The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About780439 "o, £ g°oW ° cq °r is b4 9 e ° ° °ya eq�P W9 5 Le, m8g� ~'E d� � 4°8w o • a �' '3` venom g8 �� of°oc hi Cg aqt'f wa " "o a o o$g ° mg° "`tea ° E, my a° ;5 49 r"rm w° me a• o"°m °a t,o m o" 03 go «c °_i v"x .:4• 2r-,..,c°. g ..� a ca �g�w g-o .'°.w oo�°a� °cWoa nN rely cc 9m o° ° ma m °04 '4,3791: "Li sic o" 00 Kl ., a y ;.c "'a' "m o 3 9 � m o�'" b o c 9 r g „'1 G4u�° g"oo` �w 3m @e~° > 59 aoa a."�-°.c "d � �. O z �g y S�c'.,'3u c�`. 2.o✓ $ W m"u '8,, m�� ace° ° 9c° m a Q O quc 'Oil > r n�9 ba5 o ° "o cos c 5`m o s J x p o4�oa oa�� °r��' o"=„ "5..., �o A �° b Poll .j ao as ON q O�.a 09oc m 3 6 fi� %:::?, °y G �¢ c9 >9w C m0".-°iOn4 u '° a.ce m�Occ°e� m" °° fit" a w�'o uc coauPN ... °°q a" QwE3ga° Oil 4"or°� o 5 o Lgm ° 9°aE ii 5: ecc 8 68, G Z "SNr �'3b 9e ° s oy a E Ww °�^� 9sg • B. os Qy ° �� 5o og ° a 3 �°ad�° :law` a °$ °Nu ° ab utiy "o um zrifA'i a ., .''.e " "n c " �c 2t:°'-d, mw 70: o bn 3e 58ysc 2m3 goo w c !in] E P oo gg g mg3 a z!--icluj-ic' a o�a as 4 " c " o m om ogm '°° E4 ° r g` amu m° q9w� °" ° °m�"m$ "=w c5 a" g23"oo w, mnom• g 9°°5e g`g wa _"° U°5 °ooaJ 5w2g2 "°$� o� we or �0 oa p "a 533x0 35ma S0Na r °3 o{ (1)!I wc5° -e e�"o°om - m °°y .°.,�°e.: "a �. o o 3m c�c` 2.1° co° 9a °o yi6 o o..m "a E�m N " "°p'o m ."5 • n° mm°� E°� m9 "m� °cigl i � ay n au rgh Yliz_ry ,A c h. ,0 who cao 4' c°"Ea3� ▪P ig B .°. 122. o 'i�q,� I- "° m,".i°. e�°.i u$Es wgc a,cc °-` i' uco 8 �N°> 5c wax uT oa9 —£„49u Tj� a °� @a ° c3°5w °a°• ae t c> gc °�3r Ec 3 "e 9^ 90 �o°ow mo o u ca0 g9o�o _{ ° 3v°"so uc y$ L. • m9Py° o.'",� 3” ou ou° 39 mi 22 �� wo "" �`°o V; o �' �`S z o °� �o i`. m g. — ° j.:‘ 3v ° "o.io 3-+c 3 35 00" °0.ba M W cc au .".o .°i ..e HT 22 ..uw u ia. .'+oc b = 1�� f O �'�., . ., �.4a ° yd .� `� bPo ‘,,ii' a� �w,�o ti � o ..�=;°�i�4 m W Lag o- ce�d3 Cu` m a �HN UGP .Hu°O°m c° H" $°m Hwa z "mu as"gym aca a� ao Fo9om am 95 ° a m m Fa°° J~ oy �Y 1 W (?:pi ��r r�IMI s i"'a r a�� Z ¢ true1 i m u a N� a�a41,24: m rm�q ° °N" m �a =wo g9 € :,,,i:--__pt:ig!,;!:,i :122-L„mall ci. z li 2Za SIQ p g U°�i IDA - `°'�l O i°wu GV�.-G¢QWF F V « LU 04m m.°i. 1 1., t. 1:..!„i ''Sk+i ° r < n - h .a. m °�°m gg L I U ¢ ° F O O Zo iUWao`-^oq sni ° mn m ° °Z Z G ate a> °ov', oyq FF1. `` a W d .gLL.�w= �-9 a ▪9 f '61 21 ..J irc ulle Lu- a�ao _ rue�9 Fu°a« � Fac ..1 i— w ,,_, , 1 I a ..1ix a W - , , 0 LLa 6 EJc O9:1 i 1\1 UllW — - , � W �amo°«mo \ ��i i i W = a � .4;...' ---'.'1 . !3I 4Cg Im � a a I °__ 3 _ ¢ a a W ,� _ _ /0// %/�% i WQ N a a o V �' z'o am� Qg vzFf V O DI '! 0 in in Ni W\ ' b /, I \ J,i //J I 1 LO' z e e c In 4 :� / oN 2J 3i. ❑ CL W —1 m\ ii z a \ W ^ 4 �t-Q m Q „p I K ,J p p I ip- U W p ¢ U' p p 01000£ ---—G :Sfo91.i c h,,. , ^![il'a ii' - -7pn LI 20A , rgo $f ; & §& § U j ` a ®T / _ | a ; '4, N § § %� , \ \5 ° r § k c W w` \ \ / - . ,§ E'.& a . \ !a 2T27 \ % / / �J bq a / ; .ipt , % �| /'i g/ ! / w § 72 i ; \ } /\ § / \ ._j 0 W4iT:a4 - 4, la (3 lal k § | o t » p 2 \ \ 2 \ $ N 2 ii u CZ LS9Z S _e �} orz -�` a:m* w0/-x 2» &-9+,_ �'� , w /! ,� • ! / 0 Q k D. ` S ae 7).. \ ® & - -- e:»99 -- I !! k & ti- 03 Ri kW Id m | $ & §3 0) } J ] 2 . ] \ \ to $ ! .iG e� # § �2 &? _ I �( 7 . \±� § - w \ ,% p) ;% -�cl §" - GG\ m § % q 7 % a. . ? &k w °®» a 7 / /G 4,1P1 \ .4) Z “) A% 4&E;§ ■ E k | ....... - z 7a /I ■ li•• 'rrt •X %l-•_l.,-1, T•'M..'r1 ti !: 'tw- ..., '.- �Ya�ba•rb `3'� •"''',C (n a1 'r'v•�ydT v ��i•M+'" -',`rte' '•. ,-,sSe� ''M- Y� 5,-Ir ,: ->• rA`•aty I w•,`r� Yip`.� ..- . . �.)T .`•-`his•x�t.rys+. .y`.,'!'f7'k - °' w o o ci 67.015 y 14,1 d 'l! .-`` `'....'„ ..C7•••,,,,,; v' `F �+ I ter! #y C`: .r " 4--..3• `?' ;- 'a • "r..�.,",�., 9:,, RS . wl ir'y :"'.., . .- Y� '�', � e' it 71F•`�.�Y 3 ` "��f - ^ ,r �� . t, as r" �rl ,T _ '' aZZ \ 1ts�` � ..r 4� ; lo 6 �,} +' a moo t� .,I ate--..,r6t+ • a 40t_ , , z w iV r5 f U N I ... 9--fir_ ,•e, .. t �i -4 - Q . y`i 1 ' .9 r . i / . .,., i. Z� 1 - it,I... ` f W LLU O 1 J :: G _ ' 1W U' PT t ,- a 3 ,A g , • V , , r r I_ _ •-mma mm,-m ..., z .-<m.-. '`' a ---4;;z �i , , ,,_______,,— _,____-, .____.,_ I -4,*'— ,..--7:--,------v- 1 / ' - ‘.-1-'5,-,-, ' „. Ililli 1''1'-t ''':•.; .f-r7. -11 _ ... - _ -; • 1 - • ',;,0.,;4.-,- ,ll,s °rya.� o! _ A "t I. l II�I7rt I"K S 'CI ,, 45 al FE' d ' •"w'YE ' 7 ..:..,. _ .,,., - - gl. ?.:.,1_'d ::,,,,,A,,,i5e41. ,,, ,4,4 ..,,,,.__ 3.• L ! _.: li 12 '-'-'''''.c:`-11.0:0 1i —-,) 01 2 �'. —/ je .(1INIrri,L''417.***,_ ,-, -‘,/,.;.,'• _' 'II 44*.! , Ihrr *' _ e. . • •• • • All, f f."v'.LG'� n •t.x - - ,�¢`\t �. ill,� I qtr �u, '"? 1, e\;} '_ . , • -'-01 M1 1. �� w✓r';2'}'• ,,�� = y"ii i • 1:/ '.e.,,: -... ._ ! �••'i:.Y..n>'u'/ac,t :raic, o 'y-T� .r. '4i ehs¢, `' ..- Irte ,„ , i .}I• t �� 1 t o b r• .�ep,(?••-i` y y H, .'"d,,, 7 , 1�' 1 •-r+ 2 ,lit,„ 4'a ,a' f3 a' y•�yy01'N •i- 1 •' %(��/, 411770 ig./i j"casiff jllilt l� ��l -. � 1 o o J Ti ' ;. y:,L'9,I,r l i,••1•,'r ro •4, ''14•' :-. •,i`• `x l''''''-'\--..,\,,,,.7,21\ s• t �i'lfir;�,��1i111�_I��f' x�x k' .t� � s i,-•1 ,-ii !� ;� lt"j'�' �'r',ii;?f,,:-.:g 'A` , " �, ';'':-S w?��„;•�',, y• . '.o".$=.r• -+•. ,r ,, .3._ --,, , V�� aax.,•.,„ `� 4 ;'G .r.:11'1",!,-0 0'S,..I.{' •v . ,st;.,y LL a` { ..' •'-IgF'�Yy S�.'}•L',WI. i ems-. z - 4`,4^;',,,V- � x.71.,f i t "•�";,":+�;`"`}`?t,'� 1. '1' -t '4r101 ; ,' 1 r 1044* `. 1•y'L Yx!t�d!,�,�p'7, 1S1•�•�� 5-;5a�q-�yta•, y'•�1 d �• �1 , I M?,P;" f.c " _ Syr r. s _k t S • `'7r.. .'✓ •'VC-11 Si RESOLUTION RE: GRANT OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT TO CITY OF GREELEY. WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, pursuant to Colorado statute and the Weld County Home Rule Charter, is vested with the authority of administering the affairs of Weld County, Colorado, and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on August 16 , 1978 in the Chambers of the Board of County Commissioners, Weld County, Colorado, for the purpose of hearing the petition of the City of Greeley, c/o Peter A. Morrell, City Manager, Civic Center Complex, 919 Seventh Street, Greeley, Colorado 80631 for a Special Use Permit for the establishment of wastewater treatment facilities located on the following described parcel of land: Part of the North One Half of the South East One Quarter of Section 11, Township 5 North, Range 65 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, Weld County, Colorado, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at point which bears S 00°13'23" W, 2657.22 from the N.E. corner of Section 11 said point is the N.E. corner of the North z of the S.E. 4 of Section 11: Thence S 89°11'46"W, 323.75 to the True Point of Beginning; Thence S 00°14'10" W, 1342.75; Thence N 89°44'29" W, 1837.07; Thence N 29°27'24" E, 567.24; Thence along the arc of a curve right whose radius is 425.00 and whose long chord bears N 35°01'32", 82.51; Thence N 40°35'52" E, 647.19; Thence along the arc of a curve right whose radius is 200.00 and whose long chord bears N 24°06'02" E, 113.59; Thence N 07°36'12" E, 121.98; Thence along the arc of a curve right whose radius is 50.00 and whose long chord bears N 48°23'59" E, 65.16; Thence N 89°11'46" E, 984.07 to Point of Beginning. Said parcel contains 43.12 acres more or less and is subject to any rights of way or other easements as recorded by instruments of record or as now existing on said parcel. WHEREAS, representatives of the petitioner appeared and presented detailed evidence supporting its application for a Special Use Permit, and WHEREAS, the abovedescribed parcel of land is located in an A-Agricultural Zone as set forth in the Weld County Zoning Resolution, and 1//, ?LOOZ 4 A' WHEREAS, Section III. 3.E.4.n of the Weld County Zoning Resolu- tion authorizes such a use in the Agricultural District upon the grant of a Special Use Permit by the Board of County Commissioners and subject to the requirements of Section 6. 1 (9) of said Zoning Resolution, and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners heard all the testimony and statements of the representatives of the petitioner and of persons opposing the requests for a Special Use Permit for wastewater treatment facilities has studied the materials submitted and the recommendations of the Weld County Planning Commission in this matter, and WHEREAS, after due deliberation, the Board is satisfied that the requested use complies with the provisions of the Weld County Comprehensive Plan and of the Weld County Zoning Resolution relating to special uses. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Com- missioners of Weld County, Colorado that the application of the City of Greeley for a Special Use Permit for a regional wastewater treatment plant be, and hereby is, granted subject to the following terms and conditions: 1. Prior to the initiation of each of the site plan reviews defined in Development Standard #2 of the Special Use Permit, the City of Greeley and Weld County shall negotiate and enter into an agreement for the repair and maintenance of County roads and bridges which are impacted by construction activities. 2. The Development Standards reviewed and recommended by the Weld County Planning Commission are hereby adopted with the following additions: a. Development Standard #1 is hereby amended by the addition of the following: Treatment plant processes and structures shall be of the type and nature described in the Special Use Permit application document titled Special Use Permit Application To The Weld County Planning Commission for the City of Greeley's Proposed Delta Wastewater Treat- ment Plant, A Regional Facility April, 1978 and as outlined by the applicant in the hearing of August 16, 1978 before the Weld County Board of County Commissioners. b. Development Standard #12 is added as follows : Prior to and during the construction phases defined in in Development Standard #2 above, the City of Greeley will be required to monitor all water wells within 1,000 feet of the Special Use Permit area in accordance BEFORE THE WELD COUNTY, COLORADO PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Date July 5, 1978 Case No. SUP# 362 :78 : 14 APPLICATION OF City of Greeley c/o Peter A. Morrell, City Manager ADDRESS Civic Center Complex, 919 7th Street, Greeley, Colorado 80631 Moved by Jerry Kiefer that the following resolution be introduced for passage by the Weld County Planning Commission: Be it Resolved by the Weld Cgwn�t,y Planni� commission that the appli- cation for site approval of t'PRt'Meit Rater covering the following described property in Weld County, Colorado, to-wit: See attached with Development Standards be recommended (favorably)/(OMWAVIY) to the Board of County Commissioners 4or the following reasons: _o It is the opinion of the Planning Commission that the request is consistent with the basic goals and policies of the Weld County Comprehensive Plan, Within the Plan, it is staled that the Plan is : ", , ,a direction for development based upon two fundamental determinations : (1) that agriculture has historically been and should remain as the basis for Weld County°s economic and ecological well being, and (2) that urbanization can best be served by existing municipalities. " In setting forth the second fundamental determination - "that urbanization can best be served by existing municipalities" - Motion seconded by Harry Ashley Vote: For Passage Chuck Carlson Against Passage Bette Kountz Ben Nix Harry Ashley Jerry Kiefer Percy Hiatt Irma White Marge Yost The Chairman declared the Resolution passed and ordered that a certified copy be forwarded with the file of this case to the Board of County Commissioners for further proceedings. CERTIFICATION OF COPY I, Shirley A. Phillips , Recording Secretary of the Weld County Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing Resolution is a true copy of the Resolution of the Planning Commission of Weld County, Color- ado, adopted on July 5, 1978 and recorded in Book No. VI of the proceedings of the said Planning Commission. [gated the 6 day of July , 19 78 . ATE OF COLORADO -- --- COUNTY CF 4,'ELD S'. ,;td ant ,brk of the Board of County Cornmiwoncrs J U L 5 ?918 Secretary\ cou4Tt clr K P D P CORDEt LEGAL DESCRIPTION PART OF THE NORTH ONE HALF OF THE SOUTH EAST ONE QUARTER OF �1 SECTION 11 TOWNSHIP 5 NORTH , RANGE 65 WEST OF THE PRINCIPLE MERIDIAN, WELD COUNTY , COLORADO , MORE PARTICULARLY \1 - / DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS ; BEGINNING AT POINT WHICH BEARS SO°-13 ' -23" W . 2657 . 22 FROM THE N. F . CORNER OF SECTION 11 SAID POINT IS THE N . E . CORNER OF THE NOPTH 1/2 OF THE S. E . 1/4 OF SECTION 11 ; THENCE Sig9°- 11 ' -46" W . 323 . 75 TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING ' THENCE SO —14 ' -10" W . 1342. 75 , THENCE N89°-44 ' -29" W . 1837 . 07 THENCE f029°-27 ' -24 " E . 567 . 24 ; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE RIGHT WHOSE RADIUS Ic. 425. 00 AND WHOSE LONG CHORD REAPS N350-01 ' -32" 82 . 51 THENCE N40°-35 ' -52" E . 647 . 19 ; THENCE ALONG. THE ARC OF A CObVF PIGHI WHOSE RADIUS IS 200 . 00 AND WHOSE LONG CHORD BEARS N2 °-06 ' -02 " F . 121 . 98 ; THENCE AEON , THE AP'- E , 1 1 3 . 59 a THENCE N7°-36 ' -12" c �� CHORDORD OF A CURVE RIGHT WHOSE RADIUS 15 50 . 00 AND WHOSE LE , ' R 1-11BEARS N48°-23 ' -59" E . 65 . 16 ; THEN�'E N89°- 11 ' -46" 84 . POINT OF BEGINNING SAID •PARCEL CONTAINS 43 . 12 ACRES MORE OR LESS AND IS SUBJECT T" ANY RIGHTS OF WAY OR OTHER EASEMENTS AS PECOPOL0 BY INSTPiMEHTc• OF RE COR:. 'P AS NOW EXISTING ON SAID PAP'[ L . • City of Greeley P.C. RECOMMENDATIVn July 5, 1978 the Plan, in various instances, recognizes the need for municipalities to develop service capabilitiOr to meet the demands of expanded populations. For example, the Plan states: A. Page 10 - "The rapid population growth of the county can be expected to continue and even accelerate with increasing pressures for residential, commercial and industrial development. This increased population will require a corresponding increase in public facilities and services. These facilities and services can be most economically and efficiently provided by existing municipalities which have facilities that can be readily expanded for future growth." B. Page 11 - "Development around existing towns should be accompanied by corresponding development of the towns utilities and Zacilities." C. Page 60 - "Existing municipalities are the best and most efficient sources of public goods and services which are necessary to serve new residential developments. These municipalities will be encouraged to improve their ability to serve new developments within their corporate areas, in annexable areas immediately adjacent to the town and even those areas not immediately available for annexation, but within a reasonable service distance from the municipality." D. Page 91 - "Since the capacity for sewage treatment is an important determinant on the growth a community can accommodate, treatment plans should be expanded and improved to accommodate the growth desired by the individual community." Finally, the Plan sets forth two basic policies which speak to the establishment and provision of facilities, public goods and services: A. Page 91 -"Proliferation of service districts shall be opposed while consolidation of existing service districts shall be encouraged when it tends to improve the efficiency and economy of the service." B. Page 92 -"Regionalization of services and facilities shall be opposed if it will lead to growth which is not compatible with the desires of the towns involved." It is the opinion of the Planning Commission that the regional sewage treatment facility proposed by the City of Greeley in the current application is consistent with the basic determin- ations and policies set forth above as set forth by the Weld County Comprehensive Plan. This opinion is based on: ` City of Greeley P.C. RECOMMENDATLAR July 5, 1978 A. The proposal sets forth a means by which the City of Greeley can meet the demands of increased populations -,,hich if located consistent with Weld County's Plan, will be located within or adjacent to Greeley's existing urban araa; B. It appears that the proposal will not encourage the proliferation of service districts; and C. It appears that the regional nature of the facility will not lead to growth vhich is incompatible with the desires of the City of Greeley. 