HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.16 Soil-Geo tech-Dust Control) ) United States Department of Agriculture ~ NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service A product of the National Cooperative Soil Survey, a joint effort of the United States Department
of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local participants Custom Soil Resource Report for Douglas-Plateau Area,
Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties January 2,2010
Preface Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas. They highlight soil limitations that affect various land uses and provide information about the
properties of the soils in the survey areas. Soil surveys are designed for many different users, including farmers , ranchers, foresters, agronomists, urban planners, community officials,
engineers, developers, builders, and home buyers. Also, conservationists, teachers, students, and specialists in recreation, waste disposal, and pollution control can use the surveys
to help them understand, protect, or enhance the environment. Various land use regulations of Federal, State, and local governments may impose special restrictions on land use or land
treatment. Soil surveys identify soil properties that are used in making various land use or land treatment decisions. The information is intended to help the land users identify and
reduce the effects of soil limitations on various land uses. The landowner or user is responsible for identifying and complying with existing laws and regulations. Although soil survey
information can be used for general farm, local, and wider area planning, on site investigation is needed to supplement this information in some cases. Examples include soil quality
assessments (hUp:llsoils.usda.gov/sqi/) and certain conservation and engineering applications. For more detailed information, contact your local USDA Service Center (hUp:/Ioffices.sc.egov.usda.gov/lo
cator/app? agency=nrcs) or your NRCS State Soil Scientist (hUp:/Isoi ls.usda.gov/contacU state_offices/). Great differences in soil properties can occur within short distances. Some
soils are seasonally wet or subject to flooding . Some are too unstable to be used as a foundation for buildings or roads. Clayey orwet soils are poorly suited to use as septic tank
absorption fields. A high water table makes a soil poorly suited to basements or underground installations. The National Cooperative Soil Survey is a joint effort of the United States
Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)
has leadership for the Federal part of the National Cooperative Soil Survey. Information about soils is updated periodically. Updated information is available through the NRCS Soil Data
Mart Web site or the NRCS Web Soil Survey. The Soil Data Mart is the data storage site for the official soil survey information. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination
in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion,
sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited
bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means 2 ) )
for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TOD). To file a complaint of discrimination,
write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.w., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal
opportunity provider and employer. 3
Contents Preface .................................................................................................................... 2 How Soil Surveys Are Made .....................................
............................................. 5 Soil Map .................................................................................................................. 7 Soil Map
................................................................................................................ 8 Legend .............................................................................
..................................... 9 Map Unit Legend ................................................................................................ 1 0 Map Unit Descriptions ....................
.................................................................... 10 Douglas-Plateau Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties ........ 12 28-Cumulic Haploborolis, 1 to
3 percent slopes ....................................... 12 44-Happle very channery sandy loam, 3 to 12 percent slopes ................. 12 46-Happle-Rock outcrop association, 25 to
65 percent slopes ................. 13 67-Tosca channery loam, 25 to 80 percent slopes ................................... 14 Soil Information for All Uses ...........................................
.................................... 16 Soil Reports ........................................................................................................ 16 AOI Inventory ........................
.......................................................................... 16 Map Unit Description (Brief, Generated) (NRCS Soil Survey) .................... 16 References ...........................
................................................................................. 19 4
How Soil Surveys Are Made Soil surveys are made to provide information about the soils and miscellaneous areas in a specific area. They include a description of the soils and miscellaneous
areas and their location on the landscape and tables that show soil properties and limitations affecting various uses. Soil scientists observed the steepness, length, and shape of the
slopes; the general pattern of drainage; the kinds of crops and native plants; and the kinds of bedrock. They observed and described many soil profiles. A soil profile is the sequence
of natural layers, or horizons, in a soil. The profile extends from the surface down into the unconsolidated material in which the soil formed or from the surface down to bedrock. The
unconsolidated material is devoid of roots and other living organisms and has not been changed by other biological activity. Currently, soils are mapped according to the boundaries of
major land resource areas (MLRAs). MLRAs are geographically associated land resource units that share common characteristics related to physiography, geology, climate, water resources,
soils, biological resources, and land uses (USDA, 2006). Soil survey areas typically consist of parts of one or more MLRA. The soils and miscellaneous areas in a survey area occur in
an orderly pattern that is related to the geology, landforms, relief, climate, and natural vegetation of the area. Each kind of soil and miscellaneous area is associated with a particular
kind of landform or with a segment of the landform. By observing the soils and miscellaneous areas in the survey area and relating their position to specific segments of the landform,
a soil scientist develops a concept, or model, of how they were formed. Thus, during mapping, this model enables the soil scientist to predict with a considerable degree of accuracy
the kind of soil or miscellaneous area at a specific location on the landscape. Commonly, individual soils on the landscape merge into one another as their characteristics gradually
change. To construct an accurate soil map, however, soil scientists must determine the boundaries between the soils. They can observe only a limited number of soil profiles. Nevertheless,
these observations, supplemented by an understanding of the soil-vegetation-Iandscape relationship, are sufficient to verify predictions of the kinds of soil in an area and to determine
the boundaries. Soil scientists recorded the characteristics of the soil profiles that they studied. They noted soil color, texture, size and shape of soil aggregates, kind and amount
of rock fragments, distribution of plant roots, reaction, and other features that enable them to identify soils. After describing the soils in the survey area and determining their properties,
the soil scientists assigned the soils to taxonomic classes (units). Taxonomic classes are concepts. Each taxonomic class has a set of soil characteristics with precisely defined limits.
The classes are used as a basis for comparison to classify soils systematically. Soil taxonomy, the system of taxonomic classification used in the United States, is based mainly on the
kind and character of soil properties and the arrangement of horizons within the profile. After the soil scientists classified and named the soils in the survey area, they compared the
5
Custom Soil Resource Report individual soils with similar soils in the same taxonomic class in other areas so that they could confirm data and assemble additional data based on experience
and research. The objective of soil mapping is not to delineate pure map unit components; the objective is to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar
use and management requirements. Each map unit is defined by a unique combination of soil components and/or miscellaneous areas in predictable proportions. Some components may be highly
contrasting to the other components of the map unit. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The delineation of such
landforms and landform segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, on site investigation is
needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. Soil scientists make many field observations in the process of producing a soil map. The frequency of observation is dependent
upon several factors, including scale of mapping, intensity of mapping, design of map units, complexity of the landscape, and experience of the soil scientist. Observations are made
to test and refine the soillandscape model and predictions and to verify the classification of the soils at specific locations. Once the soil-landscape model is refined, a significantly
smaller number of measurements of individual soil properties are made and recorded. These measurements may include field measurements, such as those for color, depth to bedrock, and
texture, and laboratory measurements, such as those for content of sand, silt, clay, salt, and other components. Properties of each soil typically vary from one point to another across
the landscape. Observations for map unit components are aggregated to develop ranges of characteristics for the components. The aggregated values are presented. Direct measurements do
not exist for every property presented for every map unit component. Values for some properties are estimated from combinations of other properties. While a soil survey is in progress,
samples of some of the soils in the area generally are collected for laboratory analyses and for engineering tests. Soil scientists interpret the data from these analyses and tests as
well as the field-observed characteristics and the soil properties to determine the expected behavior of the soils under different uses. Interpretations for all of the soils are field
tested through observation of the soils in different uses and under different levels of management. Some interpretations are modified to fit local conditions, and some new interpretations
are developed to meet local needs. Data are assembled from other sources, such as research information, production records, and field experience of specialists. For example, data on
crop yields under defined levels of management are assembled from farm records and from field or plot experiments on the same kinds of soil. Predictions about soil behavior are based
not only on soil properties but also on such variables as climate and biological activity. Soil conditions are predictable over long periods of time, but they are not predictable from
year to year. For example, soil scientists can predict with a fairly high degree of accuracy that a given soil will have a high water table within certain depths in most years, but they
cannot predict that a high water table will always be at a specific level in the soil on a specific date. After soil scientists located and identified the significant natural bodies
of soil in the survey area, they drew the boundaries of these bodies on aerial photographs and identified each as a specific map unit. Aerial photographs show trees, buildings, fields,
roads, and rivers, all of which help in locating boundaries accurately. 6
Soil Map The soil map section includes the soil map for the defined area of interest, a list of soil map units on the map and extent of each map unit, and cartographic symbols displayed
on the map. Also presented are various metadata about data used to produce the map, and a description of each soil map unit. 7
39" 32' 31" 39" 32' 9" N A Custom Soil Resource Report Soil Map Map Scale: 1 :3,160 ' printed on A size (8.5" x 11 ") sheet Meters 0 '" 60 120 180 Feet 0 100 2lJO 400 600 39" 32' 30"
) 39" 32' '1'
Custom Soil Resource Report MAP LEGEND Area of Interest (AOI) (Xl Very Stony Spot D Area of Interest (AOI) ,. Wet Spot Soils Oth., ~ 0 Soil Map Units Special Line Features Special Point
Features "'-Gully '" Blowout .' . Short Steep Slope J8J Borrow Pit ~, Oth., * Clay Spot Political Features • Closed Depression • Cities X Gravel Pit Water Features Gravelly Spot • Oceans
@landfill ---Streams and Canals "-lava Flow Transportation .... Marsh or swamp -Rails .. Mine or Quarry -Interstate Highways @MisceUaneous Water /"-' US Routes ® Perennial Water ~ Major
Roads Rock Outcrop "'" Local Roads v + Saline Spot Sandy Spot = Severely Eroded Spot 0 Sinkhole 9 Slide or Slip j$ Sodie Spot ;: Spoil Area 0 Stony Spot MAP INFORMATION Map Scale: 1
:3, 160 jf printed on A size (8.5" x 11 ") sheet. The soil surveys that comprise your AOI 'Nere mapped at 1 :24,000. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for accurate map measurements.
Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov Coordinate System: UTM Zone 12N NAD83 This product is generated from the
USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Douglas-Plateau Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties Survey Area Data: Version 5, Feb
1, 2008 Date(s) aerial images were photographed: 8/2/1993 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery
displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. ~
Custom Soil Resource Report Map Unit Legend Douglas·Plateau Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties (C06a2) Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres In AOI Percent of AOI 28 Cumulic
Haploborolis, 1 to 3 percent slopes 7.3 44 Happle very channery sandy loam, 3 to 12 percent GM slopes 46 Happle·Rock outcrop association, 25 to 65 percent 11 .6 slopes 67 Tosca channery
loam, 25 to 80 percent slopes 5.1 Totals for Area of Interest 39.9 Map Unit Descriptions 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, 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. Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the map unit, and
thus they do not affect use and management. These are called noncontrasting, or similar, components. They mayor may not be mentioned in a particular map unit description. Other minor
components, however, have properties and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different management. These are called contrasting, or dissimilar, components.
They generally are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the scale used. Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas are identified by
a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a given area, the contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit descriptions along with some characteristics
of each. A few areas of minor components may not have been observed, and consequently they are not mentioned in the descriptions, especially where the pattern was so complex that it
was impractical to make enough observations to identify all the soils and miscellaneous areas on the landscape. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the
usefulness or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate pure taxonomic classes but rather to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that
10 18.2% 39.8% 29.2% 12.8% 100.0% ) )
Custom Soil Resource Report have similar use and management requirements. The delineation of such segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource
plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, however, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. An identifying symbol precedes the
map unit name in the map unit descriptions. Each description includes general facts about the unit and gives important soil properties and qualities. Soils that have profiles that are
almost alike make up a soil series. Except for differences in texture of the surface layer, all the soils of a series have major horizons that are similar in composition, thickness,
and arrangement. Soils of one series can differ in texture of the surface layer, slope, stoniness, salinity, degree of erosion, and other characteristics that affect their use. On the
basis of such differences, a soil series is divided into soil phases. Most of the areas shown on the detailed soil maps are phases of soil series. The name of a soil phase commonly indicates
a feature that affects use or management. For example, Alpha silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is a phase of the Alpha series. Some map units are made up of two or more major soils or
miscellaneous areas. These map units are complexes, associations, or undifferentiated groups. A complex consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricate pattern
or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar in all areas. Alpha-Beta
complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, is an example. An association is made up of two or more geographically associated soils or miscellaneous areas that are shown as one unit on the maps.
