any given phase of mining and for the current limit of disturbance as well as account for the financial warranty that has already been posted to ensure that the Division has sufficient cumulative financial warranty to complete the reclamation. Direct costs related to the construction of the reclamation components that have been included in the financial warranty calculations include: Scarifying disturbed ground surfaces, re -applying topsoil over disturbed areas, revegetating disturbed areas, slurry wall construction, and contractor mobilization. Overhead, profit, and project management costs were then calculated and added to the direct construction costs to arrive at the required financial warranty for each phase. As each new phase is started, the financial warranty for that phase will be posted with the Division. When a phase has been reclaimed, inspected, and accepted by the Division, the associated financial warranty for that phase can then be released. Please see the attached calculations for details of the costs and quantities used to determine the financial warranty required for each phase of mining. The following table summarizes the financial warranty required for each phase, and the cumulative financial warranty that will be provided during any given phase. Reclamation Cost Summary Phase Additional Financial Warranty Required Cumulative Financial Warranty $1,005,627 $1,005,627 1 2 $993,116 $1,998,744 i MI' Consulting, Inc. Northern Colorado Constructors Bennett Pit DBMS 112 Permit Application Northern Colorado Constructors Consulting, Inc. Reclamation Bond Quantities and Costs © 2016 per Consulting Inc. Bennett Pit 11/29/2016 tpy/jcy 16116 Bennett Pit Rec Bond Calcs Summary of Unit Costs Direct costs Re -applying topsoil 12" thick Revegetating disturbed area Dewatering full pit Slurry Wall Cost (42 foot average depth) (0-50 ft @ $3/ft - 51-70 ft @ $4/ft - 71-75 ft @ $16/ft) Scarifying Ground Mobilization Overhead and Profit Costs Liability insurance Performance bond Profit Protect Management Engineering and bidding Management and administration $1,800.00 $1,000.00 $400.00 $126.00 $200 $2,500 / acre / acre / million gallons / linear foot / acre lump sum 1.55% of direct cost 1.05% of direct cost 10.00% of direct cost Total Overhead Cost 12.60% of direct cost 4.25% of direct cost 5.00% of direct cost Total Additional Cost 9.25% of direct cost 1 of 2 J&T Consulting, Inc. Reclamation Bond Quantities and Costs © 2016 J&T Consulting. Inc. Northern Colorado Constructors Bennett Pit 11/29/2016 tpy/jcy 16116 Bennett Pit Rec Bond Calcs Phase 1 - 57.22 acres (North Cell, Access Road, Plant Site Areas, Topsoil/OB Stockpile in South Cell) IReclamation Operation Slurry Wall Required to Close Phase 1 Scarifying - Topsoil/OB Stockpile, Access Road, Plant Site Areas Topsoil Placement - Topsoil/OB Stockpile, Access Road, Plant Site Areas Revegetate - Topsoil/OB Stockpile, Access Road, Plant Site Areas Scarifying - Disturbed Areas - North Cell to Water Surface Topsoil Placement - Disturbed Areas - North Cell to Water Surface Revegetate - Disturbed Areas - North Cell to Water Surface Mobilization Quantity Unit Unit Cost 5,705 18.40 18.40 18.40 7.90 7.90 7.90 7.9 If ac ac ac ac ac ac Is $ 126.00 $ 200 $ 1,800 $ 1,000 $ 200 $ 1,800 $ 1,000 $ 2,500 Total Direct Cost Overhead and Profit Cost (12.60%) Cost I $ 718,830 $ 3,680 $ 33,120 $ 18,400 $ 1,580 $ 14,220 $ 7,900 $ 19,750 $ 817,480 Contract Cost 103,002 920,482 Project Management (9.25%) $ 85,145 !Total Required Financial Warranty For Phase 1 $ 1,005,627 I Phase 2 - 67.87 acres (South Cell) IReclamation Operation Slurry Wall Required to Close Phase 2 Scarifying - Disturbed Areas - South Cell to Water Surface Topsoil Placement - Disturbed Areas - South Cell to Water Surface Revegetate - Disturbed Areas - South Cell to Water Surface Mobilization Quantity Unit Unit Cost Cost I 6,185 8.50 8.50 8.50 1.0 If $ 126.00 $ 779,310 ac $ 200 $ 1,700 ac $ 1,800 $ 15,300 ac $ 1,000 $ 8,500 Is $ 2,500 $ 2,500 Total Direct Cost $ 807,310 Overhead and Profit Cost (12.60%) Contract Cost Project Management (9.25%) $ 101,721 909,031 84,085 Additional Financial Warranty Required For Phase 2 Cummulative Financial Warranty Required For Phase 1-2 $ 993,116 $ 1,998,744 2of2 EXHIBIT M Other Permits and Licenses NCCI will apply for and obtain and/or update the following permits and/or notices prior to commencement of any mining or mining -related activities at the Bennett Pit site: Colorado Office of the State Engineer ■ Well Permit ■ Substitute Water Supply Plan Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment ■ Air Pollution Emission Notice ■ Colorado Discharge Permit System City of Fort Lupton ■ Special Use Permit ■ Floodplain Use Permit Army Corps of Engineers ■ Nationwide Permit II .1st ( onsulling, Inc. id I Northern Colorado Constructors Bennett Pit DRMS 112 Permit Application EXHIBIT N Source of Legal Right to Enter See attached ,1x'1' Consulting, Inc. Northern Colorado Constructors Bennett Pit DRMS 112 Permit Application Source of Legal Right to Enter By Owner of Affected Land and Substance to be Mined: Pioneer Land Company, LLC 4409 Coriolis Way Frederick CO 80504-5499 Mr. Peter Hays Environmental Protection Specialist Department of Natural Resources Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety 1313 Sherman Street Room 215 Denver, CO 80203 Re: Bennett Pit DRMS Permit Application — Construction Material Regular (112) Operation Reclamation Permit Mr. Hays: Please accept this letter as evidence that the applicant/miner, Northern Colorado Constructors, Inc., has permission to enter and initiate a mining operation on the affected lands. By signing this letter, we warrant that we have the legal and sole ownership of the affected lands and substance to be mined, and authority to offer this permission. Thank you, Mr. Tom Bennett Pioneer Land Company, LLC State of I olt:(6--Lcit) ) )ss County of tom= h The f regoing instrument was a nowledge before me this r3C-i 90 , by and -notary Public My Commissi f Expires 2 /6 90..E f day of k/D1'i AUDREY A COLE NOTARY PUBLIC "STATE OF COLORADO NOTARY ID # 1991401732.7 MYC MMISSIO EXPIRES 09-05-2020 EXHIBIT O Owner of Record of Affected Land (Surface Area) and Owner of Substance to be Mined The owner of record of the affected land and substance to be mined is: Pioneer Land Company, LLC 4409 Coriolis Way Frederick, CO 80504 See Attached Quitclaim Deeds Consulting, Inc. id I Northern Colorado Constructors Bennett Pit DRMS 112 Permit Application 3839197 04/16/2012 01:59 PM Total Pages: 1 Rec Fee: $11.00 Steve Moreno - Clerk and Recorder, Weld County, CO QUITCLAIM DEED THIS DEED, dated this 28th day of March, 2012, between Thomas M. Bennet of the County of [k.'tid and State of Colorado, grantor(s), and Pioneer Land Company LLC grantee(s) whose legal address is 11675 County Road 22.5, Weld, CO 80621 of the County of Weld and State of CO, grantee(s): WITNESS, that the grantor(s), for and in consideration of the sum of Ten dollars and noll 00 ($10.00), the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, has remised, released, sold and QUITCLAIMED, and by these presents does remise, release, sell and QUITCLAIM, unto the grantee(s), his heirs and assigns forever, , all the right, title, interest, claim and demand which the grantor(s) 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, described as follows: THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 1, TOWNSHIP 2 NORTH, RANGE 67 WEST OFTHE; 6TH P.M., COUNTY OF WELD, STATE OF COLORADO, EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION CONVEYED IN WARRANTY DEED RECORDED JANUARY 29, 1881IN BOOK 31 AT PAGE 87 AND TOGETHER WITH A NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT FOR INGRESS, EGRESS AND INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE OF UTILITIES RECORDED DECEMBER 19, 2003 AT RECEPTION NO. 3137162, COUNTY OF WELD, STATE OF COLORADO -I0 doe kt: Yi OtheV on also known by street and number as: 1175 County Road 22.5, Weld, CO 80621 TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same, together with all and singular the appurtenances and privileges thereunto belonging, or in anywise thereunto appertaining, all the estat, , right, title, interest and claim whatsoever of the grantor(s), either in law or equity, to the only proper use, benefit and behoof of the grantee(s), his heirs and assigns forever. The singular number shall include the plural, the plural the singular, and the use of any gender shall be applicable to all genders. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the grantor(s) has executed this deed on the date set forth above_ . narl STATE OF COLORADO COUNTY OF (Add The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 28th day of March, 20I2, by Thomas M. Bennett. My Commission expires: or/o.S/p10 i I- Witness my h and official seal. Ages eeobit, co. OOeOe#Oa.46 cfre�15> -c? 41 t ANDREW R. YOUNG NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF COLORADO 1 dog#en ire e'en .•nebe My Commission Expires 08/05/2012 Not lic QUITCLAIM DEED File W .I7ISCEW 3842928 Pages: 1 of 6 05/03/2012 01:26 PM R Fee:$36.00 D Fee:$0.00 Steve Moreno Clerk and Re:orde-. Welt County: Co Upon recording return to: III Messner & Reeves, LLC Attention: Leanna A. Young, Esq. 1430 Wynkoop Street, Suite 300 Denver, Colorado 80202 I Fe 1411,I1/41:11III:10.11iii frLJW'I MI 11111 QUITCLAIM DEED risk THIS DEED, made this day of April, 2012 between Thomas M. Bennett (also known as Thomas Bennett) and Stephanie Bennett ("Grantors"), and Pioneer Land Company, LLC ("Grantee"), whose legal address is: 4409 Coriolis Way, Frederick, CO 80504. WITNESSETH, that the Grantors for and in consideration of the sum of TEN DOLLARS ($10.00), the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknovciedged, has remised, released, sold and QUITCLAIMED, and by these presents does remise, release, sell and QUITCLAIM unto the Grantee, its successors and assigns forever, all the right, title, interest, claim and demand which the Grantors have in and to that real property, together with improvements, if any, situate, lying and being in the County of Weld of Colorado described on Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, ("the Property"), also known by street and number as 11223 Weld County Road 22.5, Fort Lupton, CO 80621. TOGETHER WITH all gravel and aggregate rights, and the right to explore and extract same. SAVE AND EXCEPT all oil. gas. and hydrocarbon rights, and other minerals including rights to explore, extract, and receive royalties. SUBJECT TO those exceptions described on Exhibit B. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD, the same, together with all and singular appurtenances and privileges thereunto belonging or in anywise thereunto appertaining, and all the estate, right, title interest and claim whatsoever, of the Grantors, either in law or equity, to the only proper use, benefit and behoof of the Grantee, its successors and assigns forever. The singular number shall include the plural, and the plural the singular, and the use of any gender shall be applicable to all genders. {00888362/2) 3842928 Pages: 2 of 6 05/03/2012 01:26 Pr Fee:$36.00 $36.00 0 Fee:$0.00 $0.00 Steve Moreno Clerk and Recorder Weld County. CO ill VI WOW, 1111! IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Grantors have executed this Deed on the date set forth above. tei.:11:ta STATE OF ColoradO COUNTY OF weld )ss. The fioregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 20Pei day of Apr!) , by Stephanie Bennett, the above -named Grantor. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires: 32fl U "[t►e ZC?Ph foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of April ,c, 20W' Thar by Thomas M. Bennett, the above -named Grantor. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires: 3&41(1c2415 f °f f 2,, 1,0 .‘00888i62 /2} Notary Public nitd42— 3842928 Pages: 3 of 6 05/03/2012 0126 PM R Fee: $36.00 0 Fee.$0.00 $0.00 Steve Moreno. Clerk and Recorder, Weld County CC VIII Ii1i 11111 Exhibit A The Property Tract I Lot B of Amended Recorded Exemption No. 1311-12-1 AMRE-3466 being a part of the North One -Half of Section 12, Township 2 North, Range 67 West of the 611i P.M., County of Weld, State of Colorado, recorded April 18, 2006 as Reception No. 3380229. Tract II Lot A of Recorded Exemption No. 1311-12-1 RE 4439, being a part of the North One - Half of Section 12, Township 2 North, Range 67 West of the 6th P.M., County of Weld. State of Colorado recorded March 2, 2007 as Reception No. 3459435. Tract III Lot B of Amended Recorded Exemption No. 1311-12-2 AMRE-4439, Section 12, Township 2 North, Range 67 West of the 6th P.M., County of Weld, State of Colorado, recorded June 30, 2011 as Reception No. 3777478. 00888362 21 3842928 Pages: 4 of 6 6 D Fee:$0 �0 00 05/03/2012 01:26 PIS R Fee:$36.00 Moreno, Glees( and Recorder. ''eld Coun;Y: CO llllh l fri,tl��4��1 UI Ill Exhibit B Exceptions 1. Taxes for the year 2012 and subsequent years, a lien not yet due and payable. 2. All oil, gas, and hydrocarbon rights now owned by Grantor, including rights to explore, extract, and receive royalties. 3. Rights of way for county roads, 30 feet wide on each side of section township lines as established by Order of the Board of County Commissioners for Weld County, recorded October 14, 1889 in Book 86 at page 273. 4. An Oil and Gas Lease, from Kuipers, et al as Lessor(s) to T.S. Pace as Lessee(s) recorded March 19, 1970 as Reception No. 1544062, and any and all assignments thereof or interests therein. 5. A Right of Way Grant and incidental purposes by the instrument recorded in Book 649 as Reception No. 1571317. 6. Terms, conditions, provisions, agreements and obligations contained in the Right of Way Agreement recorded February ii, 1994 as Reception No. 2373450. 7. An undivided 1/2 interest in all oil, gas and other minerals conveyed to Patina Oil & Gas Corporation by Mineral Deed, recorded April 20, 1998 as Reception No. 2607324, and any and all assignments thereof or interests therein. Reserving to Carole Kuipers, Royalty Interest in and to J Sand production from the wellbores of the Kuipers Pooling #2 well; and the John Kuipers #1 well. In addition, excluding excludes sand, gravel, and other related construction material. 8. Terms, conditions, provisions, agreements and obligations contained in the Easement, Right -of -Way and Surface Use Agreement recorded February 3. 2000 as Reception No. 2747863. 9. Terms, conditions, provisions, agreements and obligations contained in the Right -of -Way Grant recorded February 13, 2002 as Reception No. 2925224. 10. Terms, conditions, provisions, agreements and obligations contained in the Surface Facility Grant recorded May 7, 2002 as Reception No. 2949387. 11. Terms, conditions, provisions, agreements and obligations specified under the Easement Agreement recorded December 19. 2003 as Reception No. 3137162. 12. Terms, conditions, provisions, agreements and obligations specified under the Memorandum of Agreement by and between Patina Oil & Gas Corporation and Carole Kuipers recorded January 18, 2004 as Reception No. 3148830. (00888362/2) 3842928 Pages: 5 of 6 05/03/2012 01:26 PM R Fee:$36.00 D Pee:$0.00 Steve Moreno Clerk arc Recorder, Meld Canty CO I?K1!M'I I'I'IiM Z W LI*U4L'*WIVIN II It I 13. Covenants, conditions and restrictions, which do not Include a forfeiture or reverter clause, set forth in the Dry -Up Covenant recorded May 24, 2004 as Reception No. 3182881. Provisions regarding race, color, creed, and national origin, if any, are deleted. 14. Easement Dedication and Agreement (Access and Utilities) recorded February 23, 2006 as Reception No. 3365002. 15. NOTES; irrigation lateral easement, existing access, and pond as shown on Recorded Exemption Map RE2935 recorded March 8. 2001 as Reception No. 2830905. 16. NOTES; right of way for abandoned railroad grade (Book 289 at Page 144); existing well radius, Access Easement (Reception No. 3365002) and pond as shown on Amended Recorded Exemption No. 1311-12-1 AmRE-3466 recorded April 18, 2006 as Reception No, 3380229. 17. KN Front Range Gathering Company Right of Way Grant for pipeline appurtenances recorded February 16, 1994 at Reception No. 23 74163. 18. Terms, conditions, provisions, easements, agreements and obligations contained in the Easement Agreement as set forth below: Recording Date: December 19, 2003 Recording No.: 3137163 19. Covenants, conditions, restrictions and lien rights but omitting any covenants or restrictions, if any, including but not limited to those based upon race. color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, familial status, marital status, disability. handicap, national origin, ancestry, or source of income, as set forth in applicable state or federal laws, except to the extent that said covenant or restriction is permitted by applicable law, as set forth in the document. Recording Date: May 24, 2004 Recording No.: 3182881 20. NOTES: Right of Way for abandoned railroad grade (Book 289. Page 144); existing well radius, Access Easement (Reception No. 3365002): Right of Way for Meadow Islands Ditch and the South Platte River; 10' Right of Way reserved for future; and dirt road Right of way as shown on the Recorded Exemption No. 1311 -12 -2 -RE 3466 recorded November 19, 2003 at Reception No. 3127961. 22. Terms, conditions, provisions, agreements and obligations contained in the Dry Up Covenants and Easements as set forth below: Recording Date: March 18, 2011 and March 29, 2011 Recording No.: Reception Nos. 3764897, 3756989 and 3758875 (00888362 /2) 3842928 Pages: 6 of 6 05/03/2012 01:26 PM R Fee:$36.00 D Fee:$0.00 Steve Morenc. Clerk anc Recorder keld County. CO VIII Frii14��f4h,NN Md MI 11111 23. Any tax, lien, fee, or assessment by reason of Inclusion of the Land in the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District, as evidenced by instruments} recorded September 29, 2010 at Reception No. 3721790. 24. Terms, conditions, provisions, agreements and obligations contained in the Right of Way Grant to Kerr-McGee as set forth below: Recording Date: January 29, 2010 Recording No.: Reception No. 3672807 25. The effect of Land Survey Plat recorded February 23. 2011 at Reception No. 3752020. 26. The effect of Decree of Water Court recorded November 25, 2008 at Reception No. 3591726. 27. Terms, conditions, provisions, agreements and obligations contained in the Surface Use Agreements as set forth below: Recording Date: October 30, 2008 Recording No.: Reception Nos. 3581747 and 3561748 28. Request for Notification of Surface Development by Kerr-McGee 011 and Gas Onshore LP recorded December 21, 2007 at Reception No. 3525268. 29. Request for Notification of Surface Development by Noble Energy, Inc. et al recorded October 15. 2007 at Reception No. 3511023. 30. Request for Notification of Surface Development by K.P. Kauffman Company. Inc. recorded August 6, 2007 at Reception No, 3495293. 31. Terms, conditions, provisions, easements, agreements and obligations contained in the Easement Dedication and Agreement as set forth below: Recording Date: August 10, 2006 Recording No.: Reception No. 3411061 32. Easements, notes, conditions and/or restrictions as set forth on the Amended Recorded Exemption No. 1311-12-2 AMRE-4439, June 30. 2011 as Reception No. 3777478, Amended Recorded Exemption No. 1311-12-1 AMRE-3466, April 18, 2006 as Reception No. 3380229, Recorded Exemption No. 1311-12-1 RE 4439, March 2, 2007 as Reception No. 3459435. 