2. It is the opinion of the Planning Commission that the proposal is in compliance with the Weld County Mineral Resources Extraction Plan and in conformance with Colorado State Statutes relating to the extraction of mineral deposits. The Weld County Mineral Resources Extraction Plan states on Page 23: "Access to future mineral resource development shall be considered in all land use decisions. In accordance with Colorado Statute, no Weld County governmental authority which has control over zoning shall, by zoning, rezoning, granting a variance, or other official action or inaction, permit the use of any area known to contain a commercial mineral deposit in a manner which would interfere with the present or future extraction of such deposit by an extractor." Colorado State Statutes define the term commercial mineral deposit as follows: "Commercial mineral deposit means a natural mineral deposit of limestone used for construction purposes, coal, sand, gravel and quarry aggregate, for which extraction by an extractor is or will be commercially feasible and regarding which it can be demonstrated by geological, mineralogic, or other scientific data that such deposit has significant economic or strategic value to the area, state, or nation." It is the opinion of the Planning Commission that the applicant has demonstrated through its application and through testimony which it has presented, that the mineral resource which lies beneath the site is not a commercial mineral deposit which has significant economic or strategic value to the area, state, or nation, as defined by the Weld County Mineral Resources Extraction Plan and Colorado Statute. In addition, it is the opinion of the Planning Commission that there has been no evidence presented that the resource would be commercially r " City of Greeley P.C. RECOHMEENDATI-- July 5, 1978 extractable in the future. These conclusions are supported in a letter from the Colorado Geological Survey dated June 26, 1978. This letter states: "The present economic viability of the sand and gravel deposits in the subject area is dependent on many factors, such as overburden thickness, percent of gravel, and deposit thickness as well as haul distance, local demand, proximity to similar deposits, and reclamation potential. At the present time, the economic viability of deposits is severely limited by the relatively low gravel content, high estimated reclamation costs, and by the small size of the area. When these factors are projected to determine the future economic viability of the deposit, severe interpretation problems result. . . .In summary, the present economic viability of the sand and gravel resources is very marginal, and the future viability is uncertain." 3. It is the opinion of the Planning Commission that the proposal is consistent with Section 3.3E.2. and 3. of the Weld County Zonin Resolution which state: he Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners shall consider the following in making their determination in approving or denying a Special Use Permit: Compatibility with tte surrounding area, harmony with the character of the neighborhood and existing agricultural uses, need for the proposed use, its effect upon the immediate area, its effect upon future development of the area, and the health, safety and welfare of the inhabitants of the area and the county. Before a permit for a Special Use is issued, the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners shall determine through public hearings, that the following plans, methods and studies which shall accompany the application for a Special Use Permit, provide adequate pro- tection of the health, safety, and welfare of the inhabitants of the area and the county." It is the opinion of the Planning Commission that the location, operation and maintenance of the proposed wastewater treatment facility as set forth in the Special Use Permit application and as controlled by the Development Standards attached hereto will minimize adverse impacts on surrounding uses and the area in question to the greatest extent possible. Further, i� is the opinion of the Planning Commission that the current proposal provides adequate protection of the health, safety and welfare of the inhabitants of the area and the county. These determinations are based on: City of Greeley P.C. RECOMMENDATIva July 5, 1978 A. The Colorado Water Conservation Board has indicated that the proposed site is located beyond the limits of the 100 year floodplain. B. The Colorado Department of Health has indicated that this project is consistent with the goals and objectives of their agency. C. The Colorado Division of Water Resources has no objections to this request provided the applicant addresses the two comments made in their letter dated May 12, 1978. D. The Weld County Health Department has expressed no objections to the proposal and has concurred in the need for a regional wastewater treatment facility for the Greeley metropolitan area. In their letter dated May 11, 1978, the Health Department did request that the applicant apply for and obtain a Fugitive Dust Emission Permit which will be necessary during construction phases; that the applicant apply for and obtain an Emission Permit for any process emitting air pollutants to the atmosrhere; and that the applicant comply with the noise levels established in Section 25-12-103, Colorado Revised Statutes 1973, as amended. These items have been addressed in the Development Standards. E. The Western Hills Fire Protection District has set forth no objections to this request. 4. The Planning Commission recommendation for approval is subject to the concurrent adoption of the attached Development Standards which are designed to set certain standards for the location, operation, and maintenance of the proposed sewage treatment facility. 5. The Planning Commission recommendation for approval is also subject to amending Development Standard #6 to read 150 feet instead of 200 feet and deleting the second sentence of Development Standard #9. BEFORE THE WELD COUNTY, COLORADO PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Date June 6, 1978 Case No. SUP# 362 : 78 : 14 APPLICATION OF City of Greeley c/o Peter A. Morrell , City Manager ADDRESS Civic Center Complex, 919 7th Street , Greeley, Colo_ 80631 Movec by Ben Nix that the following resolution be introduced for passage by the Weld County Planning Commission: Be it Resolved by the Weld unty Pl n n Commission that the appli- cation for site approval oftreaLment�� an ater covering the following described property in Weld County, Colorado, to-wit: xlk LEGAL DESCRIPTION PART OF THE NORTH ONE HALF OF THE SOUTH EAST ONE QUARTER OF I� SECTION 11 TOWNSHIP 5 NORTH , RANGE 65 WEST OF THE 6TH Q C`1 PRINCIPLE MERIDIAN , WELD COUNTY , COLORADO , MORE PARTICULARLY - /`1 DE'CCRIBED AS FOLLOWS : BEGINNING AT POINT WHICH BEARS S0°- 13 ' -23" W . 2657 . 22 FROM THE N . F . CORNER OF SECTION 11 SAID POINT IS THE N . E . rDRJER OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE C.E. 1/4 OF SECTION 11 ; THENCE SA9°- 11 ' -46" W . 323 . 75 TO THE TRUF POINT OF BEGINNING : THENCE SO '- 14 ' -10" W . 1342 . 75 ; THENCE N89°-44 ' -29" W . 1837 . 07 THENCE 029°-27 ' -24 " E . 567 . 24 ; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE R T C HT WHO-,E PAD I US I � 425. 00 AND WHOSE LnNG CHORD NJ35°-01 ' -32" 82 . 51 ; THENCE N40°-35 ' -52" L . 647 . 19 ; THENCE AL flN THE APC OF A C'' F PI �:OHT WHOSE RADIUS IS 200 . 00 AND WHOSE IPNG CHORD BEAR` '+24°-06 ' -02 " E . 1 1 3 . 59 ; THENCE N7°-36 ' -12" E. . 1 2 1 . 90 ; THE NCI ALH! `, TOT AP'C OF A CURVE RIGHT WHOSE RADIUS I 50 . 00 AND WHOSE Lfl" h CHORD BEARS EJ48°-23 ' -59" E . 65 . 16 ; THFNY N89°- 11 ' -46 " E . 064 . 07 TJ POINT OF BEGINNING SAID PARCEL CONTAINS 43 . 12 ACRES MORE fR LE S'', AND I '' S')B 1ECT In ANY HI (.H' r, O► WAY DR OTHER EASEMENTS AS REC1)Pe'E-D PV J5 tP''ME ',r`, Or REC(;f2; r A'; NO''w EXISTING, ON E,AIOO PAP`- I L . Frank Suckla Jerry Kiefer - Percy Hiatt Bette Kountz The Chairman declared the Resolution passed and ordered that a certified copy be forwarded with the file of this case to the Board of County Commissioners for further proceedings. CERTIFICATION OF COPY I, Shirley A__ Phillips , Recording Secretary of the Weld County Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing Resolution is a true copy of the Resolution of the Planning Commission of Weld County, Color- ado, adopted on June 6, 1978 and recorded in BDok No. VI of the proceedings of the said Planning Commission. Dated the 8 day ofJu7 , 1978 . Secretary f City of Greeley P. C. RECOMMENDATION June 6, 1978 or does not have significant economic or strategic value to the area, state or nation. The analysis to determine commerciality of the deposit should include minimal accepted standards for reclamation. Such reclamation should be oriented to reclaiming the property to agriculture, recreational or other open space uses as may be permitted by right in the agriculture zone district . 2. It is the opinion of the Planning Commission tha-.7, there are deficiencies in the information submitted by the applicant regarding their agrument of the commerciality of the mineral resource. The areas of deficiency are as follows : A. The applicant 's analysis regarding commerciality included rehabilitation and foundation costs specifically required if the site were to be developed as a wastewater treatment plant facility. These costs should not be considered as part of the economic evaluation. B. The applicant did not deal with feasibility of extracting the mineral resource in the future if the Poudre River deposits are not available. Information must be provided to more clearly assess the future value of the mineral resource. C. The Colorado Geological Survey in a letter dated May 16, 1978, indicated that although their (Colorado Geological Survey) information "suggests that the South Platte River sediments in this area are, at best, marginally economic, " some of the CH2M Hill 's data is questionable. The Planning Commission feels that the applicant should coordinate with the Colorado Geological Survey to clear up the concerns of the Colorado Geological Survey. 3. The Planning Commission recommends that this request be continued until the Planning Commission meeting scheduled for July 5, 1978. The staff is requesting that all additional written information be submitted to the Department of Planning Services Office by June 21, 1978, to provide time for review of the materials prior to the July 5, 1978, Planning Commission meeting. V r The Weld County Planning Commission held a scheduled meeting on July 5 , 1978, at 1 :30 p.m. in the Weld County Centennial Center County Commissioners hearing room, 915 10th Street , Greeley, Colorado. Roll Call was as follows : Chuck Carlson Present Ben Nix Present Jerry Kiefer Present Harry Ashley Present Percy Hiatt Present Bette Kountz Present Marge Yost Present Irma White Present Frank Suckla Absent Also present were : Gary Z. Fortner, Director of Planning Tom Honn, Zoning Administrator Chuck Cunliffe, Assistant Zoning Administrator Kay Norton, Assistant County Attorney As a quorum was present , the meetig proceeded as scheduled. The minutes of the June 6, 1978, meeting were unanimously approved. APPLICANT: City of Greeley CASE NUMBER: SUP-362 : 78 : 14 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Pt . Ni SEI, Section 11 , T5N, R65W LOCATION: Northeast of the intersection of East 18th Street and Holly Street SUBJECT: Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant APPEARANCE: Dennis Sandretto DISCUSSION: Peter Morrell , City Manager, stated that they had no presentation to make at this time as all information requested by the Planning Staff has been presented to them previously. At this time, Tom Honn read the staff 's recommendation for approval and the Developmen Standards. Mr. Sandretto stated they would prefer Development Standard #6 to read 150' setback instead of 200 ' and would like to have the last sentence deleted from Development Standard #9 relating to noise standards. They prefer to follow the specifications of the Colorado Revised Statutes . Gary Fortner indicated the Planning Staff would have no problems with the 150 ' request . John Hall of the Weld County Health Department commented on the request regarding the noise standards stating that they also have no problems with it . John Wheeler commented on the letter from the Community Relations Committee of the Greeley Board of Realtors stating that although numerous studies have been conducted, it still does not indicate anything about commercial rrineability of the mineral deposit nor the potential flooding of the area. He also commented 1 about his opposition in regard to the letter by the Cclorado Geological Survey supporting the request . Those persons also speaking in opposition included: Ray Robert-representating the Delta Environmental Protection Association ; Elmer Jones-President of DEPA, Mary Scofield, and Mrs. W. C. Mathews. Larry Menefee spoke in favor of the request, in representing the Greeley Area Chamber of Commerce as did W. D. Farr. Jim Whitmore requested that it be required that the City of Greeley take care of it regarding the odor. Mr. Nix asked if the existing residents east of 1st Avenue would be served if the proposal were to be approved and on what basis . After some discussion Mayor George Hall said that the residents would be serviced Jr the desire to tap onto the system. Planning Commission nutes Page 2 Discussion again followed regarding how much of area the plant would service. Bette Kountz asked where the sludge will go other than being trucked. Mr. Sandretto stated that it will be trucked from the site to be used on agricultural lands. It will probably be more economical in the future to pipe it and take it east . Chuck Carlson then commented that if this request were approved , steps should be taken to f] oodproof the buildings in the Development Standards. Jerry Kiefer also asked if the staff took into consideration the letter from the Colorado Water Conservation Board regarding the recommendation that plant structures and facilities be elevated to the 500 year elevation . Gary Fortner responded that it was as far as the referral is concerned; however, the county has no way of requiring legally that it be flood- proofed to the 500 year flood elevation. Mrs. Mathews asked what will happen to Patterson Ditch. Harold Long, who owns property directly east of the Mathews and also leases the farm the county owns to the north and to the west of the site, stated that the ditch will probably have to be elevated if it is to be taken to the west to serve the farms . MOTION: Be it therefore resolved to recommend approval based on the staff' s recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners and amending Development Standard #6 to be a setback of 150' instead of 200 ' and deleting the second sentence in Development Standard #9 to read: All phases of the operation must conform to maximum permissible noise levels as stated in 25-12-103, CRS , 1973. Motion by Jerry Kiefer, seconded by Harry Ashley. There was a vote of "aye" cast by Chuck Carlson , Ben Nix, Harry Ashley, Jerry Kiefer, Percy Hiatt , Marge Yost , and Irma White. Bette Kountz cast of vote of "no" . Motion carried 7 to 1. (Mr. Nix stated he voted yes , but with reservations because he nas a great concern ' \for the people involved in the area) . APPLICANT: Lovemont Investment Company I CASE NUMBER: S-148 : 78 :5 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Pt . NWk, Section26, T3N, R68W LOCATION: Southeast corner of the intersections of I-25 and State Highway 66 SUBJECT: Final Plat - Farmers Mart APPEARANCE: Jim Fraker of J. R. Developers, Inc. DISCUSSION: Mr. Fraker stated that he had met with the Planning Staff and complied with all requests but two items which were addressed in the staff ' s recommendation , these being the amendment of general note #6 regarding the retention pond of 1. 