Because of present or anticipated uses of the map units in the survey area, it was not considered practical or necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas separately. The pattern
and relative proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar. AlphaBeta association, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. An undifferentiated group is made up of
two or more soils or miscellaneous areas that could be mapped individually but are mapped as one unit because similar interpretations can be made for use and management. The pattern
and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas in a mapped area are not uniform. An area can be made up of only one of the major soils or miscellaneous areas, or it can be made up
of all of them. Alpha and Beta soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. Some surveys include miscellaneous areas. Such areas have little or no soil material and support little or
no vegetation. Rock outcrop is an example. 11
Custom Soil Resource Report Douglas-Plateau Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties 28-Cumulic Haploborolls, 1 to 3 percent slopes Map Unit Setting Elevation: 5,800 to 7,400
feet Mean annual precipitation: 12 to 18 inches Mean annual air temperature: 40 to 46 degrees F Frost-free period: 80 to 110 days Map Unit Composition Cumulic haploborol/s and similar
soils: 90 percent Description of Cumulic Haploborolls Setting Landform: Flood plains Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Parent material: Wasatch shale formation alluvium
andlor green river shale formation alluvium Properties and qualities Slope: 1 to 3 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Well drained Capacity of
the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.20 to 1.98 in/hr) Depth to water table: About 36 to 72 inches Frequency of flooding: Occasional Frequency
of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 10 percent Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 4.0 mmhos/cm) Available water capacity: Low (about 4.6 inches)
Interpretive groups Land capability (non irrigated): 4e Ecological site: Foothill Swale (R048AY285CO) Typical profile o to 8 inches: Gravelly sandy clay loam 8 to 20 inches: Very channery
sandy clay loam 20 to 28 inches: Clay loam 28 to 60 inches: Stratified very gravelly sand to extremely gravelly loamy sand 44-Happle very channery sandy loam, 3 to 12 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting Elevation: 5,200 to 6,000 feet Mean annual precipitation: 12 to 15 inches Mean annual air temperature: 46 to 52 degrees F 12 )
Custom Soil Resource Report Frost-free period: 100 to 150 days Map Unit Composition Happle and similar soils: 80 percent Description of Happle Setting Landform: Alluvial fans Down-slope
shape: Convex Across-slope shape: Linear Parent material: Green river formation alluvium derived from shale Properties and qualities Slope: 3 to 12 percent Depth to restrictive feature:
More than 80 inches Drainage class: Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.57 to 2.00 in/hr) Depth to water table: More
than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate. maximum content: 10 percent Maximum salinity: Nonsaline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water
capacity: Low (about 3.4 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability (nonirrigated): 4e Ecological site: Rolling Loam (R034XY298CO) Typical profile o to 7 inches: Very channery sandy
loam 7 to 14 inches: Very channery sandy loam 14 to 32 inches: Very channery sandy clay loam 32 to 60 inches: Extremely channery sandy loam 46-Happle-Rock outcrop association, 25 to
65 percent slopes Map Unit Setting Elevation: 6,200 to 7,200 feet Mean annual precipitation: 12 to 15 inches Mean annual air temperature: 46 to 52 degrees F Frost-free period: 100 to
150 days Map Unit Composition Happle and similar soils: 50 percent Rock outcrop: 35 percent Description of Happle Setting Landform: Canyons, mountains Landform position (three-dimensional):
Mountainflank 13
Custom Soil Resource Report Down-slope shape: Convex Across-slope shape: Linear Parent material: Green river formation colluvium derived from shale Properties and qualities Slope: 25
to 65 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.57
to 2.00 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 10 percent Maximum salinity: Nonsaline
(0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water capacity: Low (about 3.4 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability (nonirrigated): 7e Ecological site: Steep Colluvial Slopes (R034XY445CO) Typical
profile a to 7 inches: Very channery sandy loam 7 to 14 inches: Very channery sandy loam 14 to 32 inches: Very channery sandy clay loam 32 to 60 inches: Extremely channery sandy loam
Description of Rock Outcrop Properties and qualities Slope: 40 to 65 percent Depth to restrictive feature: 0 inches to lithic bedrock Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit
water (Ksat): Very low to low (0.00 to 0.00 in/hr) Available water capacity: Very low (about 0.0 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability (nonirrigated): 8s Typical profile a to 60
inches: Unweathered bedrock 67-Tosca channery loam, 25 to 80 percent slopes Map Unit Setting Elevation: 6,200 to 8,500 feet Mean annual precipitation: 16 to 20 inches Mean annual air
temperature: 40 to 46 degrees F Frost-free period: 85 to 110 days Map Unit Composition Tasca and similar soils: 80 percent 14
Custom Soil Resource Report Description of Tosca Setting Landform: Mountains Landform position (three-dimensional): Lower third of mountainflank Down-slope shape: Concave Across-slope
shape: Linear Parent material: Green river colluvium derived from shale Properties and qualities Slope: 25 to 80 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class:
Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding:
None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 40 percent Maximum salinity: Nonsaline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum: 5.0 Available water
capacity: Low (about 5.1 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability (nonirrigated): 7e Ecological site: Brushy Loam (R048AY238CO) Typical profile o to 8 inches: Channery loam 8 to 46
inches: Very channery loam 46 to 60 inches: Very channery loam 15
Soil Information for All Uses Soil Reports The Soil Reports section includes various formatted tabular and narrative reports (tables) containing data for each selected soil map unit
and each component of each unit. No aggregation of data has occurred as is done in reports in the Soil Properties and Qualities and Suitabilities and Limitations sections. The reports
contain soil interpretive information as well as basic soil properties and qualities. A description of each report (table) is included. AOllnventory This folder contains a collection
of tabular reports that present a variety of soil information. Included are various map unit description reports, special soil interpretation reports, and data summary reports. Map Unit
Description (Brief, Generated) (NRCS Soil Survey) 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 olthe 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 16
) ) Custom Soil Resource Report 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) (NRCS
Soil Survey) Douglas-Plateau Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties Map Unit: 28-Cumulic Haploborolls, 1 to 3 percent slopes Component: Cumulic Haploborolls (90%) The Cumulic
Haploborolls component makes up 90 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 1 to 3 percent. This component is on flood plains. The parent material consists of wasatch shale formation alluvium
andlor green river shale formation 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 is low. Shrink-swell potential is low. This soil is occasionally flooded . It is not ponded. A seasonal zone of water
saturation is at 54 inches during May, June, July. Organic matter content in the surface horizon is about 2 percent. This component is in the R048AY285CO Foothill Swale ecological site.
Nonirrigated land capability classification is 4e. This soil does not meet hydric criteria. The calcium carbonate equivalent within 40 inches, typically, does not exceed 8 percent. Map
Unit: 44-Happle very channery sandy loam, 3 to 12 percent slopes Component: Happle (80%) The Happle component makes up 80 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 3 to 12 percent. This component
is on alluvial fans. The parent material consists of green river formation alluvium derived from shale. 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 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 1 percent. This component is in the
R034XY298CO Rolling Loam ecological site. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 4e. This soil does not meet hydric criteria. The calcium carbonate equivalent within 40 inches,
typically, does not exceed 8 percent. Map Unit: 46-Happle-Rock outcrop association, 25 to 65 percent slopes 17
Custom Soil Resource Report Component: Happle (50%) The Happle component makes up 50 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 25 to 65 percent. This component is on canyons, mountains. The
parent material consists of green river formation colluvium derived from shale. 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 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 1 percent. This component is in the R034XY445CO Steep Colluvial
Slopes ecological site. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 7e. This soil does not meet hydric criteria. The calcium carbonate equivalent within 40 inches, typically, does
not exceed 8 percent. Component: Rock outcrop (35%) Generated brief soil descriptions are created for major soil components. The Rock outcrop is a miscellaneous area. Map Unit: 67-Tasca
channery loam, 25 to 80 percent slopes Component: Tasca (80%) The Tasca component makes up 80 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 25 to 80 percent. This component is on mountains. The
parent material consists of green river colluvium derived from shale. 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 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 R048AY238CO Brushy Loam ecological
site. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 7e. This soil does not meet hydric criteria. The calcium carbonate equivalent within 40 inches, typically, does not exceed 28 percent.
The soil has a slightly sodic horizon within 30 inches of the soil surface. 18
References American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2004. Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling and testing.
24th edition. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2005. Standard classification of soils for engineering purposes. ASTM Standard D2487-00. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C.
Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deep-water habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-79/31. Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes
in hydric soils of the United States. Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States. Hurt, G.w., and L.M. Vasilas, editors. Version 6.0, 2006. Field indicators
of hydric soils in the United States. National Research Council. 1995. Wetlands: Characteristics and boundaries. Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation
Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. hUp:/Isoils.usda.govl Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for making and interpreting soil
surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. http://soils.usda.gov/Soil Survey Staff. 2006. Keys to soil taxonomy. 10th
edition. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. hUp:/Isoils.usda.govl Tiner, R.w., Jr. 1985. Wetlands of Delaware. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and
Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Wetlands Section. United States Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands
delineation manual. Waterways Experiment Station Technical Report Y-87-1. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National forestry manual. http://soils.usda.
gov/United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National range and pasture handbook. hUp:/Iwww.gltLnrcs.usda.gov/United States Department of Agriculture,
Natural Resources Conservation Service. National soil survey handbook, title 430-VI. http://soils.usda.gov/United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
2006. Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 296. hUp:/Isoils.usda.govl
19
Custom Soil Resource Report United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1961. Land capability classification. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 210. 20
Geotechnical ~!t:,Engineering I Group, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Well Pad DPG-1c Piceance Basin Development Project Garfield County, Colorado, USA Prepared For: MCBU Major Capital
Projects Chevron North America Exploration and Production Company 10550 Richmond Ave, Suite 300 Houston, TX 77042 Attention: Mr. Timothy J. Barrett, P.E. Chevron Document No. PBSR-6981-CVW-GEO-RPT-GE
G-02931-00001-00 Job No. 2,931 October 07, 2008 Geotechnical, Environmental and Materials Testing Consultants Grand Junction -Montrose -Moab -Crested Butte (970) 245-4078 • fax (970)
245·7115 • geotechnicalgroup.com 2308 Interstate Avenue, Grand Junction, Colorado 81505
TABLE OF CONTENTS SCOPE ............................................................................................................................ 1 SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS .........................
........................................................... 1 SITE CONDITIONS .........................................................................................................
2 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION ...................................................................................... 4 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ................................................................
........................ 6 SITE DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................................... 8 EXCAVATION .........................................
......................................................................... 8 EMBANKMENT ................................................................................................................
9 SOLIDS AND LIQUIDS PIT SLOPES ................................................................................. 12 GENERAL SLOPE CONSIDERATIONS .....................................................
......................... 12 PIT SEEPAGE CONSIDERATIONS .................................................................................... 13 FOU NDA TIONS .........................................
................................................................... 14 MAT ON GRADE-DRILL RIG (2.897 PSF MAXIMUM BEARING: 4 INCH SETTLEMENT TOLERANCE) ................................................
................................................................ 15 EQUIPMENT ON GRADE: SEMI-PERMANENT PRODUCTION AREA (4-INCH SETTLEMENT TOLERANCE) ..................................................
.............................................................. 17 EQUIPMENT ON GRADE-TEMPORARY TRAILERS AND ASSOCIATED DRILL EQUIPMENT (4 INCHES SETTLEMENT TOLERANCE) ................................
................................................. 18 VIBRATING FOUNDATION CONSIDERATIONS ........................................................ 19 LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES ..........................
....................................................... 20 SOIL I CEMENT CONSiDERATIONS .................................................................................. 21 SURFACE
DRAINAGE ................................................................................................. 22 SOIL CORROSIVITY CONSIDERATIONS .........................................................
.......... 23 SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS ...................................................................................... 24 LIMITATIONS ............................................................
................................................... 25
FIG. 1 -VICINITY MAP FIG. 2 -LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS FIG. 3 -KEY TO SYMBOLS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS FIGS. 4 THROUGH 7 -LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS FIGS. 8 THROUGH 11 -SWELL CONSOLIDATION
TEST RESULTS FIG. 12 -DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS FIGS. 13 THROUGH 17-GRADATION TEST RESULTS FIG. 18 -PROCTOR TEST RESULTS FIG. 19 -CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO (CBR) TEST RESULTS FIG. 20
-TOE KEY AND BENCH CONCEPT FIG. 21 -TOE KEY AND BENCH DRAIN CONCEPT FIG. 22 -LOW PERMEABILITY BLANKET CONCEPT FIGS. 23 AND 24 -FROST PROTECTION CONCEPT TABLES I AND II -SUMMARY OF LABORATORY
TEST RESULTS APPENDIX A -SAMPLE SITE GRADING SPECIFICATIONS APPENDIX B -PIT LINER EVALUATION
SCOPE This report presents the results of our Geotechnical Investigation for the proposed Chevron Deer Park Gulch DPG-1 c well pad within the Piceance Basin Development Project in Garfeld
County, Colorado. Our investigation was conducted to explore subsurface conditions and provide foundation design recommendations for construction. The report includes descriptions of
subsoil and groundwater conditions found in four exploratory test borings made during this investigation, recommended foundation systems, allowable design soil pressures and design and
construction criteria for details influenced by the subsurface conditions. The report was prepared from data developed during field exploration, laboratory testing, engineering analysis
and experience with similar conditions. A brief summary of our conclusions and recommendations follows. Detailed criteria are presented within the report. SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS 1. Subsoils
found in the exploratory borings consisted generally of shale fragments with a clay matrix to the maximum depth explored of 25 to 59 feet. Formational shale was encountered in exploratory
test boring TH-1 at a depth of about 44 feet. Formational material was not encountered in the remaining exploratory test borings to a depth of about 25 to 59 feet, the maximum depth
explored. Groundwater was encountered in exploratory test borings TH-1, TH-2 and TH-4 at a depth of 31 to 37 feet. Shallow Chevron DPG·1c Well Pad Piceance Basin Development, Colorado,
USA GEG Job No. 2,931
geologic depositions identified include landslide colluvium and outwash with poor sorting. The shale fragments are friable and with time and wetting will break down. 2. Shale fragments
with a clay matrix were found at foundation levels and to the maximum depths explored. A competent bearing strata was encountered in exploratory test boring TH-1 at a depth of about
44 feet. A competent bearing strata was not identified in exploratory test borings TH-2 through TH-4 to a maximum depth of 59 feet, the maximum depth explored. We recommend friction
pile foundations for proposed construction that is sensitive to settlement related movements. An alternative recommendation of foundations bearing on well compacted native fill, well
compacted imported fill and/or well compacted cement treated native fill is also presented in the text of the report. Our opinion is the foundations bearing on structural fill alternatives
involve greater risk of movements and damages. Recommendations for each foundation type were calculated to satisfy settlement tolerances presented in proposed construction. More detail
criteria and discussion is included in the text of the report. 3. Man made fill construction in soils such as those encountered in the Piceance Basin Development project area is problematic.