33. All the easements, conditions, covenants, restrictions, and rights of way of record. {00888362/2) EXHIBIT P Municipalities within Two Miles City of Fort Lupton 130 South McKinley Avenue Fort Lupton, Colorado 80621 i Jai IConsulting, Inc. Northern Colorado Constructors Bennett Pit DBMS 112 Permit Application EXHIBIT Q Proof of Mailing Notices to County Commissioners and Soil Conservation District See attached. is, A Jai Consulting, Inc. Northern Colorado Constructors Bennett Pit DRMS 112 Permit Application EXHIBIT R Proof of Filing with County Clerk or Recorder See attached. IL It lConsulting, Inc. Northern Colorado Constructors Bennett Pit DRMS 112 Permit Application EXHIBIT S Permanent Man -Made Structures within 200 Ft of the Affected Land 1. Power Lines/Poles 2. Phone Lines/Poles 3. Oil and Gas Lines 4. Oil and Gas Wells, Pumps, and Tank Batteries 5. Fences/Structures 6. Improved Roads 7. Houses and Outbuildings 8. Irrigation Channels/Ditches NCCI believes that the mining operation, as proposed, will not adversely affect any of the permanent, man-made structures located within 200 ft of the affected area. However, the applicant still anticipates providing evidence of agreements for compensation with the appropriate structure owners or an engineering evaluation (see attached slope stability report) that adequately demonstrates that the proposed mining and reclamation operations will not result in damage to the structures. LIJ&T Consulting, Inc. Northern Colorado Constructors Bennett Pit DRMS 112 Permit Application SLOPE STABILITY REPORT V a FOR THE BENNETT PIT WELD COUNTY, COLORADO NOVEMBER 2016 PREPARED FOR: in Slow NORTHERN COLORADO CONSTRUCTORS, INC. NORTHERN COLORADO CONSTRUCTORS, INC. 9075 WCR 10 FORT LUPTON, CO 80621 PREPARED BY: J&T Consulting, Inc. 305 DENVER AVENUE - SUITE D FORT LUPTON, CO 80621 PHONE: 303-857-6222 FAX: 303-857-6224 CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify this slope stability analysis for Northern Colorado Constructors, Inc., the Bennett Pit, located in Weld County, Colorado was prepared by me or under my direct supervision. James C. York Registered Professional Engineer State of Colorado No. 36846 id' J&T Consulting, Inc. Northern Colorado Constructors, Inc. - Bennett Pit Slope Stability Analysis Page i Table of Contents I. Introduction II. Overview III. Geotechnical Data IV. Design Analysis and Criteria V. Methodology VI. Slope Stability Results VII. Conclusions and Recommendations Appendices Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Appendix D Appendix E S lope Stability Case Location Map S lope Stability Case Cross -Sections S lope Stability Case Xstabl Output Geotechnical Investigation Report U SGS Map, Oct. 2002 revision — "Peak Acceleration (%g) with a 2% Probability of Exceedance in 50 yrs" II I ilil I J&T Consulting, Inc. Northern Colorado Constructors, Inc. - Bennett Pit Slope Stability Analysis Page ii INTRODUCTION Northern Colorado Constructors, Inc. proposes to mine the property located in the Southeast quarter of Section 1 and North half of Section 12, Township 2 North, Range 67 West, Sixth P.M. in Weld County, Colorado. The property is bounded by the South Platt River on the east, WCR 23 on the west, WCR 22.5 to the south, and private property on the north. The proposed mining operation will extract gravel reserves from locations adjacent to man-made structures. The rules and regulations of the Division of Reclamation, Mining, and Safety (DRMS) require that any mining within a 200 foot setback of a man-made structure show thorough 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 an overview of the methodology used in the analysis of the mining slopes and their estimated affects on all man-made structures. Recommendations regarding acceptable setbacks from man-made structures have also been included. OVERVIEW The DRMS mining plan proposes that the property will be mined in 2 pits. The mining will occur at 3H:1V slopes. Concurrent reclamation is planned such that the reclamation embankment will be constructed as the mining progresses. The reservoir will cover an estimated 103 surface acres when full. Actual surface area will depend on the final configuration of the reservoir after reclamation is complete. GEOTECHNICAL DATA Preliminary geotechnical investigations have been performed by Cesare, Inc. J&T Consulting, Inc. (JT) estimated soil strength parameters based on the information from the geotechnical investigation and other stability analyses that have been performed on gravel mining operations along the Front Range. Table 1, on the following page, represents a summary of the soil strength parameters that were used in this stability analysis. III UT Consulting, Inc. ild 1 Northern Colorado Constructors, Inc. - Bennett Pit Slope Stability Analysis Page 1 Table 1 - Soil Properties Description I Max density (pcf) dry Saturated Density (pcf) Cohesion (psf) Internal Friction Angle Overburden 110 131 150 22 Sand and Gravel 110 125 0 35 Weathered Bedrock 125 141 100 18 Stable Bedrock 125 141 2000 20 Slurry Wall 100 110 0 45 DESIGN ANALYSIS AND CRITERIA The proposed mining slopes were analyzed using the XSTABL v5.105a computer program. XSTABL 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, four cases were identified as critical during the mining operation. Static and pseudo -static conditions were analyzed in each case. Pseudo -static peak acceleration factors were taken from USGS information for the western United States. The 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years (the most conservative) was used. Surface loading equivalent to an HS 20 highway load was applied adjacent to each area to simulate heavy equipment loading that could be present at that location for maintenance or construction activities. All mining side slopes will be 3H:1V. Case 1 — West Property Line of North Cell. The mining operation is adjacent to a private property with a ditch near the west property line of the site. The proposed setback for mining is 101 feet from the property line and 68 feet from the ditch. The mining depth was assumed to be 42 feet in this area based on bore log information in the geotechnical report. Case 2 — South Boundary of North Cell. The mining operation is adjacent to an oil and gas tank battery. The mining depth was assumed to be 44 feet in this area based on bore log information in the geotechnical report. The proposed mining setback was set 132 feet from the oil and gas tank battery. Case 3 — West Property Line of South Cell. The mining operation is adjacent to private property with overhead electrical line near the boundary. The mining depth was assumed to be 29 feet in this area based on bore log information in the geotechnical report. The proposed mining setback was set 50 feet from the electrical utilities and 75 feet from the property line. li+ 1 J&T Consulting, Inc. Northern Colorado Constructors, Inc. - Bennett Pit Slope Stability Analysis Page 2 Case 4 — South Property Line. The mining operation is adjacent to a pipeline easement and ROW along the South property line of the site. The mining depth was assumed to be 36 feet in this area based on bore log information in the geotechnical reports. The proposed mining setback was set 50 feet from the pipeline easement and 65 feet from the ROW. Case 5 — East Property Line. The mining operation is adjacent to a pipeline easement along the East side of the pit. The mining depth was assumed to be 43 feet in this area based on bore log information in the geotechnical reports. The proposed mining setback was set 50 feet from the pipeline easement. The cross -sections located in Appendix B show the estimated phreatic surface associated with each case as well as the geometry used in the mining. METHODOLOGY The mining embankment configuration shown in the computer analysis represents the estimated conditions for this site. If mining conditions differ from the estimated conditions, the slope stability will need to be re-evaluated on a case by case basis. The Bishop Method was used in the computer analysis for determining safety factors. The procedure searches for circular shear failures and automatically searches for the lowest safety factor. 2,000 separate failure surfaces were analyzed for each case. The required minimum safety factors are based on the current standards used by the Colorado State Engineer's Office (SEO) in evaluating embankment dams, and industry accepted standards for the evaluation of temporary structures during construction. SLOPE STABILITY RESULTS The SEO requires minimum safety factors of 1.3 for static condition analyses and 1.0 for pseudo -static (earthquake loading) condition analyses for Class I (high hazard) embankment dams. This design criteria was used to establish the desired minimum safety factors for this project and should be considered as highly conservative for evaluating alluvial mining slopes. The calculated factors of safety are within the design criteria specified for this project and can be considered indicators of the mining slope performance under the various conditions. The slopes were analyzed using full and empty reservoir conditions. The results of the static condition and pseudo -static condition slope stability analyses in Table 2 and Table 3. I SA' J&T Consulting, Inc. Northern Colorado Constructors, Inc. - Bennett Pit Slope Stability Analysis Page 3 Table 2 - Static Condition Slope Stability Analysis Results Description Calculated Of Factor Safety Minimum Required Of Safety Factor Case 1 — West Property Line of North Cell 2.41 1.30 Case 1 — West Property Line of North Cell 7.26 1.30 Full Reservoir Case 2 — South Boundary of North Cell 2.94 1.30 Case 2 — South Boundary of North Cell 8.07 1.30 Full Reservoir Case 3 — West Property Line of South Cell 4.58 1.30 Case 3 — West Property Line of South Cell 12.62 1.30 Full Reservoir Case 4 — South Property Line 2.65 1.30 9.28 1.30 Case 4 South Property Line Full Reservoir — Case 5 — East Property Line 2.04 1.30 6.17 1.30 Case 5 — East Property Line Full Reservoir Table 3 - Pseudo -Static Condition Slope Stability Analysis Results Description Calculated Of Factor Safety Minimum Required Of Safety Factor Case 1 West Property Line of North Cell EQ 1.57 1.0 — 2.84 1.0 Case 1 — West Property Line of North Cell EQ Full Reservoir Case 2 — South Boundary of North Cell EQ 1.78 1.0 Case 2 — South Boundary of North Cell EQ 2.91 1.0 Full Reservoir Case 3 — West Property Line of South Cell EQ 2.36 1.0 5.68 1.0 Case 3 — West Property Line of South Cell EQ Full Reservoir Case 4 South Property Line EQ 1.69 1.0 — 3.47 1.0 Case 4 South Property Line Full Reservoir EQ — 1.41 1.0 Case 5 — East Property Line EQ 2.68 1.0 Case 5 — East Property Line Full Reservoir EQ iJ&T Consulting, Inc. Northern Colorado Constructors, Inc. - Bennett Pit Slope Stability Analysis Page 4 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Case 1 - The resulting safety factor of 2.41 exceeds the SEO minimum requirement of 1.30 for an embankment during construction. The resulting safety factor of 1.57 is above the SEO minimum requirement of 1.0 for an embankment subject to earthquake loading. Using a normal water surface elevation in the reservoir provides greater safety factors, 7.26 under static loading and 2.84 under earthquake loads. The proposed setback of 68 feet from the ditch is satisfactory. Case 2 - The resulting safety factor of 2.94 exceeds the SEO minimum requirement of 1.30 for an embankment during construction. The resulting safety factor of 1.78 is above the SEO minimum requirement of 1.0 for an embankment subject to earthquake loading. Using a normal water surface elevation in the reservoir provides greater safety factors, 8.07 under static loading and 2.91 under earthquake loads. The proposed setback of 132 feet from the tank battery is satisfactory. Case 3 - The resulting safety factor of 4.58 exceeds the SEO minimum requirement of 1.30 for an embankment during construction. The resulting safety factor of 2.36 is above the SEO minimum requirement of 1.0 for an embankment subject to earthquake loading. Using a normal water surface elevation in the reservoir provides greater safety factors, 12.62 under static loading and 5.68 under earthquake loads. The proposed setback of 50 feet from the existing power line is satisfactory. Case 4 - The resulting safety factor of 2.65 exceeds the SEO minimum requirement of 1.30 for an embankment during construction. The resulting safety factor of 1.69 is above the SEO minimum requirement of 1.0 for an embankment subject to earthquake loading. Using a normal water surface elevation in the reservoir provides greater safety factors, 9.28 under static loading and 3.47 under earthquake loads. The proposed setback of 50 feet from the pipeline easement is satisfactory. Case 5 - The resulting safety factor of 2.04 exceeds the SEO minimum requirement of 1.30 for an embankment during construction. The resulting safety factor of 1.41 is above the SEO minimum requirement of 1.0 for an embankment subject to earthquake loading. Using a normal water surface elevation in the reservoir provides greater safety factors, 6.17 under static loading and 2.68 under earthquake loads. The proposed setback of 50 feet from the pipeline easement is satisfactory. i J&T Consulting, Inc. Northern Colorado Constructors, Inc. - Bennett Pit Slope Stability Analysis Page 5 The following recommendations for monitoring of slope stability should be followed: 1. A visual inspection of the excavated slopes should be done on a weekly basis for the duration 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 sloughing of slopes 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 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 and recommend remediation work to stabilize the area. 4. If no visible signs of slope failure are detected during mining, then the inspection period could be reduced to once per 6 months after mining completion, or after every major precipitation event. SI J&T Consulting, Inc. Northern Colorado Constructors, Inc. - Bennett Pit Slope Stability Analysis Page 6 APPENDIX A J&T Consulting, Inc. Northern Colorado Constructors, Inc. - Bennett Pit Slope Stability Analysis u taco ra9-L5111.0£ •'J L&[>LS84JOG 44 12909 00 uoidni Uo3 a aims - enueny MAURO N cot •au''8urpinsuo) .1 1 den uoge3o1 asap 4I!gelS CIS V xgpueddy lid 'BAWD neuueg maul 'sao;ona;suosa opVAoloQ uaey;aoN SNOISIA321 0 2 > > A b a "May At", ^� o a in b u) r s r a) a) LEGEND: EXISTING CONTOURS fi Id W 0 IY U NNO CA rl n (' r i ozzzz Si x x x ? Q W W W W U t 1 8 V 8 0 8 8 I I SCALE IN FEET WH £l'Sb'6 91&/6V1l '301-4B$S-dals '15mg @qgado,seins4S ueicAsBu!Meip\BwWWJad au!yJ Houus9 9119il:d APPENDIX B II MI J&T Consulting, Inc. ild I Northern Colorado Constructors, Inc. - Bennett Pit Slope Stability Analysis J&T Consulting, Inc. UM h qgt co * T M N I r Ne- DRAWDOWN 0 Q tx fla BENNETT PIT CASE FOS = 2.408 0 m M D M Z M w a) o a "a L M 0 SS 0 .C S L O N O E r r re WM IS WM la ilia Imo lb i. O N) in 00 M 0 Nt M to Q) N earN a) 4- O 1O 0 N X < in O N O co ce to a rma le Ise I I1 LI) O N 00 N we I I I I U) O U) M Q) 1d' (1 ees) my— A I O O N J&T Consulting, Inc. Mil BENNETT PIT CASE 1 EQ I M N I Vie a yr- m I O rs. Lo surfaces, MINIMUM BISHOP FOS = 1 most critics 0 3NI1 JLled3dOed 1 -CO HO1IO IIWl1 DNINIW 101101. X INNEN N tn 00 M O 4 N r - (teal) sixv A to 00 M O M rn N O N O O in N J&T Consulting, Inc. CO O v) * * I M N I we - BENNETT PIT CASE 1 FULL SHOP FOS = 7.262 1 most critical surfaces, MINIMUM B 1 O I w Do CO Sib r S PM IS 0 M -43 in 00 M 0 4 In is N - C Irs — O In N Inn S S r I I U) O N 00 N ve- 1 1 1 I I I in O t M O) nt Qeej) SIXY A 1 O In O N 0 co r 1O Vim Wm' O N a I x J&T Consulting, Inc. * I M N I T Or w tL Z w m I ge- BENNETT PIT CASE 1 FULL EQ SHOP FOS = 2.841 1 most critical surfaces, MINIMUM B 0 w no co r IMP SP IS 0 to i+ co M 0 - M a Lc) ,_ o) N r1 -t- CD r O a 11) V / N X L. ISINElk Jim - PED IS LI) 0 N CO N r - I I 1 I I I in 0 in tin a) wit (eej) SIXY A I 0 In 0 N O (0 we to '- r 0 N I X J&T Consulting, Inc. * I N I r r z W m I N Z 0 0 Q ce 0 0 Ei: N W Q 0 F- H H W Z Z W CO SHOP FOS = 2.944 m D m z surfaces, M a V 4- L. U en; O E acN MD I I I i a LM/op L I- Nt r - in CO to in V) V) raS mea r a) a) 1I 1_ W in N X < a N. PIM a r I I i O O LO O N N I i O O O Un O Un la ge @eel) SIXY A 1 O Ln to N to co Ln Pe) '- a U J Oo i x JET Consulting, Inc. El 0 N a; V Lai z W in I N a W N W (/) Q 0 F -- Q. ha ha W z Z LU cc co N N h II o a_ u... z cn on D Z surfaces, M 1 most critics I I I alga r s a all PS a S I O LO N I I O O N I I O O O i) 0 to Ws w- (Wel) SIXV A r O co W‘ta U wizt to co M to ten tit) to N to CO LU 14) I x J&T Consulting, Inc. J J D LL N W U) Q 0 F-- 0 W N .. z W i N I vrn surfaces, M 1 most critics 0 O W N N m I N N ND A?:1 311VE N N t�l LVVI-1 SNINIVN T i I 1 WIMP IMP O O O (reel) SIXY A i O O Co Y♦ 00 K) M K) m a) 00 in N - U, M N Lin ao Lf) 00 X x J&T Consulting, Inc. Cr LU si ai N Lei Q 0 a_ fr- N LU tO S. Z e- z Lam! * m I PO N I ve r V W Ls. z LAJ CO I N o) a O1 Si II o 0 LL a_ 0 Ln m M D M 1 most critical surfaces, MIN I I 1 I 1 I 0 0 N 0 in r 0 0 r (te) SIXY A J&T Consulting, Inc. si r N - w as I M D DRAWDOWN CL Q LZ V) W (1) Q U I - a_ F -- I - W Z Z W M MUM BISHOP FOS = surfaces, MIN a „..., L... O (n E O in ]NP IlOd LE M 0 ci T I N rag LO I O 1 I I to O to O N M re (teat) sixv A r S la Ss INIMIIII pi IS Pa Iiiii la Oasis Ps O to (0 0 M M to O) N 0 CD N r1 et— a) m 4- ........ to N Chi N 0 0) T to to N to co cx W W i1) U F— a. F-- LU z a; �F co �F I M N I a ti! z W m 1 M SHOP FOS surfaces, MIN 1 most critics O LU I to N INi A1ddONd h -10d LIfMOd 1VVIH ONINIW Imo Was Immo S r 0 i T 0 I T I 0 u? N M (wet) sixv T 0 0 M Li ) 0) N 0 c0 N es, m a) to N N _ 0 0) Ire um) 0 N to Co J&T Consulting, Inc. * I N I we- -e - D M W (I) V I- 0 F W Z w CO N N Lo N I I r --C ) O 0 0 (i) Z surfaces, M 1 most critics I U) N ma w 0 J EN AiHAE1CMI d 310d eHMOd 1 VV I 1 DNINIW i i Imo a a r a Ims a r 0 I I U, 0 I I I o Lc) (eej) sixv I 0 to 0 M L1 I 0) N 0 tO 0 40) to mni N r a I x J&7 Consulting, Inc. in to r. * i N I r a w I.L. Li CO I M 03 11flJ £ 3SV3 lid 113NN38 0) co N Lei I I 0t LL a_ O I Ei3 S D 2 Z S (A' c) a 9 - is r 1 most critics O in IW1l DNINIW We 31 a Ma S. P. S Soma S S I to N 1 0 vs r I I I I I to 0 to 0 N to Na (Teel) sixv A I 0 in to to 0 M 14) in Cr) C4 0 w N rise, a) a) 4- to N 0 0) ..- to re 0 es to 03 a I x • U Ca) Sot 1 0) * I N ve z W m I 1' D DRAWDOWN 0 Q w a U F F— F - w w l Arlo i i 1N W Sy3 `� Y f iNl1]dld (D fpi L� w O N in II 0 MUM BISHOP z surfaces, M 1 most critico 1 1VVf DNINIW i 0 00 0 N (Teat) sixv J&T Consulting, Inc. 1 m ed I N1W]SV] IPhfr CO To • 0 L 0 0 C/) m (A4 C3 U a L. 1 most critics I 1VVT DNINIIN i lemnek O Co N N a.- - 4, m 44'0 N o U) r- r 0 (teat) sixv I Lo O N O O r I x J&T Consulting, Inc. Mill * I M N I J J U F I -- F - w z z W cc N N O) I 1 0 US C- 0 00 D surfaces, MIN 1 most critics MO Li) 1NlWRSti] 11\11-1]dld i i i i l I VV ON NIW las Sim o Un co o to 0 Irm N (Teat) SIXV U, O co Pt) to to N (NI tO O N O O I X c0 M t!} Vets a W z W 03 I 1' MUM BISHOP FOS = 3.472 surfaces, MIN 1 most critics "Ln U r MO O 1NIWLSV3 ]Nli]dld 1 UN VN NIA I 0 0O 0 Un o Oen) SIXV U) O CO M to M N N -4-- m U) O4 X 0 N 0 O I D DRAWDOWN I M N I r SHOP FOS = 2.044 CO vc V a L z U) a V 1� -}- L V IT) E O Lf 1N3W3S�� ANl1Adld llW11 0NINIVV �` r S. a p- t I 1 0 0 C0 N 1 1 0 Co (te .1) sixv A 1 I 0 i' 1 0 0 0 0 c0 tin N K) 0 00 N 0 0 N 0 cQ 0 N r 0 w X X J&T Consulting, Inc. MINI 0 0 * I to N I Item 0r W z 00 I w w U) U O U :47: � Ln o its O 0 CO surfaces, M CL W z z Lai C3 (/) O E 1NFVUSb'3 �Nl��dld 0MNI W f 0 O N p 1 0 t0 Wee I 0 N I 0 00 (eej) SIXY A J&T Consulting, Inc. -J J U) Li CU) F- 0 F-- cD W 0 Z o z r Lai I M N i r L z W m I M N !s I I U) 0 Lam. 0 0 m D surfaces, M a :4= U -1- U, 0 E r 1NEWASb'A iNFEdld 11VVI� ONNA a Mos lmne I 0 0 N I I I I I I 0 0 0 0 0 co N DO eJ) SI xv A 0 0 mit 0 cD ten 0 N ti) 0 00 N a) a) 4- N Q 0 0 N 0 (0 0 N 0 00 I x J&T Consulting, Inc. MEM co r 5-BENFEQ 0 00 co N I I v) 0 a_ u. I CO M D M Z Of 1st M .J ^ 0 D I;Di O Lo 1: W m U} ( Q U O U Fa • - CL Is Z Z W cn ._ se o In O E r n La r 1NTwISV3 FNI-1]dId 1IkN li ONIN W SOS S os pans O 0 cqt co M 0 N K) 0 _ CO N _ a) a) 4- o � - -qct (f) N Vism Imit H la _ I i I 0 0 o CO N I I ' I I I 0 0 0 0 N 00 girt r - (t eel) sixv A 0 0 N 0 ca 0 N ma a, x a x APPENDIX C UT Consulting, Inc. Northern Colorado Constructors, Inc. - Bennett Pit Slope Stability Analysis S XSTABL File: 1 -BEN 11-23-** ...... It 1-BEN.OPT 8:48 It I♦ I• I• I• I• /• I♦ I♦ I• I• .• I• I• I♦ 5% I• I• I• I• I• I• I• I• %• I• :. I• I• I• I• XSTABL Slope Stability Analysis using the Method of Slices Copyright (C) 1992 A 96 Interactive Software Designs, Moscow, ID 83843, U.S.A. All Rights Reserved Ver. 5.105a I• I• I• I• 0% I• I• /• I• /• /• /• I• I• I• I• Jr _t. .'. .A• 0. _1. .J. Or IS It It It ♦• I♦ It I• flflflfl Inc. I• I• I• I• 95 A 1483 flflflflflflflfl Jo It .u. ♦• .I. :: Jdo I% Jo I• It I% O. It .1III .'. It St It I• I• I• I• I• I• ♦• I• I• I• Problem Description : BENNETT PIT CASE 1 RAPID DRAWDOWN SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES 9 SURFACE boundary segments Segment No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 x -left (ft) 100.0 200.0 314.0 326.0 349.5 352.5 394.0 408.0 422.0 y -left (ft) 100.0 100.0 138.0 142.0 142.0 142.0 142.0 139.0 142.0 x -right (ft) 200.0 314.0 326.0 349.5 352.5 394.0 408.0 422.0 427.0 13 SUBSURFACE boundary segments Segment x -left No. (ft) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 314.0 349.4 352.5 352.6 200.0 349.3 352.6 352.7 100.0 349.2 352.7 352.8 349.2 y -left (ft) 138.0 138.0 142.0 138.0 100.0 100.0 138.0 100.0 97.0 97.0 100.0 97.0 97.0 x -right (ft) 349.4 349.5 352.6 427.0 349.3 349.4 352.7 427.0 349.2 349.3 352.8 427.0 352.8 Page 1 y -right Soil Unit (ft) Below Segment y 100.0 138.0 142.0 142.0 142.0 142.0 139.0 142.0 142.0 2 3 4 4 5 4 4 4 4 right Soil Unit (ft) Below Segment 138.0 142.0 138.0 138.0 100.0 138.0 100.0 100.0 97.0 100.0 97.0 97.0 97.0 3 5 5 3 2 5 5 2 1 5 5 1 1 1-BEN.OPT ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters 5 Soil unit (s) specified Soil Unit weight Unit Moist Sat. No. (pcf) (pcf) 1 125.0 2 125.0 3 110.0 4 110.0 5 100.0 141.0 141.0 125.0 131.0 110.0 Cohesion Intercept (psf) 2000.0 100.0 . 