57 acre feet in volume is required on portions of Lots 7 and 8 for drainage control of the entire subdivision and add general note #7 on the final plat to read: "All intersections shall be designed and constructed with 50 foot paved radii . " Mr. Fraker indicated he had no problems with the recommendation. Chuck Carlson asked if there will be a berm along the south side of the subdivision . Chuck Cunliffe responded that there will be a landscaping berm. The septic tank system will be handled individually. This particular sub- division is set up on a site plan review, so that as each lot is developed it will go before the Planning Commission for final approval . Discussion followed regarding the retention pond on Lots: 7 and 8 and the cost of sharing it. MOTION: Be it therefore resolved to recommend approval based on the staff' s recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. Motion by Ben Nix, seconded by Percy Hiatt . A vote o1 "aye" was cost by Chuck Carlson , Ben Nix, Harry Ashley , Je:•ry Kiefer, Percy Hiatt , Bette Kountz, and Irma White . Motion carried. i Planning Commission nutes Page 3 - . APPLICANT: Cesario Trejo, Jr . LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Pt . Sl, Section 21, T6N, R64W LOCATICN: 1 mile northwest of Gill SUBJECT: Request for a building permit under Section 13C. (1) of the Weld County Subdivision Regualtions APPEARANCE : Cesario Trejo, Jr. DISCUSSION: Mr. Trejo stated that he had purchased this 30 acre parcel from a Mr. Sheldon in hopes of building a home on itm 3ut was not aware at the time he bought it he could not build a home there. Gary Fortner then read a letter Mr. Trejo had received from Globe Finance Company which indicated that a survey was not availabl= as the property had passed through several hands. There being no questions at this time, Tom Honn read the staff ' s recommendation for denial . Tom Honn then explained in detail how this creation occurred and possible alternatives . Discussion followed. Comments were mad3 by several members of the Board that there should be some way of putting a stop to this sort of thing. The applicant has put his life 's savings into the purchase of this property. He also has water rights only at the headgate, but can purchase water. Discussion again followed. Chuck Carlson_ stated that all transfers of land, as in this ease, should result in a deed within 30 days . APPLICANT: Charles Hobday CASE NUMBER: Z-304 : 78 : $ LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Pt . E.'k , Section 31, T2N, R65W LOCATION: 2z miles west of Hudson SUBJECT: Change of Zone from "A" Agricultural to "B" Business District with Unit Development Plan APPEARANCE : Don Drawer DISCUSSION: This proposal is for a narrow gauge railroad and old western town . The project was conceived in 1966 and has since been in various stages of construction . The property is approximately two mile long and 1l mile of track has already been laid. There being no questions or comments at this time, Chuck Cunliffe read the staff ' s recommendation for denial . Discussion followed. Mr. Hiatt asked if it crossed County Road 52, Mr. Drawer responded it did not . A well permit has been applied for', but has not yet been received. MOTION: Be it therefore resolved to table the request for a field trip and further information regarding the history of what has occurred to date. Motion by Harry Ashley, seconded by Ben Nix. A vote of "aye" was cast by Chuck Carlson, Ben Nix, Harry Ashley, Jerry Kiefer, Percy Hiatt , Bette Kountz, and Irma White. Motion carried. APPLICANT: Walter J. Peters CASE NUMBER: S-150 : 78 :7 • LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Pt . NW4j Section 32 , T6N, R65W LOCATION: Adjacent to north side of U.S. Highway 85 By-Pass north of Greeley SUBJECT: Preliminary Plan - Peters Subdivision APPEARANCE : None DISCUSSION: Chuck Cunliffe Rated he had spoken with the consulting engineer of the applicant earlier in the day and they were aware of what the staff would recommend, so chose not to be in attendance at this meeting. Mr. Cunliffe then read the staff ' s recommendation for continuing * Planning Commission nutes Page 4 _ the request until July 18, 1978, as the County Engineering Department has indicated the drainage plan does not comply with the Weld County standards. Also, the Weld County Utilities Coordinating Advisory Committee did not make a recommendation at their meeting on June 29, 1978, due to the lack of a quorum. MOTION: Be it therefore resolved to table the request until July 18, 1978, based on the staff ' s recommendation. Motion by Jerry Kiefer, seconded by Ben Nix. A vote of "aye" was cast by Chuc=c Carlson , Ben Nix, Harry Ashley, Jerry Kiefer , Percy Hiatt , Bette Kountz and Irma White. Motion carried. There being no further business , the meeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted, %N\ Y•-- •SN' (:\. O Shirley A. Phillips /sap s The Weld County Planning: Commmission held a scheduled meeting on June 6 , 1978, at 10 : 00 a.m. in the Weld County Centennial Center County Commissioners Hearin; Room, 915 10th Street , Greeley , Colorado . Roll Call was as follows : Chuck Carlson Present Ben Nix Present Harry Ashley Present Percy Hiatt Present Bette Kountz Present Irma White Present Frank Suckla 'Present Jerry Kiefer Present Marge Yost Absent Also present were : Gary Z. Fortner, Director of Planning Tom Honn , Zoning Administrator Chuck Cunliffe , Assistant Zoning Administrator Kay Norton , Assistant County Atto,ney As a quorum was present , the meeting proceeded as scheduled. The minutes of the May 2 , 1978, meeting were unanimously approved. APPLICANT: Eagles Nest Gun Club CASE NUMBER: CUP-35 : 78 :4 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Pt . Sections 17 and 18, T4N, R62W LOCATION: 13 miles southeast of Kersey SUBJECT: Gun Club and Game Reserve APPEARANCE : Joe Smith DISCUSSION: Mr. Smith , agent for the Eagles Nest Gun Club , stated that the request is to place a mobile home on the property to be used as a club house for the club. There are approximately 12 members in the club who would be using the facility. There being no questions or comments at this time, Chuck Cunliffe read the staff ' s recommendation for approval and the Development Standards . There was some discussion regarding the two irrigation ditches that go through she property in question . Mr. Suckla asked how many acres are involved and was told 225 acres by Chuck Cunliffe . Mr. Suckla indicated he was concerned for the use of the land other than agriculture in regard .o noxious weed control . Not much can be done to control these noxious weeds . Mr. Smith said they would take adequate measures and work with the control to control the weeds . MOTION: Be it therefore resolved to recommend approval to the Board of County Commissioners with the Development Standards based on the staff ' s recommendation . Motion by Ben Nix, seconded by Bette Kountz. A vote of "aye" by Chuck Carlson , Ben Nix, Frank Suckla, Jerry Kiefer, Percy Hiatt , Bette Kountz , Irma White and Harry Ashley. Motion carried. APPLICANT: Lovemont Investment Company CASE NUMBER: S-148 : 78 : 5 ' LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Pt . NWE, Section 26 , T3N, R68W LOCATION: Southeast corner of the intersections of I-25 and State Highway 66 SUBJECT: Final Plat - Farmers Mart Subdivision ,' Pl ann Ong Cormiissioi 'minutes Page 2 June 6 , lf)78 DISCUSSION: Chuck Cunliffe stated that he had spoke with the applicant the morning of June 6 , 1978, at which time he was tole the applicant is having problems with the application and did not plan to attend today ' s Planning Commission meeting. Chuck Cunliffe then read the staff ' s recommendation for continuing the hearing to the Planning Commission meeting scheduled for June 20 , 1978. At this time Bob Rademacher, surrounding property owners to the south, stated he was concerned with the property value of his home and that since they have small children they would like to have the access only on State Highway 66 . He also feels there could he drainage problems as there is a low spot and he does not see how they could drain it . Some discussion followed. Chuck Cunliffe stated that a retention pond is proposed for the southeast corner of the property. The County Engineering Department at this time is requesting further clarification in this regard. He also stated that they have worked with the State Highway Department and they have approved an access on the frontage road on I-25. Some discussion followed regarding the drainage problem. MOTION: Be it therefore resolved to continue the hearing to the Planning Commission meeting scheduled for June 20, 19"8 , based on the staff ' s recommendation. Motion by Harry Ashley, seconded by Ben Nix. A vote of "aye" by Chuck Carlson , Ben Nix, Frank Suckla, Jerry Kiefer, Percy Hiatt , Bette Kountz, Irma White and Harry Ashley. Motion carried. APPLICANT: Town of Frederick CASE NUMBER: SUP-363 : 78: 15 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Pt . SEA NE , Section 32, T2N, R67U LOCATION: l mile east of Frederick SUBJECT: Treated Water Storage Tank APPEARANCE : Bill Schuler, RockyMountain Consultants DISCUSSION : Mr. Schuler stated that the Town of Frederick desires to upgrade their existing water supply. The project =ncludes enlarge- ment of the present raw water reservoir and construct=on of a 12" treated water line to the tank and construction of a 300, 000 gallon storage tank at a cost of $118 , 000. The Town of Frederick has made application for and received approval of a grant from the Farmers Home Administration for this project . The new storage tank is badly needed y the town as the present one is undersized and very inadequate for Iture development of the town . This particular site was chosen cause of the high elevation in respect to the town . As a result it 1 increase the water pressure to the town. This increased pressure 1 substantially upgrade the town ' s water service and provide much ed increased water pressure for fire protection . There are two -ing tanks presently adjacent to the site owned by Central Weld Districh which are directly south of the site. The tank will structed of reinforced concrete and will be landscaped with native and trees with a securtiy fence around the area. It will be meter and 23" feet above the existing ground surface. Discussion ' in regard to where the watter will come from and the water Mr. Hiatt asked for an explanation of the preference of over steel for the tank. Mr. Schuler responded that their 'yes concrete tanks are better for a longer period of time. 14 Planning Coiim1SSlor Minutes Page 3 Juno 6 . 14)78 There also is very little maintenance problems with the linings , coatings and corrosion . A steel tank would be more economical if it were smaller than the one proposed. There being nc further questions at this time , Chuck Cunliffe read the staff 's recommendation for approval and the Development Standards. Mr. Nix expressed concern with regard to the financial responsibility of the water district . No further discussion or comments. MOTION: Be it therefore resolved to recommend approval with the Development Standards to the Board of County Commissicners based on the staff ' s recommendation . Motion by Jerry Kiefer, seconded by Irma White . A vote of "aye" by Chuck Carlson , Ben Nix, Frank Suckla, Jerry Kiefer, Percy Hiatt , Bette Kountz, Irma White and Harry Ashley. Motion carried . APPLICANT: Town of Severance Removed from Agenda - Applicant does not have legal interest in property. Presentation of the Master Plan for the Town of LaSalle APPEARANCE: Ann Thayer, Planner DISCUSSION: Miss Thayer presented copies of the LaSalle Master Plan to members of the Planning Commissioners for their review and then briefly outlined the physical features, population , community services and facilities , land use , transportation and housing sections of the plan with the use of the Future Land Use map. After the presentation Chairman Carlson asked whether or not there were any mobile homes in Town of LaSalle. Miss Thayer responded there are none , but there is one that has been incorporated onto a standard size lot with land- scaping and put on a foundation . It has the appearance of a conventional home . There are no provisions for a mobile home park in LaSalle . Discussion followed regarding the 1st Avenue road which crosses the Union Pacific railroad tracks . There was also some discussion regarding the Sc.iool District of LaSalle and when plans are to become a separate school district . MOTION: Be it therefore recommended to endorse the policies included in the LaSalle Master Plan. Motion by Ben Nix, seconded by Jerry Kiefer. A vote of "aye" by Chuck Carlson , Ben Nix, Frank Suckla, Jerry Kiefer, Percy Hiatt , Bette Kountz, Irma White , and Harry Ashley . Motion carried. APPLICANT: IIill-n-Park, Inc. CASE NUMBER: S-147: 78 :4 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 22 , Block 7 and Outlot B, Hil=-n-Park 2nd Filing LOCATION: 4614 Grand Canyon Drive , IIill-n-Park Subdivision SUBJECT: Replat APPEARANCE: Joe Ramey DISCUSSION : Mr. Ramey stated that this property was given to Mrs . Virginia Schadegg seven years ago. She would now like to sell the property and have it replatted so it will all be one lot . There being no questions at this time, Chuck Cunliffe read the staff ' s recommendation for approval . Mr. Ranet stated that the property has been sold and was bought through Urban Renewal . No further discussion . ,_. Planning Commission Minutes 1>t1l,c, ,l June (6 , 1978 MOTION: Be it therefore resolved to recommend approval based on the staff ' s recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. Motion by Jerry Kiefer, seconded by Bette Kountz. A vote of "aye" by Chuck Carlson , Ben Nix, Frank Suckla, Jerry Kiefer, Percy Hiatt , Bette Kountz, Irma Whi Le , and Harry Ashley. Motion carried . APPLICANT: City of Greeley CASE NUMBER: SUP-362 : 78 : 14 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Pt . Nl SEA, Section 11, T5N, R65W LOCATION: Northeast of the intersection of East 18th Street and Holly Street SUBJECT: Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant APPEARANCE: Dennis Sandretto DISCUSSION: Mr. Sandrett , consulting engineering with CH2M Hill for the City of Greeley, presented the background information on the proposal by use of a slide presentation which included the site selection process, gravel deposits , floodplain , and the proposed layout of the plant . This particular site was selected because it is out of the 100 year floodplain , has good vehicle access roads , is the most cost- effective location for serving the region , is situated the farthest away from densely populated areas, stiff clay is less prevalent than at other sites in the delta area, the historic and archaelogical importance of the site appears insignificant and there are less gravel resources at the selected site than at other potentia] sites within the area. In regard to re-development costs , It was found that there was an economic value over the cost of mining at the present prices. Mr. Sandretto quoted a letter from Flatiron Paving which stated that it was not a deposit that would be economical to mine and also quoted from a letter by the President of Mountain Aggregates who mined at East 16th Street and gave it up after incurring a loss. Borings were taken at the site which indicated that there was not a significant amount of gravel at the location . There being no questions at this time, Tom Honn read the staff ' s recommendation for continuing the meeting to July 5 , 1978. Mr. Sandretto then comments that they have had difficulty working with the State of Colorado regarding commercial mineability. They have found that the only thing they can find with regard to commercial mineability is the overburden ratio which the delta area has a favorable amount of. Darrell Alleman stated that he feels they have already addressed the concerns of the staff already and do not see where else they could go to get new information . Chairman Carlson then asked for comments -from the audience . Glenn Billings , representing the Greeley Chamber of Commerce and the Legislative Committee on Local Development comments that these groups unanimously endorsed the location of the proposed site . Ray Robert , attorney representing the Delta Environmental Protectio Association , stated that the approval Greeley has received from I '�1F contingent upon county approval of the site for the plant . The State Water quality Control Commission likewise did not approve the site or take any acion until the county had a chance to review the application . He also stated that the gravel issue is not the only issue before the county and the Planning. . John Wheeler spoke in opposition of the Planning; Commission minutes Page 5 June G , 1078 proposed site because he feels the site is probably wLthin the 100 / year floodplain, the access roads are limited and in poor condition, k' expansion of the 1st Avenue site is an alternative equally cost effective , and the gravel resources of the site are considerable and therefore Colorado Revised Statute 34-1-305 will probably prohibit construction of the plant on that site . IIe also showed the Planning Commission members an aerial map indicating where the flood of 1973 occurred on the John Forester property and where the levee was built . As a result of this , Mr. Wheeler feels that the proposed site is in a floodplain area. He also commented on the diameter of the test holds which were used on the Dill property by CH2M Hill. They stated a 3" diameter auger was used for the borings, but Mr. Wheeler said that nothing could have been brought up larger than a 1" diameter because that was the largest diameter of the inside of the test pipe used. ' Elmer Jones , President of DEPA, spoke in opposition of the proposal because he feels there is a good market value for the sand and gravel . He also stated that the boring test taken was not accurate because the inside diameter of the sleeve that was not mentioned is only 1". . IIe also found a considerable difference in the cost of pit run gravel . As .stated by the applicant it is priced at $1. 10 to $1. 20 a ton and Mr. Jones found it to be priced at $1. 50 per ton . He also read a letter from the State Department of Highways which stated that material of the type found in the floodplain of the South Platte River contains abundant amounts of fine graded sand and gravel . He also read a letter from M. E. Davidson which stated that for the last seven years sand and gravel was taken from a pit i mile south of the proposed site. Don Miller, representing the City Council and Town of Kersey , spoke in opposition primarily because of odors and also because of property values in the area. The City of Kersey recommends that the City of Greeley build at the 1st Avenue site. Other persons speaking in opposition of the proposal were Mrs. W. C. Matthews-primarily opposed because of possible flooding and health problems . that are possible . She was also concerned because only one person had contacted her in regard to the proposal ; Mary Scofield because of the ground water problem and sludge ; Glen Cobb because of possible flooding and possibility of fog; Charles Schmidt was concerned with sludge and where it will gp; Robert Frank was concerned with the odor problem and that it is very close to the airport. Mr. Sandretto responded to the concerns of the above by stating that according to reports and studies they are not in a floodplain area, the test taken for samples of the area is a commonly used method, there will be no damage to the wells from the treatment plant because there will be no seepage from the units Dutward. There was some concern expressed about the water rights on Patterson ditch. Mr. Sandretto said that no water rights will be injured as they know they exist . He also commented that the Matthews had been contacted and that the city would like to purchase their property. Property values will probably be increased as a result of the plant ; the County is currently applying sludge to land and there will be very little fog involved. Mr. John Smith stated that Mr. Sandretto failed to make any mention of odor problems which might be expected. Mr. Sandretto stated that those facilities which typically cause odors will be covered and those facilities which do not need to be covered will be PInnnin ;• Commission Minutes Page 6 June 6 , 1978 designed to accept them if necessary. Dorothy Zabka stated she felt it should be moved away from the people , the city and agricultural farm land as it was proposed in 1965 . However, George Hall stated that at that time it was possible to, but not now because of cost . MOTION: Be it therefore resolved to continue the meet_ng until the Planning Commission meeting scheduled for July 5 , 1978 , based on the staff ' s recommendation. Motion by Ben Nix, seconded by Bette Kountz. A vote of "aye" by Chuck Carlson , Ben Nix, Frank Suckla, Jerry Kiefer, Percy Hiatt , Bette Kountz and Harry Ashley. Motion carried. APPLICANT: Best-Way Paving Company, etal CASE NUMBER: SUP-347 :77:21 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Pt . NEB, Section 2, T5N, R66W LOCATION: Northwest of the intersection of 35th Avenue and 4th Street SUBJECT: OpenrCut Mining Permit for Gravel Pit APPEARANCE: Tom Connell DISCUSSION: Kay Norton briefly explained what has occurred with the application up to the present time. Tom Honn then explained to the Planning Commission members that a meeting was held on May 11, 1978 , with representatives of Best-Way Paving Company, opponents of the proposal and the Planning staff to discuss and attempt to reach an agreement regarding the setback of the berm on the west side of the property; type , quality and number of trees regarding the landscaping of the berm; and type of fencing to be utilized. As a result of this meeting, the only agreement reached was the type and gaality of trees for the landscaping which would be 6 ' pine-like trees at approximately 200 ' intervals with seedlings to be planted at approximately 30 ' intervals. The amended set of Development Standards was then read by Mr. Honn and shown in map from by Chuck Cunliffe. Tom Connell then stated that he understood the Development Standards and found them to be acceptable . Robert Foose, surrounding property owner, again expressed opposition because the proposal is in a residential area and feels the landscaping, berms , etc. are inadequate . Vicki Reed and Larry Wikholm expressed concern with the proposed buffering. Mariana Reed then asked for clarification of when the trees and seedlings will be planted and the berms are to be constructed. Tom Honn explained that construction will begin within six months of approval by the State Mined Reclamation Board. Discussion followed. Vicki Reed also asked if the fencing and the berms on 4th Street would be extended onto the Ruyle ' s existing property to the tree line which had previously been brought up at another, hearing. Chuck Cunliffe stated that there is a letter in the Planning Commission packets which states that the Ruyle ' s have given permission to Best-Way Paving Company to extend the berms and fencing onto their property. MOTION: Be it therefore resolved to recommend approval based on the staff ' s recommendation with the Development Standards to the Board of County Commissioners. Motion by Jerry Kiefer, seconded by Ben Nix. A vote of "aye" by Chuck Carlson , Ben Nix, Jerry Kiefer, Percy Hiatt and Bette Kountz. Motion carried. i Planning Commission notes Page 7 June G , 1978 APPLICANT: Charyles Ryberg CASE NUMBER: VI-63 : 77 : 11 Removed from Agenda There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Shirley A. Phillips Date: TAly 5, 1978 CASE NUMBER: SUP-362 :78:14 NAME: City of Greeley REQUEST: Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Pt . NZ SE-k, Section 11, T5N, R65W LOCATION: Northeast of the intersection of East 18th Street and Holly Street THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THIS REQUEST BE approved FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS : 1. It is the opinion of the Department of Planning Services staff that the request is consistent with the basic gcals and policies of the Weld County Comprehensive Plan. Within the Plan , it is stated that the Plan is : . . . a direction for development based upon two fundamental determinations : (1) that agriculture has historically been and should remain as the basis for Weld County' s economic and ecological well being, and (2) that urbanization can best be served by existing municipalities. " In setting forth the second fundamental determination - "that urbanization can best be served by existing municipalities" - the Plan, in various instances, recognizes the need for municipalities to develop service capabilities to meet the demands of expanded populations. For example, the Plan states: A. Page 10 - "The rapid population growth of the county can be expected to continue and even accelerate with increasing pressures for residential , commercial and industrial development. This increased population will require a corresponding increase in public facilities and services . These facilities and services can be most economically and efficiently provided by existing municipalities which have facilities that can be readily expanded for future growth. " B. Page 11 - "Development around existing towns should be accompanied by corresponding development of the towns utilities and facilities. " C. Page 60 - "Existing municipalities are the best and most efficient sources of public goods and services which are City of Greeley SUP-362:78: 14 STAFF RECOMMENDATION July 5, 1978 necessary to serve new residential developments. These municipalities will be encouraged to improve their ability to serve new developments within their corporate areas, in annexable areas immediately adjacent to the town and even those areas not immediately available for annexation, but within a reasonable service distance from the municipality. " D. Page 91 - "Since the capacity for sewage treatment is an important determinant on the growth a community can accommodate, treatment plants should be expanded and improved to accommodate the growth desired by the individual community. Finally, the Plan sets forth two basic policies which speak to the establishment and provision of utilities, public goods and services : A. Page 91 - Proliferation of service districts shall be opposed while consolidation of existing service districts shall be encouraged when it tends to improve the efficiency and economy of the service. B. Page 92 - Regionalization of services and facilities shall be opposed if it will lead to growth which is not compatible with the desires of the towns involved. It is the opinion of the Department of Planning Services staff that the regional sewage treatment facility proposed by the City of Greeley in the current application is consistent with the basic determinations and policies set forth above as set forth by the Weld County Comprehensive Plan. This opinion is based on : A. The proposal sets forth a means by which the City of Greeley can meet the demands of increased populations which if located consistent with Weld County' s Plan, will be located within or adjacent to Greeley' s existing urban area; B. It appears that the proposal will not encourage the proliferation of service districts; and C. It appears that the regional nature of the facility will not lead to growth which is incompatible with the desires of the City of Greeley. City of Greeley SUP-362 : 78: 14 STAFF RECOMMENDATION July 5, 1978 2. It is the opinion of the Department of Planning Services staff that the proposal is in compliance with the Weld County Mineral Resources Extraction Plan and in conformance with Colorado State Statutes relating to the extraction of mineral deposits. The Weld County Mineral Resources Extraction Plan states on Page 23 : "Access to future mineral resource development shall be considered in all land use decisions. In accordance with Colorado Statute, no Weld County governmental authority which has control over zoning shall, by zoning, rezoning, granting a variance , or other official action or inaction, permit the use of any area known to contain a commercial mineral deposit in a manner which would interfere with the present or future extraction of such deposit by an extractor. " Colorado State Statutes define the term commercial mineral deposit as follows : "Commercial mineral deposit means a natural mineral deposit of limestone used for construction purposes, coal, sand, gravel and quarry aggregate, for which extraction by an extractor is or will be commercially feasible and regarding which it can be demonstrated by geological, mineralogic, or other scientific data that such deposit has significant economic or strategic value to the area, state, or nation. " It is the opinion of the Department of Planning Services staff that the applicant has demonstrated through its application and through testimony which it has presented, that the mineral resource which lies beneath the site is not a commercial mineral deposit which has significant economic or strategic value to the area, state or nation, as defined by the Weld County Mineral Resources Extraction Plan and Colorado Statute. In addition, it is the opinion of the staff that there has been no evidence presented that the resource would be commercially extractable in the future. These conclusions are supported in a letter from the Colorado Geological Survey dated June 26, 1978. This letter states : "The present economic viability of the sand and gravel deposits in the subject area is dependent on many factors, such as overburden thickness, percent of gravel, and deposit thickness as well as haul distance, local demand, proximity to similar deposits, and reclamation potential. At the present time, the economic viability of deposits is severely limited by the relatively low gravel content , high estimated City of Greeley SUP-362 : 78 :14 STAFF RECOMMENDATION July 5, 1978 reclamation costs, and by the small size of the area. When these factors are projected to determine the future economic viability of the deposit , severe interpretation problems result. . . . In summary, the present economic viability of the sand and gravel resources is very marginal, and the future viability is uncertain . " 3. It is the opinion of the Department of Planning Services staff that the proposal is consistent with Section 3. 