The additional factors involved at the subject site result in less confidence in operator experience or 'dead reckoning' contractor methods and the need for more reliance on engineering
controls such as laboratory Proctor and field moisture /density gauge measurements. 4. Well pad surface drainage is identified as a major potential concern. Surface drainage should be
designed for rapid runoff of surface water away from the well pad site and proposed structures. SITE CONDITIONS The DGP-1c proposed Well Pad (subject site) is located in the Piceance
Basin Development Project in Garfield County, Colorado. A project vicinity map is shown on Fig.1. Existing fill, if any, is unknown at the time of this investigation. The subject site
is Chevron OPG·1c Well Pad Piceance Basin Development, Colorado, USA GEG Job No. 2,931 2
located in the southwest Y. of Section 10 and the northwest Y. of Section 15, Township 6 South, Range 97 West, 6th New Mexico Meridian. The subject site was located in the bottom portion
of a valley that is bisected by Deer Park Gulch near the confluence with Clear Creek. The Deer Park Gulch valley bottom drains from the northeast, down toward the southwest. There is
an approximate 2,000 foot elevation difference between the valley bottom and the top of plateau on either side. The valley sides and bottom are formed by degradation and weathering and
transport from the plateau. The major depositions identified are landslide colluvium and outwash planes. We reviewed USGS topographic mapping, see Fig.1, to measure the valley sides
slope up at an angle near 1.8 Horizontal: 1 Vertical near the valley bottom and gradually steepen to near 1.2 to 1.0 Horizontal: 1 Vertical near midslope to 0.75 Horizontal or less:
1 Vertical near the top of plateau. Based on our general site observations and topographical map review, we believe landslide movements in the vicinity have reached a factor of safety
against movement of about 1.0 at a slope angle (or angle of repose) of about 1 to 1.5 Horizontal: 1 Vertical. The ground surface of the subject site slopes down from north to south at
between 10 to 30 percent (variable between 10 Horizontal: 1 Vertical and 3.3 Horizontal: 1 Vertical) with slopes becoming steeper at the north edge of the well pad site. The site contains
an existing well pad and a test well. Vacant land was north, south, east and west of the site. Chevron DPG·1c Well Pad Piceance Basin Development, Colorado, USA GEG Job No. 2,931 3
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION The subject site will be graded to create a Well Pad area of operations. Based on cross sections which reference Drawing No. DPG-1c-SP.dwg from Construction Surveys
Inc., site grading cuts will include cuts of 0 feet to 20 feet thickness and up to 15 plus feet of fill. The planned fill slopes will be 3 Horizontal: 1 Vertical. Site development will
include several (3 to 5) mobile trailers. A Solids Pit, Liquids Pit and Production Facilities Area will be located in the cut slope area. The Drill Rig and Associated Drill Equipment
will be located in the central portion of the Well Pad. The Drill Rig will be matting supported and oriented in the area of the cut. The Drill Rig is supported by two parallel mats measuring
6.5 feet width X 67.5 feet length. The Drill Rig has a total gravity load of 1 ,224,058 Ibs. The average Drill Rig pad bearing pressure is 1,771 psf. The maximum Drill Rig pad soil bearing
pressure is 2,897 psf. The Drill Rig mats are separated by Piping Cellar, a steel plate and frame structure that meets both Drill Rig mats intimately and extend to 4 feet vertically
beneath the edge of Drill Rig mats. Associated Drill Equipment includes steel tanks on grade and the following skid supported equipment: generator houses, diesel tank, boiler, VFD house,
utility, mud pumps, drill pipe/casing trailer. The Associated Drill Equipment will each have a maximum soil bearing pressure of 2,000 psf. The Drill Rig and mat loading and configuration
and Drill Rig and Associated Drill Equipment layout is based on Drawing Chevron DPG-1c Well Pad Piceance Basin Development, Colorado, USA GEG Job No. 2,931 4
No. F4S-H-001 and F4S-H-100 Revision A, "Rig Package Layout" by Helmerich and Payne and the "F4S Skid Frame Foundation Loading" Revision D dated April 20, 2007 as forwarded from a transmittal
by Timothy J Barrett dated April 24, 2007. Piping cellar configuration and construction details are shown in the COl plan sheets 94936-E002-2 and 94936-E006-2 dated September 26, 2006.
Settlement tolerances for the proposed construction have a total settlement of 4 inches and differential settlement of 0.5 inch for structures, except Drill Rig, temporary equipment
and trailers. Differential settlement tolerances for these structures are 2 inches. Total and differential movement tolerance limits are described in an email dated April 4 from Mike
Davis of PAl Engineering and in an email dated April 20, 2007 from Timothy J. Barrett of Chevron. Proposed construction is gas field industrial. There will be no landscaping, irrigation
or finished areas. All structures will be manufactured as individual units off site and delivered to the subject site. If the proposed construction changes or is different from what
is stated, we should be contacted to review actual construction and our recommendations. Chevron OPG·1c Well Pad Piceance Basin Development, Colorado, USA GEG Job No. 2,931 5
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS The valley sides and bottom are formed by degradation, weathering, and transport of clayey shales from the plateau toward the valley floor. The major depositions
identified are landslide colluvium and outwash planes. These deposits are poorly sorted and in many cases include voids and oversized pieces with blocking concerns. The fractured shale
pieces are individually very hard, highly over consolidated and potentially partially metamorphosed. Short term behavior of these fractured shale pieces are similar to gravel of metamorphic
or igneous origin. We consider Standard Penetration Test data of shale fragments in a clay matrix to be suspect. Shale pieces can cause a larger sampler end area and therefore inaccurate
high blow count. Laboratory test data such as dry and wash gradation are also misleading in that "clays" can have lower than 50% passing the No. 200 sieve. However, these shale fragments
do break down over time with wetting and loading. Subsurface conditions of the subject site are more variable and misleading than they may appear. The elements of engineering experience
and judgment can not be overemphasized. Subsurface conditions at the site were investigated by drilling and sampling four exploratory borings. Locations of the exploratory borings are
shown on Fig. 2. Graphic logs of the soils found in the borings and field penetration resistance tests are presented Chevron DPG-1c Welt Pad Piceance Basin Development, Colorado, USA
GEG Job No. 2,931 6
on Figs. 3 through 7. Subsoils found in the exploratory borings consisted generally of shale fragments with a clay matrix to the maximum depth explored of 25 to 59 feet. Formational
shale was encountered in exploratory test boring TH-1 at a depth of about 44 feet. Formational material was not encountered in the remaining exploratory test borings to a depth of about
25 to 59 feet, the maximum depth explored. Groundwater was encountered in exploratory test borings TH-1, TH-2 and TH-4 at a depth of 31 to 37 feet. The shale with a clay matrix was medium
stiff to very stiff, moist, and brown. The formational shale was weathered to very hard, moist and brown. Shale fragments classify as 'sand' or 'gravel' using uses gradation criteria
(referenced by laboratory testing) are not aggregate quality as may be construed by the use of the term. These soils at the subject site are weathered and transported from the valley
walls and tend to break down to clays and silts and consolidate over time upon loading and wetting. Four shale fragments with a clay matrix samples tested had moisture content ranging
from 10.1 to 10.3 percent, liquid limits ranging from 41 to 49, plasticity indexes ranging from 10 to 19 and had 31 to 66 percent passing a No.200 sieve (clay and silt sized particles).
Three shale fragments with a clay matrix samples tested had moisture contents ranging from 17.8 to 21.6 percent, dry densities ranging from 103 to 114 pcf and exhibited 0.0 to 0.1 0
percent one-dimensional swell when wetted under a confining pressure of 500 to 1,000 psf. One shale with a clay matrix sample tested had a moisture content of 21.6 percent, a dry density
of 114 pcf, had an internal angle of Chevron DPG-1c Well Pad Piceance Basin Development, Colorado, USA GEG Job No. 2,931 7
friction of 24 degrees and a cohesion of 250 psf. Two shale fragments with a clay matrix samples tested had a moisture contents of 13.1 and 18.0 percent, dry densities of 75 and 90 pcf
and exhibited permeability's of 2.2 x 10-4 and 2.4 x 10.5 cm/sec. One combined bulk sample tested had a maximum standard Proctor dry density of 99.5, an optimum moisture content of 21.0
percent and a California Bearing Ratio of 4.0. Results of laboratory testing are presented on Figs. 8 through 19 and summarized on Tables I and II. SITE DEVELOPMENT Excavation Soils
used to construct general site fill slopes, if any, will be obtained from the excavation cut slopes above the pad location and from pit excavations. The subject site should be stripped
of all vegetation and organic material prior to fill slope construction. We recommend that all material disturbed by excavation be removed from excavation areas to expose undisturbed
material. The inclination of the cut slopes based on stability analysis will depend on the height of the slope and the soil strength characteristics. Our analysis of the embankment slope
was based on "Effect of Soil Strength Parameters on Stability of Man-Made Slopes" by Awtar Singh. The soil strength characteristics used in our stability analysis were obtained from
direct shear strength test data from our Chevron DPG·1c Well Pad Piceance Basin Development, Colorado, USA GEG Job No. 2,931 8
laboratory and site soil samples. We used an internal angle of friction of 24 degrees, a cohesion of 250 psf and a moist soil density of 100 pcf and maximum cut slope height of 20 feet
in our analysis. We consider a calculated factor of safety against movement of 1.5 or greater is adequate for perrnanent slopes and a calculated factor of safety of 1.2 is adequate for
temporary slopes. We calculated a minirnum factor of safety against slope failure of 2.3 for a proposed cut slope of 2.0 H to 1.0 V with a maximum height of 20 feet. In our opinion,
excavations cut slopes should therefore be constructed for at least 2.0 horizontal to 1.0 vertical or flatter if possible. Cut slopes should be adequately treated to mitigate erosion
and other potential stability concerns. Our observations and calculations indicate slopes constructed at an inclination of 2.0 horizontal to 1 vertical will require periodic maintenance
due to surface erosion. We calculated a factor of safety against slope failure of greater than 2.5 for an inclination of 3 horizontal to 1 vertical or flatter for reclamation. Embankment
Fill materials should contain no particles larger than about one half of the lift thickness with the largest scattered pieces no greater than six inches. All areas to receive fill should
be stripped of all vegetation, organic soils, and other deleterious material prior to fill placement. Our recommendation for general fill materials, Chevron OPG-1c Well Pad Piceance
Basin Development, Colorado, USA GEG Job No. 2,931 9
preparation and placement are included in APPENDIX A. Man made fill construction in soils such as those encountered in the Piceance Basin Development project area is problematic. Clays
can require significant hydration periods. Silts are highly moisture sensitive and shale fragments require breakdown. These factors present more challenge than the moisture content,
lift thickness and compactive effort factors involved with other embankment projects. The additional factors involved at the subject site result in less confidence in operator experience
or 'dead reckoning' contractor methods and the need for more reliance on engineering controls such as laboratory Proctor and field moisture /density gauge measurements. Compaction equipment
including large self propelled sheepsfoot compactor, steel drum vibratory compactor disc and /or pneumatic breakdown (tractor attached or equivalent), blade and water truck have also
been part of successful embankment construction such as that planned on the subject site. Areas to receive fill should be constructed with a toe key and benched into competent foundation
material. The key and bench concept is shown on Fig. 20. We should observe the key and bench preparation to verify that the key and bench extends into competent material and meets our
recommendations. Prior to placement of structural fill, the resulting subgrade should be scarified 10-inches, moisture conditioned and compacted as discussed in APPENDIX A. A drain should
be constructed at the Chevron OPG-1c Well Pad Piceance Basin Development, Colorado, USA GEG Job No. 2,931 10
back of the toe key and each bench in all permanent fill slopes to drain subsurface water that may accumulate at the fill /natural soil contact. The toe key and bench drains should consist
of a 4 or 6 inch diameter perforated drain pipe surrounded by at least 3 cubic feet per linear foot of drain, free draining aggregate all wrapped with an appropriate filter fabric. Toe
key and bench drain details are shown on Fig. 21. The inclination of the fill slopes based on stability analysis will depend on the height of the slope and the soil strength characteristics.
Our analysis of the embankment fill slope was based on "Effect of Soil Strength Parameters on Stability of Man-Made Slopes", by Awtar Singh. The soil strength characteristics used in
our stability analysis were obtained from direct shear strength tests from our laboratory of soil samples from the subject site. We used an internal angle of friction of 24 degrees,
a cohesion of 250 psf, a moist soil density of 100 pcf and a maximum fill height of 15 feet in our analysis. Our analysis indicates a temporary fill slope constructed with a slope inclination
of 2.0 horizontal to 1.0 vertical has a calculated factor of safety against slope failure greater than 2.0. Our analysis indicates a permanent reclamation fill slope constructed with
a slope inclination of 3.0 horizontal to 1.0 vertical or flatter has a calculated factor of safety greater than 2.5. Chevron DPG·1c Well Pad Piceance Basin Development, Colorado, USA
GEG Job No. 2,931 11
Solids and Liquids Pit Slopes The solids and liquids pit slopes will be at an inclination of 1,5 horizontal to 1 vertical with a depth of 15 fee!. The inclination of the pit slopes based
on our stability analysis will depend on the height of the slope and the soil strength characteristics, Our analysis of the pit slopes was based on "Effect of Soil Strength Parameters
on Stability of Man-Made Slopes", by Awtar Singh, The soil strength characteristics used in our stability analysis were obtained from direct shear strength test of soil samples tested,
Based on the direct shear strength test results an internal angle of friction of 25 degrees, a cohesion of 250, a moist soil density of 97 pcf and maximum height of 15 feet was used
in our analysis, We calculated a factor of safety against slope failure greater than 1,5 for this condition, Based on our slope stability analysis, solids and liquids pit slopes may
be constructed at an inclination of 1,5 horizontal to 1 vertical with a maximum slope height of 15 fee!. General Slope Considerations Surface water should not be allowed to cascade over
the face of any cut or fill slopes, Cut and fill slopes should be constructed with surface diversion ditches at the top to intercept surface runoff water and divert it off and away from
the slopes, The face Chevron DPG-1c Well Pad Piceance Basin Development, Colorado, USA GEG Job No. 2,931 12
of the slope should be tailored to promote rapid runoff of surface water. Surface water should not be allowed to pond or puddle on the face or in the vicinity of any slope. Slope faces
should be protected from erosion by vegetation or other appropriate erosion protection methods. Pit Seepage Considerations Our experience in the area indicates the natural onsite soils
are relatively permeable. Seepage from the bottom of unlined pits is anticipated. It is our opinion that the solids pit and liquids pit containing drilling fluid will tend to be self
sealing and may become more impervious with time. The pit liner evaluation for DPG-1 c is presented in Appendix B. If it is desired to limit seepage losses or if it is anticipated the
pits will not seal, we recommend a synthetic liner or blanket of low permeable material be placed on the surface of the bottom of the pits at an elevation of at least 1 foot above the
highest anticipated fluids elevation in the pits. The low permeable layer should be at least 1 foot thick, placed in thin lifts and moisture conditioned to within 2 percent of the optimum
moisture content and compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum standard Proctor dry density. The low permeability blanket may consist of a material with compacted permeability
of at least 1.0 x 10 6 cm/sec. The material may be obtained by Chevron DPG·1c Well Pad Piceance Basin Development, Colorado, USA GEG Job No. 2,931 13
amending onsite soils with bentonite to produce the desired permeability. The bentonite content should be determined by laboratory testing. We are available to discuss this with you,
if needed. The low permeability layer concept is shown on Fig. 22. Compaction should be accomplished with a kneading type compactor such as a sheepsfoot compactor to generate a dispersed
soil structure rather than a flocculated soil structure. FOUNDATIONS This investigation indicates variable shale fragments with a clay matrix soils exist at foundation levels. Existing
fill, if any, should be removed full depth prior to placing well compacted onsite fill or concrete. Our analysis indicates subsurface conditions have relatively low and variable bearing
capacity and significant volume change potential. Considering potential settlements of the subsurface conditions, total structural loading and tolerances, a deep foundation is the most
practical. We believe a foundation system that is anchored in underlying competent strata would offer lower movement potential. Driven piling and drilled pier foundations are examples
of deep foundations. Drilled pier installation would likely require casing, pumping, special installation techniques, be time sensitive with regards to concrete supply and be problematic.