0 150.0 . 0 Friction Angle (deg) 20.00 18.00 35.00 22.00 45.00 1 water surface (s) have been specified Unit weight of water = 62.40 (pcf) Pore Pressure Parameter Constant Ru (psf) . 000 . 000 . 000 . 000 . 000 water Surface No. 1 specified by 4 coordinate points J. .�. .O. J. J. J. J. .k. .k. J. J. J_ J. .I. .'. .k. .k. I. IS IS /♦ I. JIS Oa .'. �• I• I. I. I. IN. IS IS I. it I♦ Is IS IS I. .I_ Point No. 1 2 3 4 I♦ I• I• I• ♦• I• I• I♦ PHREATIC SURFACE, J. J. �. .$. J. J. J. .t. J_ J. J. J. J. J. J. IS A IS IS I• I• IS IS IS I. I♦ IS IS I• IS x -water (ft) 100.00 200.00 317.00 427.00 BOUNDARY LOADS Load No. 1 2 2 load(s) specified x -left (ft) 331.0 337.0 .S. IS IS IS IS J. J. J. J. J. IS I• IS I• IS IS IS IS J....t. y -water (ft) 100.00 100.00 139.00 139.00 x -right (ft) 332.0 338.0 I S _I. Intensity (psf) 20000.0 20000.0 0 0 0 0 0 Direction (deg) 90.0 90.0 NOTE - Intensity is specified as a uniformly distributed force acting on a HORIZONTALLY projected surface. water Surface No. A critical failure surface searching method, using a random technique for generating CIRCULAR surfaces has been specified. 2000 trial surfaces will be generated and analyzed. Page 2 1 1 1 1 1 1-BEN.OPT 10 surfaces initiate from each of 200 points equally spaced along the ground surface between x = 190.0 ft and x = 210.0 ft Each surface terminates between x = 394.0 ft and x = 422.0 ft unless further limitations were imposed, the minimum elevation at which a surface extends is y = 80.0 ft .0. 0. I♦ I♦ is a DEFAULT SEGMENT LENGTH SELECTED BY XSTABL _7_ .4 I♦ I♦ _t_ _I, I• I♦ 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 Upper angular limit Circular surface (Fos=;, ;, ;, :, ;, ycenter = 3129.95 Init. ,. ♦♦ • • • • -45.0 degrees (slope angle - 5.0) degrees ;; :; ) is defined by: xcenter = -322.70 Pt. = 210.00 Seg. Length = 5.00 Factors of safety have been calculated by the : I♦ I♦ I♦ _t. _I. I♦ I♦ SIMPLIFIED BISHOP METHOD I♦ ♦♦ I♦ The most critical circular failure surface is specified by 44 coordinate points Point No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 x -surf (ft) 193.22 198.17 203.14 208.12 213.10 218.09 223.08 228.08 233.08 238.08 243.08 248.08 253.07 258.06 y -surf (ft) 100.00 99.35 98.78 98.29 97.88 97.55 97.31 97.14 97.06 97.05 97.13 97.29 97.53 97.86 Page 3 I' I♦ 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 263.04 268.02 272.99 277.95 282.89 287.83 292.75 297.65 302.54 307.42 312.27 317.10 321.91 326.70 331.46 336.20 340.91 345.60 350.25 354.88 359.47 364.03 368.56 373.05 377.51 381.93 386.31 390.64 394.94 395.34 1-BEN.OPT 98.26 98.74 99.31 99.96 100.68 101.49 102.38 103.34 104.39 105.51 106.72 108.00 109.37 110.81 112.32 113.92 115.59 117.34 119.16 121.06 123.04 125.09 127.21 129.41 131.68 134.02 136.43 138.91 141.47 141.71 Simplified BISHOP FOS = 2.408 .•. .• III . .. .. IS, 1% I♦ I♦ The following is a summary of the TEN most critical surfaces Problem Description : BENNETT PIT CASE 1 RAPID DRAWDOWN 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. FOS Circle (BISHOP) x-coord (ft) 2.408 2.410 2.410 2.423 2.444 2.450 2.453 2.459 2.476 2.479 235.74 242.66 252.88 259.27 232.42 242.32 252.42 236.60 238.38 249.41 Center y-coord (ft) ... I♦ 4% /♦ 404.55 381.04 346.86 355.67 411.96 397.59 353.44 413.38 415.32 392.39 Radius (ft) 307.51 283.56 249.06 258.68 314.79 300.28 255.50 316.21 318.13 295.18 END OF FILE Page 4 Initial x-coord (ft) 193.22 201.46 206.48 206.99 190.30 200.65 206.38 194.42 196.13 202.76 .1. I% 4% Terminal x-coord (ft) 395.34 394.89 394.38 402.40 394.23 398.39 395.38 397.58 399.27 402.69 Resisting Moment (ft -lb) 4.909E+07 4.487E+07 3.930E+07 4.407E+07 4.959E+07 4.932E+07 4.073E+07 5.161E+07 5.280E+07 5.049E+07 1-BENEQ.OPT XSTABL File: 1-BENEQ 11-23- .0. 8:58 XSTABL Slope Stability Analysis using the Method of Slices Copyright (C) 1992 A 96 Interactive Software Designs, Moscow, ID 83843, U.S.A. All Rights Reserved :; ver. 5.105a flflflflfl Inc. 95 A 1483 ♦♦ ♦♦ I\ I\ .♦ ♦♦ #5 ♦♦ ♦♦ ♦♦ Problem Description : BENNETT PIT CASE 1 EQ SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES 9 SURFACE boundary segments Segment x -left No. (ft) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100.0 200.0 314.0 326.0 349.5 352.5 394.0 408.0 422.0 y -left (ft) 100.0 100.0 138.0 142.0 142.0 142.0 142.0 139.0 142.0 x -right (ft) 200.0 314.0 326.0 349.5 352.5 394.0 408.0 422.0 427.0 13 SUBSURFACE boundary segments Segment No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 x -left (ft) 314.0 349.4 352.5 352.6 200.0 349.3 352.6 352.7 100.0 349.2 352.7 352.8 349.2 y -left (ft) 138.0 138.0 142.0 138.0 100.0 100.0 138.0 100.0 97.0 97.0 100.0 97.0 97.0 x -right (ft) 349.4 349.5 352.6 427.0 349.3 349.4 352.7 427.0 349.2 349.3 352.8 427.0 352.8 Page 1 y -right Soil Unit (ft) Below Segment 100.0 138.0 142.0 142.0 142.0 142.0 139.0 142.0 142.0 2 3 4 4 5 4 4 4 4 y -right Soil Unit (ft) Below Segment 138.0 142.0 138.0 138.0 100.0 138.0 100.0 100.0 97.0 100.0 97.0 97.0 97.0 3 5 5 3 2 5 5 2 1 5 5 1 1 1-BENEQ.OPT ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters 5 Soil unit(s) specified Soil Unit NO. 1 2 3 4 5 Unit Weight Moist Sat. (pcf) (pcf) 125.0 125.0 110.0 110.0 100.0 141.0 141.0 125.0 131.0 110.0 Cohesion Intercept (psf) 2000.0 100.0 . 0 150.0 . 0 Friction Angle (deg) 20.00 18.00 35.00 22.00 45.00 1 Water surface(s) have been specified Unit weight of water 62.40 (pcf) Pore Pressure Parameter Constant Ru (psf) . 000 . 000 . 000 . 000 . 000 Water Surface No. 1 specified by 4 coordinate points .'. IS I♦ I\ I\ I♦ I♦ I♦ _t_ _t_ _l_ ... I♦ /♦ I\ I♦ I♦ I♦ I♦ I♦ I•I% flflflflflflflflfl PHREATIC SURFACE I♦ I\ I♦ I♦ I\ 0%I% I♦ I\ I\ I♦ Point NO. 1 2 3 4 - ... I\ I\ I♦ I\ I\ I♦ I♦ .l_ .$_ _•_ _I_ flflflfl x -water (ft) 100.00 200.00 317.00 427.00 .'_ _t. .I. _I_ .1. I♦ I\ I♦ I♦ I♦ • ...... _'- 0%$%•••• ... I♦ ISO% ISI% I♦ y -water (ft) 100.00 100.00 139.00 139.00 A horizontal earthquake loading coefficient of .070 has been assigned A vertical earthquake loading coefficient of .000 has been assigned BOUNDARY LOADS Load No. 1 2 2 load (s) specified x -left x -right (ft) (ft) 331.0 332.0 337.0 338.0 Intensity (psf) 20000.0 20000.0 . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 Direction (deg) 90.0 90.0 NOTE - Intensity is specified as a uniformly distributed force acting on a HORIZONTALLY projected surface. Page 2 Water Surface NO. 1 1 1 1 1 1-BENEQ.OPT A critical failure surface searching method, using a random technique for generating CIRCULAR surfaces has been specified. 2000 trial surfaces will be generated and analyzed. 10 Surfaces initiate from each of 200 points equally spaced along the ground surface between x = 190.0 ft and x = 210.0 ft Each surface terminates between x = 394.0 ft and x — 422.0 ft unless further limitations were imposed, the minimum elevation at which a surface extends is y = 80.0 ft ,,. ;_ . I% 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 :_ I. (slope angle - 5.0) degrees Factors of safety have been calculated by the : t• it Ya .; : S. SIMPLIFIED BISHOP METHOD .'0 /. The most critical circular failure surface is specified by 42 coordinate points Point NO. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 x -surf (ft) 206.99 211.89 216.82 221.76 226.71 231.68 236.65 241.64 246.63 y -surf (ft) 102.33 101.37 100.50 99.72 99.05 98.47 97.98 97.59 97.30 Page 3 Is I♦ 0' I♦ #5 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 251.63 256.62 261.62 266.62 271.62 276.61 281.60 286.57 291.54 296.50 301.44 306.36 311.27 316.16 321.02 325.87 330.69 335.48 340.24 344.97 349.68 354.34 358.98 363.57 368.13 372.64 377.11 381.54 385.93 390.26 394.55 398.79 402.40 1-BENEQ.OPT 97.10 97.00 97.00 97.10 97.29 97.57 97.96 98.44 99.01 99.68 100.45 101.31 102.27 103.32 104.47 105.71 107.04 108.47 109.99 111.60 113.30 115.10 116.98 118.95 121.01 123.16 125.39 127.71 130.12 132.61 135.18 137.84 140.20 Simplified BISHOP FOS = 1.570 01. .t_ _,_.._ I♦ I\ I\ The following is a summary of the TEN most critical surfaces Problem Description : BENNETT PIT CASE 1 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. FOS Circle (BISHOP) x-coord (ft) 1.570 1.588 1.589 1.590 1.604 1.606 1.610 1.612 1.613 1.614 259.27 252.88 242.66 235.74 242.32 249.41 252.42 261.73 232.42 236.60 Center y -coo rd (ft) 355.67 346.86 381.04 404.55 397.59 392.39 353.44 364.49 411.96 413.38 Radius (ft) 258.68 249.06 283.56 307.51 300.28 295.18 255.50 267.33 314.79 316.21 END OF FILE Page 4 I♦ EQ Initial x-coord (ft) 206.99 206.48 201.46 193.22 200.65 202.76 206.38 207.89 190.30 194.42 _II_ .l_ I\ I♦ Terminal x-coord (ft) 402.40 394.38 394.89 395.34 398.39 402.69 395.38 405.99 394.23 397.58 Resisting Moment (ft -1 b) 4.264E+07 3.801E+07 4.341E+07 4.751E+07 4.774E+07 4.888E+07 3.942E+07 4.544E+07 4.801E+07 4.998E+07 1-BENF.OPT XSTABL File: 1-BENF 11-23-** 9:06 I\ I♦ I♦ I♦ I♦ I♦ .,. .2. .,. _I. .t. _I. .I. _U. J. ..11„1, .11. .1. _1. 0, O. I♦ IS I\ I\ I\ I♦ I♦ I\ I\ I♦ It IS IS IS It It IN I♦ I♦ IS I\ XSTABL IS It IS It IS IS IS IS IS Slope Stability Analysis using the Method of Slices IS IS IS Copyright (C) 1992 A 96 Interactive Software Designs, Inc. Moscow, ID 83843, U.S.A. All Rights Reserved Ver. 5.105a I\ I\ I\ I\ .I. .-. .-. .J. .1. .l. .O. .-. .O. .O. .O. .'. IS IS IS It IS IS IS IS IS I♦ I♦ I\ I\ I♦ IS I♦ I♦ It I♦ It IS It IS IS 95 A 1483 It IS It .I. 0. It it I♦ U5 IS .l. It %.7- I• It ................�....................t. I♦ I\ I\ I\ I\ I♦ I♦ I♦ I\ I\ I♦ I\ I\ I♦ Problem Description : BENNETT PIT CASE 1 FULL SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES 9 SURFACE boundary segments Segment NO. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 x -left (ft) 100.0 200.0 314.0 326.0 349.5 352.5 394.0 408.0 422.0 y -left (ft) 100.0 100.0 138.0 142.0 142.0 142.0 142.0 139.0 142.0 x -right (ft) 200.0 314.0 326.0 349.5 352.5 394.0 408.0 422.0 427.0 13 SUBSURFACE boundary segments Segment No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 x -left (ft) 314.0 349.4 352.5 352.6 200.0 349.3 352.6 352.7 100.0 349.2 352.7 352.8 349.2 y -left (ft) 138.0 138.0 142.0 138.0 100.0 100.0 138.0 100.0 97.0 97.0 100.0 97.0 97.0 x -right (ft) 349.4 349.5 352.6 427.0 349.3 349.4 352.7 427.0 349.2 349.3 352.8 427.0 352.8 Page 1 y -right Soil Unit (ft) Below Segment 100.0 138.0 142.0 142.0 142.0 142.0 139.0 142.0 142.0 2 3 4 4 5 4 4 4 4 y -right Soil Unit (ft) Below Segment 138.0 142.0 138.0 138.0 100.0 138.0 100.0 100.0 97.0 100.0 97.0 97.0 97.0 3 5 5 3 2 5 5 2 1 5 5 1 1 1-BENF.OPT ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters 5 Soil unit(s) specified Soil Unit No. 1 2 3 4 5 Unit Weight Cohesion Moist Sat. Intercept (pcf) (pcf) (psf) 125.0 125.0 110.0 110.0 100.0 141.0 141.0 125.0 131.0 110.0 2000.0 100.0 . 0 150.0 . 0 Friction Angle (deg) 20.00 18.00 35.00 22.00 45.00 1 Water surface(s) have been specified Unit weight of water = 62.40 (pcf) Pore Pressure Parameter Constant Ru (psf) . 000 . 000 . 000 . 000 . 000 Water Surface No. 1 specified by 2 coordinate points O. O. O. O. j. O_ I. .0. .0. .0. .0. I♦ I\ I♦ I\ I♦ I♦ I♦ I♦ I♦ I♦ I♦ I\ I♦ I♦ I♦ I\ I♦ I\ I♦ 5% It I♦ I\ I♦ I\ I♦ I♦ I\ I♦ #4 I♦ .1. O„O„O„)„, PHREATIC SURFACE, I♦ I♦ /♦ /\ I♦ I♦ I\ ♦♦ I♦ I\ I♦ Point No. 1 2 .,..V. I♦ I♦ I♦ I♦ I\ I\ I\ I♦ I♦ x -water (ft) 100.00 427.00 BOUNDARY LOADS Load No. 1 2 2 load(s) specified x -left (ft) 331.0 337.0 I\ I♦ I♦ I♦ •V_ j_ _I_ I♦ I4 I♦ I♦ I♦ I♦ I♦ y -water (ft) 139.00 139.00 x -right (ft) 332.0 338.0 Intensity (psf) 20000.0 20000.0 . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 Direction (deg) 90.0 90.0 NOTE - Intensity is specified as a uniformly distributed force acting on a HORIZONTALLY projected surface. Water Surface NO. A critical failure surface searching method, using a random technique for generating CIRCULAR surfaces has been specified. 2000 trial surfaces will be generated and analyzed. Page 2 1 1 1 1 1 1-BENF . OPT 10 Surfaces initiate from each of 200 points equally spaced along the ground surface between x = 190.0 ft and x = 210.0 ft Each surface terminates between x and x 394.0 ft 422.0 ft unless further limitations were imposed, the minimum elevation at which a surface extends is y = 80.0 ft 'S I♦ ;; 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 Upper angular limit • . • -45.0 degrees (slope angle - 5.0) degrees Circular surface (FOS=-23.5685) is defined by: xcenter = ycenter = 868.83 Init. Pt. = 210.00 Seg. Length 163.74 5.00 Factors of safety have been calculated by the : _,_ /♦ IS SIMPLIFIED BISHOP METHOD _,_ _E. 4' I♦ The most critical circular failure surface is specified by 42 coordinate points Point No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 x -surf (ft) 206.99 211.89 216.82 221.76 226.71 231.68 236.65 241.64 246.63 251.63 256.62 261.62 266.62 271.62 276.61 281.60 y -surf (ft) 102.33 101.37 100.50 99.72 99.05 98.47 97.98 97.59 97.30 97.10 97.00 97.00 97.10 97.29 97.57 97.96 Page 3 •I_ .g. IS I• flflflfl 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 286.57 291.54 296.50 301.44 306.36 311.27 316.16 321.02 325.87 330.69 335.48 340.24 344.97 349.68 354.34 358.98 363.57 368.13 372.64 377.11 381.54 385.93 390.26 394.55 398.79 402.40 1-BENF.OPT 98.44 99.01 99.68 100.45 101.31 102.27 103.32 104.47 105.71 107.04 108.47 109.99 111.60 113.30 115.10 116.98 118.95 121.01 123.16 125.39 127.71 130.12 132.61 135.18 137.84 140.20 Simplified BISHOP FOS = 7.262 .. I• I♦ I♦ The following is a summary of the TEN most critical surfaces Problem Description : BENNETT PIT CASE 1 FULL 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 0 FOS (BISHOP) 7.262 7.511 7.680 7.684 7.688 7.692 7.700 7.722 7.752 7.767 Circle x-coord (ft) 259.27 252.88 242.66 249.41 261.73 256.74 252.42 235.74 242.32 260.70 Center y-coord (ft) 355.67 346.86 381.04 392.39 364.49 351.45 353.44 404.55 397.59 346.80 /♦ I\ Radius (ft) 258.68 249.06 283.56 295.18 267.33 253.57 255.50 307.51 300.28 248.95 END OF FILE Page 4 Initial x-coord (ft) 206.99 206.48 201.46 202.76 207.89 207.89 206.38 193.22 200.65 209.50 I♦ Terminal x-coord (ft) 402.40 394.38 394.89 402.69 405.99 398.28 395.38 395.34 398.39 400.26 Resisting Moment (ft -lb) 4.438E+07 3.947E+07 4.501E+07 5.069E+07 4.719E+07 4.182E+07 4.087E+07 4.920E+07 4.945E+07 4.188E+07 1-BENFEQ.OPT XSTABL File: 1-BENFEQ 11-23-:;* 15:33 _,. ,.... I\ I\ IS IS I\ I\ IS I\ I\ I\ I\ It I\ It I\ I\ I\ I\ I\ I\ I\ I\ I\ I\ I\ I\ I\ I\ I\ I\ I\ I\ I\ I\ I\ I\ I\ I\ -I. I\ -I. I\ -J. -1- IS _'0 05 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 ,, ,� ,. -,. ,. --. ,. _V. I. f. _t. I I fill1 -•. -t. ,. -,-• ,- -'- -I••,- I,- ,- -, - , ' , ' ,- , , , 'r ♦♦ ♦\ I\ I♦ I\ I♦ I♦ I♦ I♦ I♦ It II. •• I• I\ I\ I♦ I♦ I\ I♦ IS I♦ I01.I\ I♦ \ I♦ I♦ I\ It I\ It I\ I\ It I♦ I\ I♦ ,. t_ _I_ 1 I♦ I\ I♦ #5 Problem Description : BENNETT PIT CASE 1 FULL EQ SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES 9 SURFACE boundary segments Segment No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 x -left (ft) 100.0 200.0 314.0 326.0 349.5 352.5 394.0 408.0 422.0 y -left (ft) 100.0 100.0 138.0 142.0 142.0 142.0 142.0 139.0 142.0 x -right (ft) 200.0 314.0 326.0 349.5 352.5 394.0 408.0 422.0 427.0 13 SUBSURFACE boundary segments Segment No. x -left (ft) 1 314.0 2 349.4 3 352.5 4 352.6 5 200.0 6 349.3 7 352.6 8 352.7 9 100.0 10 349.2 11 352.7 12 352.8 13 349.2 y -left (ft) 138.0 138.0 142.0 138.0 100.0 100.0 138.0 100.0 97.0 97.0 100.0 97.0 97.0 x -right (ft) 349.4 349.5 352.6 427.0 349.3 349.4 352.7 427.0 349.2 349.3 352.8 427.0 352.8 Page 1 y -right Soil unit (ft) Below Segment y 100.0 138.0 142.0 142.0 142.0 142.0 139.0 142.0 142.0 2 3 4 4 5 4 4 4 4 right Soil Unit (ft) Below Segment 138.0 142.0 138.0 138.0 100.0 138.0 100.0 100.0 97.0 100.0 97.0 97.0 97.0 3 5 5 3 2 5 5 2 1 5 5 1 1 1-BENFEQ.OPT ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters 5 Soil unit (s) specified Soil Unit No. 1 2 3 4 5 Unit Weight Moist Sat. (pcf) (pcf) 125.0 125.0 110.0 110.0 100.0 141.0 141.0 125.0 131.0 110.0 Cohesion Intercept (psf) 2000.0 100.0 . 0 150.0 . 0 Friction Angle (deg) 20.00 18.00 35.00 22.00 45.00 1 water surface(s) have been specified unit weight of water = 62.40 (pcf) Pore Pressure Parameter Constant Ru (psf) . 000 . 000 . 000 . 000 . 000 water Surface No. 1 specified by 2 coordinate points .I_ .0_ .J_ .A. I. I. I. I. I. /. I. Point NO. 1 2 ............ PHREATIC .l. .Ie .0. _,. _,_ .I. .I. .1. I. I. I. IS ,. I. I. I. I♦ I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. SURFACE /. I. I. x -water (ft) 100.00 427.00 .I. /• I. I. I. y -water (ft) 139.00 139.00 A horizontal earthquake loading coefficient of .070 has been assigned A vertical earthquake loading coefficient of .000 has been assigned BOUNDARY LOADS Load NO. 1 2 2 load(s) specified x -left x -right (ft) (ft) 331.0 332.0 337.0 338.0 Intensity (psf) 20000.0 20000.0 . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 Direction (deg) 90.0 90.0 NOTE - Intensity is specified as a uniformly distributed force acting on a HORIZONTALLY projected surface. Page 2 water Surface NO. 1 1 1 1 1 1-BENFEQ.OPT A critical failure surface searching method, using a random technique for generating CIRCULAR surfaces has been specified. 2000 trial surfaces will be generated and analyzed. 10 Surfaces initiate from each of 200 points equally spaced along the ground surface between x = 190.0 ft and x = 210.0 ft Each surface terminates between x = 394.0 ft and x = 422.0 ft unless further limitations were imposed, the minimum elevation at which a surface extends is y = 80.0 ft ti. .I_ I' ♦♦ It It „so DEFAULT SEGMENT LENGTH SELECTED BY XSTABL .I. St It •v_ 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 upper angular limit • . • • -45.0 degrees (slope angle - 5.0) degrees Circular surface (FOS=-18.1934) is defined by: xcenter = -322.70 ycenter = 3129.95 Init. Pt. = 210.00 Seg. Length = 5.00 Factors of safety have been calculated by the : „le SIMPLIFIED BISHOP METHOD The most critical circular failure surface is specified by 42 coordinate points Point NO. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 x -surf (ft) 206.99 211.89 216.82 221.76 226.71 231.68 236.65 241.64 y -surf (ft) 102.33 101.37 100.50 99.72 99.05 98.47 97.98 97.59 Page 3 It .l. It 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 246.63 251.63 256.62 261.62 266.62 271.62 276.61 281.60 286.57 291.54 296.50 301.44 306.36 311.27 316.16 321.02 325.87 330.69 335.48 340.24 344.97 349.68 354.34 358.98 363.57 368.13 372.64 377.11 381.54 385.93 390.26 394.55 398.79 402.40 1-BENFEQ.OPT 97.30 97.10 97.00 97.00 97.10 97.29 97.57 97.96 98.44 99.01 99.68 100.45 101.31 102.27 103.32 104.47 105.71 107.04 108.47 109.99 111.60 113.30 115.10 116.98 118.95 121.01 123.16 125.39 127.71 130.12 132.61 135.18 137.84 140.20 Simplified BISHOP FOS = 2.841 flflflfl The following is a summary of the TEN most critical surfaces Problem Description : BENNETT PIT CASE 1 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. FOS Circle (BISHOP) x-coord (ft) 2.841 2.902 2.938 2.954 2.959 2.970 2.975 2.976 2.984 2.985 259.27 261.73 249.41 252.88 264.70 255.34 256.74 260.70 242.32 242.66 Center y-coord (ft) 355.67 364.49 392.39 346.86 385.09 384.09 351.45 346.80 397.59 381.04 Radius (ft) 258.68 267.33 295.18 249.06 288.01 286.63 253.57 248.95 300.28 283.56 END OF FILE Page 4 FULL EQ Initial x-coord (ft) 206.99 207.89 202.76 206.48 208.09 205.48 207.89 209.50 200.65 201.46 #5 I♦ Terminal x-coord (ft) 402.40 405.99 402.69 394.38 417.68 405.00 398.28 400.26 398.39 394.89 Resisting Moment (ft -lb) 4.283E+07 4.561E+07 4.898E+07 3.808E+07 5.203E+07 4.849E+07 4.038E+07 4.046E+07 4.777E+07 4.345E+07 XSTABL File: 2 -BEN 11-23-** -'- I. I. I. I. -'- 04 I. -U. I. I. I♦ I. I. I. I. I. I. I♦ I. 2-BEN.OPT 9:19 _I. I. I. I. I♦ .I. .. I. I. I. 