3E.2. and 3. which state : "The Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners shall consider the following in making their determination in approving or denying a Special Use Permit : Compatibility with the surrounding area, harmony with the character of the neighborhood and existing agricultural uses , need for the proposed use, its effect upon the immediate area, its effect upon future development of the area, and the health, safety and welfare of the inhabitants of the area and the county. Before a permit for a Special Use is issued, the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners shall determine through public hearings , that the following plans, methods and studies which shall accompany the application for a Special Use Permit , provide adequate protection of the health, safety, and welfare of the inhabitants of the area and the county. " It is the opinion of the Department of Planning Services staff ghat the location, operation and maintenance of the proposed wastewater treatment facility as set forth in the Special Use Permit application and as controlled by the Development Standards attached hereto will minimize adverse impacts on surrounding uses and the area in question to the greatest extent possible. Further, it is the opinion of the staff that the current proposal provides adequate protection of the health, safety and welfare of the inhabitants of the area and the county. These determinations are based on : A. The Colorado Water Conservation Board has indicated that the proposed site is located beyond the limits of the 100 year floodplain. B. The Colorado Department of Health has indicated that this project is consistent with the goals and objectives of their agency. City of Greeley SUP-362 :78 :14 STAFF RECOMMENDATION July 5, 1978 C. The Colorado Division of Water Resources has no objections to this request provided the applicant addresses the two comments made in their letter dated May 12, 1978. D. The Weld County Health Department has expressed no objections to the proposal and has concurred in the need for a regional wastewater treatment facility for Greeley metropolitan area. In their letter dated May 11, 1978, the Health Department did request that the applicant apply for and obtain a Fugitive Dust Emission Permit which will be necessary during construction phases; that the applicant apply for and obtain an Emission Permit for any process emitting air pollutants to the atmosphere; and that the applicant comply with the noise levels established in Section 25-12-103, Colorado Revised Statutes 1973, as amended. These items have been addressed in the Development Standards. E. The Western Hills Fire Protection District has set forth no objections to this request . 4. The Department of Planning Services staff recommendation for approval is subject to the concurrent adoption of the attached Development Standards which are designed to set certain standards for the location, operation and maintenance of the proposed sewage treatment facility. Date: June 6 , 1978 CASE NUMBER: SUP-362 : 78: 14 _ NAME: City of Greeley REQUEST: Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Pt . Nz SE4, Section 11 , T5N , R65W LOCATION: Northeast of 18th Street and Holly Street THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THIS REQUEST BE continued FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS : 1 . It is the opinion of the Department of Planning Services staff that there is insufficient evidence available in the submitted application materials to adequately evaluate the mineral resources underlying the site . The staff ' s concern is in regard to whether or not they are a commercial mineral deposit as defined by Section 34- 1-302 , Colorado Revised Statutes , 1973 , as amended . The staff is requesting that the applicant and interested parties submit a technical analysis concerning the mineral resources underlying the site . The analysis presented should address whether or not the mineral resource extraction is or will be commercially feasible . The analysis should address whether or not it can be demonstrated by geological , minerological or other scientific data that such deposit has or does not have significant economic or strategic value to the area , state or nation . The analysis to determine commerciality of the deposit should include minimal accepted standards for reclamation . Such reclamation should be oriented to reclaiming the property to agriculture , recreational or other open space uses as may be permitted by right in the agriculture zone district. 2 . It is the opinion of the Department of Planning Services staff that there are deficiencies in the information submitted by the applicant regarding their agrument of the commerciality of the mineral resource . The areas of deficiency are as follows : A. The -applicant ' s analysis regarding commerciality included rehabilitation and foundation costs specifically required if the site were to be developed as a wastewater treatment plant facility . These costs should not be considered as part of the economic evaluation . City of Greeley SUP-362 : 78 : 14 STAFF RECOMMENDATION June 6 , 1978 B . The applicant did not deal with the feasibility of extracting the mineral resource in the future if the PoudreRiver deposits are not available. Information must be provided to more clearly assess the future value of the mineral resource . C . The Colorado Geological Survey in a letter dated May 16 , 1978 , indicated that although their (Colorado Geological Survey) information "suggests that the South Platte River sediments in this area are , at best , marginally economic , " some of the CH2M Hill ' s data is questionnable . The Department of Planning Services staff feels that the applicant should coordinate with the Colorado Geological Survey to clear up the concerns of the Colorado Geological Survey. 3. The Department of Planning Services staff recommends that this request be continued until the Planning Commission meeting scheduled for July 5 , 1978. The staff is requesting that all additional written information be submitted to the Department of Planning Services Office by June 21 , 1978 , to provide time for review of the materials prior to the July 5 , 1978, Planning Commission meeting. DATE: July 7 )78 TO: The Board of County Commissioners Weld County, Colorado FROM: Clerk to the Board Office Commissioners: If you have no objections, we have tentatively set the following hearing for the 16th of August, 1978 at 2:00 P.M. City of Greeley SUP, Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant I I. OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD r.4,,,,).,.0_4) BY: 7C.,;`.6_,90 eputy The above mentioned hearing date and hearing time may be scheduled on the agenda as stated above. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WELD COUNTY, COLORADO NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS°I it Greeley Board of Realtors, Inc. 1024 9th Avenue,Suite 1,Greeley,Colorado 80631 REALTOR ° Telephone 303 353-8884 June 16, 1978 Weld County Commissioners Centennial Complex Greeley, Colorado 80631 Subject: Open letter to the Weld County Commissioners and the Greeley City Council Weld County government is now in the process of reviewing a special use permit for Greeley to develop a regional sewer plant on what is called the Delta Site very near the confluence of the Platte and Poudre Rivers east of Greeley. The request to Weld County for site approval comes after over seven years of intensive study by the City, and engineering consulting firms retained by the City, to determine a long-term solu- tion to the Greeley area' s developing sewage treatment requirements. To begin with, a few truths perhaps should be noted. Greeley is the county seat for Weld County and is the hub city of our county. Approximately half of Weld County' s residents reside in Greeley. While to a great extent Greeley operates within its own budgetary capabilities in terms of funding its activities, Greeley does in fact, with its service capabilities, provide support for a good many "Greeley area" needs. In other words, many of Greeley' s services are not restricted to just Greeley. These in part include water service, fire service, and city-county-state cooperation in law enforcement. Prominently included in the area services furnished by Greeley is sewer service. Greeley one way or the other presently serves substantial areas beyond its' city limits. As Greeley and nearby communities continue to grow and develop this service will of necessity be expanded. Also, within the regional concept of the Delta Plant treatment facility is the capacity for serving other towns in close prox- imity. What we are coming to is the fact that some of Greeley' s concerns are truly and properly county concerns as well . Again, one-half of the constituency, and tax- payers, that are represented by our elected Commissioners are residents of the City of Greeley. Nobody has argued that a new solution isn' t needed to meet Greeley' s growing sewage treatment needs. Present facilities are inadequate for today' s demands. We totally agree that any of us who lived in close proximity to the site of the proposed plant would be just as alarmed as the residents who now live near there, with families living to the west piping their sewage to our neighborhood to be treated. However, somebody is going to be compromised wherever a plant is sited, somebody is going to be poten- tially abused. We think its encumbant upon the City to site the plant where it will serve the most people as efficiently as possible, and simultaneously damage as few people as possible in the process. Furthermore, where damage is incurred because of a loss in property values, or even a threat of it, we think all of the people served by the sewer system should collectively bear the responsibility for any loss in equities by the neighboring homeowners. Fairness seems to dictate that some form of indemnification is needed to protect them against a loss should this occur. We sincerely hope that if, in their judgements, the County Commissioners feel that Greeley' s current proposal is in some way deficient, that they will come back with truly constructive suggestions as to alternatives. In light of 72 years of intensive (Continued) REALTOR°—is a registered mark which identifies a professional in real estate who subscribes to a strict Code of Ethics as a member of / the NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REA RS LTO f7/ / ,� I Weld County Commissioners -- June 16, 1978 Page 2 investigation by Greeley officials , its inconceiveable to us that the Commissioners could argue convincingly any of the economic or technical factors involved. Seven years and dozens of government reviews have seen these factors studied to death. Likewise, it appears to us that the gravel and floodplane issues the concerned neighbors are raising could only have credence as a political cop-out, if the Com- missioners are looking for one. On the other hand, we hope the Commissioners will thoroughly explore with Greeley officials the site design , building , and sewage pro- cessing alternatives that have been studied in the course of previous investigations and analyze the "people" ramifications of these various alternatives. Perhaps a PUD approach would have some merit. In summary, the Greeley area sewage treatment situation has to have immediate atten- tion. It's a problem for the families now served and those to be served. There- fore it's a problem not just for Greeley, but a problem of all our elected represen- tation in the county. The seeming adversarial relationship on so many issues between our city and county governments is working a hardship on all of us. From what we read and hear from our news media, the city and county are regularly at odds over COG, over our airport, over street improvements contiguous to the city where streets are jointly city-county owned, and on and on. We are suggesting that it is time for this kind of confrontation to stop. It doesn't help anybody. It harms every citizen in this county. Wouldn' t it be marvelous if these Delta site deliberations, and the joint involvement required to resolve this compelling problem, could be a healing force and a positive thrust toward a new era of cooperative leadership between county government and the governments of all of our towns and cities. We think so. Respectfully, Community Relations Committee of The Greeley Board of Realtors • • • e"7----:----77-33 r*-11 1 a J 3 sE 4 r I i I HI f';'\li I I II NT or PI ANNING SEHvICE`; PHONE (3031356-4000 EXT 404 915 10TH STREET z GREELEY,COLORADO 80631-"41:64. , FA : ,„.,, ko!! , ,Ti ,,,,-., ,., ., , , . -,:,„,„ ,,; „ ._, :if,t ''‘' ..,--., COLOR A I)O June 14, 1978 Ronald J. Lambden Assistant City Attorney Greeley Civic Center 919 7th Street Greeley, Colorado 80631 Dear Mr. Lambden: As per your letter and request of June 6, 1978, please find enclosed a copy of the Planning Commission minutes for the meeting held on June 6, 1978, regarding the Special Use Permit application by the City of Greeley. If we can be of any further assistance, please feel free to contact our office . Respectfully, %\\N . ._ )•Ma.1.