We Chevron DPG-1c Well Pad Piceance Basin Development, Colorado, USA GEG Job No. 2,931 14
recommend driven pile foundations, embedded in a competent bearing stratum for the proposed construction. Shallow foundation recommendations were requested. Therefore, an alternative
recommendation of individual structures supported directly by well compacted onsite fill is also presented. The shallow foundation support recommendations involve more risk of unacceptable
movement and damages than does driven piling foundations, especially for the more heavily loaded drill rig. However, these recommendations were calculated to provide foundation support
within the settlement tolerances described in the PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION section of this report. Mat on Grade-Drill Rig (2,897 psf maximum bearing: 4 inch settlement tolerance) 1. Existing
soils should be over excavated uniformly 5 feet below and 5 feet horizontally beyond mats in each direction and replaced with a wellcompacted on site fill. The resulting subgrade should
be prepared by scarifying 10-inches, moisture conditioning to within 2 percent of optimum moisture and compacting to at least 95 percent of standard Proctor (ASTM D698) maximum dry density.
On site fill soils may consist of native soils, less than 6-inches diameter. Additional fill should be moisture treated to within 1 percent below to 3 percent above optimum moisture
content and compacted to at least 95 percent of standard Proctor (ASTM D698) maximum dry density in 10-inch maximum loose lifts. It may be necessary to moisture treat soils to a wetter
condition and stockpile in order to allow hydration and slaking, prior to fill placement. 2. Mats bearing on well-compacted on site fill placed as stated above should be designed for
a maximum soils bearing pressure of 2,900 psf. Loose soils should be completely removed from foundation bearing areas, prior to placing concrete. Chevron DPG-1c Well Pad Piceance Basin
Development, Colorado, USA GEG Job No. 2,931 15
3. A 6)1, feet wide by 67)1, feet long continuous mat is planned for supporting the drill rig. The mat and frame reinforced sufficient to simply span an unsupported distance of at least
12 feet. 4. The proposed cellar area, between the mats, requires construction to resist lateral earth pressures. These pressures include at rest equivalent fluid pressure of 60 pcf and
a uniform surcharge loading of 2,897 psf for the native soils. Cement treated native fill soils may be constructed to reduce or eliminate the impacts of lateral earth pressures. Additional
criteria regarding lateral earth pressures are included later in the text. 5. The allowable net bearing capacity may be increased by 30 percent for transient loading such as seismic
or wind. Coefficient of sliding friction between concrete and soil is .30. 6. Loose soils should be completely removed from foundation bearing areas prior to placing concrete. 7. Footings
placed on a uniform layer of well compacted on site fill as described above the estimated total settlement is 2 inches. Differential movement is about 50 to 75 percent of total settlement.
If wider mats are used we should be contacted to review the estimated settlement and provide additional recommendations where needed. We estimate the total settlement will occur in about
30 to 60 days after initial loading. 8. Exterior walls should be protected from freezing. We understand the Garfield County Building Department recommends coverage of at least 36 inches
at an elevation up to 8,000 feet and at least 42 inches for elevations above 8,000 feet for frost protection. Frost protection concepts are shown on Fig. 23. In our experience, a 1.5
inch minus imported aggregate is not particularly frost sensitive and the proposed construction does not lend itself well to frost protection. While more risk is involved, frost protection
via minimum depth of imported aggregate fill and/or an equivalent styro board type insulation product may be substituted for strict burial. 9. The completed foundation excavation should
be observed by our representative for proof roll and to verify the foundation subgrade conditions are as anticipated from our exploratory borings. Geotechnical Engineering Group, Inc.
should also be called to test compaction of subgrade and fill during placement. Chevron DPG·1c Well Pad Piceance Basin Development, Colorado, USA GEG Job No. 2,931 16
Equipment on Grade: Semi-Permanent Production Area (4-inch settlement tolerance) 1. Existing soils should be over excavated uniformly 4 feet below and 4 feet horizontally beyond mats
in each direction and replaced with a wellcompacted on site fill. The resulting subgrade should be prepared by scarifying 1O-inches deep moisture conditioning to within 2 percent of
optimum moisture and compacting to at least 95 percent of standard Proctor (ASTM 0698) maximum dry density. On site fill soils may consist of native soils, less than 6-inches diameter.
Additional fill should be moisture treated to within 1 percent below to 3 percent above optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 95 percent of standard Proctor (ASTM 0698)
maximum dry density in 10-inch maximum loose lifts. It may be necessary to moisture treat soils to a wetter condition and stockpile in order to allow hydration and slaking, prior to
fill placement. 2. Footings bearing on well-compacted structural fill placed as stated above should be designed for a maximum soils bearing pressure of 2,000 psf. Loose soils should
be completely removed from foundation bearing areas, prior to placing concrete. 3. The allowable net bearing capacity may be increased by 30 percent for transient loading such as seismic
or wind. Coefficient of sliding friction between concrete and soil is .3. 4. Skid frames should be capable to span an unsupported distance of at least 12 feet. 5. Skids placed on a layer
of well compacted structural fill as described above calculate a total settlement of 1 inch. Differential movement is about 50 to 75 percent of total settlement. If wider skids flower
bearing pressures are used we should be contacted to review the estimated settlement and provide additional recommendations where needed. We estimate the total settlement will occur
in about 30 to 60 days after initial loading. 6. Exterior walls should be protected from freezing. We understand the Garfield County Building Department recommends coverage of at least
36 inches at an elevation up to 8,000 feet and at least 42 inches for elevations above 8,000 feet for frost protection. Frost protection concepts Chevron DPG-1c Welt Pad Piceance Basin
Development, Colorado, USA GEG Job No. 2,931 17
are shown on Fig. 24. In our experience, a 1.5 inch imported aggregate is not particularly frost sensitive and the proposed construction does not lend itself well to frost protection.
While more risk is involved, frost protection via minimum depth of imported aggregate fill and/or an equivalent styro board type insulation product may be substituted for strict burial.
7. The completed foundation excavation should be observed by our representative for proof roll and to verify the foundation subgrade conditions are as anticipated from our exploratory
borings. Geotechnical Engineering Group, Inc. should also be called to test compaction of subgrade and fill during placement. Equipment on Grade-Temporary Trailers and Associated Drill
Equipment (4 inches settlement tolerance) 1. Existing soils should be over excavated uniformly 4 foot below and 4 foot horizontally beyond mats in each direction and replaced with a
wellcompacted on site fill. The resulting subgrade should be prepared by scarifying 10-inches deep moisture conditioning to within 2 percent of optimum moisture and compacting to at
least 95 percent of standard Proctor (ASTM 0698) maximum dry density. On site fill soils may consist of native soils, less than 6-inches diameter. Additional fill should be moisture
treated to within 1 percent below to 3 percent above optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 95 percent of standard Proctor (ASTM 0698) maximum dry density in 1O-inch maximum
loose lifts. It may be necessary to moisture treat soils to a wetter condition and stockpile in order to allow hydration and slaking, prior to fill placement. 2. Footings bearing on
well-compacted subgrade as stated above should be designed for a maximum soils bearing pressure of 2,000 psf. Loose soils should be completely removed from foundation bearing areas,
prior to placing concrete. 3. The allowable net bearing capacity may be increased by 30 percent for transient loading such as seismic or wind. Coefficient of sliding friction between
concrete and soil is .3. 4. Skid frames should be capable to span an unsupported distance of at least 12 feet. Chevron DPG·1c Well Pad Piceance Basin Development, Colorado, USA GEG Job
No. 2,931 18
5. Skids placed on a layer of well compacted structural fill as described above calculate a total settlement of 2 -inches. Differential movement is about 50 to 75 percent of total settlement.
If wider skids flower bearing pressures are used we should be contacted to review the estimated settlement and provide additional recommendations where needed. We estimate the total
settlement will occur in about 15 to 30 days after initial loading. 6. Exterior walls should be protected from freezing. We understand the Garfield County Building Department recommends
coverage of at least 36 inches at an elevation up to 8,000 feet and at least 42 inches for elevations above 8,000 feet for frost protection. Frost protection concepts are shown on Fig.
23. In our experience, a 1.5 inch imported aggregate is not particularly frost sensitive and the proposed construction does not lend itself well to frost protection. While more risk
is involved, frost protection via minimum depth of imported aggregate fill andfor an equivalent styro board type insulation product may be substituted for strict burial. 7. The completed
foundation excavation should be observed by our representative for proof roll and to verify the foundation subgrade conditions are as anticipated from our exploratory borings. Geotechnical
Engineering Group, Inc. should also be called to test compaction of subgrade and fill during placement. VIBRATING FOUNDATION CONSIDERATIONS Foundation and floor systems include structural
support from the surficial clay with shale fragment soils. Based on 2000 UBC we believe the site is located in Seismic Zone 1. Based on our understanding of proposed construction and
subsurface conditions, we suggest a "Site Class D" be used for foundation seismic design as described in 2006 IBC. Based on the field and laboratory results we calculate a shear modulus
of 3 ksi. We have estimated a modulus of subgrade reaction based on field and laboratory Chevron DPG-1c Well Pad Piceance Basin Development, Colorado, USA GEG Job No. 2,931 19
swell/consolidation test data. We recommend a modulus of subgrade reaction of 250 psi/inch. Laboratory test of the shale fragment soil and subsurface conditions encountered in the exploratory
test borings indicates that the material has a low potential for liquefaction. Based on the location of the nearest fault and the shear strength of the soils tested, the potential for
sufficient energy from an earthquake event to generate liquefaction of the site soils is low. It is our opinion that structure design or site improvement to accommodate liquefaction
during an earthquake event is not necessary at this site. LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES Walls that are restrained not allowing movement and mobilization of the internal soil strengths such
as shoring walls and the proposed Pipe Cellar area should be designed to resist the at-rest lateral earth pressure. Walls that are allowed to deflect to mobilize internal soil strengths
may be designed for active lateral earth pressures. Lateral earth pressure values presented below should be treated as equivalent fluid pressures. These pressures do not include a factor
of safety or allowances for surcharge or hydrostatic pressures: Chevron DPG·1c Well Pad Piceance Basin Development, Colorado, USA GEG Job No. 2,931 20
• At rest lateral earth pressure = 60 pef • Active lateral earth pressure = 45 pef • Passive lateral earth pressure = 235 pcf The lateral earth pressures are dependent upon the type
of backfill materials. The above lateral earth pressures are for walls backfilled with compacted onsite soils. The structural engineer should provide structural reinforcing design for
walls supporting lateral soil loads. Prior to wall backfill, walls should be structurally braced top and bottom to prevent deflection from lateral soil loads. Soil I Cement Considerations
Cement treated I stabilized backfill may be used to reduce or eliminate the impacts of lateral earth pressures. We calculate a stabilized backfill that exhibits a uniform cohesion of
at least 50 psi will resist the lateral earth forces imposed with a factor of safety of at least 2.0. CONCRETE Three soil samples (TH-2 at a depth of 5 to 100 feet, TH-2 at a depth of
10 to 15 feet and TH-4 at a depth of 0 to 5 feet) were tested for water soluble sulfate concentrations. The test results indicate a water soluble sulfate concentrations ranging Chevron
DPG·1c Well Pad Piceance Basin Development, Colorado, USA GEG Job No. 2,931 21
from 400 to 600 ppm. Concentrations in this area have been shown to have a moderate effect on concrete that is exposed to the soils. We recommend a Type II (sulfate resistant) cement
be used for concrete that is exposed to the subsoils. In addition, concrete should have a maximum water-cement ratio of 0.45. SURFACE DRAINAGE Performance of foundations and concrete
fiatwork is influenced by surface moisture conditions. The site shale fragments with a clay matrix have significant volume change potential. The volume change potential typically is
mobilized by wetting. Reducing the potential for moisture migration into the site soil clays with shale fragments reduces the risk of mobilization of swell potential of site materials.
Risk of wetting foundation soils can be reduced by carefully planned and maintained surface drainage. Surface drainage should be designed to provide rapid runoff of surface water away
from the proposed structures. We recommend the following precautions be observed during construction and maintained at all times after the construction is completed. 1. The ground surface
surrounding the exterior of the structures should be sloped to drain away from the structures in all directions. We recommend a slope of at least 12 inches in the first 10 feet around
the structures, where possible. In no case should the slope be less than 6 inches in the first 5 feet. The ground surface should be sloped so that water will not pond adjacent to the
structures. Chevron DPG·1c Well Pad Piceance Basin Development, Colorado, USA GEG Job No. 2,931 22
2. Backfill around foundation walls should be moistened and compacted. 3. Roof downspouts and drains should discharge well beyond the limits of all backfill. Splash blocks and downspout
extenders should be provided at all discharge points. 4. Landscaping, if any, should be carefully designed to minimize irrigation. Plants used close to foundations should be limited
to those with low moisture requirements; irrigated grass should not be located within 5 feet of the foundation. Sprinklers should not discharge within 5 feet of foundations. Irrigation
should be limited to the minimum amount sufficient to maintain vegetation; application of more water will increase likelihood of slab and foundation movements. 5. Impervious plastic
membranes should not be used to cover the ground surface immediately surrounding the structures. These membranes tend to trap moisture and prevent normal evaporation from occurring.