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 •••• I. I♦ I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. %. I. I. I. I. 95 A 1483 I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I♦ I. I. IT I♦ I♦ I. I. I♦ I♦ I. I♦ I♦ Problem Description : BENNETT PIT CASE 2 RAPID DRAWDOWN SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES 6 SURFACE boundary segments Segment NO. 1 2 3 4 5 6 x -left (ft) 100.0 200.0 317.0 332.0 355.5 358.5 y -left (ft) 100.0 100.0 139.0 144.0 144.0 144.0 x -right (ft) 200.0 317.0 332.0 355.5 358.5 484.0 13 SUBSURFACE boundary segments Segment No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 x -left (ft) 317.0 355.4 358.5 358.6 200.0 355.3 358.6 358.7 100.0 355.2 358.7 358.8 355.2 y -left (ft) 139.0 139.0 144.0 139.0 100.0 100.0 139.0 100.0 97.0 97.0 100.0 97.0 97.0 ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters x -right (ft) 355.4 355.5 358.6 484.0 355.3 355.4 358.7 484.0 355.2 355.3 358.8 484.0 358.8 Page 1 y -right Soil Unit (ft) Below Segment 100.0 139.0 144.0 144.0 144.0 144.0 2 3 4 4 5 4 y -right Soil Unit (ft) Below Segment 139.0 144.0 139.0 139.0 100.0 139.0 100.0 100.0 97.0 100.0 97.0 97.0 97.0 3 5 5 3 2 5 5 2 1 5 5 1 1 2-BEN.OPT 5 Soil unit (s) specified Soil unit weight Unit Moist Sat. No. (pcf) (pcf) 1 2 3 4 5 125.0 125.0 110.0 110.0 100.0 141.0 141.0 125.0 131.0 110.0 Cohesion Intercept (psf) 2000.0 100.0 . 0 150.0 . 0 Friction Angle (deg) 20.00 18.00 35.00 22.00 45.00 1 Water surface (s) have been specified unit weight of water = 62.40 (pcf) Pore Pressure Parameter Constant Ru (psf) . 000 . 000 . 000 . 000 . 000 water Surface No. 1 specified by 4 coordinate points _'. .I_ .l. .l. .. .. .. .. Point NO. 1 2 3 4 III .. .. .. .. .. .. .. I. % 4 .. 4% flflflfl J. .0. _0. .% 4% I% PHREATIC SURFACE flflflfl x -water (ft) 100.00 200.00 323.00 484.00 BOUNDARY LOADS Load No. 1 2 flflflfl 2 load (s) specified x -left (ft) 337.0 343.0 ... .. .. 4% .. .% .1. .•. _I_ .II. .. .. .. .. .. I. .% 4% ... flflflfl y -water (ft) 100.00 100.00 141.00 141.00 x -right (ft) 338.0 344.0 Intensity (psf) 20000.0 20000.0 0 0 0 . 0 . 0 Direction (deg) 90.0 90.0 NOTE - Intensity is specified as a uniformly distributed force acting on a HORIZONTALLY projected surface. water Surface NO. A critical failure surface searching method, using a random technique for generating CIRCULAR surfaces has been specified. 2000 trial surfaces will be generated and analyzed. 10 Surfaces initiate from each of 200 points equally spaced Page 2 1 1 1 1 1 2-BEN.OPT along the ground surface between x = 190.0 ft and x = 210.0 ft 0 Each surface terminates between x and x 464.0 ft 484.0 ft unless further limitations were imposed, the minimum elevation at which a surface extends is y = 80.0 ft 9% .I. I. I. DEFAULT SEGMENT LENGTH SELECTED BY XSTABL .V_ .I. /. I. I. I. 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 : 0. ... I. I. .t_ .l. I. IS SIMPLIFIED BISHOP METHOD IS I. .. IS The most critical circular failure surface is specified by 57 coordinate points Point No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 x -surf (ft) 196.63 201.61 206.58 211.57 216.55 221.54 226.54 231.53 236.53 241.53 246.53 251.53 256.53 261.53 266.52 271.52 276.52 281.51 286.50 291.49 y -surf (ft) 100.00 99.48 99.02 98.60 98.23 97.91 97.63 97.41 97.24 97.11 97.04 97.01 97.03 97.10 97.22 97.39 97.61 97.88 98.19 98.56 Page 3 I♦ I♦ ., I1 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 296.47 301.45 306.42 311.39 316.35 321.31 326.26 331.20 336.14 341.06 345.98 350.89 355.79 360.68 365.56 370.43 375.29 380.13 384.96 389.78 394.59 399.38 404.16 408.93 413.68 418.41 423.13 427.83 432.51 437.18 441.83 446.46 451.07 455.66 460.24 464.79 465.61 2-BEN.OPT 98.97 99.43 99.94 100.50 101.11 101.77 102.48 103.23 104.03 104.88 105.78 106.73 107.73 108.77 109.86 111.00 112.19 113.42 114.70 116.03 117.41 118.83 120.30 121.82 123.38 124.99 126.65 128.35 130.10 131.90 133.74 135.62 137.55 139.53 141.55 143.62 144.00 Simplified BISHOP FOS = 2.944 II .. ..0 0'0% The following is a summary of the TEN most critical surfaces Problem Description : BENNETT PIT CASE 2 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. FOS Circle (BISHOP) x-coord (ft) 2.944 2.965 2.990 3.017 3.030 3.036 3.042 3.044 3.054 3.067 251.79 272.28 268.10 246.72 250.71 274.45 250.96 251.51 259.61 245.60 Center y-coord (ft) 607.07 524.85 539.90 636.25 619.49 543.94 628.18 632.57 609.13 654.78 Radius (ft) 510.07 427.73 442.52 539.00 522.07 446.93 530.85 535.33 511.92 557.48 Page 4 RAPID DRAWDOWN Initial x-coord (ft) 196.63 206.58 205.48 192.31 198.95 206.58 197.84 197.24 201.56 190.80 Terminal x-coord (ft) 465.61 466.97 465.79 466.30 466.27 473.91 468.61 470.32 473.42 468.97 Resisting Moment (ft -lb) 1.297E+08 1.083E+08 1.117E+08 1.378E+08 1.332E+08 1.169E+08 1.371E+08 1.394E+08 1.347E+08 1.446E+08 2-B EN. OPT END OF FILE Page 5 XSTABL File: 2-BENEQ 11-23-** 2-BENEQ.OPT 9:20 _I- .0. O. O, O- O- 0, O. O. O. _0- _0. .0. t. .•. _0. _•. _I. U. _I- U. I- _0. •. .0. 0- I♦ I♦ I. I. I. I♦ I. I. I. I. I♦ I. I. I. I. /. I. /. ♦. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. XSTABL Slope Stability Analysis using the Method of Slices _I. _I- O- O. .. .. I. I. Copyright (C) 1992 A 96 Interactive Software Designs, Inc. Moscow, ID 83843, U.S.A. All Rights Reserved ver. 5.105a 95 A 1483 0. .'. I. _I. .t. I. f- O. �. _-. -. -- _-. O1, .0. --. _0. --. -- .1, --. t- .�.Ord. O. .,- 1.. --. O. _•. �. I. I. I. I. I. /. I. /♦ I. I. I. I. I. .. I. I. I. I. /. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. Problem Description : BENNETT PIT CASE 2 EQ SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES 6 SURFACE boundary segments Segment No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 x -left (ft) 100.0 200.0 317.0 332.0 355.5 358.5 y -left (ft) 100.0 100.0 139.0 144.0 144.0 144.0 x -right (ft) 200.0 317.0 332.0 355.5 358.5 484.0 13 SUBSURFACE boundary segments Segment No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 x -left (ft) 317.0 355.4 358.5 358.6 200.0 355.3 358.6 358.7 100.0 355.2 358.7 358.8 355.2 y -left (ft) 139.0 139.0 144.0 139.0 100.0 100.0 139.0 100.0 97.0 97.0 100.0 97.0 97.0 ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters x -right (ft) 355.4 355.5 358.6 484.0 355.3 355.4 358.7 484.0 355.2 355.3 358.8 484.0 358.8 Page 1 .II. _t. _I .. .. IS I. I. I. _.. t_ :. I. I. y -right Soil Unit (ft) Below Segment Y 100.0 139.0 144.0 144.0 144.0 144.0 2 3 4 4 5 4 right Soil Unit (ft) Below Segment 139.0 144.0 139.0 139.0 100.0 139.0 100.0 100.0 97.0 100.0 97.0 97.0 97.0 3 5 5 3 2 5 5 2 1 5 5 1 1 2-BENEQ.OPT 5 Soil unit(s) specified soil unit weight Unit Moist Sat. No. (pcf) (pcf) 1 2 3 4 5 125.0 125.0 110.0 110.0 100.0 141.0 141.0 125.0 131.0 110.0 Cohesion Intercept (psf) 2000.0 100.0 . 0 150.0 . 0 Friction Angle (deg) 20.00 18.00 35.00 22.00 45.00 1 water surface (s) have been specified Unit weight of water = 62.40 (pcf) Pore Pressure Parameter Constant Ru (psf) . 000 . 000 . 000 . 000 . 000 water Surface No. 1 specified by 4 coordinate points flflfl -I_ .• PHREATIC SURFACE irtliewliiro is I• .♦ I♦ .• I. .• .♦ .♦ ♦♦ .♦ •• .♦ I• Point No. 1 2 3 4 I ,I_ I_ _I. .♦ I• I• .• le I -----------I_I .♦ I♦ I♦ I. .♦ I• .• I. x -water (ft) 100.00 200.00 323.00 484.00 y -water (ft) 100.00 100.00 141.00 141.00 I A horizontal earthquake loading coefficient of .070 has been assigned A vertical earthquake loading coefficient of .000 has been assigned BOUNDARY LOADS Load No. 1 2 2 load (s) specified x -left x -right (ft) (ft) 337.0 338.0 343.0 344.0 Intensity (psf) 20000.0 20000.0 0 0 0 0 0 Direction (deg) 90.0 90.0 NOTE - Intensity is specified as a uniformly distributed force acting on a HORIZONTALLY projected surface. Page 2 Water Surface No. 1 1 1 1 1 2-BENEQ.OPT A critical failure surface searching method, using a random technique for generating CIRCULAR surfaces has been specified. 2000 trial surfaces will be generated and analyzed. 10 Surfaces initiate from each of 200 points equally spaced along the ground surface between x = 190.0 ft and x = 210.0 ft Each surface terminates between x and x 464.0 ft 484.0 ft unless further limitations were imposed, the minimum elevation at which a surface extends is y = 80.0 ft �. 0. 1% I♦ 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 : I% SIMPLIFIED BISHOP METHOD _0. _1. I♦ I♦ The most critical circular failure surface �s specified by 55 coordinate points Point NO. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 x -surf y -surf (ft) (ft) 206.58 102.19 211.53 101.46 216.48 100.77 221.44 100.15 226.41 99.59 231.39 99.08 236.37 98.63 241.35 98.24 246.34 97.91 251.33 97.63 256.33 97.42 261.32 97.26 Page 3 •• I♦ I♦ I• 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 266.32 271.32 276.32 281.32 286.32 291.32 296.31 301.30 306.29 311.27 316.25 321.22 326.18 331.14 336.08 341.02 345.95 350.87 355.78 360.68 365.57 370.44 375.30 380.15 384.98 389.79 394.59 399.38 404.14 408.89 413.62 418.33 423.02 427.69 432.33 436.96 441.56 446.14 450.70 455.23 459.74 464.22 466.97 2-BENEQ.OPT 97.16 97.12 97.14 97.21 97.35 97.54 97.79 98.10 98.47 98.90 99.38 99.93 100.53 101.19 101.90 102.68 103.51 104.40 105.35 106.35 107.41 108.53 109.71 110.94 112.23 113.58 114.98 116.44 117.95 119.52 121.14 122.82 124.56 126.35 128.19 130.09 132.04 134.05 136.10 138.22 140.38 142.60 144.00 Simplified BISHOP FOS 1.776 .g. .l. .'. .1. I• I• •• I• The following is a summary of the TEN most critical surfaces Problem Description • • FOS Circle (BISHOP) x-coord (ft) 1. 1.776 2. 1.792 3. 1.796 4. 1.796 272.28 251.79 274.45 268.10 BENNETT Center y-coord (ft) 524.85 607.07 543.94 539.90 PIT CASE 2 Radius (ft) 427.73 510.07 446.93 442.52 Page 4 EQ Initial x-coord (ft) 206.58 196.63 206.58 205.48 Terminal x-coord (ft) 466.97 465.61 473.91 465.79 Resisting Moment (ft -lb) 1.054E+08 1.264E+08 1.139E+08 1.088E+08 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 1.826 1.827 1.834 1.836 1.837 1.838 259.61 270.70 246.72 251.51 250.71 250.96 1• 2-BENEQ.OPT 609.13 511.92 589.50 492.44 636.25 539.00 632.57 535.33 619.49 522.07 628.18 530.85 END OF FILE 0,0 I♦ 201.56 204.57 192.31 197.24 198.95 197.84 I' 473.42 480.50 466.30 470.32 466.27 468.61 1.313E+08 1.298E+08 1.344E+08 1.359E+08 1.299E+08 1.337E+08 2-BENF.OPT XSTABL File: 2-BENF 11-23 9:23 I. /. /. /. I. I. I. I. I. 5% I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. %. I. I. I. sae XSTABL B L _U_ .•_ _•_ .•_ .•. .•. .•. .fir Slope Stability Analysis using the Method of slices Copyright (C) 1992 A 96 Interactive Software Designs, Moscow, ID 83843, U.S.A. All Rights Reserved ver. 5.105a .•. _•_ .•. .•_ .•_ .•. _•. .•. .•. .•. .•_ .'. _l_ _•_ .•. .•. .•. .•. St It I. It I. I. I. I♦ I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. .•_ _I_ I. I. I. I. I. I. I. Inc. I. 95 A 1483 04040404000404040404040404040404040404 I. /. I. 5% I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. ♦. I. /. .. ♦. Problem Description : BENNETT PIT CASE 2 FULL SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES 6 SURFACE boundary segments Segment No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 x -left (ft) 100.0 200.0 317.0 332.0 355.5 358.5 y -left (ft) 100.0 100.0 139.0 144.0 144.0 144.0 x -right (ft) 200.0 317.0 332.0 355.5 358.5 484.0 13 SUBSURFACE boundary segments Segment No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 x -left (ft) 317.0 355.4 358.5 358.6 200.0 355.3 358.6 358.7 100.0 355.2 358.7 358.8 355.2 y -left (ft) 139.0 139.0 144.0 139.0 100.0 100.0 139.0 100.0 97.0 97.0 100.0 97.0 97.0 ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters x -right (ft) 355.4 355.5 358.6 484.0 355.3 355.4 358.7 484.0 355.2 355.3 358.8 484.0 358.8 Page 1 y -right Soil Unit (ft) Below Segment 100.0 139.0 144.0 144.0 144.0 144.0 2 3 4 4 5 4 y -right Soil Unit (ft) Below Segment 139.0 144.0 139.0 139.0 100.0 139.0 100.0 100.0 97.0 100.0 97.0 97.0 97.0 3 5 5 3 2 5 5 2 1 5 5 1 1 2-BENF.OPT 5 Soil unit(s) specified Soil Unit Weight Cohesion Friction Unit Moist Sat. Intercept Angle No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) 1 125.0 2 125.0 3 110.0 4 110.0 5 100.0 141.0 141.0 125.0 131.0 110.0 2000.0 100.0 . 0 150.0 . 0 20.00 18.00 35.00 22.00 45.00 1 Water surface (s) have been specified Unit weight of water = 62.40 (pcf) Pore Pressure Parameter Constant Ru (psf) . 000 . 000 . 000 . 000 . 000 water Surface No. 1 specified by 2 coordinate points flflflflflflflflflflflflflflrnflflflflflflflflflflflflflflflfl PHREATIC SURFACE, IIIIIIIIIMITITIIIIM Point No. 1 2 x -water (ft) 100.00 484.00 BOUNDARY LOADS Load NO. 1 2 IIII 2 load(s) specified x -left (ft) 337.0 343.0 IIIIIIIII .♦ 0% 0% .% 0% y -water (ft) 141.00 141.00 x -right (ft) 338.0 344.0 I _I Intensity (psf) 20000.0 20000.0 . . 0 0 0 0 0 Direction (deg) 90.0 90.0 NOTE - Intensity is specified as a uniformly distributed force acting on a HORIZONTALLY projected surface. Water Surface NO. A critical failure surface searching method, using a random technique for generating CIRCULAR surfaces has been specified. 2000 trial surfaces will be generated and analyzed. 10 Surfaces initiate from each of 200 points equally spaced along the ground surface between x = 190.0 ft and x = 210.0 ft Page 2 1 1 1 1 1 2-BENF.OPT Each surface terminates between x = 464.0 ft and x = 484.0 ft Unless further limitations were imposed, the minimum elevation at which a surface extends is y = 80.0 ft I. _t_ .. .. DEFAULT SEGMENT LENGTH SELECTED BY XSTABL I. I' 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 Upper angular limit Circular surface (FOS=.; *:, ycenter = 2317.22 Init. • • • -45.0 degrees (slope angle 5.0) degrees ;; :; ) is defined by: xcenter Pt. = 210.00 Seg. Length 19.11 5.00 Factors of safety have been calculated by the : J. .. I. /. SIMPLIFIED BISHOP METHOD •• I. I. The most critical circular failure surface is specified by 55 coordinate points Point No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 x -surf (ft) 206.58 211.53 216.48 221.44 226.41 231.39 236.37 241.35 246.34 251.33 256.33 261.32 266.32 271.32 276.32 281.32 286.32 291.32 y -surf (ft) 102.19 101.46 100.77 100.15 99.59 99.08 98.63 98.24 97.91 97.63 97.42 97.26 97.16 97.12 97.14 97.21 97.35 97.54 Page 3 flflflfl 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 296.31 301.30 306.29 311.27 316.25 321.22 326.18 331.14 336.08 341.02 345.95 350.87 355.78 360.68 365.57 370.44 375.30 380.15 384.98 389.79 394.59 399.38 404.14 408.89 413.62 418.33 423.02 427.69 432.33 436.96 441.56 446.14 450.70 455.23 459.74 464.22 466.97 2-BENF.OPT 97.79 98.10 98.47 98.90 99.38 99.93 100.53 101.19 101.90 102.68 103.51 104.40 105.35 106.35 107.41 108.53 109.71 110.94 112.23 113.58 114.98 116.44 117.95 119.52 121.14 122.82 124.56 126.35 128.19 130.09 132.04 134.05 136.10 138.22 140.38 142.60 144.00 Simplified BISHOP FOS = 8.069 flflflfl The following is a summary of the TEN most critical surfaces Problem Description : BENNETT PIT CASE 2 FOS Circle (BISHOP) x-coord (ft) 1. 8.069 2. 8.099 3. 8.203 4. 8.224 5. 8.378 6. 8.394 7. 8.414 8. 8.437 9. 8.438 10. 8.454 272.28 251.79 268.10 274.45 259.61 246.72 251.51 250.71 250.96 270.70 J. Center y-coord (ft) 524.85 607.07 539.90 543.94 609.13 636.25 632.57 619.49 628.18 589.50 Radius (ft) 427.73 510.07 442.52 446.93 511.92 539.00 535.33 522.07 530.85 492.44 END OF FILE Page 4 It FULL Initial x-coord (ft) 206.58 196.63 205.48 206.58 201.56 192.31 197.24 198.95 197.84 204.57 Terminal x-coord (ft) 466.97 465.61 465.79 473.91 473.42 466.30 470.32 466.27 468.61 480.50 Resisting Moment (ft -1 b) 1.087E+08 1.296E+08 1.120E+08 1.173E+08 1.348E+08 1.375E+08 1.392E+08 1.330E+08 1.369E+08 1.336E+08 2-BENFEQ.OPT XSTABL File: 2-BENFEQ 11-23-** 15:32 .�. _I_ .A. .0. .1. _t. .S_ .U. _t. 0_ J. .1. Of/ _l. .j. .j. t. U_ I♦ #5 I♦ I\ I♦ I♦ I♦ 9% I♦ I\ I♦ I% I♦ I\ I♦ I♦ I% I\ I♦ flflflflflflM XSTABL I♦ I♦ I♦ I♦ I♦ I♦ ♦♦ I♦ Slope Stability Analysis using the Method of Slices Copyright (C) 1992 A 96 Interactive Software Designs, Moscow, ID 83843, U.S.A. All Rights Reserved Ver. 5.105a I\ I, I\ I♦ I\ I♦ ♦1 I♦ I♦ I\ I♦ I♦ I♦ I\ I♦ I% I, I♦ I\ I♦ I♦ I\ I♦ I\ 4' #5 ♦♦ 45 Inc. 95 A 1483 45 Its I\ .t. .�. .4. .n. .�. .•. .!. .I. .-. _I. .I. .1. .I. .�. I\ ♦♦ 45 in I\ I♦ I♦ I♦ I\ I♦ I\ I♦ #5 /♦ Problem Description : BENNETT PIT CASE 2 FULL EQ SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES 6 SURFACE boundary segments Segment No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 x -left (ft) 100.0 200.0 317.0 332.0 355.5 358.5 y -left (ft) 100.0 100.0 139.0 144.0 144.0 144.0 x -right (ft) 200.0 317.0 332.0 355.5 358.5 484.0 13 SUBSURFACE boundary segments Segment No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 x -left (ft) 317.0 355.4 358.5 358.6 200.0 355.3 358.6 358.7 100.0 355.2 358.7 358.8 355.2 y -left (ft) 139.0 139.0 144.0 139.0 100.0 100.0 139.0 100.0 97.0 97.0 100.0 97.0 97.0 ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters x -right (ft) 355.4 355.5 358.6 484.0 355.3 355.4 358.7 484.0 355.2 355.3 358.8 484.0 358.8 Page 1 y -right Soil Unit (ft) Below Segment 100.0 139.0 144.0 144.0 144.0 144.0 2 3 4 4 5 4 y -right Soil Unit (ft) Below Segment 139.0 144.0 139.0 139.0 100.0 139.0 100.0 100.0 97.0 100.0 97.0 97.0 97.0 3 5 5 3 2 5 5 2 1 5 5 1 1 2-BENFEQ.OPT 5 Soil unit(s) specified Soil Unit No. 1 2 3 4 5 Unit weight Moist Sat. (pcf) (pcf) 125.0 125.0 110.0 110.0 100.0 141.0 141.0 125.0 131.0 110.0 Cohesion Intercept (psf) 2000.0 100.0 . 0 150.0 . 0 Friction Angle (deg) 20.00 18.00 35.00 22.00 45.00 1 water surface (s) have been specified unit weight of water = 62.40 (pcf) Pore Pressure Parameter Constant Ru (psf) . 000 . 000 . 000 . 000 . 000 water Surface No. 1 specified by 2 coordinate points I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. _t. J. 0. _I. J. Jo _O. J. _'. J. J. J. J. _I. J. J. is is .. I. I. is I. I. I. I. /. /. I♦ I. I. I. PHREATIC SURFACE, J. J. J. J. J. ./. J. _J. _I. _I. J. _0. .'. I. /. #5 I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. Point NO. 1 2 _I_ I. I. I. •. I. I. I. x -water (ft) 100.00 484.00 I. I. I. I. I. I. I. ♦. I. J. J. .. .. .. J...1. I. Is ^flflfl y -water (ft) 141.00 141.00 A horizontal earthquake loading coefficient of .070 has been assigned A vertical earthquake loading coefficient of .000 has been assigned BOUNDARY LOADS Load No. 1 2 2 load(s) specified x -left (ft) 337.0 343.0 x -right (ft) 338.0 344.0 Intensity (psf) 20000.0 20000.0 0 0 0 0 0 Direction (deg) 90.0 90.0 NOTE - Intensity is specified as a uniformly distributed force acting on a HORIZONTALLY projected surface. water Surface NO. A critical failure surface searching method, using a random technique for generating CIRCULAR surfaces has been specified. Page 2 1 1 1 1 1 2-BENFEQ.OPT 2000 trial surfaces will be generated and analyzed. 10 surfaces initiate from each of 200 points equally spaced along the ground surface between x = 190.0 ft and x = 210.0 ft Each surface terminates between x 464.0 ft and x = 484.0 ft luir unless further limitations were imposed, the minimum elevation at which a surface extends is y = 80.0 ft ... I♦ I\ I♦ I\ DEFAULT SEGMENT LENGTH SELECTED BY XSTABL -I. .% .I. I• 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 •I. 4' The most critical circular failure surface is specified by 55 coordinate points Point x -surf y -surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 206.58 102.19 2 211.53 101.46 3 216.48 100.77 4 221.44 100.15 5 226.41 99.59 6 231.39 99.08 7 236.37 98.63 8 241.35 98.24 9 246.34 97.91 10 251.33 97.63 11 256.33 97.42 12 261.32 97.26 13 266.32 97.16 14 271.32 97.12 Page 3 .•. 4% /♦ I% I% I\ 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 276.32 281.32 286.32 291.32 296.31 301.30 306.29 311.27 316.25 321.22 326.18 331.14 336.08 341.02 345.95 350.87 355.78 360.68 365.57 370.44 375.30 380.15 384.98 389.79 394.59 399.38 404.14 408.89 413.62 418.33 423.02 427.69 432.33 436.96 441.56 446.14 450.70 455.23 459.74 464.22 466.97 2-BENFEQ.OPT 97.14 97.21 97.35 97.54 97.79 98.10 98.47 98.90 99.38 99.93 100.53 101.19 101.90 102.68 103.51 104.40 105.35 106.35 107.41 108.53 109.71 110.94 112.23 113.58 114.98 116.44 117.95 119.52 121.14 122.82 124.56 126.35 128.19 130.09 132.04 134.05 136.10 138.22 140.38 142.60 144.00 Simplified BISHOP FOS = 2.909 0.. 4%44,0% I\ The following is a summary of the TEN most critical surfaces Problem Description : BENNETT PIT CASE 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 . . . . . FOS Circle (BISHOP) x-coord (ft) 2.909 2.913 2.936 2.952 2.953 2.955 272.28 274.45 284.49 270.70 274.62 268.10 Center y-coord (ft) 524.85 543.94 542.31 589.50 586.29 539.90 Radius (ft) 427.73 446.93 445.30 492.44 489.23 442.52 Page 4 FULL EQ Initial x-coord (ft) 206.58 206.58 209.90 204.57 205.78 205.48 Terminal x-coord (ft) 466.97 473.91 483.58 480.50 483.75 465.79 Resisting Moment (ft -lb) 1.057E+08 1.142E+08 1.185E+08 1.301E+08 1.310E+08 1.090E+08 7. 8. 9. 10. 2.972 2.975 2.978 2.990 251.79 277.29 280.98 259.61 -I- 2-BENFEQ.OPT 607.07 510.07 575.18 477.96 533.15 435.78 609.13 511.92 END OF FILE Page 5 196.63 207.19 209.70 201.56 J. I♦ 465.61 483.47 477.12 473.42 1.262E+08 1.278E+08 1.131E+08 1.313E+08 XSTABL File: 3 -BEN 11-23 3-BEN.OPT 9:43 It ,. ,♦ ,. ,. It I. ,. IS ,♦ IS ,. I. I. I. I. ,. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. ,. It IS IS XSTABL ,. IS ,. ,. ,. ,. I. I. ,. ,. ,. ,. 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 ....._ flflflfl O. � O. J. J. J. J. J. O_ J. J. J. J. J. .-_ .-_ J. J. J. J. .I_ ,. ,. I♦ I♦ I♦ I♦ I♦ I♦ .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. I♦ I. 95 A 1483 I. I. ,. fl I. Problem Description : BENNETT PIT CASE 3 RAPID DRAWDOWN SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES 6 SURFACE boundary segments Segment x -left No. (ft) 1 2 3 4 5 6 100.0 200.0 266.0 287.0 310.5 313.5 y -left (ft) 100.0 100.0 122.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 x -right (ft) 200.0 266.0 287.0 310.5 313.5 362.0 13 SUBSURFACE boundary segments Segment No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 x -left (ft) 266.0 310.4 313.5 313.6 200.0 310.3 313.6 313.7 100.0 310.2 313.7 313.8 310.2 y -left (ft) 122.0 122.0 129.0 122.0 100.0 100.0 122.0 100.0 97.0 97.0 100.0 97.0 97.0 ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters x -right (ft) 310.4 310.5 313.6 362.0 310.3 310.4 313.7 362.0 310.2 310.3 313.8 362.0 313.8 Page 1 y -right Soil Unit (ft) Below Segment 100.0 122.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 2 3 4 4 5 4 y -right Soil Unit (ft) Below Segment 122.0 129.0 122.0 122.0 100.0 122.0 100.0 100.0 97.0 100.0 97.0 97.0 97.0 3 5 5 3 2 5 5 2 1 5 5 1 1 3-BEN.OPT 5 Soil unit (s) specified Soil unit weight Unit Moist Sat. No. (pcf) (pcf) 1 125.0 2 125.0 3 110.0 4 110.0 5 100.0 141.0 141.0 125.0 131.0 110.0 Cohesion Intercept (psf) 2000.0 100.0 . 0 150.0 . 0 Friction Angle (deg) 20.00 18.00 35.00 22.00 45.00 1 water surface (s) have been specified Unit weight of water = 62.40 (pcf) Pore Pressure Parameter Constant Ru (psf) . 000 . 000 . 000 . 000 . 000 water Surface No. 1 specified by 4 coordinate points tie libi• tie tie I\ I♦ I♦ I\ 4% I♦ I\ I\ I♦ I♦ I♦ I♦ I♦ I\ I\ j•II jai *AI ja I♦ I♦ I\ I\ I♦ I\ I♦ I\ I\ I\ I\ I♦ I\ I\ I\ I♦ I. I\ I\ I\ I\ I\ I\ I♦ I\ I\ I\ I\ I\ I\ I♦ I\ I\ I\ PHREATIC SURFACE, Point No. 1 2 3 4 tle ...... I\ I\ I\ x -water (ft) 100.00 200.00 278.00 362.00 BOUNDARY LOADS Load No. 1 2 I\ I\ I\ I\ I\ I\ 2 load(s) specified x -left (ft) 292.0 298.0 .�. .�. .i. .0_ I♦ I\ I♦ 0% 0%4%0% y -water (ft) 100.00 100.00 126.00 126.00 x -right (ft) 293.0 299.0 Intensity (psf) 20000.0 20000.0 0 0 0 0 0 Direction (deg) 90.0 90.0 NOTE - Intensity is specified as a uniformly distributed force acting on a HORIZONTALLY projected surface. water Surface No. A critical failure surface searching method, using a random technique for generating CIRCULAR surfaces has been specified. 2000 trial surfaces will be generated and analyzed. 10 Surfaces initiate from each of 200 points equally spaced Page 2 1 1 1 1 1 3-BEN.OPT along the ground surface between x = 190.0 ft and x = 210.0 ft Each surface terminates between x = 337.0 ft and x = 357.0 ft unless further limitations were imposed, the minimum elevation at which a surface extends is y = 80.0 ft IS DEFAULT SEGMENT LENGTH SELECTED BY XSTABL IS 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 Upper angular limit . _ . • -45.0 degrees (slope angle - 5.0) degrees Circular surface (FOS= -4.2898) is defined by: xcenter = ycenter = 995.71 Init. Pt. = 210.00 Seg. Length 122.77 3.00 Factors of safety have been calculated by the : .1. .I. I. I. I. I. I. SIMPLIFIED BISHOP METHOD I. The most critical circular failure surface is specified by 49 coordinate points Point No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 x -surf (ft) 203.97 206.90 209.84 212.79 215.75 218.72 221.69 224.67 227.66 230.65 233.65 236.65 239.65 242.65 245.64 248.64 251.64 y -surf (ft) 101.32 100.68 100.08 99.54 99.04 98.61 98.22 97.89 97.61 97.39 97.21 97.09 97.03 97.02 97.06 97.16 97.31 Page 3 .•. .•. 4% I. I. •% I. I. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 254.63 257.62 260.61 263.58 266.55 269.52 272.47 275.42 278.35 281.27 284.18 287.08 289.96 292.83 295.68 298.51 301.33 304.12 306.90 309.65 312.39 315.10 317.79 320.45 323.09 325.70 328.29 330.85 333.38 335.88 338.35 340.42 3-BEN.OPT 97.51 97.76 98.07 98.44 98.85 99.32 99.84 100.42 101.04 101.72 102.45 103.23 104.07 104.95 105.89 106.88 107.91 109.00 110.14 111.33 112.56 113.84 115.18 116.56 117.98 119.46 120.98 122.55 124.16 125.81 127.52 129.00 Simplified BISHOP FOS = 4.578 The following is a summary of the TEN most critical surfaces Problem Description : BENNETT PIT CASE 3 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. FOS Circle (BISHOP) x-coord (ft) 4.578 4.580 4.950 4.953 4.986 5.012 5.090 5.123 5.148 5.166 241.79 242.21 249.04 248.85 242.43 248.46 248.08 225.77 250.91 237.24 Center y-coord (ft) 265.15 260.49 263.38 253.04 286.82 279.77 273.99 311.37 246.12 285.06 I. Radius (ft) 168.13 163.42 166.22 155.65 189.60 182.73 176.73 214.30 148.53 187.44 END OF FILE Page 4 RAPID DRAWDOWN Initial x-coord (ft) 203.97 204.47 207.39 208.29 203.67 206.08 206.58 190.50 210.00 202.56 I. I. Terminal x-coord (ft) 340.42 339.23 346.86 342.86 347.49 351.67 349.15 338.28 342.25 341.05 Resisting Moment (ft -1 b) 1.494E+07 1.433E+07 1.561E+07 1.405E+07 1.800E+07 1.796E+07 1.695E+07 1.891E+07 1.330E+07 1.672E+07 3-BENEQ.OPT XSTABL File: 3-BENEQ 11-23 flflflfl IS _j. is OS .. Jo _..... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. _'0 .. .. .. .. .. 9:44 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 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 .�. _-. .-. J. O. -. -. -. J. 0. .0. .•. J. J. J. -. J. 0. J. t. .1. _1. I. .0. .0. J. O. .0. t. 0. .0. O. 0. .0. .0. O. .0. � J. J. .♦ .. .. .. 1. 1. I. :. I. %. .. .. I. .. I. I. .. I. .. I. .. I. I. I. I. .. I. .. I. I. .. I. I . .. .. .. .. .. .. I. Problem Description : BENNETT PIT CASE 3 EQ SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES 6 SURFACE boundary segments Segment x -left No. (ft) 1 2 3 4 5 6 100.0 200.0 266.0 287.0 310.5 313.5 y -left (ft) 100.0 100.0 122.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 x -right (ft) 200.0 266.0 287.0 310.5 313.5 362.0 13 SUBSURFACE boundary segments Segment No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 x -left (ft) 266.0 310.4 313.5 313.6 200.0 310.3 313.6 313.7 100.0 310.2 313.7 313.8 310.2 y -left (ft) 122.0 122.0 129.0 122.0 100.0 100.0 122.0 100.0 97.0 97.0 100.0 97.0 97.0 ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters x -right (ft) 310.4 310.5 313.6 362.0 310.3 310.4 313.7 362.0 310.2 310.3 313.8 362.0 313.8 Page 1 y -right Soil Unit (ft) Below Segment Y 100.0 122.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 2 3 4 4 5 4 right Soil Unit (ft) Below Segment 122.0 129.0 122.0 122.0 100.0 122.0 100.0 100.0 97.0 100.0 97.0 97.0 97.0 3 5 5 3 2 5 5 2 1 5 5 1 1 3-BENEQ.OPT 5 Soil Soil Unit No. 1 2 3 4 5 unit(s) specified unit Moist (pcf) 125.0 125.0 110.0 110.0 100.0 weight Sat. (pcf) 141.0 141.0 125.0 131.0 110.0 Cohesion Intercept (psf) 2000.0 100.0 . 0 150.0 . 0 Friction Angle (deg) 20.00 18.00 35.00 22.00 45.00 1 water surface(s) have been specified Unit weight of water 62.40 (pcf) Pore Pressure Water Parameter Constant Surface Ru (psf) NO. . 000 . 000 . 000 . 000 . 000 water Surface No. 1 specified by 4 coordinate points IIIIIIIIIII I. Is I. IS I. IS I. ♦♦ •T_ _T_ _T_ _I •••• I. I. ITIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIII I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. IS I. I. IS IS I. I. I. I. IS I. .. PHREATIC SURFACE, T T_ T T 1 _T_ _-_ _-_ _T_ _T_ T_ T T_ T T_ •. i_ _T_ T_ _T_ _T_ _•, I. I. I. I. I. I. I. /. IS I. I. I. I. I. I. /. I. I. I. Point NO. 1 2 3 4 x -water (ft) 100.00 200.00 278.00 362.00 .T T T_ T_ l. IS ♦. I. I. I. III _T. .. .. IS I- -v- -, I. I. I. y -water (ft) 100.00 100.00 126.00 126.00 A horizontal earthquake loading coefficient of .070 has been assigned A vertical earthquake loading coefficient of .000 has been assigned BOUNDARY LOADS Load No. 1 2 2 load(s) specified x -left (ft) 292.0 298.0 x -right (ft) 293.0 299.0 Intensity (psf) 20000.0 20000.0 0 0 0 0 0 Direction (deg) 90.0 90.0 NOTE - Intensity is specified as a uniformly distributed force acting on a HORIZONTALLY projected surface. Page 2 1 1 1 1 1 3-BENEQ.OPT A critical failure surface searching method, using a random technique for generating CIRCULAR surfaces has been specified. 2000 trial surfaces will be generated and analyzed. 10 Surfaces initiate from each of 200 points equally spaced along the ground surface between x = 190.0 ft and x = 210.0 ft Each surface terminates between x = 337.0 ft and x = 357.0 ft unless further limitations were imposed, the minimum elevation at which a surface extends is y = 80.0 ft .I. et IS I\ DEFAULT SEGMENT LENGTH SELECTED BY XSTABL .0_ .I_ IS IS ... _s 'S 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 Upper angular limit . • • • -45.0 degrees (slope angle - 5.0) degrees Circular surface (Fos= -12.9946) is defined by: xcenter = 122.77 ycenter = 995.71 Init. Pt. = 210.00 Seg. Length = 3.00 Factors of safety have been calculated by the : Is IS Is I♦ I' SIMPLIFIED BISHOP METHOD I♦ I♦ I♦ The most critical circular failure surface is specified by 49 coordinate points Point NO. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 x -surf (ft) 203.97 206.90 209.84 212.79 215.75 218.72 221.69 224.67 227.66 y -surf (ft) 101.32 100.68 100.08 99.54 99.04 98.61 98.22 97.89 97.61 Page 3 ,. ,... ,.flfl 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 230.65 233.65 236.65 239.65 242.65 245.64 248.64 251.64 254.63 257.62 260.61 263.58 266.55 269.52 272.47 275.42 278.35 281.27 284.18 287.08 289.96 292.83 295.68 298.51 301.33 304.12 306.90 309.65 312.39 315.10 317.79 320.45 323.09 325.70 328.29 330.85 333.38 335.88 338.35 340.42 3-BENEQ.OPT 97.39 97.21 97.09 97.03 97.02 97.06 97.16 97.31 97.51 97.76 98.07 98.44 98.85 99.32 99.84 100.42 101.04 101.72 102.45 103.23 104.07 104.95 105.89 106.88 107.91 109.00 110.14 111.33 112.56 113.84 115.18 116.56 117.98 119.46 120.98 122.55 124.16 125.81 127.52 129.00 Simplified BISHOP FOS = 2.356 flflflfl The following is a summary of the TEN most critical surfaces Problem Description : BENNETT PIT CASE 3 FOS Circle (BISHOP) x-coord (ft) 1. 2.356 2. 2.360 3. 2.440 4. 2.443 5. 2.460 6. 2.462 7. 2.476 8. 2.522 9. 2.526 10. 2.533 241.79 242.21 249.04 248.46 248.85 242.43 248.08 250.91 243.44 236.38 Center y-coord (ft) 265.15 260.49 263.38 279.77 253.04 286.82 273.99 246.12 315.86 340.46 Radius (ft) 168.13 163.42 166.22 182.73 155.65 189.60 176.73 148.53 218.65 243.44 Page 4 EQ Initial x-coord (ft) 203.97 204.47 207.39 206.08 208.29 203.67 206.58 210.00 202.97 198.44 Terminal x-coord (ft) 340.42 339.23 346.86 351.67 342.86 347.49 349.15 342.25 356.96 356.98 Resisting Moment (ft -1 b) 1.446E+07 1.387E+07 1.513E+07 1.742E+07 1.361E+07 1.745E+07 1.644E+07 1.289E+07 2.193E+07 2.472E+07 3-BENEQ.OPT END OF FILE Page 5 • XSTABL File: 3-BENF 11-23- fln .. Is I. Is 3-BENF.OPT 9:46 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .,. .,_ _,. .,. .,. .,. .,. .,. _,. .,. _,. .,. .,_ I. ♦♦ .. .♦ .. I. ♦♦ .. .. .. .. I. I♦ 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 ,. ,_ ,. ,. ,. 00,_ _,_ ,. _,. ,. ,. .,_ .t_ _t_ _'• _,_ •,• ,- _,• _,• _,- 0„1,1„ ,- ,- ,- %. I. I. IS I. I. 15 IS I♦ I. I. 15 IS I. IS I. I. IS IS I. I. IS I. IS I. flflflfl .▪ . .▪ . .,. IS I. 95 A 1483 :, ,. flflMirnflflflflflflflflfl Problem Description : BENNETT PIT CASE 3 FULL SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES 6 SURFACE boundary segments Segment x -left No. (ft) 1 2 3 4 5 6 100.0 200.0 266.0 287.0 310.5 313.5 y -left (ft) 100.0 100.0 122.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 x -right (ft) 200.0 266.0 287.0 310.5 313.5 362.0 13 SUBSURFACE boundary segments Segment No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 x -left (ft) 266.0 310.4 313.5 313.6 200.0 310.3 313.6 313.7 100.0 310.2 313.7 313.8 310.2 y -left (ft) 122.0 122.0 129.0 122.0 100.0 100.0 122.0 100.0 97.0 97.0 100.0 97.0 97.0 ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters x -right (ft) 310.4 310.5 313.6 362.0 310.3 310.4 313.7 362.0 310.2 310.3 313.8 362.0 313.8 Page 1 y -right Soil Unit (ft) Below Segment 100.0 122.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 2 3 4 4 5 4 y -right Soil Unit (ft) Below Segment 122.0 129.0 122.0 122.0 100.0 122.0 100.0 100.0 97.0 100.0 97.0 97.0 97.0 3 5 5 3 2 5 5 2 1 5 5 1 1 3-BENF.OPT 5 Soil unit(s) specified Soil unit weight Unit Moist Sat. No. (pcf) (pcf) 1 125.0 2 125.0 3 110.0 4 110.0 5 100.0 141.0 141.0 125.0 131.0 110.0 Cohesion Intercept (psf) 2000.0 100.0 . 0 150.0 . 0 Friction Angle (deg) 20.00 18.00 35.00 22.00 45.00 1 water surface (s) have been specified Unit weight of water = 62.40 (pcf) Pore Pressure Water Parameter Constant Surface Ru (psf) No. . 000 . 000 . 000 . 000 . 000 water surface No. 1 specified by 2 coordinate points JO .,. .,. .,. .,. .. _,. .,. .,. .,. _,. .,. .,w I. I. I. I. I\ I. I\ I. I♦ ♦. I. I\ I\ 4% I\ I\ I\ I\ I\ I. IS Point No. 1 2 I. • .% I% I. I\ I. I. I♦ I\ I. I. I. I. I. I\ I. I\ I. I. I% I. PHREATIC SURFACE, I♦ IS I. IS I\ I. I. I♦ IS I♦ I. I♦ I% I♦ I. I♦ I♦ IS I. x -water (ft) 100.00 362.00 BOUNDARY LOADS Load No. 1 2 2 load(s) specified x -left (ft) 292.0 298.0 _,. I. I\ IS IS y -water (ft) 126.00 126.00 x -right (ft) 293.0 299.0 I. Intensity (psf) 20000.0 20000.0 0 0 0 0 0 Di rection (deg) 90.0 90.0 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. 2000 trial surfaces will be generated and analyzed. 10 Surfaces initiate from each of 200 points equally spaced along the ground surface between x = 190.0 ft and x = 210.0 ft Page 2 1 1 1 1 1 3-BENF.OPT Each surface terminates between x and x 337.0 ft 357.0 ft unless further limitations were imposed, the minimum elevation at which a surface extends is y = 80.0 ft I♦ I% DEFAULT SEGMENT LENGTH SELECTED BY XSTABL I\ 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 Upper angular limit • . _ • -45.0 degrees (slope angle - 5.0) degrees Circular surface (FOS=-28.9066) is defined by: xcenter = 250.91 ycenter = 246.12 Init. Pt. = 210.00 Seg. Length = 3.00 Factors of safety have been calculated by the : SIMPLIFIED BISHOP METHOD I• I♦ I♦ .. The most critical circular failure surface is specified by 57 coordinate points Point NO. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 x -surf (ft) 192.81 195.23 197.70 200.22 202.79 205.40 208.06 210.76 213.50 216.27 219.08 221.92 224.79 227.68 230.60 233.54 236.49 239.46 242.44 245.43 y -surf (ft) 100.00 98.22 96.52 94.89 93.34 91.87 90.48 89.17 87.95 86.81 85.75 84.78 83.90 83.11 82.40 81.79 81.27 80.83 80.49 80.24 Page 3 I. I. I. I. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 248.42 251.42 254.42 257.42 260.41 263.40 266.37 269.33 272.28 275.21 278.11 280.99 283.85 286.67 289.46 292.22 294.94 297.62 300.25 302.84 305.39 307.88 310.33 312.71 315.04 317.32 319.53 321.68 323.76 325.78 327.72 329.60 331.40 333.13 334.79 336.36 337.05 3-BENF.OPT 80.08 80.01 80.03 80.15 80.35 80.65 81.04 81.52 82.09 82.75 83.50 84.34 85.27 86.28 87.38 88.56 89.83 91.18 92.61 94.12 95.71 97.38 99.12 100.93 102.82 104.78 106.81 108.90 111.06 113.28 115.57 117.91 120.30 122.75 125.26 127.81 129.00 simplified BISHOP FOS = 12.622 The following is a summary of the TEN most critical surfaces flflflfl Problem Description : BENNETT PIT CASE 3 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. FOS (BISHOP) 12.622 12.667 12.686 12.690 12.707 12.722 12.739 12.739 12.744 12.748 Circle x-coord (ft) 252.15 250.56 252.06 253.99 254.50 255.91 253.13 256.04 252.79 253.13 Center y-coord (ft) 178.06 180.91 179.04 175.75 174.61 172.17 176.83 172.14 177.97 176.76 .I_ .1_ I. 0% Radius (ft) 98.05 100.88 99.02 95.75 94.61 92.13 96.81 92.12 97.94 96.70 END OF FILE Page 4 FULL Initial x-coord (ft) 192.81 190.30 192.41 195.43 196.33 198.64 194.22 198.74 193.52 194.32 Terminal x-coord (ft) 337.05 337.05 337.52 337.55 337.39 337.28 337.31 337.43 337.58 337.21 Resisting Moment (ft -lb) 3.567E+07 3.698E+07 3.619E+07 3.466E+07 3.410E+07 3.289E+07 3.511E+07 3.293E+07 3.566E+07 3.498E+07 3-BENFEQ.OPT XSTABL File: 3-BENFEQ 11-23 15:35 ;% .•. ♦• .I. I% .I. I• I• .0. _0. _' -I. l' I. .0. I• Oa I• ... I• I• I• I• I. I. I• /. /• I• I. I• I• I. I• I• I• .1. _J. O. I% I• I% 0. Oa Ow Oa I♦ I% I% I• 0% I% I• I% .1..1. _g. .t. .t. XSTABL I♦ I• I♦ /• I♦ /• I• I• Slope Stability Analysis using the Method of Slices Copyright (C) 1992 A 96 Interactive Software Designs, Moscow, ID 83843, U.S.A. All Rights Reserved ver. 5.105a 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ♦♦ 4% I, 4% ♦♦ ♦♦ 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% ♦♦ ♦♦ 0% ♦♦ ♦♦ ♦♦ I♦ ♦% I• 4% •% i• 4% 4% •♦ /% 1'4%4% Inc. 95 A 1483 J. d. iii"..O.,. J. .l. .i. „I„.i. .t. O„11# .,. I% .�. _•_ .0. Oa /• 1a :• .. 4% .•a I% Oa Oa :% .,. Oa :% _a IS .'. Oa I• I• I• I• 4% I♦ I• I• I% /. I. I♦ I% I• Problem Description : BENNETT PIT CASE 3 FULL EQ SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES 6 SURFACE boundary segments Segment x -left No. (ft) 1 2 3 4 5 6 100.0 200.0 266.0 287.0 310.5 313.5 y -left (ft) 100.0 100.0 122.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 x -right (ft) 200.0 266.0 287.0 310.5 313.5 362.0 13 SUBSURFACE boundary segments Segment No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 x -left (ft) 266.0 310.4 313.5 313.6 200.0 310.3 313.6 313.7 100.0 310.2 313.7 313.8 310.2 y -left (ft) 122.0 122.0 129.0 122.0 100.0 100.0 122.0 100.0 97.0 97.0 100.0 97.0 97.0 ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters x -right (ft) 310.4 310.5 313.6 362.0 310.3 310.4 313.7 362.0 310.2 310.3 313.8 362.0 313.8 Page 1 y -right Soil Unit (ft) Below Segment 100.0 122.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 2 3 4 4 5 4 y -right Soil Unit (ft) Below Segment 122.0 129.0 122.0 122.0 100.0 122.0 100.0 100.0 97.0 100.0 97.0 97.0 97.0 3 5 5 3 2 5 5 2 1 5 5 1 1 3-BENFEQ.OPT 5 soil unit(s) specified Soil unit No. 1 2 3 4 5 Unit Moist (pcf) 125.0 125.0 110.0 110.0 100.0 weight Sat. (pcf) 141.0 141.0 125.0 131.0 110.0 Cohesion Intercept (psf) 2000.0 100.0 . 0 150.0 . 0 Friction Angle (deg) 20.00 18.00 35.00 22.00 45.00 1 water surface(s) have been specified unit weight of water 62.40 (pcf) Pore Pressure water Parameter Constant Surface Ru (psf) NO. . 000 . 000 . 000 . 000 . 000 water Surface No. 1 specified by 2 coordinate points I I *so. _. /A It I♦ I♦ I♦ I♦ I♦ I♦ I♦ I♦ I♦ I♦ I♦ I♦ I♦ I♦ I♦ IS I♦ I♦ I♦ I♦ I\ I♦ I♦ I♦ I♦ I♦ I♦ I♦ I♦ I♦ I♦ I♦ PHREATIC SURFACE, -I. It It It It It It It It It I. It _t_ _,. _,. Point No. 1 2 .1. .j. .I. .I. .I. I♦ It It IS x -water (ft) 100.00 362.00 .I. _1. _t_ It It It elliflirnflflflfl y -water (ft) 126.00 126.00 I. A horizontal earthquake loading coefficient of .070 has been assigned A vertical earthquake loading coefficient of .000 has been assigned BOUNDARY LOADS Load NO. 1 2 2 load(s) specified x -left (ft) 292.0 298.0 x -right (ft) 293.0 299.0 Intensity (psf) 20000.0 20000.0 . . 0 0 0 0 0 Direction (deg) 90.0 90.0 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. Page 2 1 1 1 1 1 3-BENFEQ.OPT 2000 trial surfaces will be generated and analyzed. 10 Surfaces initiate from each of 200 points equally spaced along the ground surface between x = 190.0 ft and x = 210.0 ft Each surface terminates between x and x a ID 337.0 ft 357.0 ft unless further limitations were imposed, the minimum elevation at which a surface extends is y = 80.0 ft O_ . • �._ .♦ I. .% 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 := (slope angle - 5.0) degrees Circular surface (FOS= -4.0147) is defined by: xcenter = 122.77 ycenter = 995.71 Init. Pt. = 210.00 Seg. Length = 3.00 Factors of safety have been calculated by the : 4O, Is SIMPLIFIED BISHOP METHOD The most critical circular failure surface is specified by 52 coordinate points Point No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 x -surf (ft) 206.08 209.01 211.94 214.88 217.84 220.80 223.77 226.74 229.73 232.71 235.70 238.70 y -surf (ft) 102.03 101.36 100.73 100.16 99.63 99.15 98.72 98.34 98.01 97.72 97.49 97.31 Page 3 t_ .,. IS I. flfl :% IS 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 241.69 244.69 247.69 250.69 253.69 256.69 259.69 262.68 265.67 268.65 271.63 274.60 277.57 280.53 283.47 286.41 289.34 292.26 295.17 298.06 300.94 303.81 306.66 309.50 312.32 315.12 317.90 320.67 323.41 326.14 328.84 331.53 334.19 336.82 339.44 342.03 344.59 347.13 349.64 351.67 3-BENFEQ.OPT 97.17 97.08 97.05 97.06 97.12 97.23 97.39 97.60 97.86 98.16 98.52 98.93 99.38 99.88 100.43 101.03 101.68 102.37 103.12 103.91 104.75 105.63 106.56 107.54 108.57 109.64 110.76 111.92 113.13 114.38 115.68 117.02 118.41 119.84 121.31 122.83 124.38 125.98 127.63 129.00 Simplified BISHOP FOS = 5.679 I♦ I\ I♦ I♦ The following is a summary of the TEN most critical surfaces Problem Description : BENNETT PIT CASE 3 FOS Circle (BISHOP) x-coord (ft) 1. 