My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2008-11-26_PERMIT FILE - M2008080 (7)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Permit File
>
Minerals
>
M2008080
>
2008-11-26_PERMIT FILE - M2008080 (7)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 3:38:19 PM
Creation date
12/1/2008 10:38:03 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M2008080
IBM Index Class Name
PERMIT FILE
Doc Date
11/26/2008
Doc Name
Slope Stability Report
From
Journey Ventures, LLC
To
DRMS
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
VII - CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS <br />Case 1 - The resulting safety factor of 1.42 meets the SEO minimum requirement of 1.25 for an <br />embankment during construction. The resulting safety factor of 1.15 is above the SEO minimum <br />requirement of 1.0 for an embankment subject to earthquake loading. The proposed setback of <br />55 feet from the proposed permit boundary, and 25 feet from the existing Weld County Road 51 <br />right-of-way is satisfactory. <br />Case 2 - The resulting safety factor of 1.84 meets the SEO minimum requirement of 1.25 for an <br />embankment during construction. The resulting safety factor of 1.39 is above the SEO minimum <br />requirement of 1.0 for an embankment subject to earthquake loading. The proposed setback of <br />25 feet from the proposed permit boundary/fence, and 60 feet from the existing Weld County <br />Road 58 right-of-way is satisfactory. <br />Case 3 - The resulting safety factor of 1.62 meets the SEO minimum requirement of 1.25 for an <br />embankment during construction. The resulting safety factor of 1.26 is above the SEO minimum <br />requirement of 1.0 for an embankment subject to earthquake loading. The proposed setback of <br />150 feet from the existing oil/gas well is satisfactory. <br />Case 4 - The resulting safety factor of 1.42 meets the SEO minimum requirement of 1.25 for an <br />embankment during construction. The resulting safety factor of 1.11 is above the SEO minimum <br />requirement of 1.0 for an embankment subject to earthquake loading. The proposed setback of <br />150 feet from the existing oil/gas well is satisfactory. <br />Case 5 - The resulting safety factor of 1.49 meets the SEO minimum requirement of 1.25 for an <br />embankment during construction. The resulting safety factor of 1.18 is above the SEO minimum <br />requirement of 1.0 for an embankment subject to earthquake loading. The proposed setback of <br />25 feet from the access easement, and 55 feet from the property/permit boundary is <br />satisfactory. <br />Case 6 - The resulting safety factor of 1.46 meets the SEO minimum requirement of 1.25 for an <br />embankment during construction. The resulting safety factor of 1.17 is above the SEO minimum <br />requirement of 1.0 for an embankment subject to earthquake loading. The proposed setback of <br />150 feet from the existing oil/gas wells and existing tank battery is satisfactory. <br />Case 7 - The resulting safety factor of 1.26 meets the SEO minimum requirement of 1.25 for an <br />embankment during construction. The resulting safety factor of 1.06 is above the SEO minimum <br />requirement of 1.0 for an embankment subject to earthquake loading. The proposed setback of <br />25 feet from the proposed permit boundary/existing ditch bank is satisfactory. <br />Journey Ventures, LLC - Kersey Gravel Pit <br />Slope Stability Analysis <br />Page 5
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.