Geotextile fabrics can be used to limit the weed growth and allow for evaporation. SOIL CORROSIVITY CONSIDERATIONS Our field study included performing field soil resistivity tests. The
field soil resistivity tests were conducted in general conformance with ASTM test method G-57. The field soil resistivity tests indicate a resistivity of 26,200 Ohm-cm at the test location.
The American Water Works Association (AWWA) "M-11 Steel Pipe, A Guide for Design and Installation" indicates these values are considered "lightly corrosive". According to AWWA publications,
cathodic protection is not required for lightly corrosive soils. In our opinion, no special corrosion protection measures or a pipe coating may be warranted, depending on Chevron design
and risk management criteria. Pipe coatings should be designed to resist surface damage during transportation and installation. Chevron DPG·1c Well Pad Piceance Basin Development, Colorado,
USA GEG Job No. 2,931 23
SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS Foundation and floor systems include structural support from the surficial sandy, silty clay soils. Based on 2000 UBC, the site is located in Seismic Zone 1. The
nearest mapped faults were about 45 miles southwest of the subject site and are associated with the Uncompahgre Uplift. Based on our understanding of proposed construction and subsurface
conditions, we suggest a "Site Class 0" be used for foundation seismic design as described in 2006 IBC. Based on the field and laboratory results we suggest a shear modulus of 3 ksi.
CONSTRUCTION MONITORING Geotechnical Engineering Group, Inc. should be retained to provide general review of construction plans for compliance with our recommendations and I or to help
with risk versus cost considerations. Geotechnical Engineering Group, Inc. should be retained to provide construction-monitoring services during all earthwork and foundation construction
phases of the work. This is to observe the construction with respect to the geotechnical recommendations, to enable design changes in the event that subsurface conditions differ from
those anticipated prior to start of construction and to give the owner a greater degree of confidence that the structures are constructed in accordance with the final plans, geotechnical
recommendations and in conformance with the geotechnical risks assumed by the owner. Chevron DPG-1c Well Pad Piceance Basin Development, Colorado, USA GEG Job No. 2,931 24
LIMITATIONS Four exploratory test borings were drilled in the proposed structure areas. The exploratory test borings are representative of conditions encountered only at the exact test
boring locations. Variations in the subsoil conditions not indicated by the test borings are always possible. Our representative should observe open foundation excavations, observe proof
roll and test compaction of subgrade and structural fill soils (as applicable) to confirm soils are as anticipated from the test borings and foundations are prepared as recommended herein.
The scope of work performed is specific to the proposed construction and the client identified by this report. Any other use of the data, recommendations and design parameters (as applicable)
provided within this report are not appropriate applications. Other proposed construction and/or reliance by other clients will require project specific review by this firm. Changes
in site conditions can occur with time. Changes in standard of practice also occur with time. This report should not be relied upon after a period of three years from the date of this
report and is subject to review by this firm in light of new information that may periodically become known. We believe this investigation was conducted in a manner consistent with that
level of care and skill ordinarily used by geotechnical engineers practicing in this area at this Chevron DPG-1c Well Pad Piceance Basin Development, Colorado, USA GEG Job No. 2,931
25
II I time. No other warranty, express or implied, is made. If we can be of further service in discussing the contents of this report or the analysis of the influence of the subsurface
conditions on the development or design of the proposed construction, please call. Norman W. Joh2 Senior Engine r NWJ:mh (3 copies sent) Chevron DPG·1c Well Pad Piceance Basin Development,
Colorado, USA GEG Job No. 2,931 26
( , !, ~"" '-, (. I Geotechnical I~~ngineering I .... Group, Inc. GEG JOB NO, 2,931 , "I'', (I: ,~'/i J,. r . • -{ .' ~ .. (' t /r \ ,', \. ( .' ,~. , .' ,," ,,-,--' '5-8/j • ~\ . .,:'.
Deer Park Gulch (DPG-1c) /(' /, .. J9n ,I DATE: 713012008 Fig,
~ R' j! Bore Lonaitude I Latitude Elevation H-1 108"19'21.861" 39"32'24.828" 5847 ./H-2 108"19'19.452' , 39"32'26.484" 5856 H-3 108"19'18.768 39"32'25.08" 5844 H-4 108"19'17.94" 39"32'24.288"
5836 TH-2 • -TH-3 • • TH-1 /~ ~ TH-4 \ "/• ~ -//, //./
1 ·~··Oit'('hllit~nl ~ ..... 1~Il;.;i"t·C·I·illg I ... • ~I·OIlI)· 1114'. Symbol Description Strata symbols Shale fragments in a clay matrix Shale Misc. Symbols ¥ Water table during
drilling Notes: 1. SH -Thinwall Tube Sample. KEY TO SYMBOLS 2. CT -Modified California Barrel Sample. 3. STD -Standard Split Barrel Sample. 4. Bulk -Bulk Disturbed Sample. 5. 8/12 -Indicates
8 Blows with a 140 LB hammer falling 30 inches was required to drive the sample 12 inches. 6. Exploratory borings were drilled on 7/29/2008 using a 4-inch diameter continuous flight
power auger. 7. These logs are subject to the interpretation by GEG of the soils encountered and limitations, conclusions, and recommendations in this report. Fiqure 3
I (~t·oCt·t·hllilll·nl ~ ..... 1~llgillt·t·.·illg I ... (;roll.'. 111('. LOG OF TEST BORING TH-1 o PROJECT: Deer Park Gulch (DPG·lc) PROJECT NO,: ____ 2"'9"'3-'-1 _ CLIENT: ~C~'h~e~,~,o~n~
______________________________________________________________ ___ LOCATION: "S",ec,-£F l~"' ~11l~'c~2,--_____________________________ ELEVA TION: 5847 None DRILLER: ~\\",;J __________________
LOGGED BY: SP DEPTH TO WATER> INITIAL: 'if 37 AFTER 24 HOURS: ~ ___ -'B"'a"'c"'kl!!i ~le~d _ DATE: 7/29/2008 DEPTH TO CAVING: L None Description Notes Shale fragments in a clay matrix,
stiff, slightly moist, brown, (eL) 8ag CT 14/12 5 8ag 10 CT 19112 8ag 9112 15 20 25 30 35 This informati n e ain ani to this borin and should not be inter reted as bein indicitive of
the ite. Fiqure 4 PAGE 1 of2
I (;.· .. ,.·.·10,,;.· .. 1 PROJECT: Deer Park Gulch (DPG-Ic} PROJECT NO.: 2931 ~~"~;""""i"~ CLIENT: Chevron «.roll.'. Inc'. LOCATION: See figure 2 ELEVATION: 5847 None DRILLER: WJ LOGGED
BY: SP LOG OF DEPTH TO WATER> INITIAL: ¥ 37 AFTER 24 HOURS: ~ Backfilled TEST BORING TH-1 DATE: 7/29/2008 DEPTH TO CAVING: L None £Z' g '" w ~ o..~ ~c "-'" Description "-E >-o "'Jl!
~ "'t-o; 0~ Notes D-C.? <f) () ~ ~ f--I--I--~ 44 l-" :/~ Shale. weathered to hard (SH) I--f--I~ I--50 I--Bottom of boring when terminated: 50 ft. f--I--I--I---""--I--I--I--I--~ I--I--I--I--~
f--I--I--f--!--2DI--I~ II--I--'-'-I--I--f--I--~ 1-This information nertains onlv to this borinn and should not be internreted as beina indicitive of the site. Fiqure 4 PAGE 2 of 2
I «;.· .. ,.·.· .... i" .. 1 PROJECT: Deer Park Gulch (DPU-lcl PROJECT NO.: 2931 ~..: .. ;:i ...... ri .. ;: CLIENT: Chevron f';.'OUII. Inc'. LOCATION: See Figure 2 ELEVATION: 5856 None
DRILLER: WJ LOGGED BY: SP 1 LOG OF DEPTH TO WATER> INITIAL: ¥ None Found AFTER 24 HOURS: ~ Backfilled TEST BORING TH-2 DATE: 7/29/2008 DEPTH TO CAVING: .L None £z-:0c oID. .~ ~~ a.ID
Description a. E " ID.2! ~ ioii 0~ Notes 0-~f-'" VJ 0 0 I---Shale fragments in a clay matrix, stiff, slightly moist, brown, (CL) "0, I---~;? I---~ Bag I---~ 5/12 No Recovery f---L CT
I---~» I---~ I---rti' Bag I---V /I bP" 16/12 ~ CT V~'i I---~ I---~,; I---~ Bag f-~ 11/12 ~ ~ CT .--00/--W m ~ -~ -I---I---~ 14112 25 CT 1-Bottom of boring when terminated: 25 ft. I---I---I---~
I---I---II---f-2.5--I---If-I---This information nertains onl to this barina and should not be interoreted as beina indicitive of the site. Fiqure 5 PAGE 1 of 1
I (~t'O~t't,!".i., .. ~ . PROJECT: Deer Park Gulch {DPG-Ic} PROJECT NO.: 2931 ~~"!l'" t't"""1l CLIENT: Chevron t; 1"011.' .. 1114'. LOCATION: See Figure 2 ELEVATION: 5844 None DRILLER:
W.I LOGGED BY: SP LOG OF DEPTH TO WATER> INITIAL: ¥ ] I AFTER 24 HOURS: 'f Backfilled , TEST BORING TH-3 DATE: 7/29/2008 DEPTH TO CAVING: L None 0 ID W £z-Q.ID Description :cc. oE. .>~-o~
c~ Notes ID~ ~ rnl-"' 0 0-0 (f) () 0 -Shale fragments in a clay matrix, stiff, slightly moist, brown, (eL) ~ -~ CT 14112 I---~~ ~ ~ CT 17112 I--'--I---~ ~ W ~ I--~ 10/12 J--1-Q-~ CT
t'-:: I---~ I-----I-----~ f---~ 21112 ~ ~ CT f--I---~ ~ f--f--~ ~ ~~ ~ f--~ f--/~ 0 f--~ 5~7 ~ ~t'" CT --~ ~ -~ ~A ~ @b W f--I-~ f--17« ~ ~ f--~ f--~ CT 50f~1 No Recovery f--1--W0 This
information oertains only to this borin~ and should not be internreted as beinn indicitive of the site. Fiqure 6 PAGE 1 of2
I (~ .... '.· .... 11 i "n I PROJECT: Deer Park Gulch (OPG-Ie) PROJECT NO.: 2931 ~~"gi""",,;"g CLIENT: Chevron .~ro'II'. Ilu'~ LOCATION: See Figure 2 ELEVATION: 5844 None , LOG OF DRILLER:
W] LOGGED BY: SP j DEPTH TO WATER> INITIAL: ¥ 31 AFTER 24 HOURS: ~ Backfilled TEST BORING TH-3 DATE: 7/2912008 DEPTH TO CAVING: L None ~-g W 15.. V ~ o..~ ~~ woI! Description ~n . E
,., ao; 0~ Notes 0-mr (9 (f) 0 ----'-'----~ -~ f--~ ~ I-----~ f---'-'-f--I~ 1-~ f--1-~ ~ ~ f--~ f--W f--f--~ ~ W f--f--~ f--~ /", ~ Bottom of boring when terminated: 59 ft. I-----f--f--I-----w.>-f--I
-----f--I--I-"--I--I--I--I--I~ I--I--I--I--~ I--This information nertains on Iv to this borinn and should not be internreted as beinn indicitive of the site. Fiqure 6 PAGE2of2
1 .~"·O(4'(~"lli.~nl PROJECT: DeerParkGulch(DPG-lc) ~ .... I~ .. ~ i ... '('.' i .. ~ CLIENT: "(",hc"-,,,,ro,,-n ________________________ _ I.... .~ .. 0 III'" IIH'. LOCATION: ",Sc,-,c..cF",ig""ur,,-
·c =-2 ___________ _ PROJECT NO.: 2931 ELEVATION: LOG OF TEST BORING TH-4 DRILLER: -'\\"".1 ______________ _ LOGGED BY: DEPTH TO WATER> INITIAL: ¥ __-=3-1' --__ AFTER 24 HOURS: ~ DATE:
7/290008 DEPTH TO CAVING: L Description Notes o I--I--I--I--f---'---I--I--e-I--~ Shale fragments in a clay matrix, stiff, slightly moist, brown, (CL) e-I--I--I--~ I--e-I--I--w.s.-I--I--I--I-f--2"--I-
I-I--35 II-I-I--I~ Fiqure 7 Bottom of boring when terminated: 35 ft. This informati"" "ertains onlv to this bnrinn and should not be interoreted ac:: b"'inn indicitive of the site. 5844
None SP Backfilled None PAGE 1 of 1
SWELL I CONSOLIDATION TEST REPORT 1 i I TI , ! ! I I I ! i , I I I , I I , I I I I · i I I , I I i ! , ! 1-0 2 1 ~ I I \~ I WATER ADDED , , I r i -0-___ •• --, i I i I i • I ! I, , I
' , "-I--1 3 , , , I'" , ! I I I i ! I , I i i , , " ! i i ! I i I ! i i', I I I , I 1--2 4 ,-, , ! , I i I i I , i ! i I I , , I 1--3 5 , , i , I j I ! , , c -U I I "§ ro , I I ! 0
U5 , I , c 6 I :i i 1--4 aro. <ll I I i I t' i I ! ro "<-ll I , I i !<ll <D I I , 1--5 I i 7 , • i I i I I I I , I ! I I ! i I ! II , -6 8 I I , I , ! i , ! i I 1--7 9 i I , I i I ,I
,I 1--8 10 , , , i I I i ! , , ! I I I i I 1--9 , , I I ! 11 100 200 500 1000 2000 5000 Applied Pressure -psI Natural Dry Dens. Sp. Overburden Pc Cc Cr Swell Press. Heave Sat. I Moist.