5.679 2. 5.851 3. 5.908 4. 5.925 5. 5.926 6. 5.929 7. 6.013 8. 6.024 9. 6.040 10. 6.060 248.46 249.04 243.44 248.00 248.08 253.13 241.79 254.92 236.38 236.89 Center y-coord (ft) 279.77 263.38 315.86 296.80 273.99 278.89 265.15 277.52 340.46 337.45 Radius (ft) 182.73 166.22 218.65 199.45 176.73 181.46 168.13 180.00 243.44 240.37 Page 4 FULL EQ Initial x-coord (ft) 206.08 207.39 202.97 205.68 206.58 208.80 203.97 209.80 198.44 199.55 Terminal x-coord (ft) 351.67 346.86 356.96 355.80 349.15 355.42 340.42 356.61 356.98 356.56 Resisting Moment (ft -lb) 1.759E+07 1.530E+07 2.213E+07 1.988E+07 1.661E+07 1.794E+07 1.463E+07 1.795E+07 2.489E+07 2.445E+07 3-BENFEQ.OPT I♦ I♦ 0% END OF FILE Page 5 I♦ I% I♦ 4-BEN.OPT XSTABL File: 4 -BEN 11-23-n 9:54 I\ I\ I• I• I\ I\ I\ I\ I\ I• I• I\ I• I• I\ I• I• I• I• I• I• I• I• I• I• I♦ I• I• I\ I\ I• I\ I• I• XSTABL Slope Stability Analysis using the Method of Slices I\ IS I\ I\ I• I♦ I. I• Copyright (C) 1992 A 96 Interactive Software Designs, Inc. Moscow, ID 83843, U.S.A. All Rights Reserved ver. 5.105a 95 �.Jae _J. _1. I. _I. 1. J. J. _I. .1. _O. .O. 1. .1. '. .r. 1. .1. .1. I\ I• IS IS I♦ IS I♦ I• I\ I♦ IS I• I• I• I♦ I\ IS I♦ IS /5 A 1483 .1. _l. .I. .1. .1. _I_ ✓. _1. 1. O„1„1„1„1„1, .1. _I. _I. _1. 0. _1. .I. .1. .'. .l. IS I\ I\ IS I• I• I\ Is I♦ is Is I\ IS IS IS IS I♦ IS I• IS I• Problem Description : BENNETT PIT CASE 4 RAPID DRAWDOWN SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES 6 SURFACE boundary segments Segment x -left No. (ft) 1 2 3 4 5 6 100.0 200.0 290.0 308.0 331.5 334.5 y -left (ft) 100.0 100.0 130.0 136.0 136.0 136.0 x -right (ft) 200.0 290.0 308.0 331.5 334.5 378.0 13 SUBSURFACE boundary segments Segment No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 x -left (ft) 290.0 331.4 334.5 334.6 200.0 331.3 334.6 334.7 100.0 331.2 334.7 334.8 331.2 y -left (ft) 130.0 130.0 136.0 130.0 100.0 100.0 130.0 100.0 97.0 97.0 100.0 97.0 97.0 ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters x -right (ft) 331.4 331.5 334.6 378.0 331.3 331.4 334.7 378.0 331.2 331.3 334.8 378.0 334.8 Page 1 y -right Soil Unit (ft) Below Segment 100.0 130.0 136.0 136.0 136.0 136.0 2 3 4 4 5 4 y -right Soil unit (ft) Below Segment 130.0 136.0 130.0 130.0 100.0 130.0 100.0 100.0 97.0 100.0 97.0 97.0 97.0 3 5 5 3 2 5 5 2 1 5 5 1 1 4-BEN.OPT 5 Soil unit(s) specified Soil unit weight Unit Moist Sat. No. (pcf) (pcf) 1 125.0 2 125.0 3 110.0 4 110.0 5 100.0 141.0 141.0 125.0 131.0 110.0 Cohesion Intercept (psf) 2000.0 100.0 . 0 150.0 . 0 Friction Angle (deg) 20.00 18.00 35.00 22.00 45.00 1 water surface(s) have been specified unit weight of water = 62.40 (pcf) Pore Pressure water Parameter Constant Surface Ru (psf) No. . 000 . 000 . 000 . 000 . 000 water Surface No. 1 specified by 4 coordinate points I♦ I♦ I♦ /♦ /. 'S I♦ I♦ I♦ I♦ IS I♦ I♦ _I_ _I_ _l. Is It I♦ .l. IS I♦ IS IS Point NO. 1 2 3 4 _t_ _l. flflaviiflflflflflflfl .J. J. J. J. .I_ .I. .Jo Ji ►f_ _Vi _I_ Is Is Is in IS IS IS IS IS St /\ PHREATIC SURFACE, flflflflflflrnfl I♦ IS I♦ I♦ x -water (ft) 100.00 200.00 299.00 378.00 BOUNDARY LOADS Load No. 1 2 2 load(s) specified x -left (ft) 313.0 319.0 IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS .I. .I. .1. I♦ It IS y -water (ft) 100.00 100.00 133.00 133.00 x -right (ft) 314.0 320.0 Intensity (psf) 20000.0 20000.0 . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 Direction (deg) 90.0 90.0 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. 2000 trial surfaces will be generated and analyzed. 10 Surfaces initiate from each of 200 points equally spaced Page 2 1 1 1 1 1 4-BEN.OPT along the ground surface between x = 190.0 ft and x = 210.0 ft Each surface terminates between x and x 358.0 ft 378.0 ft unless further limitations were imposed, the minimum elevation at which a surface extends is y = 80.0 ft .'. ... _O. _I. _u_ Is I♦ IS 0% IS DEFAULT SEGMENT LENGTH SELECTED BY XSTABL „I, Ili 4.0 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 Upper angular limit • • • • I• -45.0 degrees (slope angle 5.0) degrees Circular surface (FOS= -8.5279) is defined by: xcenter = 15.04 ycenter = 1431.39 Init. Pt. = 209.90 Seg. Length = 4.00 Factors of safety have been calculated by the : _ J. r. I♦ It 0% J. Is I• SIMPLIFIED BISHOP METHOD IS _l. _s. ,s ,♦ The most critical circular failure surface is specified by 43 coordinate points Point No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 x -surf (ft) 204.77 208.69 212.62 216.56 220.52 224.49 228.46 232.45 236.44 240.44 244.44 248.44 252.44 256.43 260.43 264.41 268.39 y -surf (ft) 101.59 100.76 100.01 99.34 98.76 98.26 97.84 97.52 97.27 97.11 97.04 97.05 97.15 97.33 97.60 97.95 98.39 Page 3 sr IS I. /. IS I. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 272.35 276.31 280.24 284.17 288.08 291.96 295.83 299.67 303.49 307.29 311.05 314.79 318.49 322.16 325.80 329.40 332.96 336.49 339.97 343.41 346.80 350.15 353.45 356.70 359.90 360.31 4-BEN.OPT 98.91 99.52 100.21 100.99 101.84 102.79 103.81 104.92 106.11 107.37 108.72 110.15 111.66 113.25 114.92 116.66 118.48 120.38 122.34 124.39 126.50 128.69 130.95 133.28 135.68 136.00 Simplified BISHOP FOS = 2.653 The following is a summary of the TEN most critical surfaces Problem Description : BENNETT FOS Circle (BISHOP) x-coord (ft) 1. 2.653 2. 2.660 3. 2.717 4. 2.741 5. 2.753 6. 2.755 7. 2.779 8. 2.789 9. 2.809 10. 2.811 245.86 244.58 236.35 249.03 236.99 239.59 243.22 242.66 232.23 238.55 Center y-coord (ft) 284.58 285.36 308.81 279.71 307.49 304.98 308.88 314.23 325.81 322.78 PIT CASE Radius (ft) 187.54 188.24 211.77 182.29 210.24 207.71 211.75 217.16 228.73 225.67 END OF FILE 1 1“II It I♦ :: I• 4 RAPID DRAWDOWN I. Initial x-coord (ft) 204.77 204.37 200.35 206.99 201.06 202.06 202.97 202.46 195.83 200.86 Terminal x-coord (ft) 360.31 359.15 358.76 361.16 358.58 360.35 365.49 366.73 359.86 365.20 Resisting Moment (ft -lb) 2.130E+07 2.113E+07 2.371E+07 2.083E+07 2.343E+07 2.355E+07 2.525E+07 2.621E+07 2.591E+07 2.687E+07 4-BENEQ.OPT XSTABL File: 4-BENEQ 11-23-"* flflflflflflflfl :: ftto •. 01. 01, •,- .V. I% fl ... ... .'. •% •% •% •. 9:55 •. •. •. •% •. •. •. •. IN •. •. •• •. XSTABL detel Id de •. •. 4% •% liblid• IA/ Ode edime SAO Owl/ Ode Slope Stability Analysis using the Method of Slices .I. .l. .1. .. .i. 4% •. •. •. •. Copyright (C) 1992 A 96 Interactive Software Designs, Inc. Moscow, ID 83843, U.S.A. All Rights Reserved ver. 5.105a 95 A 1483 O, J. O. .0. .•. .0. .0. .-. .I. .0. O. J. .1„ .t. J. J. 0, O. O. J. .9. J. O. 0. 0. -'_ .0. O. ,_-_ .J. .0. J. J. J. •% •. •. •♦ •♦ •. •. .. •. •. •. •. •♦ •. 4% •. •% •% •% 4% •. •. 0% %. %. •♦ •. %. 4% •. •% •♦ •. I. •. Problem Description : BENNETT PIT CASE 4 EQ SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES 6 SURFACE boundary segments Segment x -left No. (ft) 1 2 3 4 5 6 100.0 200.0 290.0 308.0 331.5 334.5 y -left (ft) 100.0 100.0 130.0 136.0 136.0 136.0 x -right (ft) 200.0 290.0 308.0 331.5 334.5 378.0 13 SUBSURFACE boundary segments Segment No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 x -left (ft) 290.0 331.4 334.5 334.6 200.0 331.3 334.6 334.7 100.0 331.2 334.7 334.8 331.2 y -left (ft) 130.0 130.0 136.0 130.0 100.0 100.0 130.0 100.0 97.0 97.0 100.0 97.0 97.0 ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters x -right (ft) 331.4 331.5 334.6 378.0 331.3 331.4 334.7 378.0 331.2 331.3 334.8 378.0 334.8 Page 1 flflIirrnfl y -right Soil Unit (ft) Below Segment y 100.0 130.0 136.0 136.0 136.0 136.0 2 3 4 4 5 4 right Soil Unit (ft) Below Segment 130.0 136.0 130.0 130.0 100.0 130.0 100.0 100.0 97.0 100.0 97.0 97.0 97.0 3 5 5 3 2 5 5 2 1 5 5 1 1 4-BENEQ.OPT 5 soil unit(s) specified Soil Unit No. 1 2 3 4 5 Unit Moist (pcf) 125.0 125.0 110.0 110.0 100.0 weight Sat. (pcf) 141.0 141.0 125.0 131.0 110.0 Cohesion Intercept (psf) 2000.0 100.0 . 0 150.0 . 0 Friction Angle (deg) 20.00 18.00 35.00 22.00 45.00 1 Water surface (s) have been specified Unit weight of water = 62.40 (pcf) Pore Pressure Parameter Constant Ru (psf) . 000 . 000 . 000 . 000 . 000 Water Surface No. 1 specified by 4 coordinate points flflflflflflfl I, I, I, I, I, I, IS I, /, /, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, PHREATIC SURFACE, fl I, I, I, I♦ I, I, I, I, I, I, Point No. 1 2 3 4 .2. I, It I♦ I♦ IS IS IS It It _.. • x -water (ft) 100.00 200.00 299.00 378.00 .2. ., .I. I, I, I, I♦ I, .1. .•. .•. .,. flflfl I, I, I, I, y -water (ft) 100.00 100.00 133.00 133.00 A horizontal earthquake loading coefficient of .070 has been assigned A vertical earthquake loading coefficient of .000 has been assigned BOUNDARY LOADS Load No. 1 2 2 load(s) specified x -left (ft) 313.0 319.0 x -right (ft) 314.0 320.0 Intensity (psf) 20000.0 20000.0 . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 Direction (deg) 90.0 90.0 NOTE - Intensity is specified as a uniformly distributed force acting on a HORIZONTALLY projected surface. Page 2 water Surface NO. 1 1 1 1 1 4-BENEQ.OPT A critical failure surface searching method, using a random technique for generating CIRCULAR surfaces has been specified. 2000 trial surfaces will be generated and analyzed. 10 Surfaces initiate from each of 200 points equally spaced along the ground surface between x = 190.0 ft and x = 210.0 ft Each surface terminates between x = 358.0 ft 378.0 ft and x unless further limitations were imposed, the minimum elevation at which a surface extends is y = 80.0 ft ,. :. IS IS DEFAULT SEGMENT LENGTH SELECTED BY XSTABL 4.0 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 Circular surface (Fos= 23.8717) is defined by: xcenter = 15.04 ycenter = 1431.39 Init. Pt. = 209.90 Seg. Length = 4.00 Factors of safety have been calculated by the : _I. 1. I♦ I♦ _.. IS IS IS SIMPLIFIED BISHOP METHOD _u. _O. _t_ IS IS IS The most critical circular failure surface 1s specified by 43 coordinate points Point NO. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 x -surf (ft) 204.77 208.69 212.62 216.56 220.52 224.49 228.46 232.45 236.44 240.44 y -surf (ft) 101.59 100.76 100.01 99.34 98.76 98.26 97.84 97.52 97.27 97.11 Page 3 _,. IS I\ 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 244.44 248.44 252.44 256.43 260.43 264.41 268.39 272.35 276.31 280.24 284.17 288.08 291.96 295.83 299.67 303.49 307.29 311.05 314.79 318.49 322.16 325.80 329.40 332.96 336.49 339.97 343.41 346.80 350.15 353.45 356.70 359.90 360.31 4-BENEQ.OPT 97.04 97.05 97.15 97.33 97.60 97.95 98.39 98.91 99.52 100.21 100.99 101.84 102.79 103.81 104.92 106.11 107.37 108.72 110.15 111.66 113.25 114.92 116.66 118.48 120.38 122.34 124.39 126.50 128.69 130.95 133.28 135.68 136.00 Simplified BISHOP FOS = 1.689 I. I. I. I. The following is a summary of the TEN most critical surfaces Problem Description : BENNETT PIT CASE 4 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. FOS Circle (BISHOP) x-coord (ft) 1.689 1.695 1.728 1.733 1.744 1.744 1.746 1.748 1.755 1.764 245.86 244.58 236.35 249.03 239.59 243.22 236.99 242.66 248.22 238.55 Center y-coord (ft) 284.58 285.36 308.81 279.71 304.98 308.88 307.49 314.23 305.67 322.78 Radius (ft) 187.54 188.24 211.77 182.29 207.71 211.75 210.24 217.16 208.55 225.67 END OF FILE Page 4 EQ Initial x-coord (ft) 204.77 204.37 200.35 206.99 202.06 202.97 201.06 202.46 204.98 200.86 .0. _I. .. I. Terminal x-coord (ft) 360.31 359.15 358.76 361.16 360.35 365.49 358.58 366.73 369.46 365.20 Resisting Moment (ft -lb) 2.056E+07 2.039E+07 2.290E+07 2.012E+07 2.275E+07 2.440E+07 2.263E+07 2.533E+07 2.491E+07 2.598E+07 4-BENF.OPT XSTABL File: 4-BENF 11-23 9:56 IS I♦ I♦ I\ I♦ I♦ IS IS IS I♦ It ., I\ 1 1 1 _I_ _t. _'. _•- .•% .•. .•i .•% .•. .•- .•. _•. .•% .•% .•- .•i •- _•_ .•• •� -. _•. .•. I♦ IS I♦ It I♦ I\ IS IS IS It /t It /\ It It 1% It It IS I♦ It It I♦ I♦ It IS 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 It 'bleb _•. It I% IS IS It I♦ I♦ IS It It It It It I♦ I♦ It I♦ It IS IS It I♦ I♦ It It It I♦ IS I\ I♦ I♦ I\ It I\ It I♦ IS 1% I♦ I♦ It IS IS It IS Problem Description : BENNETT PIT CASE 4 FULL SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES 6 SURFACE boundary segments Segment x -left No. (ft) 1 2 3 4 5 6 100.0 200.0 290.0 308.0 331.5 334.5 y -left (ft) 100.0 100.0 130.0 136.0 136.0 136.0 x -right (ft) 200.0 290.0 308.0 331.5 334.5 378.0 13 SUBSURFACE boundary segments Segment No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 x -left (ft) 290.0 331.4 334.5 334.6 200.0 331.3 334.6 334.7 100.0 331.2 334.7 334.8 331.2 y -left (ft) 130.0 130.0 136.0 130.0 100.0 100.0 130.0 100.0 97.0 97.0 100.0 97.0 97.0 ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters x -right (ft) 331.4 331.5 334.6 378.0 331.3 331.4 334.7 378.0 331.2 331.3 334.8 378.0 334.8 Page 1 y -right Soil unit (ft) Below Segment Y 100.0 130.0 136.0 136.0 136.0 136.0 2 3 4 4 5 4 right Soil Unit (ft) Below Segment 130.0 136.0 130.0 130.0 100.0 130.0 100.0 100.0 97.0 100.0 97.0 97.0 97.0 3 5 5 3 2 5 5 2 1 5 5 1 1 4-BENF.OPT 5 Soil unit(s) specified Soil Unit Weight Unit Moist Sat. No. (pcf) (pcf) 1 2 3 4 5 125.0 125.0 110.0 110.0 100.0 141.0 141.0 125.0 131.0 110.0 Cohesion Intercept (psf) 2000.0 100.0 . 0 150.0 . 0 Friction Angle (deg) 20.00 18.00 35.00 22.00 45.00 1 water surface(s) have been specified Unit weight of water = 62.40 (pcf) Pore Pressure Parameter Constant Ru (psf) . 000 . 000 . 000 . 000 . 000 water surface No. 1 specified by 2 coordinate points I♦ I♦ I♦ I• /♦ /♦ I♦ /• I• I♦ I♦ /♦ I• I• I♦ I• I♦ I• ♦• I• I♦ I• I♦ ♦• I♦ I• I♦ I• Point No. 1 2 PHREATIC SURFACE, _,. flflflrn flflflflfl x -water (ft) 100.00 378.00 BOUNDARY LOADS Load NO. 1 2 2 load(s) specified x -left (ft) 313.0 319.0 _,. _I_ _U_ •I_ I• I♦ I• I♦ _I. _t. .I. .t_ _Il. .'. .. It 15 .. .. .. flflfl y -water (ft) 133.00 133.00 x -right (ft) 314.0 320.0 ♦♦ Intensity (psf) 20000.0 20000.0 0 0 0 0 0 Direction (deg) 90.0 90.0 NOTE - Intensity is specified as a uniformly distributed force acting on a HORIZONTALLY projected surface. Water Surface NO. A critical failure surface searching method, using a random technique for generating CIRCULAR surfaces has been specified. 2000 trial surfaces will be generated and analyzed. 10 Surfaces initiate from each of 200 points equally spaced along the ground surface between x = 190.0 ft and x = 210.0 ft Page 2 1 1 1 1 1 4-BENF.OPT Each surface terminates between x = 358.0 ft and x = 378.0 ft unless further limitations were imposed, the minimum elevation at which a surface extends is y = 80.0 ft j. .I_ I. I. .I_ .r. IS I. DEFAULT SEGMENT LENGTH SELECTED BY XSTABL .•. _v. I. I. .._ I% I. 4.0 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 Circular surface (FOS=-85.3073) is defined by: xcenter = 238.32 ycenter = 327.97 Init. Pt. = 210.00 Seg. Length = 4.00 Factors of safety have been calculated by the : j. _I. I. IS I. .. IS SIMPLIFIED BISHOP METHOD The most critical circular failure surface is specified by 48 coordinate points Point NO. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 x -surf (ft) 197.94 201.27 204.67 208.15 211.70 215.31 218.98 222.70 226.48 230.30 234.15 238.05 241.97 245.92 249.89 253.88 257.87 261.87 265.87 269.87 y -surf (ft) 100.00 97.78 95.68 93.71 91.86 90.13 88.54 87.08 85.76 84.57 83.52 82.61 81.83 81.20 80.71 80.37 80.16 80.10 80.19 80.41 Page 3 r .I. I. I. _•_ .t_ •I_ • •I_ 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 273.85 277.82 281.76 285.68 289.57 293.43 297.24 301.01 304.72 308.38 311.98 315.52 318.99 322.38 325.69 328.93 332.07 335.13 338.09 340.95 343.71 346.37 348.92 351.35 353.67 355.87 357.95 358.28 Simplified BISHOP FOS 4-BENF.OPT 80.78 81.29 81.95 82.74 83.68 84.75 85.96 87.30 88.78 90.40 92.14 94.01 96.00 98.12 100.36 102.72 105.19 107.77 110.46 113.25 116.14 119.14 122.22 125.39 128.65 131.99 135.41 136.00 9.276 flflflfl The following is a summary of the TEN most critical surfaces Problem Description : BENNETT PIT CASE 4 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. FOS Ci rcl e (BISHOP) x-coord (ft) 9.276 9.281 9.287 9.296 9.297 9.300 9.304 9.309 9.310 9.313 261.56 262.12 259.58 262.30 259.65 260.03 262.13 261.90 261.45 264.52 a Center y-coord (ft) _I_ _•. I• ♦♦ 191.76 190.17 194.76 190.34 194.82 193.76 191.75 192.39 192.72 186.25 Radius (ft) 111.65 110.16 114.72 110.33 114.74 113.75 111.74 112.31 112.50 106.19 END OF FILE FULL Initial x-coord (ft) 197.94 198.84 194.92 198.95 195.03 195.63 198.34 198.04 197.74 201.76 I♦ Terminal x-coord (ft) 358.28 358.04 358.08 358.33 358.17 358.02 358.94 359.01 358.61 358.05 Resisting Moment (ft -lb) 4.555E+07 4.483E+07 4.729E+07 4.497E+07 4.728E+07 4.680E+07 4.579E+07 4.602E+07 4.590E+07 4.265E+07 4-BENFEQ.OPT XSTABL File: 4-BENFEQ 11-23-** 15:36 _t_ _t_ .•_ _I_ ... 3/470 ♦♦ ♦♦ n .s flflMOSAflfl XSTABL MflflflflflflflIsrnfl 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 It I♦ is I♦ Is Is is I♦ Is IS I♦ .. I♦ is Is IS IS :. IS is :. is I\ is 95 A 1483 _I. _I. .. skid, I\ Is -'a .. is I1 /\ Is is is Is IS is I\ I♦ is I♦ Problem Description : BENNETT PIT CASE 4 FULL EQ SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES 6 SURFACE boundary segments Segment x -left No . (ft) 1 2 3 4 5 6 100.0 200.0 290.0 308.0 331.5 334.5 y -left (ft) 100.0 100.0 130.0 136.0 136.0 136.0 x -right (ft) 200.0 290.0 308.0 331.5 334.5 378.0 13 SUBSURFACE boundary segments Segment No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 x -left (ft) 290.0 331.4 334.5 334.6 200.0 331.3 334.6 334.7 100.0 331.2 334.7 334.8 331.2 y -left (ft) 130.0 130.0 136.0 130.0 100.0 100.0 130.0 100.0 97.0 97.0 100.0 97.0 97.0 ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters x -right (ft) 331.4 331.5 334.6 378.0 331.3 331.4 334.7 378.0 331.2 331.3 334.8 378.0 334.8 Page 1 y -right Soil Unit (ft) Below Segment 100.0 130.0 136.0 136.0 136.0 136.0 2 3 4 4 5 4 y -right Soil Unit (ft) Below Segment 130.0 136.0 130.0 130.0 100.0 130.0 100.0 100.0 97.0 100.0 97.0 97.0 97.0 3 5 5 3 2 5 5 2 1 5 5 1 1 4-BENFEQ.OPT 5 Soil unit(s) specified Soil Unit NO. 1 2 3 4 5 Unit Weight Moist Sat. (pcf) (pcf) 125.0 125.0 110.0 110.0 100.0 141.0 141.0 125.0 131.0 110.0 Cohesion Intercept (psf) 2000.0 100.0 . 0 150.0 . 0 Friction Angle (deg) 20.00 18.00 35.00 22.00 45.00 1 Water surface (s) have been specified Unit weight of water = 62.40 (pcf) Pore Pressure Parameter Constant Ru (psf) . 000 . 000 . 000 . 000 . 000 water Surface No. 1 specified by 2 coordinate points ...... _� I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. flfl _%- .-- _I- _,- .1- .-. .•. I. It I. I. I♦ I. I. -I- /. Oa .l. 0,_ 0..0..4% I. I♦ I. I. _t. _, PHREATIC SURFACE, 1 I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. ♦. I. Point No. 1 2 Oa .i. .li. I. I. I. /\ ♦. I. I. _I_ .•- _I, .I. x -water (ft) 100.00 378.00 _1- I. I. I. I. .,_ .•. _I. _I_ .I_ _U. .I. _I. I. I. I. I. I. -,- I. I. I. I. .I_ _t. _I. .I. I. I. I% I. y -water (ft) 133.00 133.00 O, •• A horizontal earthquake loading coefficient of .070 has been assigned A vertical earthquake loading coefficient of .000 has been assigned BOUNDARY LOADS Load NO. 1 2 2 load(s) specified x -left (ft) 313.0 319.0 x -right (ft) 314.0 320.0 Intensity (psf) 20000.0 20000.0 . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 Direction (deg) 90.0 90.0 NOTE - Intensity is specified as a uniformly distributed force acting on a HORIZONTALLY projected surface. Water Surface NO. A critical failure surface searching method, using a random technique for generating CIRCULAR surfaces has been specified. Page 2 1 1 1 1 1 4-BENFEQ.OPT 2000 trial surfaces will be generated and analyzed. 