\\S ,C0 Shirley A. Phillips Planning Commission Secretary /sap Enclosure cc : Kay Norton, Assistant County Attorney IIIMMINIMIL _. • • Y h :u> - ...ash"•' -.` _ r.. . +K= (,fit., x �, „R I OAP t 40 ` ' -- : V It vs_ • ,� .1.11r!--r.` h"��-- V 4Id • . 1‘ ''dr' ',.'' ' '''''':'4:4o' ''04 ... '- y ' o ' �a". _ ► . 's .. 1 t' a ,-, ��q " :' :" r ""r"_ ' {tom' GREELEY CIVIC CENTER GREELEY, COLORADO 80631 PHONE (303) 353-6123 June 6, 1978 Mr. Gary Fortner County Director of Planning 915 10th Street, Rm. 310 Greeley, Colorado 80631 Re : City of Greeley Special Use Permit Application Dear Mr . Fortner : The City Attorney 's office will be more than willing to give you any aid necessary in preparing data for the County Planning Commission related to the City 's Delta Site Application. Please feel free to contact us on this matter . We request that pursuant to the Colorado Open Records Statutes that copies of any data going from your office to the Commission be sent to us also . We would certainly be willing to pay any reproduction costs necessary . Also , we request a copy of either the tape or transcript of the June 6 , 1978 , Commission meeting concerning the Delta Site Application. Again we will certainly be willing to pay any reproduction costs necessary . Very ;tluly rs , ' -i'' R,enald J. Jia lbden Assistant,/City Attorney O910/jN RJL/c i dh �►JUN 1978 cc - Kay Norton, Assistant County Attorney ti RECEIVED M Weld Calmly Notified tapes are ready 6-22-78 �, Planning Cone)ssfaa Tapes picked up 6-26-78 mac-' ti� "A COMMUNITY OF PROGRESS" 1�94217Z0:6\�O l` . ,•* kfli ® an A a, , );: , , � To Tom Bonn & Chuck Cunliffe Date May 24 , 1978 t ,� COLORADO From Gary Z. Fortner Delta site SUP application Subject. 1. Complete detailed review and evaluation of reasons given for mineral resources not being considered commercial (Review C.G.S. letter with that agency) . Prepare a summary of these arguments. Use all information and maps we have available. 2. Prepare final Draft of Development Standards including all factors which should be addressed in development standards. (Landscaping , odor , use - by phases, etc. 3. Make an evaluation of how the phases of the project are to be handled; particularly with their recommendations that development standards not be applied to proposed expansions; that such standards be developed at a later date. 4. Fully evaluate flood plain problem with reference to any info we have available - determine any inconsistencies. 5. Plan scheduling before P. C. and field trip for planning commission members. I I DEP/VITMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES PHONE (303)3564000 EXT 404 915 10TH STREET . GREELEY,COLORADO 80631 JJI jjA . P " tI:.:',i,.-‘':'i.:i:: r; ' '' , COLORADO May 1, '1978 Mr. Peter A. Morrell City Manager A City of Greeley Civic Center Complex 919 7th Street Greeley, Colorado 80631 RE: Request for a Special Use Permit for a Regional Tastewater (sewage) Treatment Plant on a parcel of land described as Pt . I\11- of the SE* of Section 11 , T5N, R65W of the 6th p.m. , Weld County , Colorado Dear Mr. Morrell : h. , Your application and related materials for the above described request are 01 complete and in order. I have scheduled a meeting with°the Weld County Planning Commission for June 6, 1978, at 1: 30 p .m. This meeting will take place in the County Commissioners hearing Room, first floor, Weld County Centennial Center, 915 10th Street , Greeley, Colorado . It is recommended that you and/or a representative be there to answer any questions the Planning Commission 4 might have with respect to your application. If you have any questions with regard to this matter, please do not 1 hesitate to contact our office. Respectfully, 6.\"11/4),...a..- e-AX.42....? ' Chuck Cunliffe { Assistant Zoning Administrator CC:sap cc; : CIi2M IIi l I , Tnc% 1 2000 East 17 L h Avenue Denver , Colorado 80239 11 -•_I�.. I -- - S%_%\4-%i • e{ -z - I I b .. . iCTI:_['J.,TAC_A 2 __ - _ _ C PC rr-' (C. OAT:: —--- —�— .r d co r C • _ I. -_ -41 " : Aft F - did• 4010 • Ii y e GREELEY CIVIC CENTER April 21, 1978 GREELEY, COLORADO 80631 PHONE (303) 353-6123 Mr. Gary Fortner Planning Director Weld County P.O. Box 758 Greeley, Colorado 80631 Dear Gary: Enclosed herewith is the City of Greeley's application for a Special Use Permit regarding the Delta Wastewater Treatment Plant Project. This appli- cation was prepared by the City's engineering firm, CH2M Hill of Denver, with the assistance of the Weld County Planning staff, The help of the Weld County Planning staff in the preparation of this document is greatly appreciated. The City of Greeley has received an offer to purchase the Dill property which is conditioned upon approval of this Special Use Permit application by the Weld County Commissioners, The City of Greeley is considering this offer at the present time and also as a formality the Greeley City Attorney has been instructed by the Greeley City Council to prepare a resolution establishing the City's intent to condemn the Dill property should condem- nation become a requirement in the future. This letter is a formal request by the City of Greeley that this application be placed before the County Commissioners for review and approval as soon as possible, Sincerely, CITY OF GREELEY Pe er A, Morrell \''1�� City Manager PAM/l d e. 4,a � 7r Enclosures: Application and maps FIaU6d�g"8ei ' "A COMMUNITY OF PROGRESS" � � s „ MELD C'ICCK FILING NUMBER 5Q? — �\A- NAME C1 - Y � - - REQUEST \� � / ` Tn r?`�l CA `� 4.S W0., ��C`Fb�, T AW�re� Y__Vi do • LEGAL DISCRIPTI0N , � 'S�, 5.2.c� \\ ,'V 5NJ ,2.6s l LAND USE N \-uk.f 1 41 f'C IC \ �l Y01 l ZONING N v,\ ��Y�2e.}" LOCATION 0 \"G�` \� E 00(16. \-\Q\\� S . Y-e e,A- S _ COMMENTS : \ \ r \n COY'h-e Y � O \\ sQ.6)s; sz� \At A \s5 40\ `raAga- • �--\ O fro ,^ . \ `Z e4- 'Res-AA1,--rs c_c4..6., _a_closc„ \c) Or\r-e42-4— (X\ON-\ a By August 17, 1978 1:10 P.M. I hereby certify that pursuant to a notice dated July 10, 1978, duly published July 13, 1978 and August 3, 1978 in the Johnstown Breeze, a hearing was conducted August 16, 1978. A motion which carried unanimously was made to take the matter under advisement until today, August 17, 1978. The Chairman called the hearing to order and announced that the Board is here to render a decision on the Special Use Permit requested by the City of Greeley for a Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant. The Board asked additional questions which were answered by George W. Hall, Mayor of the City of Greeley. Assistant County Attorney, Kay Norton, read the development standards, the amended development standards and the additional development standards into the record. The City of Greeley agreed to said standards as read. Commissioner Roe made a motion to approve the Special Use Permit requested by the City of Greeley for a Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant, subject to the entering into agreements with the City of Greeley and Weld County on Road and Bridge maintenance created by the impact of construction traffic, including the development standards recommended by the Weld County Planning Commission, and the amendments to said development standard number one proposed by the Board, and include the two additional development standards discussed this afternoon, and incorporate the findings and facts of the Planning Commissions recommendation. Commissioner Steinmark seconded the motion and the vote was called for. Commissioner Jacobucci voted nay. Commissioners Roe, Steinmark and Chairman Dunbar voted aye, and the motion carried. Commissioner Carlson was not present at this hearing. Chairman Board of County Commissioners „wiz') Weld County, Colorado ATTEST: �1�"2'r1, Weld County Clerk and Recorder pad-perk to the Boar 1 BY: --Deputy County Cle k et #78-49 Tape #78-89 August 16, 1978 I hereby certify that pursuant to a notice dated July 10, 1978, duly published July 13, 1978 and August 3, 1978 in the Johnstown Breeze, a public hearing was held to consider the request of the City of Greeley for a special use permit for a Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant. Assistant County Attorney, Kay Norton, made the record. Which was followed by Tom Honn, Zoning Administrator, reading of the favorable recommendation made by the Weld County Planning Commission and the development standards thereon. George W. Hall, Mayor for the City of Greeley, presented their request for a Special Use Permit. He was assisted by Dennis Sandretto, Engineer. Mr. Ray Robert, Attorney representing the opposition, presented their testimony. Testimony was also received from members of the audience and from Elmer Jones, Chairman Delta Organization. Commissioner Jacobucci stated he has a relative who is an opponent and requested a direction from the Commissioners and Legal Counsel as to his participation in this matter. It was as consensus of the Board that Commissioner Jacobucci make this determination. He did continue to participate. After all testimony was received and all evidence presented, Commissioner Steinmark made a motion to take this matter under advisement until August 17, 1978 at 1:00 PM. Commissioner Roe seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 6:30 PM. Commissioner Carlson was not present at this hearing. A Chairman Board of County Commissioners .- *Weld County, Colorado ATTEST: � �L°��C t ut,,,,A.4n. 1 2vb1,- Weld County Clerk and Recorder and Clerk to the Boar BY: Deputy County erk Doc t #78-49 Tape #78-86,87,88, and 89 W 7(2 G Nea Garperre• P•esroe^ A Professio^a' Cor rorabc^ N Kerr Baser Eugene R BrauerY:\ I Engineers Architects Pian', Goroon N Bruch•rer /^7 Patrici Dwyei Bober'J Sh•eve Date.r Steichen Robert D Thomas 2021 Clubhouse Drive Gary R KSndolph Post Office Box 2021 Greeley Co oraoc 90631 303 330 2749 September 19, 1980 Mr. Chuck Cunliffe Assistant Zoning Administration, Weld County 915 10th Street Greeley, CO 80631 Dear Chuck: SUBJECT: CITY OF GREELEY, WASTEWATER FACILITIES SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION AT "DELTA" SITE PROJECT NO. 80140.00 The Weld County Planning Department currently has on file an approved special use permit for the City of Greeley to construct and operate a "mechanical" wastewater treatment facility on the "Delta" site. The proposed use of the "Delta" site has been changed from a "mechanical" treatment plant to a 22 MGD pumping station and pretreat- ment facility. Consequently, the special use permit which is on file is not acceptable for the proposed use. We discussed the possibility of amending the approved permit to reflect a change in the proposed use as opposed to going through the complete application procedure from scratch. Please review this matter and determine the proper procedure to be fol- lowed in obtaining a special use permit for the pumping and pretreatment facility. We are interested in submitting this application or amended application to you by October 1 , 1980. Consequently, we would prefer to follow the procedure which will expedite the application most quickly and allow us to meet our October 1 deadline. If you have any questions, please call us. Respectfully, ARIX, A Professional Corporation ack \Q2O?/.y Dick Huwa '1 ." �� s\ DH/pt � C p 7980 �a,,� HIV ^i x E Co t1LE�` Ce cu�`� 4o �iq' ar `v0 SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION Veld County Planning Commission Services Building, Greeley, Colorado FOR PLANNING DEPARTMENT USE ONLY: CASE NUMBER: PC HEARING DATE: SEC: TWP RANGE: CC HEARING DATE: LAND CODE: T: S: - 1/4: KEY: SUB/DIV CODE: SUB BLK: LOT: KEY: REFER TO: PERMIT FEE: 1) DATE: APP. CHECKED BY: 2) DATE: RECEIPT NO. 3) DATE: LEGAL DESC. APPRVL: _44 DATE: TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT IN ACCORDANCE WITH PROCEDURAL GUIDE REQUIREMENTS: Print or type only, except for necessary signatures: I, (we) the undersigned, hereby request a hearing before the Weld County Planning Commission concerning a proposed Special Use Permit for the following described unincorporated area of Weld County: LEGAL DESCRIPTION of continuous property owned upon which Special Use Permit is proposed: Part of the north one half of the south east one quarter of Section 11 Township 5 North, Range 65 dest of the 6th Principle Meridian, Weld County, Colorado, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at point which bears S0°-13'-23" W. 2657.22 from the N.E. corner of Section 11 said point is the N.E. corner of the North 1/2 of the S.E. 1/4 of Section 11; thence S89°-11 '-46" W. 323.75 to the true point of beginning: thence S0°-14'-10" W. 1342.75; thence N89°-44'-29" W. 1837.07 thence N29°-27'-24" E. 567.24; thence along the arc of a curve right whose radius is 425.00 and whose long chord bears N35°-01'-32" 82.51; thence N40°-35'-52" E. 647.19; thence along the arc of a curve LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT AREA : (Same) rignt whose radius is 200.00 and whose long chord bears N24°-06'-02" E. 113.59; thence N7°-36'-12" E. 121.98; thence along the arc of a curve right whose radius is 50.00 and whose long chord bears N48°-23'-59" E. 65.16; thence N89°-11'-46" E. 984.07 to point of beginning. Said parcel contains 43.12 acres more or less and is subject to any rights-of-way or other easements as recorded by instruments of record or as now existing on said parcel. STR=.ET LOCH T=ON: 18th Street and Holly Street ZONE PROPOSED USE: Regional Wastewater (Sewage) Treatment Plant REASON: In accordance with approved Facility Plan developed under provisions of PL92-500. Present FEE OWNERS OF AREA PROPOSED FOR SPECIAL USE: (See attached City Council Resolution) NAME: Theodore & Bertha Dill ADDRESS: Rt. 4, Box 189, Greeley TEL: 352-3564 NAME: ADDRESS: TEL: NAME: ADDRESS: TEL: I hereby depose and state under the penalties of perjury that all statements, proposals and,/or plans submitted with or contained within this application are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. COUNTY OF WELD STATE OF COLORADO ) Signature: Owner or Authorized Agent Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of , 19 SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION to the WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION for the CITY OF GREELEY'S PROPOSED DELTA WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT A REGIONAL FACILITY Prepared by, CH2M HILL, INC. 12000 East 47th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80239 April 1978 D10828.D7 SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION to the WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION for the CITY OF GREELEY'S PROPOSED DELTA WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT BACKGROUND This special use permit is required by the City of Greeley to construct and operate a regional sewage treatment plant tentatively called the Delta Wastewater Treatment Plant. The treatment plant has been recommended as a result of a Facility Plan study. The Facility Plan study is a requirement of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the treatment plant design and construction to be eligible for 75 percent Federal funding. Originally, the City wanted to study the need for treatment and collection of sewage only within the City. However, the EPA requirements for Facility Plans called for investigating the collection and treatment needs of a larger area. After studying the treatment alternatives, which involved comparing the use of several small plants to the use of a larger, single plant, the single regional plant with a design capacity to 1995 was recommended. Until that time, the existing First Avenue Plant would be used together with the first-phase of the Delta Regional Plant. Numerous public meetings and-hearings-were-had. The recommended alternative was subsequently approved by the City, the Larimar-Weld Council of Governments, the State of ' Coiordo and the EPA. Ultimately, the proposed Delta Wastewater Treatment Plant will serve the area designated in the Weld County Comprehensive Plan as a future growth area. The proposed plant site is near the confluence, or delta area, of the South Platte and Cache la Poudre Rivers. A plant located _upstream (west) of the Delta site would not be able to serve the growth area without pumping low b-ac-ic upstream. This alternative was studied and was found to be costly. A plant located further downstream (east) would be outside the growth area and it, too, would -be more costly, as shown in the Facility — - - -- -- ----- As a result, a site selection study was performed to locate a specific site for the plant within the delta area. One chapter and an appendix of a report presenting the results of the study are attached to this application (Appendix A) . The selected site satisfies the following criteria: 1 . It is out of the 100-year flood plain. 