(pet) LL PI Gr. (pst) (pst) (pst) % eo I 17.8% 102.6 3953 1175 0.1 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION USCS AASHTO Shale Fragments in a clay matrix, stiff, moist. brown Project No. 2931 Client: Chevron
Remarks: Project: Deer Park Gulch (DPG·lc) Source: TH·I Elev.lDepth: 14 II (;"0""'''";",,, ~~~lIgin('t.ri ng (~roup~ In.'. Figure 8
SWELL I CONSOLIDATION TEST REPORT 0 ! I : I , I I , , I I i , I , I ! I , -0 I -.. , I , ..... i 1 ! I I I' . , i ...... ' ' , I , , I , I I I~i ! , i i I I --1 i i ! I 2 I , . I I I
! I I I i I i , ! I I , , , i I i -I I i I ! I -2 , , I 3 I I , ! , , , I I I ! , I , , I ! , i, --3 I I i I , I i 4 , , , , " I i -U 'iii I I -ro ~ , ! -4 (l iii , , i I ro C 5 I I
I ;:? Q) , I Ie , , , ro 1 , ! Q) i OJ 0-i --5 r<o i , 6 I I i , , ! I I i --6 , , i I 7 ! , I I , , i ! I , , --7 8 i ! , , ! i I ! I --8 ! I ! I 9 I I I ! i I I --9 i I I , 10 100
I , 200 500 1000 2000 5000 Applied Pressure -psI Natural Dry Dens. PI Sp. Overburden Pc Cc Cr Swell Press. Heave LL eo Sat. Moist. (pcQ Gr. (psQ (psQ (psQ % 21.6 % 113.9 NV NP 426 MATERIAL
DESCRIPTION USCS AASHTO Shale fragments in a clay matrix, stilT moist. brown Project No. 2931 Client: Chevron Remarks: Project: Deer Park Gulch (DPG-Ic) Source: TH-2 Elev.lDepth: 9 II
(;.· .... ·.,. .. ,;.· .. 1 ~~lIgill(.(.ri n~ ';roill •. 111('. Figure 9 I
SWELL I CONSOLIDATION TEST REPORT -,065~----------_~-~-_-~~~~----------,---,-,--, I ,! i I 1-130 i ' :: I : ' ,I i ,000 ~_---!-I---!--'----+---'---+--I--I----+-+---i--I---I----"----'---'--_--I----!-+
-I.--+,-1 I L' i i II i 'I', i" I, ,065 I--W...LA~T...LE-R AOiDED-] , 065~~-+__I__I_-----~_+~_+'-~~-~~~~-+1,-~r-1--~-+--+--I-~ '! i I ! ! I I ,-,000 I I I i , I i 130 1----I_+--,.i_'L--'-_~-+-+_'
--I___+---I--I--I---+-+-+----'--'---IL---~-L, -+-_+___+-H , , -,~ i I I i i I ~ ! ! : i ,'951----I-+--+--+--_--I---'--+--I___+___+--I--I-+-+-+----'-..p!...+ --I--''--I--+-I----+-_+_-1
<:: 'I i ji I N r ' --130 -0 ~ ,:Ir-.. ~ c .260~_+-+__I__I_-+---I-, -_~_+_+_+-_I_-I-+_+_+__+I-I----I--I--I-'\.-l--+-l--I--I-~ ~ CD: --,195 I ~ I i\ re a. I I i!\ 05 .3251----I-+--+--I-_+_-_-+--I---I_
__+--I-_+_-I-+-+-+-I----+-_+__+__+_-_+_~+__+___+-H Ii' I~ --.260 390 1----I-+--+--I--I--I----+--I+-~ --I---+--I--I--I-+-+-+---I-+-~il---I-I----I--+-"i \---'-f-_-1_.325 I i , ! i i !
.455 ~_+-+__I__I__I_-_I_-+_~_+_+_+-_I_-I-+_+_+__+-+__I_I---_I_-_I_-+_~_+-f__~ -.390 ! .5201----I-+-_+_-I-_+_-_+_-+-_+--I___+--I--I--II-+-+-+-_-+-_+__+__+_--I--+-_+___+-H .585 100 I i
200 Natural Dry Dens, Sat. Moist. (pel) 445.3 % 21.6 % 146.6 LL PI Sp. Gr. 2.65 500 1000 Applied Pressure -psI Overburden (pst) Pc (psI) 1658 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Shale fragments in
a clay mater ix, stiff, moist, brown Project No. 2931 Client: Chevron Project: Deer Park Gulch (DPG·lc) Source: TH-3 11 ·;N" •.•. h .. it.UI ~lII.. I~ngil .. ·(·rin#it I .. C;roup. In('.
Elev./Depth: 9 i --.455 I j 2000 Swell Press, Heave (psI) % 0,01 -0.1 0.128 USCS AASHTO Remarks: Figure 10
SWELL I CONSOLIDATION TEST REPORT 9 I , I ! I , , , , I i, , I ! , ! ~ I I -0 10 ! i ! I I I I J.., .... ! ........ I , I I , i , I ~ 1--1 i , i 11 I I , . i , , 1 I I I I 1 I --2 I
i I i 12 , i ! i, ! , I , , I ; , ! , --3 , , , , I , i 13 j I I ! c 1 i , I j--4 -U .~ , I (J) ! i n iJ5 , ! I I (J) C 14 " I I I , OJ , ! I --5 I ~ , , , , I (J) i OJ '" I i I CL I
<(J) , , , 15 -! -6 , , , i , i , I , I i I 1 16 , ! -7 i I I i 1 ! i ! i I , i . 17 -8 i I i I I I I , I I , I --9 18 , , i i I I I I I i -I I i -10 19 100 200 500 1000 2000 5000 Applied
Pressure -pst Natural Dry Dens. PI Sp. Overburden Pc Cc Cr Swell Press. Heave (pet) LL Gr. (pst) (pst) (pst) % eo Sat. Moist. 17.7% 104.2 4387 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION USCS AASHTO Shale
fragments in a clay matrix. sliff, moist. brown Project No. 2931 Client: Chevron Remarks: Project: Deer Park Gulch (DPG-Ic) Source: TH-4 Elev.lDepth: 24 II .. · .. ·· ... ·,,;· .. ,
'~lIgi ".·(·ri ng ';rolill. I ... ·. Figure II I
-0.009 't-+--I ' I 'I : -~-'e=-:'r--;-R--!--+;-~--~-t4-+---'-•r -. -+----l'--0.006 . ~... , 'j I . 1--+ I----'--j . . .5 c ~ E -$ I-b+I--+ "-'-i!,-'~-:~-h· +:-.1..: ~J~' -',,--0.003-,
f+f.-H-\--.... I"'/i:i 2 D,lal'o" , , , I 0 , 1 i o , , ~ 1:: Q) > Coo.c, I , I ! 0.003 I ± I I 0.006 I ! , ·1-0.009 t-I 'j 0 3.5 7 10.5 14 Strain, % Sample Type: Description: Shale
Fragments, clay matrix, slightly moist, brown (CL) LL=NV PI= NP Assumed Specific Gravity= 2.65 Remarks: Figure 12 3 15 r----...,R=-e-s-u...,lt-s...,...,"'J--.-. ...,.-.---,-...,-~.--..."
T"l~-'!-" ": r-::-~~d,P ~S""i' t---=----''''223'''.4·,..66.=---J--;-l--;...~.--'-! : ~+~I ~t 1. ~!L .. Tan($) 0.44 10 , '<n c. f-.-vi '~" iii 'ro u.. 5 -++ i-f---. .7 t-+--~I .. I ,
j ! h --i + I i ! , -, I I I +-+,---+-+-o 5 10 15 Normal Stress, psi Sample No. 1 2 3 Water Content, % 14.7 14.7 14.7 Dry Density, pel 96.9 96.9 96.9 "iii Saturation, % 55.2 55.2 55.2
~ Void Ratio 0.7078 0.7078 0.7078 Diameter, in. 1.94 1.94 1.94 Heiaht, in. 1.00 1.00 1.00 Water Content, % 24.0 24.0 24.0 Dry Density, pcl 96.9 96.9 96.9 1n Q) Saturation, % 89.9 89.9
89.9 f-;( Void Ratio 0.7078 0.7078 0.7078 Diameter, in. 1.94 1.94 1.94 Heiaht in. 1.00 1.00 1.00 Normal Stress, psi 3.50 6.90 10AO Fail. Stress, psi 4.08 5.29 7.10 Strain, % 1.6 2.1
2.6 Ult. Stress, psi Strain, % Strain rate, in.lmin. 0.63 0.63 0.63 Client: Chevron Project: Deer Park Gulch (DPG-Ic) Source of Sample: TH-2 Depth: 9 Proj. No.: 2931 Date Sampled: Tested
By: '-'A"'B ________ Checked By: "'JS"---________ _
Gradation Test Report c c c ~ c .-0 0 0 " .~ .£ 0 -00 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 ;: ~ it ii N M W ii ii N W M N ~ " ;0; ~ ~ ~ ~ 100 I , 1 1 TIl , : ! , il I I , , ! ! , , , , i , I i ! I I I I ,
, , , . I' , I , 90 T I , -I I , .. ~. i • Ii' ...... '-, i! ..• , I I' I , I i I 'ITtf· !: , , I ,"'-, ',~. ' , 80 ,-,', '-, I I i , I I I , I ' ' I I : I I . , i , /i=("': I' I , 70
F:"l' I, . I , i I I , n: III w 60 -------!--I' I z I ~!I:-[ ! I LJ.. , , I I i. c-' , , .. ~ Z 50 .. ! .. w I .~ I () I , I !: ~ I n: ,, , .L W 40 , ! , , n. i ~Ii I , , _J i , " !
! 30 r -+-. t= I i , I , , I 20 , ' . : ; I ' , , ! , , ! I , I 10 , . I I I I ! I i I I i , i ,Ii 0 , , , 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE· mm. % Gravel % Sand % Fines %+3" Coarse
I Fine Coarse I Medium I Fine Silt I Clav 0 0 I 29 8 19 ! 13 31 SIEVE PERCENT SPEC: PASS? Material Descri!!tion SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO) Shale fragments in a clay matrix .5 100 .375
73 Atterberg Limits (ASTM D 4318) #4 71 PL= LL-45 PI-17 #8 66 #16 57 Classification #30 48 USCS= AASHTO= #50 40 Coefficients #100 34 085= 10.9167 D60-1.5312 050= 0.6887 #200 31 030=
015= 010= Cu= Cc= Date Tested: Tested By: AB Remarks (no specification provided) Sample No.: Source of Sample: TH·I Date Sampled: Location: Elev .IDepth: 0-10 Checked Bv: NJ Title: I
f~f· .. t.·f·h .. if",1 Client: Chevron ~~ .. gi"f'f.ri .. g Project: Deer Park Gulch (DPG-Ic) .~"""1" I .. f'. I Project No: 2931 Figure 13 I
a:: w Z LL fZ W U a:: w 0. Gradation Test Report s .s' s~ cS C,S 0 000 0 g~g (0 "'N.---;:~0~ :a i ~~o1t ~ ltlt~ 100 r-;-rj-:-"'--mTrT-1' r-;-'--: +1'---"'-{)-.,.I., i; "":.~:;'--'---'-.'
. ' ------"","I,-T,.j '--'i' -I.rI",---1'-='i--r1,Ti-,T'I T-'-:-,------,--In-":TITI "I, ;I, --I' !----, 901-+--;-'-+~++++++-c-+i'_+-i_'.'I""'~~""I' 'I'i ""I , i I I I ! 80 I-t-+-_+----tiit-i-+,
i-,. i I : : .-60 H+-+ II ---+1+++++1 +-+I--+ftH I I I! : I . . i i 50H+-+,--H++~~+-r-+--tH++t+-+-+--+H+i:+ -~+-+--tH++~-+~-·-+tH~-+-+--+----I , ~ I • i, ! 40H-+-_+----tl++I++-~+--·jl·f++~+-~+--+M++t
+-,+ -+--+H++++-+--I I 1.-, , I , ! I • I i i I 'I I, I' 30H-+--+--~++++-+-+----ti+H-+'~+'-+--T++I+~-~-+tH+++-~+--H+~-+-+-+-~ I ' I ! i I I 20H-+-_+----tl++I++-~' -+--_+H+t+I+_~+_-+H+-++'_+_+-_+H++++
_+_~~-tH++'~-+--f-'-4 , Ii ,1 1 ! I; , I 10H-+-_+----tl++I++i -.-+-~+H++·I_t,+_+-_+H++_+_+_+_-++++++_+_+-_+1++++_+_,__+_-1 I I o ,--,--"'---'---,~c.w....i. L....L!--,-........"""I'.w....I...J......L-
L_;.c.1i LLi.L.L.l~iC-L--;;7il.L..L...'-'--"-....."..;;Jf-W...L..L...L....."-n;;O/100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0,001 GRAIN SIZE ~ mm. % +3" % Gravel % Sand % Fines ~=---"'-=r~:---+c:----,--:c:-::'"==r--=----+--
----=cc--'"-~T--~--.. -Coarse I Fine Coarse I Medium I Fine Silt I Clay SIEVE SIZE .375 #4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #200 o o PERCENT SPEC: FINER PERCENT 100 99 96 90 81 73 67 64 (no specification
provided) PASS? (X=NO) 5 17 I 13 64 Material Description Shale fragments in a clay matrix Atterberg Limits (ASTM D 4318) PL= LL= 49 PI-19 Classification USCS= AASHTO= 085= 0.7787 030=
Cu= Date Tested: Coefficients 060= 015= Cc= 050= 010= Tested By: AB Remarks Sample No.: Source of Sample: TH·2 Date Sampled: Location: Checked By: NJ 1 .~C,otC'C'hlliC'''. I ~ .....