10 Surfaces initiate from each of 200 points equally spaced along the ground surface between x = 190.0 ft and x = 210.0 ft Each surface terminates between x and x 358.0 ft 378.0 ft unless further limitations were imposed, the minimum elevation at which a surface extends is y = 80.0 ft ,t. ,_ I♦ 'S DEFAULT SEGMENT LENGTH SELECTED BY XSTABL • I♦ IS IS 4.0 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 Upper angular limit • • • • -45.0 degrees (slope angle - 5.0) degrees Circular surface (FOS= -5.8729) is defined by: xcenter = 15.04 ycenter = 1431.39 Init. Pt. = 209.90 Seg. Length = 4.00 Factors of safety have been calculated by the : :: SIMPLIFIED BISHOP METHOD I\ I♦ • The most critical circular failure surface is specified by 45 coordinate points Point No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 x -surf (ft) 209.80 213.68 217.59 221.51 225.44 229.39 233.36 237.33 241.31 245.30 249.29 253.29 y -surf (ft) 103.27 102.31 101.43 100.64 99.93 99.30 98.75 98.28 97.90 97.61 97.39 97.26 Page 3 I\ I\ • I. t_ I• I♦ I♦ I♦ 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 257.29 261.29 265.29 269.28 273.27 277.26 281.23 285.19 289.15 293.08 297.01 300.91 304.80 308.66 312.51 316.32 320.12 323.88 327.62 331.33 335.00 338.64 342.24 345.81 349.34 352.83 356.28 359.68 363.04 366.35 369.62 372.83 372.98 4 -BEN FEQ.OPT 97.21 97.25 97.37 97.57 97.86 98.23 98.69 99.22 99.84 100.55 101.33 102.20 103.15 104.18 105.28 106.47 107.74 109.09 110.52 112.02 113.61 115.27 117.00 118.81 120.69 122.65 124.68 126.78 128.95 131.19 133.51 135.88 136.00 Simplified BISHOP FOS = 3.472 The following is a summary of the TEN most critical surfaces I♦ I\ Ifl I\ Problem Description : BENNETT PIT CASE 4 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. FOS Circle (BISHOP) x-coord (ft) 3.472 3.476 3.499 3.507 3.516 3.522 3.527 3.551 3.551 3.553 257.54 245.86 248.22 249.55 254.63 244.58 250.14 256.08 252.70 249.03 Center y-coord (ft) J. IS 288.44 284.58 305.67 325.59 294.30 285.36 324.84 309.33 314.64 279.71 Radius (ft) 191.23 187.54 208.55 228.48 196.95 188.24 227.66 211.91 217.28 182.29 END OF FILE Page 4 Is FULL EQ Initial x-coord (ft) 209.80 204.77 204.98 204.67 208.49 204.37 205.08 208.49 206.79 206.99 IS Is Terminal x-coord (ft) 372.98 360.31 369.46 377.04 371.81 359.15 377.27 377.99 376.37 361.16 Resisting Moment (ft -lb) 2.372E+07 2.074E+07 2.509E+07 2.934E+07 2.416E+07 2.056E+07 2.927E+07 2.738E+07 2.770E+07 2.028E+07 XSTABL File: 5 -BEN 11-23 IS 5-BEN.OPT 10:04 IIIIIIIIIIIIIII •♦ I. •. •♦ IS I. I. IS I. IS IS IS •. IS •♦ XSTABL Slope Stability Analysis using the Method of Slices Copyright (C) 1992 A 96 Interactive Software Designs, Moscow, ID 83843, U.S.A. All Rights Reserved ver. 5.105a flflflflflflflirn ... #5 •. I. I. IS IS IS IS IS I. flflflflflfl Inc. 95 A 1483 Oa _l. _t. .'. O. .'. IV Oa I. ... .U. • 00 Is 0% .0. •. ... •% e• 00 es 00 0 ic •. I. •. I. •. IS I. IS I. •. IS .. IS IS IS IS Problem Description : BENNETT PIT CASE 5 RAPID DRAWDOWN SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES 6 SURFACE boundary segments Segment x -left No. (ft) 1 2 3 4 5 6 100.0 200.0 317.0 329.0 352.5 355.5 y -left (ft) 100.0 100.0 139.0 143.0 143.0 143.0 x -right (ft) 200.0 317.0 329.0 352.5 355.5 399.0 13 SUBSURFACE boundary segments Segment No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 x -left (ft) 317.0 352.4 355.5 355.6 200.0 352.3 355.6 355.7 100.0 352.2 355.7 355.8 352.2 y -left (ft) 139.0 139.0 143.0 139.0 100.0 100.0 139.0 100.0 97.0 97.0 100.0 97.0 97.0 ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters x -right (ft) 352.4 352.5 355.6 399.0 352.3 352.4 355.7 399.0 352.2 352.3 355.8 399.0 355.8 Page 1 y -right Soil Unit (ft) Below Segment y 100.0 139.0 143.0 143.0 143.0 143.0 2 3 4 4 5 4 right Soil unit (ft) Below Segment 139.0 143.0 139.0 139.0 100.0 139.0 100.0 100.0 97.0 100.0 97.0 97.0 97.0 3 5 5 3 2 5 5 2 1 5 5 1 1 5-BEN.OPT 5 Soil unit(s) specified Soil Unit Weight Unit Moist Sat. No. (pcf) (pcf) 1 2 3 4 5 125.0 125.0 110.0 110.0 100.0 141.0 141.0 125.0 131.0 110.0 Cohesion Intercept (psf) 2000.0 100.0 . 0 150.0 . 0 Friction Angle (deg) 20.00 18.00 35.00 22.00 45.00 1 water surface (s) have been specified Unit weight of water = 62.40 (pcf) Pore Pressure Parameter Constant Ru (psf) . 000 . 000 . 000 . 000 . 000 water Surface No. 1 specified by 4 coordinate points I. I. I. 4% I. I. I. 4% I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. 4% _�. _1. .V. .�. I. I. I. I% ................ PHREATIC SURFACE, .•. _•. .•. .. _•. _•_ .•. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I% I. I. I. I. I. Point NO. 1 2 3 4 .•. I. I. I. x -water (ft) 100.00 200.00 320.00 399.00 BOUNDARY LOADS Load No. 1 2 .•. I. 0%0%0%1% 2 load (s) specified x -left (ft) 334.0 340.0 I• lb I I. I♦ I. ♦. .•. _•. .•. .. .. I. y -water (ft) 100.00 100.00 140.00 140.00 x -right (ft) 335.0 341.0 Intensity (psf) 20000.0 20000.0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 Direction (deg) 90.0 90.0 NOTE - Intensity is specified as a uniformly distributed force acting on a HORIZONTALLY projected surface. water Surface NO. A critical failure surface searching method, using a random technique for generating CIRCULAR surfaces has been specified. 2000 trial surfaces will be generated and analyzed. 10 Surfaces initiate from each of 200 points equally spaced Page 2 1 1 1 1 1 5-BEN.OPT along the ground surface between x = 190.0 ft and x = 210.0 ft Each surface terminates between x = 379.0 ft and x = 399.0 ft unless further limitations were imposed, the minimum elevation at which a surface extends is y = 80.0 ft _I. , .. :. . CS 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 Upper angular limit • it • -45.0 degrees (slope angle 5.0) degrees Circular surface (FOS= -7.6869) is defined by: xcenter = -599.24 ycenter = 3932.64 Init. Pt. = 209.90 Seg. Length = 5.00 Factors of safety have been calculated by the : I. I. SIMPLIFIED BISHOP METHOD I. I. .r. /♦ The most critical circular failure surface is specified by 38 coordinate points Point NO. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 x -surf (ft) 205.98 210.88 215.79 220.73 225.69 230.66 235.64 240.64 245.63 250.63 255.63 260.63 265.62 270.60 275.57 280.52 285.46 290.37 y -surf (ft) 101.99 100.97 100.08 99.30 98.64 98.10 97.69 97.39 97.22 97.17 97.24 97.44 97.75 98.19 98.75 99.43 100.23 101.15 Page 3 _.. 1% I. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 295.26 300.12 304.96 309.76 314.53 319.25 323.94 328.58 333.18 337.72 342.22 346.66 351.04 355.36 359.62 363.81 367.94 372.00 375.98 379.31 5-BEN.OPT 102.19 103.35 104.63 106.02 107.54 109.16 110.91 112.76 114.73 116.82 119.01 121.31 123.72 126.23 128.85 131.57 134.40 137.32 140.34 143.00 Simplified BISHOP FOS = 2.044 �..'- flflfl The following is a summary of the TEN most critical surfaces Problem Description : BENNETT PIT CASE 5 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. FOS Circle (BISHOP) x-coord (ft) 2.044 2.108 2.121 2.121 2.167 2.170 2.177 2.179 2.184 2.184 250.18 255.87 246.22 257.70 251.87 235.22 232.27 234.45 236.98 253.70 Center y-coord (ft) 302.04 300.79 315.11 306.25 331.16 357.15 360.55 362.79 361.80 319.59 Radius (ft) 204.87 203.49 217.45 209.23 234.04 260.00 263.43 265.76 264.73 222.06 END OF FILE RAPID DRAWDOWN Initial x-coord (ft) 205.98 208.59 204.88 208.59 205.38 196.83 193.42 194.82 197.74 207.29 I♦ Terminal x-coord (ft) 379.31 384.34 379.12 388.56 391.03 382.66 380.81 383.84 385.97 388.32 Resisting Moment (ft -lb) 2.848E+07 2.970E+07 3.001E+07 3.171E+07 3.612E+07 3.706E+07 3.688E+07 3.835E+07 3.896E+07 3.348E+07 5-BENEQ.OPT XSTABL File: 5-BENEQ 11-23-*;; 10:05 _,.....,........,_ .. '5 I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. #5 I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. #5 I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. .•. I. IS XSTABL Slope Stability Analysis using the Method of Slices Copyright (C) 1992 A 96 Interactive Software Designs, Moscow, ID 83843, U.S.A. All Rights Reserved Ver. 5.105a I. I. I. I. I. Inc. .• I _ _•_ __ I. I. _I_ ♦. .. 95 A 1483 _I_ .•. .•. .•. _•. .•. .•. .•. _•. .•. _•. _•. _•. .•. .•. _•. _•. .•. .•. .•. .• •. .•. _•. .•. • , IS I. I. I. ♦. I. I. I. I. I. I. ♦♦ I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. .: I. ♦♦ I. I. I% .: I• #5 I\ IS I. .•. _•. .•. _•. .. .. .. .. Problem Description : BENNETT PIT CASE 5 EQ SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES 6 SURFACE boundary segments Segment x -left No. (ft) 1 2 3 4 5 6 100.0 200.0 317.0 329.0 352.5 355.5 y -left (ft) 100.0 100.0 139.0 143.0 143.0 143.0 x -right (ft) 200.0 317.0 329.0 352.5 355.5 399.0 13 SUBSURFACE boundary segments Segment No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 x -left (ft) 317.0 352.4 355.5 355.6 200.0 352.3 355.6 355.7 100.0 352.2 355.7 355.8 352.2 y -left (ft) 139.0 139.0 143.0 139.0 100.0 100.0 139.0 100.0 97.0 97.0 100.0 97.0 97.0 ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters x -right (ft) 352.4 352.5 355.6 399.0 352.3 352.4 355.7 399.0 352.2 352.3 355.8 399.0 355.8 Page 1 .•_ _•_ .•. _•. f. I. I. I. _•_ _•_ flfl y -right Soil Unit (ft) Below Segment 100.0 139.0 143.0 143.0 143.0 143.0 y -right (ft) 139.0 143.0 139.0 139.0 100.0 139.0 100.0 100.0 97.0 100.0 97.0 97.0 97.0 2 3 4 4 5 4 Soil Unit Below Segment 3 5 5 3 2 5 5 2 1 5 5 1 1 5-BENEQ.OPT 5 Soil Soil Unit No. 1 2 3 4 5 unit (s) specified Unit Moist (pcf) 125.0 125.0 110.0 110.0 100.0 weight Sat. (pcf) 141.0 141.0 125.0 131.0 110.0 Cohesion Intercept (psf) 2000.0 100.0 . 0 150.0 . 0 Friction Angle (deg) 20.00 18.00 35.00 22.00 45.00 1 water surface (s) have been specified Unit weight of water = 62.40 (pcf) Pore Pressure Parameter Constant Ru (psf) . 000 . 000 . 000 . 000 . 000 water Surface No. 1 specified by 4 coordinate points 1_ ./. •.1_ I\ I\ I. 1. I♦ IS IS I♦ tie 1e Je J. J♦ JA J J J� I\ I\ I. I. I. I. I♦ I• I♦ I♦ IS II.• tile J. a• isle Jo •A• *a Ile Jo *elle ..i. ♦ I. I♦ IS IS IS IS IS /♦ /\ /♦ PHREATIC SURFACE .1. tie ./. .•e .1. ./. .1. ./. .•I \IC .•. I. I\ I. I. It I. IS IS I. I. I\ Point NO. 1 2 3 4 .1. .1. .1. .•i .1. .1. I\ I\ I\ I\ I\ I\ ./. .1. .1. ... I. I. I. I. x -water (ft) 100.00 200.00 320.00 399.00 ./. .1. .1. .1, I\ I. I. I. -I- tie .•# .1. .•i I. I\ I. I♦ I\ I♦ Is I\ IN. tie tie .1. .1. I. Is I\ IS y -water (ft) 100.00 100.00 140.00 140.00 A horizontal earthquake loading coefficient of .070 has been assigned A vertical earthquake loading coefficient of .000 has been assigned BOUNDARY LOADS Load NO. 1 2 2 load(s) specified x -left (ft) 334.0 340.0 x -right (ft) 335.0 341.0 Intensity (psf) 20000.0 20000.0 . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 Direction (deg) 90.0 90.0 NOTE - Intensity is specified as a uniformly distributed force acting on a HORIZONTALLY projected surface. Page 2 water Surface No. 1 1 1 1 1 5-BENEQ.OPT A critical failure surface searching method, using a random technique for generating CIRCULAR surfaces has been specified. 2000 trial surfaces will be generated and analyzed. 10 Surfaces initiate from each of 200 points equally spaced along the ground surface between x = 190.0 ft and x = 210.0 ft Each surface terminates between x = 379.0 ft and x = 399.0 ft Unless further limitations were imposed, the minimum elevation at which a surface extends is y = 80.0 ft .I. .'. /♦ I♦ :: DEFAULT SEGMENT LENGTH SELECTED BY XSTABL I I. 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 Upper angular limit • • • • -45.0 degrees (slope angle - 5.0) degrees Circular surface (FOS= 30.5118) is defined by: xcenter = ycenter = 3932.64 Init. Pt. = 209.90 Seg. Length -599.24 5.00 Factors of safety have been calculated by the : SIMPLIFIED BISHOP METHOD The most critical circular failure surface is specified by 38 coordinate points Point No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 x -surf (ft) 205.98 210.88 215.79 220.73 225.69 230.66 235.64 240.64 245.63 y -surf (ft) 101.99 100.97 100.08 99.30 98.64 98.10 97.69 97.39 97.22 Page 3 I. _'. I. I. flflflfl 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 250.63 255.63 260.63 265.62 270.60 275.57 280.52 285.46 290.37 295.26 300.12 304.96 309.76 314.53 319.25 323.94 328.58 333.18 337.72 342.22 346.66 351.04 355.36 359.62 363.81 367.94 372.00 375.98 379.31 5-BENEQ.OPT 97.17 97.24 97.44 97.75 98.19 98.75 99.43 100.23 101.15 102.19 103.35 104.63 106.02 107.54 109.16 110.91 112.76 114.73 116.82 119.01 121.31 123.72 126.23 128.85 131.57 134.40 137.32 140.34 143.00 Simplified BISHOP FOS = 1.407 The following is a summary of the TEN most critical surfaces Problem Description : BENNETT PIT CASE 5 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. FOS Circle (BISHOP) x-coord (ft) 1.407 1.438 1.439 1.454 1.464 1.478 1.478 1.480 1.483 1.483 250.18 255.87 257.70 246.22 251.87 257.47 253.70 235.22 260.36 234.45 Center y-coord (ft) 302.04 300.79 306.25 315.11 331.16 320.68 319.59 357.15 311.12 362.79 .•. .I. IS IS Radius (ft) 204.87 203.49 209.23 217.45 234.04 223.46 222.06 260.00 213.81 265.76 END OF FILE 1% .I. .I. ♦♦ a' •• EQ Initial x-coord (ft) 205.98 208.59 208.59 204.88 205.38 208.19 207.29 196.83 210.00 194.82 Terminal x-coord (ft) 379.31 384.34 388.56 379.12 391.03 392.96 388.32 382.66 392.43 383.84 Resisting Moment (ft -1 b) 2.743E+07 2.864E+07 3.058E+07 2.893E+07 3.485E+07 3.388E+07 3.231E+07 3.576E+07 3.234E+07 3.702E+07 5-BENF.OPT XSTABL File: 5-BENF 11-23-** 10:06 I\ I♦ I♦ I♦ I. .'- IS I♦ 1% .0. .0. .0. .0. .O. .I. .•. \0. J. .0. .0. •'- --. \0. \0. \t. \•. .-. .0. .-. O. -. \0. - O. .1. - 0. -. - J. O. 0, 0. 0. - 0. O, I♦ I\ I\ 4% I♦ I♦ I\ I\ I♦ I♦ I♦ I♦ I♦ I% I\ I♦ I\ I♦ I♦ I♦ I\ I♦ I♦ I\ 0% I\ I\ I♦ I• I• I\ 4% I\ I! I\ I\ 1% I♦ 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 I♦ .O. Ver. 5.105a 95 A 1483 :; -,- I♦ I\ I♦ I♦ I♦ I♦ I\ I♦ I♦ I♦ I\ I♦ I% I♦ I♦ I♦ I♦ I♦ I♦ I♦ I\ I♦ I% I% I% I\ IS I♦ I\ I% I♦ I♦ I♦ I♦ �. t. .I. I♦ I\ I\ Problem Description : BENNETT PIT CASE 5 FULL SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES 6 SURFACE boundary segments Segment x -left No. (ft) 1 2 3 4 5 6 100.0 200.0 317.0 329.0 352.5 355.5 y -left (ft) 100.0 100.0 139.0 143.0 143.0 143.0 x -right (ft) 200.0 317.0 329.0 352.5 355.5 399.0 13 SUBSURFACE boundary segments Segment No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 x -left (ft) 317.0 352.4 355.5 355.6 200.0 352.3 355.6 355.7 100.0 352.2 355.7 355.8 352.2 y -left (ft) 139.0 139.0 143.0 139.0 100.0 100.0 139.0 100.0 97.0 97.0 100.0 97.0 97.0 ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters x -right (ft) 352.4 352.5 355.6 399.0 352.3 352.4 355.7 399.0 352.2 352.3 355.8 399.0 355.8 Page 1 05 4% 4% 5 y -right Soil Unit (ft) Below Segment 100.0 139.0 143.0 143.0 143.0 143.0 2 3 4 4 5 4 y -right Soil Unit (ft) Below Segment 139.0 143.0 139.0 139.0 100.0 139.0 100.0 100.0 97.0 100.0 97.0 97.0 97.0 3 5 5 3 2 5 5 2 1 5 5 1 1 5-BENF.OPT 5 Soil unit(s) specified Soil Unit Weight Unit Moist Sat. No. (pcf) (pcf) 1 125.0 2 125.0 3 110.0 4 110.0 5 100.0 141.0 141.0 125.0 131.0 110.0 Cohesion Friction Intercept Angle (psf) (deg) 2000.0 100.0 . 0 150.0 . 0 20.00 18.00 35.00 22.00 45.00 1 Water surface(s) have been specified Unit weight of water 62.40 (pcf) Pore Pressure Parameter Constant Ru (psf) . 000 . 000 . 000 . 000 . 000 water Surface No. 1 specified by 2 coordinate points j„11., _,_ ... ....... .............................. _/. _1. .•. flflfl . % flflflrnflfl PHREATIC SURFACE, .,. _I. .I. .-. .-. .-. _I. .♦ I♦ .♦ .\ ,\ I• 0' .♦ .♦ I♦ .♦ Point No. 1 2 flflflflflflfl flflfl x -water (ft) 100.00 399.00 BOUNDARY LOADS Load No. 1 2 j0 JO JO j0 00 Safi. baked, \II ba 2 load(s) specified x -left (ft) 334.0 340.0 flflflfl y -water (ft) 140.00 140.00 x -right (ft) 335.0 341.0 Intensity (psf) 20000.0 20000.0 0 0 0 0 0 Direction (deg) 90.0 90.0 NOTE - Intensity is specified as a uniformly distributed force acting on a HORIZONTALLY projected surface. Water Surface NO. A critical failure surface searching method, using a random technique for generating CIRCULAR surfaces has been specified. 2000 trial surfaces will be generated and analyzed. 10 Surfaces initiate from each of 200 points equally spaced along the ground surface between x = 190.0 ft and x = 210.0 ft Page 2 1 1 1 1 1 5-BENF.OPT 0 a Each surface terminates between x = 379.0 ft and x = 399.0 ft unless further limitations were imposed, the minimum elevation at which a surface extends is y = 80.0 ft 4% 4% DEFAULT SEGMENT LENGTH SELECTED BY XSTABL .I. .I. .. ,. _._ IS I♦ 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 upper angular limit • • . . So -45.0 degrees (slope angle 5.0) degrees Circular surface (FOS= -6.6879) is defined by: xcenter = -9.73 ycenter = 1614.92 Init. Pt. = 209.90 Seg. Length = 5.00 Factors of safety have been calculated by the : IS Is I♦ I♦ SIMPLIFIED BISHOP METHOD .I. .0. /% I\ .l. .e. IS IS The most critical circular failure surface is specified by 40 coordinate points Point NO. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 x -surf (ft) 208.59 213.47 218.37 223.29 228.23 233.19 238.16 243.14 248.14 253.13 258.13 263.13 268.13 273.12 278.10 283.07 288.03 292.96 297.88 302.78 y -surf (ft) 102.86 101.75 100.75 99.87 99.11 98.46 97.93 97.53 97.24 97.07 97.02 97.09 97.28 97.59 98.02 98.56 99.23 100.01 100.91 101.93 Page 3 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 307.65 312.49 317.30 322.07 326.81 331.51 336.17 340.78 345.35 349.86 354.32 358.73 363.08 367.37 371.60 375.76 379.85 383.88 387.83 388.56 5-BENF.OPT 103.07 104.32 105.68 107.17 108.76 110.47 112.29 114.22 116.26 118.41 120.66 123.02 125.49 128.06 130.73 133.50 136.37 139.34 142.40 143.00 Simplified BISHOP FOS = 6.173 :. is I♦ I♦ The following is a summary of the TEN most critical surfaces Problem Description : BENNETT PIT CASE 5 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. FOS Circle (BISHOP) x-coord (ft) 6.173 6.180 6.240 6.398 6.418 6.426 6.468 6.545 6.554 6.671 257.70 250.18 255.87 260.36 251.87 257.47 260.22 253.70 255.34 252.88 Cente r y-coord (ft) 306.25 302.04 300.79 311.12 331.16 320.68 329.52 319.59 344.05 329.80 Radius (ft) 209.23 204.87 203.49 213.81 234.04 223.46 232.46 222.06 246.93 232.22 END OF FILE FULL Initial x-coord (ft) 208.59 205.98 208.59 210.00 205.38 208.19 208.59 207.29 206.18 206.68 J_ .0_ J_ I♦ is I♦ Terminal x-coord (ft) 388.56 379.31 384.34 392.43 391.03 392.96 398.95 388.32 398.69 390.82 Resisting Moment (ft -lb) 3.202E+07 2.877E+07 2.998E+07 3.376E+07 3.640E+07 3.538E+07 3.864E+07 3.372E+07 4.087E+07 3.596E+07 5-BENFEQ.OPT XSTABL File: 5-BENFEQ 11-23-:;* 15:38 _I_ _I. _I_ flflfl ♦♦ .,. It I. I• IS flflfl O_ 0, O, O. O. .,. O_ O. O. O_ O_ O. O. _O_ _O. •a •• •. •• •a •• •a •• •• •. •a •. •♦ •. •. •. •a •• .,. .Jo silo is JIB .l. Sias ago.sire Oa .k_ .•. .•. #5 XSTABL flflflflflflflflflflfl 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 _I. _,. :. .O. _O. .-. .-. .I. .-. .,. .p. _I_ .I. j„la .O_ •. •• •♦ •a •. •• it is IS. it is •• it it •• •. •. IS It .I. It .I. flflflflfl 95 A 1483 I .. J'I . .. .. •• •• IS is .,. .O. _I. •• It Is :. J. J. J. •• •• •a It Problem Description : BENNETT PIT CASE 5 FULL EQ SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES 6 SURFACE boundary segments Segment NO. 1 2 3 4 5 6 x -left (ft) 100.0 200.0 317.0 329.0 352.5 355.5 y -left (ft) 100.0 100.0 139.0 143.0 143.0 143.0 x -right (ft) 200.0 317.0 329.0 352.5 355.5 399.0 13 SUBSURFACE boundary segments Segment x -left No. (ft) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 317.0 352.4 355.5 355.6 200.0 352.3 355.6 355.7 100.0 352.2 355.7 355.8 352.2 y -left (ft) 139.0 139.0 143.0 139.0 100.0 100.0 139.0 100.0 97.0 97.0 100.0 97.0 97.0 ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters x -right (ft) 352.4 352.5 355.6 399.0 352.3 352.4 355.7 399.0 352.2 352.3 355.8 399.0 355.8 Page 1 _p. •• J. Is Oa i. '5 J. #5 Oa :• J. Oa It _.. . P. IS •• y -right Soil Unit (ft) Below Segment 100.0 139.0 143.0 143.0 143.0 143.0 2 3 4 4 5 4 y -right Soil Unit (ft) Below Segment 139.0 143.0 139.0 139.0 100.0 139.0 100.0 100.0 97.0 100.0 97.0 97.0 97.0 3 5 5 3 2 5 5 2 1 5 5 1 1 5-BENFEQ.OPT 5 Soil Soil Unit No. 1 2 3 4 5 unit (s) specified Unit Moist (pcf) 125.0 125.0 110.0 110.0 100.0 weight Sat. (pcf) 141.0 141.0 125.0 131.0 110.0 Cohesion Intercept (psf) 2000.0 100.0 . 0 150.0 . 0 Friction Angle (deg) 20.00 18.00 35.00 22.00 45.00 1 water surface (s) have been specified unit weight of water = 62.40 (pcf) Pore Pressure Parameter Constant Ru (psf) . 000 . 000 . 000 . 000 . 000 water Surface No. 1 specified by 2 coordinate points ♦. I. ♦. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. ♦. /. I. I. I. I. nflflfl _,. ..,. .............. PHREATIC SURFACE, flflflflflrnflflflfl Point No. 1 2 _,- -I- _,. .,. .1. .,. .,. /. I. I. I. IS IS IS flflflfl x -water (ft) 100.00 399.00 I. flflflflflflfl I. I. I. y -water (ft) 140.00 140.00 _,. ISO% A horizontal earthquake loading coefficient of .070 has been assigned A vertical earthquake loading coefficient of .000 has been assigned BOUNDARY LOADS Load NO. 1 2 2 load (s) specified x -left (ft) 334.0 340.0 x -right (ft) 335.0 341.0 Intensity (psf) 20000.0 20000.0 . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 Di rection (deg) 90.0 90.0 NOTE - Intensity is specified as a uniformly distributed force acting on a HORIZONTALLY projected surface. Water Surface No. A critical failure surface searching method, using a random technique for generating CIRCULAR surfaces has been specified. Page 2 1 1 1 1 1 5-BENFEQ.OPT 2000 trial surfaces will be generated and analyzed. 