2. It has good vehicle access roads. -1- 3. It is the most cost-effective location for serving the region. 4. Compared to other potential sites, it is situated the farthest away from densly populated areas, yet remains within the growth area. 5. Stiff clay, which could cause foundation problems, is less prevalent at the selected site than at other sites within the delta area. 6. The historic and archaeological importance of the site appears insignificant. 72 There are less gravel resources at the selected site than at other potential sites within the area. _ The last criterion listed above was an important consideration in the site selection process. All potential sites in the delta area are in a mineral _ resources area,. The mineral resources-were--considered in the Environmental `impact Statement (EIS) prepared by the EPA. Despite the potential resource, the EIS recommended a delta site for the regional treatment plant. Given that the delta area is the preferred site for the regional treatment plant, the economies of gravel mining before plant construction become an important consideration. The cost of site redevelopment must be weighed against the value of gravel mining. The treatment plant requires a good fo`undaiion,and the cost of f providing a good foundation is significantly greater than the value of the mineral resources. This comparison of cost_to resource value is expected to continue far into the future, even beyond the usable life of the plant. _ A study was performed to identify the value of the mineral resource to the redevelopment costs necessary to provide an adequate plant foundation. A copy of the study report is attached (Appendix B) . The market value of the _ mineral resource is estimated to be from $5.3 million-$7.7 million, the — -' cost of operating the processing plant from $4.6 million-$7. 1 million, while the redevelopment costs are estimated at $2.2 million-$6.2 million. A loss of $1 .2 million to $6.2 million, would be incurred by the citizens of Greeley if the mineral resources were mined. We conclude that the mineral resource is not commercialy minable (espec`Tally because of high redevelopment costs) and therefore extraction is not economically desirable. This conclusion is supported by gravel operators in Greeley as indicated by their letters, included in Appendix B. PERMIT APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS The "Procedural Guide for Special Use Permit Application" and the "Weld County Planned Unit Development Check List" were used in preparing this application. In addition, meetings were held with Mr. Tom Honn, Weld County zoning administrator, to clarify the County's requirements. -2- A vicinity map and a Public Utility District-type plan is shown on Figure 1 . A certified boundary survey of the property was made, as shown on Figure 2. The soil survey conducted by the Soil Conservation Service is included as Appendix C. Remaining items required for the Special Use Permit application follow. SITE ACQUISITION The City has performed an appraisal of the Dill and Mathews properties. It is hoped that the City can work with the present owners to secure an option to buy the properties subject to the granting of a Special Use Permit. If the option is not granted, the City Council will adopt a resolution seeking to acquire the site through condemnation using its right of eminent domain. Either action is expected to be accepted as the City's right of ownership to apply for the Special Use Permit. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED OPERATION The Facility Plan, which was subsequently modified by a predesign report, recommended that the first stage of the regional wastewater treatment plant be located in the delta, and that it be capable of treating 6 million gallons per day (mgd) . The ultimate treatment plant capacity identified in the Facility Plan would be 32 mgd. The following discussion presents our preliminary ideas on the plant layout. Detailed design can not economically begin until a site is purchased, and that purchase requires a Special Use Permit. The physical location of structures relative to each other is expected to be changed somewhat when a more detailed investigation is performed on such things as soils, hydraulics, limitations of equipment and cost. The design concepts should remain the same. OBJECTIVE The object of the proposed plant is to treat sewage to acceptable levels without creating negative impacts on the community. The Delta Wastewater Treatment Plant will be designed with odor control equipment. Potential noise from operating equipment will be addressed during design to avoid adverse impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. Lighting for night opera- tion will be designed low to the ground or, if raised above ground, will be of the type which have very distinct directional characteristics. Adequate fire protection measures will conform to all applicable codes. Appropriate safety measures will also be taken for both the plant operating staff and for the visiting public. A citizens participation committee will continue to meet to provide input to plant design so that a reasonable balance of protective measures and costs will be achieved. The committee is also providing assistance in architectural and landscaping matters. Minutes of two meetings and a list of committee members is attached (Appendix D) . -3- PLANT SIZE The initial development area covers about 24 acres. This amount of land is required for the initial plant and for the first expansion which is expected to occur about 1995. The second expansion, beyond the year 2000, will require developing an additional 8 acres. Figure 3 shows both the initial construction and first expansion. Initially, landscaping on the west and south sides of the site will be added for screening. It is believed that a minimal amount of landscaping will be required for screening purposes on the north and east side. STAFF SIZE Operation of the first stage of the proposed wastewater treatment plant will require three shifts per day. The following is an estimate of the staff size for each shift: Weekend 3 Weekday Day Shift 7 Night Shift 2 Graveyard Shift 2 TRAFFIC It is expected that traffic would consist of approximately 10 staff-owned automobiles. Three trucks would serve the plant daily until the first stage of the plant reaches its design capacity in approximately 1995. Trucks, which will be designed to haul liquid sludge to farmland for recycling, will be operated to assure that none of the sludge is deposited on public lands. ROAD IMPROVEMENTS It is proposed that the City would improve Holly Street to connect 18th Street with the treatment plant entrance. Such improvement would consist of asphalt surfacing and drainage control. WATER SUPPLY Most of the water supply required for plant operations, including land- scaping, will be recycled, disinfected plant effluent. The potable water supply for the operations staff and visitors will either be supplied by wells or by City water piped to the site. Details of the water supply have not been fully worked out pending the results of this Special Use Permit application and the subsequent land purchase. TREATMENT PLANT STRUCTURES AND PROCESSES The treatment plant will consist of both process structures and support buildings. The process structures will either be open or closed tanks. -4- Support buildings will include a maintenance shop, administration building, laboratory, pump station buildings and solids processing buildings. Figure 3 shows the preliminary location of the structures. It is likely that a more compact plant than is shown on Figure 3 will ultimately be designed and constructed. Input from the Citizens Participation Committee and others suggest the desirability of a more compact plant. The Patterson Ditch is shown on Figure 3 at its present location. We pro- pose to reroute the ditch along the west edge of the plant construction. Since this rerouting would increase the length of the ditch and thus the headloss due to friction, we propose to compensate for the length increase by decreasing the roughness and/or increasing the cross-sectional area. We would ensure that any modifications made to the ditch would not decrease its flow capacity. The following is a description of the preliminary proposed plant. ■ Headworks Building. The headworks building will house a mechani- cally cleaned barscreen, which screens out large rags, sticks and other similar debris from the wastewater. It also houses gravity grit separation facilities to separate sand and gravel from the sewage. This area typically has the greatest potential for odor. However, since the equipment is in an enclosed building, we will scrub the air to remove odors prior to discharge to the atmosphere. This process will not generate noise that can be heard outside of the building. ■ Primary Clarifiers. From the headworks, the flow will go to primary clarifiers which separates both inorganic and heavier organic solids from the wastewater by using gravity settling. A low-powered motor, less than 5 hp, will drive a mechanism that sweeps sludge settled to a hopper in the center of the clarifier. The sludge is withdrawn from the hopper by pumps located in the primary effluent pump station. Following gravity separation, the liquid sludge flows over a weir into a collection channel where it is conveyed to the next process. A minimal amount of noise will result from the water flowing over the weir from a height ranging from 3 inches to 1 foot. ■ Primary Effluent Pump Station. The flow from the primary clar- ifiers will go to a wet well where it is pumped to the top of a biological treatment unit--the activated biological filter (ABF)/ roughing filter tower. The pump station will be enclosed in a building, and appropriate noise control measures will be taken to assure that no objectionable noises will be heard beyond the plant boundaries. • -5- ■ ABF/Roughing Filter Tower. The flow conveyed to the top of the tower will be sprayed over the tower media, which will consist of either plastic media or redwood lath. A minimal amount of noise is created by the splashing of water over the tower. The tower removes organic material from the wastewater and supplies oxygen to the microbial mass. The byproducts of the biological process in the aerobic (oxygen-rich) environment are carbon dioxide and water. ■ Aeration Basin. The aeration basin follows the ABF/roughing filter tower and provides an opportunity for bacteria to further consume nutrients in the wastewater. Normally, the contents of the aeration basin have an earthy odor which is not detectable beyond 50 feet. There are mechanical aeration devices which both mix the contents of the aeration basin and supply oxygen to the basin contents. The aerators would likely be powered by 40 hp motors. Special care will be taken to assure that the noise from the motors is below the noise limits for occupational safety and for acceptable community noise standards at property lines. ■ Secondary Clarifiers. The flow from the aeration basin will be conveyed to the secondary clarifiers, which are similar to the primary clarifiers previously discussed. The function of the secondary clarifiers, however, is to remove the biological mass routed from the aeration basin. A portion of the biological mass will be returned to either the ABF tower or the aeration basin, or to both the tower and the basin to provide those biological systems with a supply of active organisms to further treat the wastewater. Since a greater number of bacteria are produced than are needed to operate the system efficiently some must be wasted. Both the return sludge and waste sludge operation are carried out by means of pumps housed in a building. These pumps are very similar in operation to the primary sludge pumps already discussed. ■ Chlorine Contact Chamber. From the secondary clarifiers the effluent will flow over a weir (in a similar manner to the primary clarifiers) and will be conveyed to a chlorine contact chamber where the wastewater is disinfected using a chlorine solution. The detention time for the liquid in the chlorine contact chamber is 20 minutes at peak flow. This allows sufficient time for the chlorine to adequately disinfect the wastewater prior to conveying it through an outfall pipe to the South Platte River. ■ Chlorination Facilities. It is proposed that the chlorine be trucked to the plant under pressure in 1-ton cylinders. Such a procedure has been used successfully for many years at most treatment plants across the country. The chlorine gas is mixed with water to provide a solution that is injected into the wastewater at the contact chamber discussed above. No noise is associated with the chlorination facility. Some noise, of course, comes from hauling the chlorine by truck. It is likely that less than one truck trip per month would be required for the delivery of chlorine. -6- • Sludge Processing Building. The sludge removed from the primary and secondary clarifiers will be conveyed to a sludge processing building for further treatment. In this building, the solids are thickened prior to being conveyed to the anaerobic digesters. This thickening process can produce odors. However, the thickening devices are contained in the building, and the air in the building is scrubbed before being discharged. • Anaerobic Digesters. Anaerobic digesters are heated, totally enclosed vessels that provide an environment suitable for bacteria to process the solids. After approximately 20 days of treatment at 950 F. , the solids are now referred to as stabilized sludge. This sludge will be hauled by truck or by pipeline to farmland for use as