1~II~i ... ·.·ri .. ~ I .. • ~"O"I'· IlIc·. Elev.lDepth: 0·10 Title: Client: Chevron Project: Deer Park Gulch (DPG~lc) Proiect No: 2931 Fiaure 14
0:: ill Z u:: f-Z ill 0 0:: ill e. Gradation Test Report 0 0 c c 0 0 0 0 .~ 0 ;; 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 " " " " it ii N M it m ii ii N m M ~ 100 I I I I , " " " " ~ H--i! Ii I i ! I -li-:11
! I' I i I : : ! I! I I , , ! "n , " H-i i-90 ,-l I ! ---me-1 ~ I --I I I I: I I ' :~I: k 'J I ! j' . 80 I ~ Iii. I ,I ! , I I 1 , I 70 ;----11 ' IT i -, r-~b! i I ,1 I I : . 1-: " I,
60 --4-I i I IT i ' I I I i , I ! i I i : ! I I , , 50 -i i I I I I I I !I I I I i I 40 :1 , I t --I I , i , I I :I! II I III I I . , I I , 30 I , , -I -+++1+++--1----1-----++++++++-+--1----1
I , I 1 , ! ! ! I: i i i I 20 I i !~T ! , I , I 10 , ! ! 0 i I: :', I ! ! I i I 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 GRAIN SIZE -mm. % Gravel % Sand % Fines %+3" Coarse I Fine Coarse Medium 1 Fine Silt
l SIEVE SIZE .5 .375 #4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #200 o PERCENT FINER 100 98 95 91 86 80 74 69 66 o : 5 SPEC.' PASS? PERCENT (X=NO) (no specification provided) Sample No.: 5 13 I II 66 Material
Description Shale fragments in a clay matrix Atterberg Limits lASTM D 4318) PL= LL-45 PI= 16 Classification USCS= AASHTO= D85= 1.0918 D30= Cu= Date Tested: D50= D1O= Tested By: AB Remarks
Date Sampled: 0.001 Clay Location: Source of Sample: TH-3 Title: Elev.lDepth: 0-10 Checked Bv: NJ Fi~ure 15 Client: Chevron Project: Deer Park Gulch (DPG-Ic) 1 .~'·O'C'C'hlliC''', I
~ ... Il .. gi ..... ·.·i .. g I .. • ~ro ..... I .. c·. Project No: 2931
I oc w z LL fZ W U OC W D.. I: <' S S 0 M N ~ Gradation Test Report i I I 100, ,i I,il, I' ~,il"I:1 i',' ,j I i I I I:: I! I'iI,: ': , 'I'i i' 90 -r ---I+'--i I++..c Ii if-+--+---+,!+'+II-!--\:
~~-D1i"i~', ---'!-TI'-' I~' ! 80 : I +_-+++1 +++'+---+_-+1++1 :-,-,, __ ..•. ! ~w..1 i I I I , Iii! -----u--~ I I '0. ; ! I' ii', r', --f---70 I I 1 ;: , i II I~ 1 60 !I -,i "II 11--"---illli':'~",
' li'--I Iii i : I I ; ! '1 __ 'I. " __ ojII, ', !J+ L-~----+l-l-l-j++--I--+---+++-j i L-r-, " ;' I, 4-7-; +-+-1 I I' ! 'I i , i I I-'---:---+---l-I-W-+--t-+---+----t'-t' -+++-1---+;
---j---"-'H' H~'-+-----·_-+1-1+1-+-+-+-+--+1-1-1, ' , L ---+--!' 'I I II' I . , I:! I[ I :i,. ,I iii I Ii' j' I i I-+---l--l-~+I+l-+-+f-+----l+-+-;'' --'--t-+-+-----+t-'-H-t--l--'--+I:
-I+l++++-l-+-+++-'+l-'i'-+-li--I: iii : ill I 10 0.1 0.01 GRAIN SIZE -mm. % Gravel Coarse I Fine Coarse: o I 9 8 ' SPEC.' ' PASS? PERCENT I (X=NO) (no specification provided) Sample
No.: Source of Sample: TH-4 Location: % Sand % Fines Medium I Fine Slit 14 ! 14 55 Material Description Shale fragments in a clay matrix Atterberg Limits (ASTM D 4318) PL= LL= NL PI-NP
Classification USCS= AASHTO= 085= 2.4800 030= Cu= Date Tested: Coefficients 060= 0.1406 015= Cc= 050= 010= Tested By: AS Remarks Date Sampled: Elev.lDepth: Checked Bv: NJ Title: I·~f
... tf'dl .. it'al I Client: Chevron ~~ .. gi"f'f.rillg I Project: Deer Park Gulch (DPG-1c) I .~r"lll.' I .. f', I Project No: 2931 FiQure 0.001 Clay 0-5 16
Gradation Test Report c ~ c 0 0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ c c .--00 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 ~ ;. ~ ~ M " " N M " ~ " ii N N 100 I " " " " I , ! '!II~ I I!! i I i ' I I , , i I' I I I ttt1j I , I , ,! Ii' ,
: I' jii+~---90 i I I ! ' " ~ I ,-' , I " I :: I ' I I i I 80 1"-' : ' i --I! ~:~-~ ! I i , I ! Ii i 0. I I I , , I I i I ! " m~I-~~ iii I 70 ----j-i I I ~-~" 1 I I I a:: i , , ' I !
I I w 60 +---! i ' Ii zu:: II II I I 1'1 I , I I I I I ! , i i II , I f-, ! i I I , i Z 50 , II I ---, -w i , I I I I () ! ! ! , , a:: -'---T-i' ! : I w 40 --, ! , 0.. I , I , i I !
I, , , I , I I : I 30 t , L I i I ! ---I I 20 , I I I , , , , I , i , , i 10 I : !! I i I I i i ! I I ; i ! i I 0 I i 100 10 1 0,1 0,01 0,001 GRAIN SIZE -mm, %+3" % Gravel % Sand % Fines
-~~-. " 1 --_. Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Silt I Clav 0 0 3 7 18 I 12 60 SIEVE PERCENT SPEC: PASS? Material Description SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO) 3 100 1.5 100 Atterberg Limits (ASTM
D 4318) ,75 100 PL= LL-41 Pl-IO .5 99 375 99 Classification #4 97 USCS= AASHTO= #8 92 Coefficients #16 84 D85= 1.3023 D60= D50= #30 76 D30= D15= DlO= #50 69 Cu= Cc= #100 64 Date Tested:
Tested By: #200 60 sp Remarks (no specification provided) Sample No.: Source of Sample: TH-I & 3 Date Sampled: Location: Elev .IDepth: 0-10 Checked Bv: ai Title: 1·~··""···llIli""1 Client:
Chevron ~~Il~i ...... ri"~ Project: Deer Park Ouleh (DPO-Ie) .~r"IlI'. I .. ". Project No: 2931 Fiqure 17
't3 c. J!--0; c <1> "0 ~ 0 Moisture-Density Relationship Curve ( Proctor) I (;,-'o("('hni"nl ~lrrrrrrr... EIl~itl(.( .... ill!t 1-.... (.rolll.· Ilu'. Curve No.: 1 Project No.: 2931
Date: 8/14/08 Project: Deer Park Gulch (DPG-Ic) 140 130 120 110 100 90 80 70 Source: TH-I & 3 Remarks: Elev.lDepth: 0-10 Sample No. MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Description: Shale fragments
in a clay matrix Classifications -Nat. Moist. = Liquid Limit = 41 % > 3/8 in. = 1.0 % USCS: Maximum dry density = 99.5 pef Optimum moisture = 21.0 % AASHTO: Sp.G. = Plasticity Index
= 10 % < No.200 = 60 % TEST RESULTS \., '\I Test specification: "'\1'\: ,,\ I'\. ASTM D 1557-00 Method B Modified i--------, '" i -I-i--i--! I " I -. " I'\. +-=+= I " --, I--" I " --,
--, ! I 1"-100% SATURATION CURVES 1----r I ~ I, FOR SPEC. GRAV. EQUAL TO: ---T, T i"-2_8 ! I-, "1 2.7 I I--, ' " ~. 2.6 I "-"-po. I ,-i'-. , i : I 1--i'---~~ I I i i ---, 'K ,,,,>,,",
--, I ! ..... '"" --, -, i ......... i'-. .-:---~-1---::: ~~ I --. 1-------.-i' i--r l-i I I-I --i--T--i I ' ~I 1--1.-.1.--l-I I Ji-:: l-I i ......... 1 f-. 1"-H--11--+-+ 1"--..... 1--i
--I I !~ ---t' ---IL --!-----1 i -t-, It ... _-, ! --r I i r:::=+-+-l"-. ::LL_J IJ~~ , I I T-I I I --_. -C-T-T I --.-~--~-,-t·-'-_. --+ i --.-. ~+ -H--c--c-:--+--1= r I ~ -, --t I •
'-+ I , .-i·--~··-j .. --, ---+-r , , o 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Water content, % t::.l"-i" ~ ...... , --1---1--40 Figure 18
BEARING RATIO TEST REPORT ASTM D 1883-99 200 ! ! ! , , i ! 160 ----.~ I I I , 'iii .e: I i -1---1--I " 120 , "c co ~ ~ <II 'iii " ~ 0:: : ! C .0, l'! 80 .. /' ~ "c /0".. ! I ~-,I 40
~~ 0 i I 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 Penetration Depth (in,) Molded .. Soaked CBR(%) Linearity Max. Density Percent of Moisture Density Percent of Moisture ! Correction Surcharge Swell (pe~
Max. Dens. (%) (pef) Max. Dens. (%) 0.10 in. 0.20 in. (in.) (Ibs.) (%) 1 0 86.5 86.9 19.6 86.5 87.1 28.1 4.0 4.4 0.000 12.5845 0 _.. -.. 2 [} I ! ~, --.. "--3 D Material Description
Max. Optimum USCS Dens. Moisture LL PI (pen ('/0) Shale fragments in a clay matrix 99.5 21.0 41 10 Project No: 2931 Test Description/Remarks: Project: Deer Park Gulch (DPG~lc) Source
of Sample: TH~ I & 3 Depth: 0-10 Date: 114a~"~'."""~''i'' ';''''1 .. "''' ... i •• ~ 4.. ....... ••• • •• c·. Figure 19
Fill siopel I Compacted Fill See Note 1 I-sel Note 2 Toe Key, See Note 1 Note 1: Excavated into competent foundation material (estimated 5 feet minimum). To be verified by Geotechnical
Engineering Group during construction Note 2: Toe Key length a minimum of 5 times Toe Key Depth (estimated 15 feet minimum). Note 1 Toe Key and Bench Concept Job No. 2,931 Fig. 20
Fill siopel Compacted Fill '-----__ ----;, ___ ~rappropriate filter fabric L 4" or 6" diameter perforated drain pipe Free draining aggregate at least 3 cubic feet per linear foot of
pipe wrapped with an appropriate filter fabric. Job No. 2,931 Toe Key and Bench Drain Concept Fig. 21
minimum 1 foot Low Permeability Blanket Layer 1 1011.7 permeability or lower, Extended minimum 1 foot above anticipated high water elevation, Assumed High Water Elevation minimum 1 foot
thick. Job No. 2,931 Low Permeability Blanket Concept Fig. 22
Surface of Wall Backfill Material Stem Wall -B"kfill \ Typical 36" Continuous Footing Well compacted fill. A= Required frost protection as per Garfield County Building Dept. as per report.
B= Engineered Structural Fill Depth and Over Excavation. Not To Scale I 5' ~ Drill Rig and Semi-Permanent Equipment Footing and Stem Wall Frost Protection Concept Job No. 2,931 Fig.
23
Surface of B"kf;" \ Wall Backfill Material Stem Wall -Typical 36" Continuous Footing Well compacted fill. A= Required frost protection as per Garfield County Building Dept. as per report.
B= Engineered Structural Fill Depth and Over Excavation. Not To Scale Temporary Equipment and Trailers Footing and Stem Wall Frost Protection Concept I 2' ~ Job No. 2,931 Fig. 24
Hole TH-1 TH-1 TH-1 TH-1 TH-2 TH-2 TH-2 TH-2 TH-3 TH-3 "---Geotechnical I ~.Engineering • Group, Inc. TABLE I SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS Depth Natural Dry Atterberg Limits Swell
I Direct Shear Passing Water (feet) Moisture Density Consolidation No. 200 Soluble ('!o) (pet) Liquid Plasticity Swell Confining Internal Cohesion Sieve Sulfates Limit Index ('!o) Pressure
Angle ot (pst) (%) (ppm) ('!o) ('!o) (pst) Friction (Degrees) o to 10 --45 17 --31 5 to 10 -------------400 9 13.1 90 ----------14 17.8 103 ----0.1 1,000 ----o to 10 10.1 --49 19 --64
--9 21.6 114 ---0.0 500 24 250 70 -10t015 ----------400 24 18.0 75 -----------a to 10 10.3 45 16 ------66 --9 21.6 114 --0.0 500 --------_.-Page 1 of 2 Job No. 2931 Permeability Soil
Type (em/sec) --Shale fragments with a clay matrix (SH) -Shale fragments with a clay matrix (SH) 2.4 X 10~ Shale fragments with a clay matrix (SH) -Shale fragments with a clay matrix
(SH) --Shale fragments with a clay matrix (SH) --Shale fragments with a clay matrix (SH) --Shale fragments with a clay matrix (SH) 2.2 X 10 Shale fragments with a clay matrix (SH) --Shale
fragments with a clay matrix (SH) --Shale fragments with a clay matrix (SH) -------
Hole TH-4 TH-4 TH-4 Geotechnical I ~hEngineering • Group, Inc. Job No. 2931 TA8.LE I SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS Depth Natural Dry Atterberg Limits Swell I Direct Shear Passing
Water Permeability Soil Type (feet) Moisture Density Consolidation No. 200 Soluble (em/sec) (%) (pel) Liquid Plasticity Swell Confining Internal Cohesion Sieve Sulfates Limit Index (%)
Pressure Angle of (pst) (%) (ppm) (%) (%) (psI) FrictiO~) (DeQrees o to 5 6.2 --NL' NP' ---55 600 --Shale fragments with a clay matrix (SH) 4 16.7 -41 14 -----39 ----Shale fragme;~~
~th a clay matrix SH -24 17.7 104 ---0.0 1,000 --------Shale fragments with a clay matrix ISH) ._--._-* NL-Indicates sample did not exhibit liquid characteristics * NP-Indicates sample
did not exhibit plastic characteristics -_____ L Page 2 of 2
Geotechnical I• Engineering I~Group, Inc. Hole Depth Natural (Feet) Moisture TH-l & o to 10 --TH-3 Dry Density (pet) -TABLE II Job No. 2931 SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS Atterberg
Limits Modified Proctor California Passing Water Soluble Soil Type (ASTM D1557) Bearing Ratio No. 200 Sulfates (ppm) (CBR) Sieve Liquid Plasticity Maximum Optimum ('!o) Limit Index ('!o)
Dry Moisture ('!o) Density Content (pell ('!o) 41 10 99.5 21.0 4.0 60 --Share fragments with a clay matrix (SH) ---------------Page 1 of 1
APPENDIX A SAMPLE SITE GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
SAMPLE SITE GRADING SPECIFICATIONS Chevron DPG-1c Proposed West Site Well Pad Garfield County, Colorado Note: Appendix A presents sample specifications. These sample specifications are
not project specific. The sample specifications should be modified by the Architect, Civil engineer or Structural engineer as needed to reflect project specific requirements.) 1. DESCRIPTION
This item shall consist of the excavation, transportation, placement and compaction of materials from locations indicated on the plans, or staked by the Engineer, as necessary to achieve
preliminary roads and overlot elevations. These specifications shall also apply to compaction of excess cut materials that may be placed outside of the subdivision and/or filing boundaries.