10 Surfaces initiate from each of 200 points equally spaced along the ground surface between x = 190.0 ft and x = 210.0 ft Each surface terminates between x and x 379.0 ft 399.0 ft unless further limitations were imposed, the minimum elevation at which a surface extends is y = 80.0 ft _'a I DEFAULT SEGMENT LENGTH SELECTED BY XSTABL _.. IS IS IS 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 Circular surface (FOS= 45.9265) is defined by: xcenter = -9.73 ycenter = 1614.92 Init. Pt. = 209.90 Seg. Length = 5.00 Factors of safety have been calculated by the : :. _.. I♦ SIMPLIFIED BISHOP METHOD IS I♦ I♦ The most critical circular failure surface is specified by 40 coordinate points Point No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 x -surf (ft) 208.59 213.47 218.37 223.29 228.23 233.19 238.16 243.14 248.14 253.13 258.13 263.13 y -surf (ft) 102.86 101.75 100.75 99.87 99.11 98.46 97.93 97.53 97.24 97.07 97.02 97.09 Page 3 I♦ .... I. I. I. I. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 268.13 273.12 278.10 283.07 288.03 292.96 297.88 302.78 307.65 312.49 317.30 322.07 326.81 331.51 336.17 340.78 345.35 349.86 354.32 358.73 363.08 367.37 371.60 375.76 379.85 383.88 387.83 388.56 5-BENFEQ.OPT 97.28 97.59 98.02 98.56 99.23 100.01 100.91 101.93 103.07 104.32 105.68 107.17 108.76 110.47 112.29 114.22 116.26 118.41 120.66 123.02 125.49 128.06 130.73 133.50 136.37 139.34 142.40 143.00 Simplified BISHOP FOS = 2.680 flflflfl The following is a summary of the TEN most critical Problem Description : BENNETT PIT CASE 5 FOS Ci rcl e (BISHOP) x-coord (ft) 1. 2.680 2. 2.702 3. 2.712 4. 2.725 5. 2.733 6. 2.733 7. 2.734 8. 2.748 9. 2.778 10. 2.800 257.70 250.18 255.87 260.22 260.36 257.47 251.87 255.34 253.70 253.10 -I- Center y-coord (ft) 306.25 302.04 300.79 329.52 311.12 320.68 331.16 344.05 319.59 348.07 Radius (ft) 209.23 204.87 203.49 232.46 213.81 223.46 234.04 246.93 222.06 250.65 END OF FILE FULL EQ Initial x-coord (ft) 208.59 205.98 208.59 208.59 210.00 208.19 205.38 206.18 207.29 205.78 surfaces Terminal x-coord (ft) 388.56 379.31 384.34 398.95 392.43 392.96 391.03 398.69 388.32 397.21 Resisting Moment (ft -1 b) 3.078E+07 2.762E+07 2.880E+07 3.723E+07 3.249E+07 3.405E+07 3.503E+07 3.939E+07 3.245E+07 3.942E+07 APPENDIX D IIJ&T Consulting, Inc. Northern Colorado Constructors, Inc. - Bennett Pit Slope Stability Analysis SARE, INC. (; 'otechnical Engineers <l Construction Materials Consultants September 1, 2016 Mr. JC York, P.E. J&T Consulting, Inc. 305 Denver Avenue, Suite D Fort Lupton, CO 80621 Subject: Subsurface and Laboratory Results Bennett Property Gravel Site Weld County, Colorado Project No. 16.3066 Dear Mr. York: Enclosed are boring logs and laboratory test results for the subsurface study at the project titled "Bennett Property Gravel Site" located at the northeast corner of Weld County Road (WCR) 25 and 22-1/2 between Platteville and Fort Lupton, Colorado. The site is bound by WCR 25 to the west, WCR 22-1/2 to the south, the South Platte River to the east, and farmland to the north. The study was conducted to assist in determining the nature and extent of potential gravel resources. Subsurface conditions were investigated by drilling nine borings at the locations indicated in Figure 1. Boring locations were determined by others prior to drilling. The borings were advanced using an AP -1000 percussion hammer Becker drill rig with a 5 inch inner diameter dual wall steel drive pipe. This allows for continuous recovery of the subsurface materials. Bulk samples of the subsurface materials were collected from each boring at various intervals. The subsurface conditions indicated 3 to 8 feet of topsoil over 27 to 48 feet of overburden soils, over bedrock. The overburden soils consisted of sands with varying amount of gravel, sandy gravel, and clay lenses. The clay lenses were encountered in Borings B-2 and B-4 at depths of 16 and 32 feet, respectively, and were a foot or less in thickness. Bedrock was encountered at depths of 32 to 52 feet and consisted of claystone, siltstone, and sandstone with lenses of lignite. In general, the top 1 to 3 feet of the bedrock was weathered. Groundwater was encountered at depths of 5 to 11 feet at the time of drilling. These observations represent conditions at the time and location of field exploration and may not be indicative of other times or other locations. Groundwater can be expected to fluctuate with various seasonal, irrigation, water level in the South Platte River, and weather conditions. A more complete description of subsurface conditions is shown in Figure 2 with Key to Symbols. Samples were returned to the Cesare laboratory where they were visually classified and appropriate testing assigned to specific samples to evaluate grain size distribution of the bulk samples collected. Laboratory test results are presented in Table 1 and Appendix A. 7108 South Alton Way, Building B Centennial, Colorado 80112 www.cesareinc.com Phone 303-220-0300 • Fax 303-220-0442 CESARE, INC. questions you have any or comments in regards to this information, please feel free to contact our office. Sincerely, CESARE, INC. Y Darin R. Duran, P.E. Principal, Geotechnical Engineering Manager DRD/ksm Attachments 16.3066 Bennett Property Gravel Site Letter 09.01.16 D v) Cii ~ ro M '-i 6 `o O W 2 ≥ " � MI o a) 1/4., a Q ID a) o a Ica (D C E D I, poorly graded (SP; A -1-a) L, with sand, poorly grad I, poorly grad SAND, with gravel, poorly grad I, poorly grad II grad Material g (.9, uopepea 9 %ea., ).. r. alma MI C N N M M IT V) V 2 V n N in in MO in CO M cc O (1) M ni ni l0 al M Clias a O ICI ir: N 7t- co 1 IT ri t^ sifirm. w w41) O, O ni O O O M II O N O o N 0 M N 00 N O N d' LOI M Locati ri al LU m up co N 00 N 00 C so r-+ m ,-s oo CO - - - - - a) ID H4-) a) C iv H L- 0 11 E 0 E E 0-5 tn U a) a 0 L b a) C C 0 M a) 4-, 0 0 i Ur) a) > M Q . LLI I- 12ISIQ Q9 Z% 6 w I 0 w Q U pt O 2 ri O M c c U) 0O Lp a1 a. 00 m iii Ll_. O .. O z uLz 2 Q z . . >- .. EL �_ Q W w 6 6 � (-9 0 0 _r Depth in Feet I I I 1 1 I I 1 O 0 O O O 7 V •0 In !Hiiii:t I = N af) '•-- - Ho. :at O O O O O o O I I I I I I I 1 l I t I I I I I 1 1 I I 1 I 1 I I t I 1 I I I I I I I 1111 aoj UI lijdaa O m Bennett Property Gravel w i Q Z O cc KEY TO SYMBOLS Symbol Description Strata symbols • ova .. . . . •• .... .. • . • . • .• • • • • • • • • • • r ••. ••• ••• . • .. •• .. • • • • • • . • IP -Oil • Notes: TOPSOIL; CLAY, sandy, moist, brown. SAND, with occasional gravel, wet, well graded, brown (SW; A- 1-b). SAND, with gravel, poorly to well graded, wet, brown (SP. SW; A -1-a, A -1-b). CLAY, sandy, silty, very moist to moist, with occasional iron oxide staining, brown (CL; A- 6). SAND, with gravel and occasional cobbles, poorly graded ,moist to wet, poorly graded, brown (SP; A -1-a). GRAVEL, with sand and cobbles, poorly graded, wet, brown (GP, A -1-a). WEATHERED CLAYSTONE, moist, laminated, with iron oxide staining and lignite, brown to gray. WEATHERED SHALE, clayey, moist, brown to gray. CLAYSTONE, moist, gray. SHALE, clayey, moist, gray. LIGNITE, clayey, moist, black. Symbol Description SANDSTONE, wet, tan. Misc. Symbols XL Water level during drilling 1. Exploratory borings B-1 through B-9 were drilled on August 8th and 9th, 2016, using an AP -1000 percussion hammer Becker drill rig with a 5 -inch inner diameter dual wall steel drive pipe. 2. Groundwater was encountered at depths of 5 to 11 feet below ground surface in all borings during drilling. For safety purposes, borings were backfilled at the completion of the study. 3. Contacts between soil units are approximate and may be gradational. 4. These logs are subject to the limitations, conclusions, and recommendations in this report. Project No. 16.3066. APPENDIX A Laboratory Test Results SARE, INC. 'r1 l�11•c h►tit ul l:nginec•r.% ( onstrurtiun .11utt'riul.s Consultants Project Number: Project Name: Lab ID Number: Sample Location: Visual Description: GRADATION PLOT - SOIL & AGGREGATE 16.3066, J&T Consulting Bennett Property Gravel Site F162093 B-1 at 10' to 20' Date: Technician: Reviewer: 25 -Aug -16 F. Sperberg/N. Dillon D. Duran SAND, with gravel/ brown AASHTO M 145 Classification: Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM D 2487): A -1-b Group Index: (SW) Well graded sand with gravel 100 90 80 70 n 60 E .ra 50 Z In a 40 a 30 20 10 0 CJ 1 I 1 IND N Co •-I M 1 • 1 0 Co •--I O O Z Z 1 4 o o 0 M V' Lf) O O O z z z 0 0 r4 O 2 0 0 N O Z e I i 1 • I I I 1 i _ 1 1 1 1 1 1 I _ 1 _ 1 _ 1 I l I _ i 1 4 - 1 1 1 I- 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 p I r 1 1 • +f -4--- -•- 1 1 1 1 1 1 _ I I I 1 1 I _ 1 1 1 •hit 1 1 1 I 1 1 akel7ttI , 1 1 1 L I r 1 1 I 1 -t 1 1 I I I 1 I I I I -- • -1 I 1 I • • I I t— t I I 1 I _ I i 1 1 1 -t al I I I 1 1 1 1 -r 1 I I I 1 I I t 1 I- I 1 i _ 1 1 I r 1 a-4 _ 1 1 • f .- • 1 1 • 1 I 1 1 1 II 1 1 I I I I I 0 I I Ir _ i _ I . 1 1-1 I • I 2.75 -� 0.98 0.34 0 0 0 oo O ui M Cr; N 0 0 M 0 N N 03 0 0 . i v --I O en lDizr O O SIEVE SIZE, mm O M U, O 0 .--I 0 U, r. O O O 0 Moisture (M) Density (D) & M, %: 0.2 D, pcf: LL PL PI D60 D30 D10 Cc 2.75 0.98 0.34 7.99 1.01 7108 South Alton Way, Building B • Centennial, Colorado 80112 • www.cesareinc.com Gradation F162093 Phone 303-220-0300 • Fax 303-220-0442 Rev. 3/30/12 ARE, INC. n riteC ttti iii 1:tl0nWM .( ('r,tt'truc lira Materials Consultants Project Number: Project Name: Lab ID Number: Sample Location: Visual Description: GRADATION PLOT - SOIL & AGGREGATE 16.3066, J&T Consulting Bennett Property Gravel Site F162094 B-1 at 36' to 40' Date: Technician: Reviewer: 25 -Aug -16 F. Sperberg/N. Dillon D. Duran GRAVEL, with sand, light brown AASHTO M 145 Classification: Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM D 2487): A -1-a Group Index: (GP) Poorly graded gravel with sand 0 0 �0 o 0 2 0 0 M az!s ana!s 0/0 Passing Inn .(O CO N •-i •-I M NZ' Z ZZ Z Z Z Z Z Z ,- I i i I I i I i' I i i i t -t i -- - I - t -- i t --t-- --i- t - t I . t t r--, ♦-- �- t I -, - I i I I I I i I i- I I I 1 �� 6 100 f 1 --- --t-_ 1-- !— I I L I I I I I I 4 I____ 3" 92 II I I I I I I I I i . a tI I I I 11--` I 4----, I- ,-.-- 2" 62 I I I I I .— I ' 4 ► ► ► ► 4 --*-- t -I ► 1.5" 55 I k I I 1 I 1" 47 I , ► I I I - �--A I- I - 3/4" 45 . - I I 4 I I I .I -I` I . I - I 1 ,- - 1 I I I t I - 1 1/2" 44 . _-1- 1 I I I I I s ----t I 3/8" 42 I I I r I I a a t I I. I t a 1 I 38 1#4 I 1 t I -- 1 • I 1 1. 1 I t I 1___-_4-1 -I 1 . #8 t I I I I I 1---4-- I I I I - I. . #10 29 r► a- .., r - - - r I mi. a I -.0 1 I I I I r,.. 1 `1- I `---' 1 — 1 -t—• --I'-'- - # 16 22 drym t T s 1 1 —' r- 1-- �. t r- #30 • • ! I� I ;= -1-- #40 11 ----, I1 I I 1 I_ 1 _ -- -- ---__I_ I ,, I I I I I I I .I I I I � I. I I _I I 1 I I I #50 8 -`-4 _...---.4-_, I � - } I ' #100 6 4 t --I 'i t- -t- t t t t -►-I, 1—`—i I 1 i i # 200 4.2 ——`i,' I J i I I J I I '—'i I —1 I s 1 a I I a i I I a— a 1 a I a I a I a I 1 -.3 I t is 1 •--•—t 1 I I I I I I 1 1 I 1 I ► / 1 I 1 I Moisture Density (M) (D) & -; ; ; * ;--- 1-r- ti 1 r I- I- r I r T!' •! I - I M, %: 0.2 !r ! I I a I I s a ! I II D, pcf• I 1 _____s_._ 1 I I It I a I I I I 1 I1 t I I I I I I Ill 1 I ► I I - 1 ► 1 1 I 1 1 't 1P I I I I T I M !' ■ I ■ I ■ I ■ I I ■ II T I t 1 I LL —r L_ 1 1 I 1 I T - 1 �_111_i I1 PL k i I I IS i 1 ` _ _--► iIr • s �____ I - ,1. I I , _--.1 -- Pi I 1 1 I I I 1 t I ►, t t •1 t t 1e 4 I I I t— t ' f� 1' 1 T Duo 47.00 •; .i '1`"_"-_-'T rt ' ► ' 47.00 ; i__ 2.23 _; 0.37 ; I D30 2.23 I ■ 1 1 1 I ■. ■I I 1 I 0 !� 1/40 0 M O CID Q 0 If OM rte-+ 0 in N N 1? 1.11 �! N Q Ln N 0 r< tri CT D10 0.37 O •—' 0 O N O M N 9--1 0 �f N N .--i ■-1 O O O O O ° O .--I 0 '-' C u 125.67 v -I SIEVE SIZE, mm Cc 0.28 7108 South Alton Way, Building B • Centennial, Colorado 80112 • www.cesareinc.com Gradation F162094 Phone 303-220-0300 • Fax 303-220-0442 Rev. 3/30/12 SARE, INC. 5ecoaPC/r►ric•arl Engineers J Construction 1luterialN Con GRADATION PLOT - SOIL & AGGREGATE Project Number: 16.3066, J&T Consulting Project Name: Bennett Property Gravel Site Lab ID Number: F162095 Sample Location: B-6 at 20' to 30' Visual Description: SAND, with gravel, light brown AASHTO M 145 Classification: A -1-a Group Index: Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM D 2487): (SP) Date: Technician: Reviewer: 25 -Aug -16 F. Sperberg/N. Dillon D. Duran Poorly graded sand with gravel 0 0 Q O0 Ni ve Size Ch C '_ V) V) C. - - - 7r. �O vLn ,-i N in O 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 O M N r4 M Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Zrn 0 0 100 1 I 1 I 1 I I I I I I 1t. 1 1 1 1 ,, sees ' 1 ',■■■ 1 1 ■■ 1 ii■■ _ 1kg 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 . 1 1 1=p■■.-_ ' ■■■■r. ■■n ' 1■ ■ ■■ _■ 1 ■ �� 3r1 1 �� i 111 ■ i ta_ 1 1 1 1 ■■■ ■ I . .■ 1 1 1 ■ ■ ■■_ 2!1 92 1■ ■�.�, 1 1 1 .■ 1 1II 1 ■■■■_ 1 1 1 1■■■� 87 II 81 ■'I'F ■ ' �� t■q■_" 3/" 78 1■■■Cs ■■ ' ■■N ' s ' 1 / rl 2 74 1 I I 1 1 ■■M M 1 1 i - • • • l -;- 1 1 1 1 3/8" 71 70 11111 et 1 ► #4 61 1■ ■ 1■ ■\1■ ■■ a__ ��R■ �� 1■ ■ 1 L-_ ■■►■ 1 1 ■■ 1 ■ 1[],■■\ 11■11 1■ ■ -_#8 rulh' #10 46 1 1 1 I pp i a 1 � i 160 . -—�; 1�1 ; ; # 16 35 E I t!■.■ 1 is II ■ ■ir, 1 $- ■ 1 1 ' I 1 ■ 1 1 1 .. I ■ 1 , I I■H ■ # 30 L 111111 I 1 I 1 I I 1 1 I 1 �„NEU I 1 1 1 1 # 40 15 I �—f I I .- -I 1 I I I I 1 1 so 50I ' '� • • 1 lull. 1 1III M�� It IS ■ ■ ■ �� ■�� # 100 3 z ■ ■■■ 1 �_ ■ ■ in I I 1 1 1III �. ■#2002.2 �t{J 0 II II UI; I 0. 1 ■■■■ ■� ■■ I� ■==■_ C ■�■ ■ I I i■■ I , I Moisture Density (M) (D) & ■ ■ • • 1 ■■■■ 1 ,.■ •1 • 1 ,■ ■■.-_ ,■ �� ■�AAN� �■ ' ' ' �■ ■■■■� 30 MIS 1 ,■■■� � VI ' i■n ■q■■■■� M, %:I 2.0 1 1 ■■�W u, a 1 1 ■■ D, cf . �■ ■■ =■H■ Estop III1 1 1 , a 1 1 I II i111 20 I I I I I 11111 LL 111I ■■■ ■ ' ■ ► ■■■� PL 1 1 ■S 1 1 ■1!'n ■■■_ Ile,: �a ' ill =Ea ' I■II ■� PI rmumna � I 1■Ill 10 I■ ■■ 1 u in till ti■nag 1 ■■■ 1 ■■■■ 1 ■ 1 1 H■ 1 airall D60 4.45 i ■f y, ■■■ ■� 1 ■■ 'I■H■■ ■� ■' ■ 1 1 1 I ■■ 4.45 1 ; 0.92 1 ; 0.34 II D30 0.92 tor I 111111 .. 1 1 1 1 iila■ 0 0 0 0 N lr< co Ln O in M .� N — N � �r 0 in � O C000�Lc 0 V N N co O - SIEVE SIZE, Tr 6 6 6 O mm 0 a 0 O o 6 D10 0.34 Cu 13.24 Cc 0.57 7108 South Alton Way, Building B • Centennial, Colorado 80112 • www.cesareinc.com Gradation F162095 Phone 303-220-0300 • Fax 303-220-0442 Rev. 3/30/12 SARE, INC. ceote dt 11 ie al Inginee'rs & ( o,islruc lion Consultant. GRADATION PLOT - SOIL & AGGREGATE Project Number: 16.3066, J&T Consulting Date: Project Name: Bennett Property Gravel Site Technician: Lab ID Number: F162096 Reviewer: Sample Location: B-6 at 30' to 40' Visual Description: SAND, with gravel, light brown 25 -Aug -16 F. Sperberg/N. Dillon D. Duran AASHTO M 145 Classification: A -1-a Group Index: Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM D 2487): (SP) Poorly graded sand with gravel 100 90 80 70 60 ea I- 50 z 0 30 20 10 0 i N bo M O Z COo 0 O O 6 Z Z Z r o O 6 6 z z z O O O Z O O N O Z 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ll 1 �■ 1■R■■■ lb . e I I e e i e 1■t-- li■■■ �I I■■■ ■■ an ■q I I ■ ■■■■� -ii e II 11�■ 1111111 1■l■ 1■!I■■tIRH iI ■■, IN e I I II ►- 1 I I e ■■■■ ■ e ■■ 1 e i I,■ ■ ■■■ I� 1 �-■� I e e■I�a q■ I ■■ I I 1 I■ ■■■■_ ■ ...&al. ■ ■ . , - t ■ 111111_II ■ 1 in lL . 111 . 1 I 1 I 1 ■ 1 7 H■ ■■ ■ ■■ I■ _■ ■__ s�_ ■� 1 e e 1 eu■R■■ Uhl Mina 116 1 1 : 1 111 i�111111. ■1. In I II is 1 e ■ e e 1 I■ti■ ■■ ■ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 a■ ` ■ 1 1 ■ 1 1 1 I■ti■ ■■_ N■ i . il ■ 111■■� 11111■I . H 6 I I I ■l■■ as ■■qni ■q■■■■� ■II■�I nil1 ■■■� S 1■ ■■■ IS ogi■■l■■ • 1 . . . I 1 ,_ t n al� .e s eI■Ifil gni I 1 t ELLInila - rii4 Zia I I I i Pill liall I all atm um . . . ■■■■� t e s a. m 1Eli �■ s s e -III■ ■ ■ ■>■■ ■ e I■d■■■■� 1►n I lU■■■_ 1 1■ �■■■■�t 1 I111 ■ ■1■ ■1 ■I■■ ■SOM� q 1■R■ q■i ■t■� ■nra__ I■q■■■ ■ a a■w■Ar■.s Auq��s 1 an1 ■ �s ■�senlr��■�■ qii■■■ .. L''.i_-.90■ 11i ■y • IIF I 11 7 1.18 ■ ' 0.35 :��■■■■� . al j I 1 l 1 1 ■ 1 • �. 1 ,■A■■■■_ 1 . 1 . 1 l 1 1 ■ ■ 0 0 0 ul in M N -4 0 N. O cNi ▪ o LEI N ';t' MCD O N N �O . i ' • ~ gTh lO M O O O SIEVE SIZE, mm Ln O 0 0 2" 1.5" 1" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #8 # 10 # 16 #30 # 40 # 100 89 81 74 39 30 13 8 4 2.6 Moisture (M) & Density (D) LL PL D60 D30 D10 0.7 1.18 0.35 22.38 0.50 7108 South Alton Way, Building B • Centennial, Colorado 80112 • www.cesareinc.com Gradation F162096 Phone 303-220-0300 • Fax 303-220-0442 Rev. 3/30/12 SARE, INC. '►'rc,tc�rlinircll l n,,'irirrr� .� ( cu»tr[�c ttr,�t t/utc•riul% ( 011%1111(11M GRADATION PLOT - SOIL & AGGREGATE Project Number: 16.3066, J&T Consulting Project Name: Bennett Property Gravel Site Lab ID Number: F162092 Sample Location: B-7 at 8' to 20' Date: Technician: Reviewer: 25 -Aug -16 F. Sperberg/N. Dillon D. Duran Visual Description: SAND, with gravel, light brown AASHTO M 145 Classification: A -1-a Group Index: Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM D 2487): (SP) Poorly graded sand with gravel 100 90 80 70 n 60 ow .0 50 .. z a 40 a 30 20 10 0 in _ Co ` Cl .-r r-i M z 0 0 0 la 0 0 0 0 0 0 CO ° ° z z z z z zzz 1 1 II--; 1 1 I- 1 - 1 ` - — r I 1 1 --f- I 1 1 -1—► I 1 t 1 t f I t 1 t I t 1 I 1 , 1 1 1 / I r 1 t 1 1 I 1- I r 1 1 1 • 1 _1. 1 1 1 J t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 + 1 i 1 t-- 1 -1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -t 1 t 1 1 1 t 1 1 ■ 1 1 1 ■ ■ 1 I t 1 1 1 1 1 T 1 ~ 1 T 1- 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 _1 1 1 __ -1 1 1 t 4 I- 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 -I p t 1 t 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 t t 1 -- 1 t 1 1 1 1 t p 1 1 t 1 f 1 1 1 - t -1 �I C 1 1 1 I I .1 1 1 1 i___ / I 1 i T- i t ---t 1 1 1 1 - 1 I I 1 1 ■ I I 1 —`—~I 1 1- 1 i 1 II• 1 7 1 T i 1 1 1 1 1 1 _ 1 p / 1 —1 1 _l 1 , 1 1 1 1 ; 1 i 4 1 a t 1 1 I 1 1 w / 1 1. I 1 1 1 t 1 t i 1 t t t 1 t t % I 1 1 1 I I 1 1 I 1 ,1 • 1 ale 1 le aSoa 1 aai�a 1 A 1 ■ 2 as •' atie —i 1�1 1 __-_t._ t , 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 t ILi�---- 1 l- 1 ; 1 ,/ _ 1 1 t ---t 1 t t--- 1 1 - I 1 t- 1 1 1 1 1 1 p_____1 1 t 1 1. - t 1 p I I `v I I ■ -'---� I I' I I I — II - -' 1 ---f `1-I —;- L I 11 ' I I ___A ; t ; , $ 1 _ I 1 1 1-_-- -0 1 --J--*1. 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 --tr —!■■■►��T—r-- �1rr�- I ■rr 1 1 I , 1 1 1 t��1 1 ■ 1 ' ' 1 I' `7 / I 1 r I j IT I I t, ( 0.39 I! �° 1 1.32 6.09 ' 1 1_ ' _, ' I 1 1 1 - ■ t L 1 __ _ I I 1 l l 1 1 It ■ 1 t ■ 1 ■ t ■ 1 ■ 1 t l ■ 0 0 0 Or Ln �f r' th (V N 0 In M O N N 0 oo '-4 O o In O O O SIEVE SIZE, mm U, O 0 r--4 0 U, O O 0 O Sieve Size U) a O 2" 100 1.5" 99 1" 86 3/4" 78 1/2" 72 3/8" 68 #4 56 #8 # 10 38 # 16 28 #30 #40 11 #50 7 # 100 4 # 200 2.5 Moisture (M) Density (D) & M, %: 0.4 D, pcf: LL PL PI D60 6.09 D30 1.32 D10 0.39 Cu 15.62 Cc 0.73 7108 South Alton Way, Building B • Centennial, Colorado 80112 • www.cesareinc.com Gradation F162092 Phone 303-220-0300 • Fax 303-220-0442 Rev. 3/30/12 SARE, INC. '► flan. lli►frill I:►o:ulcer.s 011Niru( 111)1► thisultu►►th GRADATION PLOT - SOIL & AGGREGATE Project Number: 16.3066, J&T Consulting Project Name: Bennett Property Gravel Site Lab ID Number: F162098 Sample Location: B-7 at 20' to 27' Date: Technician: Reviewer: 25 -Aug -16 F. Sperberg/N. Dillon D. Duran Visual Description: SAND, with gravel, light brown AASHTO M 145 Classification: A -1-a Group Index: Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM D 2487): (SP) Poorly graded sand with gravel I (N nn O O in ?Ni Co 6 0 0 6 0 0 0 6 6 ri ri m r-+ to z z z z z z z z Z 'V N a) >1 V) CA C al d o ► 1 •---- 1 1 1 1 T 1 I t 1 1 i 1 1 i 1 ---I--- ,- 1 1-' 1 ♦-- i 4 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 -, 1 1 1 T T 1 T 1 �_ /--- *— 7 T 1 . 1 t 1 1 ! 2" 100 I I1 1 1 1 1 4- 1 1 4 1 T 1 ► 1 1 1 / / F 1 1 1 i 1 1 1.5" 93 1 ---t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1" 91 t I 1 T -t 1 1I / 1 I T 1 1 . 1 T 1 11 1 3/4" 90 ;---- 1 1/2" 88 1 3/8" 87 I I I w 1 t I I I #4 82 I 1 .t I ' #8 1 T 1 -, #10 46 lass; m .... 1 1 t # 16 34 Ip t t 1- / P 1 p 1 p I I 1 I r --t t ' 1 I a #30 I 1 1 1 i 1 1 --t t 1 1 # 40 9 • T 1 T 1 T 11 I 1 T T 1 1 1 1 I T I T #50 5 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1. A i 1 1 # 100 3 I 1 -1 1 1 I 1 1 ' � 4-'-; t #200 2.4 1 . i I - I --- ► Moisture Density (M) (D) & .- r--. t-- -II-T- 1 �,—.T,--- 1 � 1 1 p - —1— `—� ,--_ -._.-. air `-a-i--ta I aaa M, %: 0.2 . ., 1 , ' I , D, pcf: 1 I I 1—t- . t I 1 TI 1 1 1 1 , 1 1 . 1 1 1 1 LL 1 1 1 1 1 1 _ 1 I , l 1 `� PL i , 1 1 1 1 �i 1 a 1 1 -PI FI I 1 10 1 1 1 1 1 I D60 2.83 1- `- t' __. ! i 1 1 1 1 ; - - 2.83 1.01 0.45 �► , 1 1 ,, �` ...._� D 30 . 1 01 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 , 1 1 I! I 1 1 t CO 1 .I- . 4 N- in lD O o O M O vl O Ln 0.o �, N o N 01O .-4O QD M r-+ N 0 • D10 . 045 Q kr, M (N •--' '-' 0 V' N Ni .- 1--1 O O O O Q O O o Cu 6.33 SIEVE SIZE, mm Cc 0.81 7108 South Alton Way, Building B • Centennial, Colorado 80112 • www.cesareinc.com Gradation F162098 Phone 303-220-0300 • Fax 303-220-0442 Rev. 3/30/12 APPENDIX E id i J&T Consulting, Inc. Northern Colorado Constructors, Inc. - Bennett Pit Slope Stability Analysis • a) ca) a as a) C, V W O . w 2% rrobabi a) N Q O N t� O 5 c9 U, O to O O M O O N O O N O 00 z to ct' O O to O CO O N CO N O r CO N O to N Hello