2. GENERAL The Soils Engineer shall be the Owner's representative. The Soils Engineer shall approve fill materials, method of placement, moisture contents and percent compaction, and
shall give written approval of the completed fill. 3. CLEARING JOB SITE The Contractor shall remove all trees, brush, and rubbish before excavation or fill placement is begun. The Contractor
shall dispose of the cleared material to provide the Owner with a clean, neat appearing job site. Cleared material shall not be placed in areas to receive fill or where the material
will support structures of any kind. 4. SCARIFYING AREA TO BE FILLED All topsoil and vegetable matter shall be removed from the ground surface upon which fill is to be placed. The surface
shall then be plowed or scarified until the surface is free from ruts, hummocks or other uneven features, which would prevent uniform compaction by the equipment to be used. Job No.
2,931 A-1
5. COMPACTING AREA TO BE FILLED After the foundation for the fill has been cleared and scarified, it shall be disked or bladed until it is free from large clods, brought to the proper
moisture content (within 2 percent above or below optimum) and compacted to not less than 95 percent of maximum density as determined in accordance with ASTM D 698. If soft! yielding
subgrade conditions are encountered, stabilization may be required. 6. FILL MATERIALS Fill soils shall be free from vegetable matter or other deleterious substances, and shall not contain
rocks or lumps having a diameter greater than six (6) inches. Fill materials shall be obtained from cut areas shown on the plans or staked in the field by the Engineer. On-site materials
classifying as CL, SC, SM, SW, SP, GP, GC and GM are acceptable. Concrete, asphalt, organic matter and other deleterious materials or debris shall not be used as fill. 7. MOISTURE CONTENT
Fill materials shall be moisture treated to within 2 ± percent of optimum moisture content as determined from Proctor compaction tests. Sufficient laboratory compaction tests shall be
made to determine the optimum moisture content for thee various soils encountered in borrow areas. The Contractor may be required to add moisture to the excavation materials in the borrow
area if, in the opinion of the Soils Engineer, it is not possible to obtain uniform moisture content by adding water on the fill surface. The Contractor may be required to rake or disk
the fill soils to provide uniform moisture content through the soils. The application of water to embankment materials shall be made with any type of watering equipment approved by the
Soils Engineer, which will give the desired results. Water jets from the spreader shall not be directed at the embankment with such force that fill materials are washed out. Job No.
2,931 A-2
Should too much water be added to any part of the fill, such that the material is too wet to permit the desired compaction from being obtained, rolling and all work on that section of
the fill shall be delayed until the material has been allowed to dry to the required moisture content. The Contractor will be permitted to rework wet material in an approved manner to
hasten its drying, 8. COMPACTION OF FILL AREAS Selected fill material shall be placed and mixed in evenly spread layers, After each fill layer has been placed, it shall be uniformly
compacted to not less than the specified percentage of maximum density, Expansive soils classifying as CL or SC shall be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density as
determined in accordance with ASTM D 698 (100 percent for fill deeper than 15 feet below final grade), At the option of the Soils Engineer, soils classifying as SW, SP, GP, GC or GM
may be compacted to 90 percent of the maximum density as determined in accordance with ASTM 0 1557 (95 percent for fill deeper than 15 feet below final grade), Fill materials shall be
placed such that the thickness of loose material does not exceed 10 inches and the compacted lift thickness does not exceed 6 inches, Compaction, as specified above, shall be obtained
by the use of sheepsfoot rollers, multiple-wheel pneumatic-tired rollers, or other equipment approved by the Engineer for soils classifying as CL or SC, Granular fill shall be compacted
using vibratory equipment or other equipment approved by the Soils Engineer. Compaction shall be accomplished while the fill material is at the specified moisture content. Compaction
of each layer shall be continuous over the entire area, Compaction equipment shall make sufficient trips to insure that the required density is obtained, 9. COMPACTION OF SLOPES Fill
slopes shall be compacted by means of sheepsfoot rollers or other suitable equipment. Compaction operations shall be continued until slopes are stable, but not too dense for planting,
and there is no appreciable amount of loose soil on the slopes, Compaction of slopes may be done progressively in increments of three to five feet (3' to 5') in height or after the fill
is brought to its total height. Permanent fill slopes shall not exceed 3:1 (horizontal to vertical), Job No. 2,931 A-3
10. DENSITY TESTS Field density tests shall be made by the Soils Engineer at locations and depths of his choosing. Where sheepsfoot rollers are used, the soil may be disturbed to a depth
of several inches. Density tests shall be taken in compacted material below the disturbed surface. When density tests indicate that the density or moisture content of any layer of fill
or portion thereof is below that required, the particular layer or portion shall be reworked until the required density or moisture content has been achieved. 11. COMPLETED PRELIMINARY
GRADES All areas, both, cut and fill, shall be finished to a level surface and shall meet the following limits of construction: A. Overlot cut or fill areas shall be within plus or minus
2/10 of one fool. B. Street grading shall be within plus or minus 1/10 of one fool. The civil engineer, or duly authorized representative, shall check all cut and fill areas to observe
that the work is in accordance with the above limits. 12. SUPERVISION AND CONSTRUCTION STAKING Observation by the Soils Engineer shall be continuous during the placement of fill and
compaction operations so that he can declare that the fill was placed in general conformance with specifications. All inspections necessary to test the placement of fill and observe
compaction operations will be at the expense of the Owner. All construction staking will be provided by the Civil Engineer or his duly authorized representative. Initial and final grading
staking shall be at the expense of the owner. The replacement of grade stakes through construction shall be at the expense of the contractor. 13. SEASONAL LIMITS No fill material shall
be placed, spread or rolled while it is frozen, thawing, or during unfavorable weather conditions. When work is interrupted by heavy precipitation, fill operations shall not be resumed
until the Soils Engineer indicates that the moisture content and density of previously placed materials are as specified. Job No. 2,931 A-4
14. NOTICE REGARDING START OF GRADING The contractor shall submit notification to the Soils Engineer and Owner advising them of the start of grading operations at least three (3) days
in advance of the starting date. Notification shall also be submitted at least 3 days in advance of any resumption dates when grading operations have been stopped for any reason other
than adverse weather conditions. 15. REPORTING OF FIELD DENSITY TESTS Density tests made by the Soils Engineer, as specified under "Density Tests" above, shall be submitted progressively
to the Owner. Dry density, moisture content, of each test taken and percentage compaction shall be reported for each test taken. 16. DECLARATION REGARDING COMPLETED FILL The Soils Engineer
shall provide a written declaration stating that the site was filled with acceptable materials, or was placed in general accordance with the specifications. 17. DECLARATION REGARDING
COMPLETED GRADE ELEVATIONS A registered Civil Engineer or licensed Land Surveyor shall provide a declaration stating that the site grading has been completed and resulting elevations
are in general conformance with the accepted detailed development plan. Job No. 2,931 A-5
APPENDIX B
Appendix 8 Chevron -Skinner Ridge Pit Liner Evaluation Form Name of Pit Location I Deer Park Gulch (DPG Ic) Yes No Comments Initials Is the site within 660 feet of domestic water X NJ
well? Is the site within 1320 feet ofa public water X NJ supply well? Is the site within the area of influence from a X NJ surface body of water? Is the hydraulic conductivity in the
bottom of X NJ the pit 1 x 10-6 cm/s or less? Was water encountered during dry augering of 2.2 X 10'4 em/sec NJ the conductor hole at a depth less than 25' below the pit bottom Is the
pit constructed on fill material? Not constructed. Designed in Cut NJ Is pit to be lined? Move or eliminate pit on this location Evaluation Performed By Approved By Date: Job No. 2,931
8-1
Chevron ,_,1 '-...., ", "fiJr Piceance Fugitive Dust Control Plan (FDCP) Document No, PBSR-ALL-CIV-SPC-URS-00000-04013-00 Revised March ", 2009 The scope of this document is to outline
the basic requirements to minimize and control fugitive dust emissions during land development activities, These guidelines will be reviewed periodically and will be shared with employees
and contractors to ensure that they have adequate knowledge to minimize fugitive dust emISSIOns, Introduction Land development activities, including clearing, excavating, and grading,
rclease dust to the atmosphere. This fugitive dust is regulated as an air pollutant by the Air Pollution Control Division (APCD) at the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment.
Land development projects ranging from 25 to 1,850 acres in size require permitting through the APCD and the implementation of fugitive dust controls. Projects exceeding 1,850 acres
will be subject to a construction permit and public notice proceedings. Small land development activities that are less than 25 contiguous acres altd less than 6 months in duration are
exempt from permitting and do not need to report air emissions to the APCD, but must use appropriate control measures to minimize the release of fugitive dust from the site. This Fugitive
Dust Control Plan addresses how dust will be kept to a minimum on all applicable sites in Piceance. This plan focuses action on: 1.0 General Operating Conditions 2.0 Control Measures
for Unpaved Roadways and Disturbed Areas 3.0 Recordkceping and Permit Registration 4.0 Contingency Planning
1.0 General Operating Conditions Field personnel and contractors are required to limit lilgitive particulate matter (fugitive dust) II-om all specific sources by taking the following
stcps: • Fugitive dust from all activities, on-site haul roads, and haul trucks operating on Chevron property must not result in oft:property transport of visible emissions • Fugitive
dust on off-site haul roads must not interfere with or cause an inconvenience on public or private property • Fugitive dust from material in haul trucks must not result in visible emissions
when operating on:site of Chevron property 2.0 Control Measures for Unpaved Roadways and Disturbed Areas Construction or maintenance work of any unpaved roadway may cause fugitive dust
emissions. Wind erosion of disturbed areas, including new roads, weI! pads, parking and staging areas, and materials storage areas that have been cleared of vegetation, leveled, or excavated,
can also be a major source of fugitive dust emissions. The following mitigation methods and controls are required to minimize these emissions: • AI! unpaved roads and disturbed surface
areas on site shal! be watered as necessary to prevent off-property transport of visible fugitive particulate emissions • Vehicle speeds on all unpaved roads and disturbed areas on the
project site shall not exceed a maximum of 30 miles per hour. Speed limit signs must be posted along these roads. • Land clearing, grading, earthmoving, and excavation activities must
be suspended when wind speeds exceed a velocity of 30 miles per hour • All disturbed surface areas shall be rcvegetated within one year and completed according to the information submitted
in the permit application • Gravel entryways shall be utilized to prevent mud and dirt carryover onto pavcd surfaces. Any lI1ud and dirt carryout onto paved surfaces shall be cleaned
up daily. Other control measures that are recommended at the site but not required include: • Compacting foundation soil on a daily basis to within 90% of maximull1 compaction • Installing
sill fencing prior to earthmoving activities along property borders that arc adjacent to developed arcas
3.0 Recordkccping and Permit Registration All records of current approved fugitive dust permits, Air Pullutant Emission Notices, and approvallcttcrs Irom the APCD shall be kept and maintained
on site. Chevron must receive approval from the APCD prior to commencement of a new land development project. Conditional approval for a fugitive dust general permit is effective from
the date the complete registration request is received by the APCD. A modified permit registration must be submitted to the APCD when: • An increase in project size will result in greater
emissions • An increase in the duration ofthc project will result in fugitive particulates being released longer than initially reported • An increase in the amount of paving will occur
on the site • A decrease in dust control measures will be implemented trom those initially reported 4.0 Contingency Plan ning Altemative control measures may become necessary in the
event that the current dust control strategy is not adequate or effective for conditions. An altemative plan may require additional planning, permitting, or other regulatory compliance
requirements be implemented. When an alternative plan is needed, the current activities at the project site must be suspended until such time as the alternate dust control methods arc
put into place. These methods may include: • Provide field persunnel and contractors with contact informatiun for respunsible individuals in cases where control measures need to be escalated
in response to weather conditions (i.e. shut down of operations due to increase in wind speed) • Use an appropriate alternative dust inhibitor if water docs not prove to be effective,
and obtain all regulatory permissions for the use of chemical suppressants on the project site • Usc vegetative blankets or other methods for cover of topsoil, spoil, and bulk material
storage piles if immediate cover becomes necessary • Attempt to locate alternative sources of bulk material closer to the project site if fugitive dust emissions or other impacts liOIn
contract haul trucks on state or federal highways become an issue with public safety or regulatory compliance