fertilizer. The nutrients still remaining in the sludge are thus utilized by crops. LANDSCAPING The present preliminary landscape plan calls for a 150- to 200-foot buffer zone for any process-type structure. An administration building may be built within that buffer area. The administration building, however, would not be a source of either noise or potential odor. We propose that a Li-foot-high earth berm be constructed with a 2 percent slope facing the property line and a 6 percent slope facing the plant. A fence for security purposes would be placed on the plant side of the earth berm. The berm would be landscaped with natural grasses, low-growing evergreen shrubs and deciduous trees. Other plant site landscaping would consist of grass, trees and small evergreen shrubs, watered by plant effluent, as well as rock and bark chips. Preliminary landscape and architectural plans are available for presentation before the Weld County Planning Commission and County Commissioners. OTHER RELATED CITY PROJECTS SOUTHEAST (SE) INTERCEPTOR An interceptor project has been designed and bid for the southeast portion of the City. This S.E. Interceptor is the upper portion of the interceptor identified in the Facility Plan, which will convey sewage to the Delta Regional Plant. The portion to be constructed this year will relieve existing overloaded sewers tributary to the First Avenue Wastewater Treatment Plant. The cost of this portion of the interceptor is about $1 .6 million and 75 percent of the construction is federally funded by an EPA grant. FIRST AVENUE WASTEWATER PLANT The existing First Avenue Plant requires upgrading to effectively and safely treat 6 mgd. Major rehabilitation required includes a new headworks consisting of rag and grit removal and improved secondary clarification. Removal of obsolete tankage from the site and landscaping are also planned. Initial improvements are expected to cost $2 million. An EPA grant will pay for 75 percent of these improvements. -7- The First Avenue Plant upgrading was recommended in the Facility Plan with a phasing out of that plant by about 1995. At that time, all sewage will be conveyed to the Delta Wastewater Treatment Plant. LONE TREE PLANT The Lone Tree Plant treats mostly wastewater from the Monfort facility. It also treats sewage from the City's First Avenue Plant. Discussions are underway with Monfort to determine their future plans. The Citizens Partici- pation Committee will be involved with planning for future actions at this plant. The plant presently meets the discharge standards. Expansion of this plant will depend on Monfort's expansion plans. SEWER REHABILITATION A contract for cleaning and for closed circuit television inspection of existing sanitary sewers in Greeley is being awarded. Following the cleaning and inspection work, rehabilitation of sewers found to be in need of repair will be performed. Sewer repair will decrease the amount of water which infiltrates or flows into the sewers. Repairs are performed and federally funded to 75 percent when it is shown that it would cost more to treat the extraneous water than it would to eliminate it by sewer repair. LOWER POUDRE INTERCEPTOR An interceptor will be built connecting the First Avenue Plant with the Delta Plant. Initially, the flow will be split at the First Avenue Plant, with a portion of the flow treated at the First Avenue Plant and a portion treated at the Delta Plant. Eventually, all flows will be treated at the Delta Wastewater Treatment Plant, as recommended in the approved Facility Plan. • -8- .=M X . /F/7 / // // 7 / // // ' DE A O © TR TMENT / PL NT SITE i / . , PROPERTY OWNER INDICATES 100 -YEAR O BRANCH, BILL & LLOYD FLOOD AREA O DILL , THEODORE 6 BERTHA O3 MIDDLETON , WINIFRED AND RODMAN, DON L. O MCARTHUR, EDWARD GALE & RUTH S . O5 MARCY , DEWEY © WELD COUNTY O MATHEWS , W . C . AND W . CATHERINE FIGURE 5-1 CH2M DELTA AREA 100-YEAR FLOOD ::HILL 5-6 ! z n RWER cm 1' 1 1.41 ts. m 000 p ak B-6 0). �r I ( /7 'r �� h 2 It► it ,=, B-1 �. Ir-------, - --J =�—=% ,ccl I \ F ®6 B-2 // Qv "- t Ml R I/ El4h\-: ) O o I eB-3 M il -, _i - 1 e TES' BORING LOCATION t PROPERTY OWNER I O BRANCH, BILL C. LLOYD t O DILL , THEODORE 6 BERTHA O MIDDLETON , WINIFRED AND RODMAN . DON L. 1 O - MCARTHUR, EDWARD GALE b RUTH S . 1 O _ MARCY. DEWEY © WELD COUNTY • t O MATHEWS . W. C . AND W. CATHERINE FIGURE S-2 1 1 DELTA WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT SOIL BORING LOCATIONS II HILL i DIOB28 DO 5-7 APPENDIX A SITE SELECTION STUDY FROM CHAPTER 5 AND APPENDIX B OF "PREDESIGN REPORT, FIRST AVENUE AND DELTA WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS" BY CH2M HILL, INC., JANUARY 197E Chapter 5 DELTA PLANT SITE SELECTION The Facilities Plan concluded that a regional wastewater treatment plant should be located in the Delta area formed by the confluence of the Cache la Poudre and South Platte Rivers. A specific site was not identified in the report. However, an approximate location of a 40-acre site was shown. Most of the 40 acres was shown to be above the 100-year flood plain. A site selection study was necessary to determine the exact amount of land needed and the specific location. Three major considerations in choosing a site are listed below and discussed in the following sections: ■ The land should be above the 100-year flood. • The plant should not impact on important historic or archaeological artifacts. ■ I portant and economically mineable mineral-resources should-not be coveredover by permanent development. — 100-YEAR FLOOD The location of the 100-year flood boundary was a controversial issue during the preparation of the Facilities Plan and the EIS and even during the EPA grant application process before the Colorado Water Quality Control Commission. In its EIS, the EPA was satisfied that the location of the site shown in the Facliities Plan would have marginal impact, if any, on the 100-year (6) flood. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers reaffirmed that conclusion after final adoption of the EIS by the EPA. When the question of the location of the 100'ye1flood was again raised before the Water Quality Control Commission, the task of determining whether the site as shown in the Facilities Plan would be in the 100-year flood plain was given to the State Water Conservation Board. The Board appeared before the Commission at a public meeting and reaffirmed the(81 earlier conclusions of the EPAiod the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. ' The corps published a report showing points along the boundary of the 100-year flood plain for the South Platte River. Gingery Associates, who were the consultant for the Department of Housing and Urban Develoje�nt, modeled and made a more detailed delineation of the 100-year flood. This latest delineation is shown on Figure 5-1 . 5-1 CULTURAL RESOURCES STUDY In order to select a site that would not impact important historic or archaeological artifacts, it was necessary to conduct a cultural resources study. Cultural Resources Consultants, Inc. , performed the study, which is included as Appendix A. The area of the Delta site above the 100-year flood was divided into eight areas according to property ownership. These areas were those which were large and under single ownership. The archaeological portion of the cultural resources study included research and a field examination. The field examination consisted of surveys by two people walking in parallel sweeps, spaced 10 to 15 meters apart. To insure coverage, certain areas were surveyed a second time in parallel traverses which ran perpendicular to the original sweeps. The study of historic sites was also performed by research and field examination. The results of the archaeological study indicated that there were no surface signs of archaeological sites present. Archaeological material recovered during the field examination consisted of two stone flakes. Because the presence of Indians on the site has been documented in a large number of reports, a qualified monitor should be at the site whenever any ground disturbing activity associated with construction is undertaken. Any sites exposed would be evaluated in consultation with the State Archaeologist. The results of the historic portion of the cultural resources study identi- fied one potential historic site, that being the Wylie place. A building which was built by the Wylies in the 1860's is on property now owned by Mrs. Middleton. No other significant historic artifacts were found. MINERAL RESOURCES IMPACT The Delta project area has been identified by Weld County as a mineral resources area. This designation followed from a Colorado law requiring that cities and counties within each populous county of the state prepare mineral resources plans. The Weld County Mineral Resources Plan requires that-- Access to future mineral resource development shall be considered in all land use decisions. In accordance with Colorado Statute, no Weld County governmental authority which has control over zoning shall, by zoning, rezoning, granting a variance, or other official action or inaction, permit the use of any area known to contain a commercial mineral deposit in a manner which would interfer?lyjth the present or future extraction of such deposit by an extractor. 5-2 The material underlying the project area is good foundation material for the wastewater treatment plant structures. The cost of importing similiar material to replace the gravel—WO uld be greaterthin the revenue realized from the extracted gravel . Importing outside material would also not produce as good a foundation as would the presently undisturbed materials. Since little exploration appears to have been done to identify the amount and depth of gravel in the area, it was necessary to conduct a preliminary geological investigation. The same properties examined in the cultural resources study were examined for their mineral resource. Holes were drilled on six of the properties that are large enough to consider for a sewage treatment plant and that are above the 100-year flood. The locations of the soils borings are shown on Figure 5-2. The soils investigation report is included as Appendix B. The results of the soils investigation are also shown on Table 5-1 . There was significantly less volume of gravel found in Boring 2 than in any of 'the others. In addition, Boring 2 showed no evidence of the stiff clay layer found in several of the other borings. The existence of such a clay layer is not desirable for foundations unless it is close to the surface and easily removed prior to building structures. Because the clay layer is deep, its removal would be costly unless structures are deep enough to warrant removal of the clay material . OTHER FACTORS FOR SITE SELECTION There are several other factors which have some bearing on the selection of the site. These are access to good roads, proximity to residential areas, a location as far downstream as practicable in order to serve the largest area and the cost of land. Location to Major Roads Most srtes considered were located next to, or very close to, East 18th Avenue. In addition, the Dill and Middleton properties could be served by Holly Street, while the Branch and Marcy properties could also be served by Hemlock Street. Proximity to Residential Areas The Middleton property provides the greatest distance from the concentrated residential area to the west. The Branch and McArthur properties were closest to the greater density residential areas. Ability to Serve the Greatest Area The Dill and Middleton properties are located so that they would provide for serving a greater area than the other potential sites. 5-3 0 C O^ CO .4 MMN rOMInM OOO ptDN ON......) ? 4' C.1 111O � tD �. I in NM � N man4- tD in4- tn inNO1 OOO O O in = 00000 ' 0000 000 0000 0 0 0an 41) .—* O▪ O O O O ; 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Co •'^ V) E C IA I. CO N CO I. ' r- tD In tD In O IA C2MIn C1i in ar- t NInr NN EM 6:1M CO O O CO • • • • • .l E 0▪ 0 ,- , 0 0 0 0 0 ' 0 I- I- I- 1- � SON � O � un C) I- C v O G 0 p r p t0tDN 0i tDMtD OO4' rn Onin N 0' C EL CI Up • in co , O N O N M M M C) N M .0 (O In O in 4.Of'� A r .- V M 00 NI- N t0 ... ACV N N � � A � � r � o n n n n n n c • t4- CD 0 U N C) in an C o\o 0 • C O (O IDC) C) C C� tOO — N D .— 0- InCtD MNI� 4- 4' N LL .- LL M N N I- r ,- i COP "CIin :3 ow) C ;zoom IDN ,- ,- fMN . • C NC) rn corset) .— inc1O ,— In0- Q+ 10 co r) 4' 4• u"».11 in : CO Co CO Co ' to in tD tD tD Is 1s Is Is in N t0 Is tD Cl) tD V1 N < > OIDNince 0MC N ' II, Inan OCO4' M NQ0IAIn 0- N en CO N IC r— NMf'MN i7 , NNN NN �— N CV 1— MN NNN L Q L V O C7 j U N a) ' a) , a) a) a) a) v)' 0) 0) co co .Jin ID IO !, f0 L L O t!f L Q +� '^ InOMIn L 000 1-: c) in L ONOcl) 000 L Z D. 7., r• N 1 4. ; v— N 4' ;' N 4' ED N N 0. , N M Q - r4 in D) Q s '-. M Q 1 Q ; Q ¢ C W i 'L U) I '' Z N 1 w in co N to N t19 co a O l i i i N C CO 111 II I I 1 I I I I I I I O Z V) N V) V) V N) V) V) V) V) V) V) V) U L ) V) V) V) p LL U 1 i 44- CU !f 1I In ro I Q C Q to DO Z m1 \\\J `i'I ml I I ml 1— In mCO 5-4 Land Cost None of the properties has been appraised as a part of this study. However, the Marcy property has been recently purchased and improvements to the property have been made. Most of the other properties would be expected to have the same cost per acre of land for that land above the 100-year flood. It would be desirable in site selection to minimize impacts on property owners as well as to minimize the land purchase cost. The more property owners who need to be involved in site acquisition, the more costly site acquisition will be to the City. A 32-mgd treatment plant requires approxi- mately 45 acres if a 200-foot buffer strip is desired around the plant itself. This buffer may not, in fact, be necessary, but area for a 200-foot buffer should be considered in any preliminary comparison of sites. The Facilities Plan recommended the purchase of an additional 40 acres to demonstrate land application of effluent from the wastewater treatment plant. This land could be below the 100-year flood plain because activities on the land would not impact the 100-year flood. Thus, a total of 80 acres is required. There is no single piece of property with land above the 100-year flood sufficient for a 32-mgd treatment plant. Therefore, at least two property owners would be involved. The two parcels should be contiguous. Only the Dill and Mathews properties have enough land between them. All other land combinations would require working with at least three property owners. SITE SELECTION On the basis of the studies conducted, it is recommended that the City purchase both the Dill and Mathew_sproperties for the Delta Plant. The advamages of acquir ni g t ese sites are listed below: ■ Less gravel resources likely ■ Archaeological and historical impact no more than for any other sites investigated • Less impact than the Middleton property as far as historical sites • Less amount of stiff clay underlying the site likely • Farthest away from more densely populated areas • Capability to serve a greater area ■ Fewer property owners and therefore the likelihood of being less costly ■ Good access via East 18th Avenue and Holly Street 5-5 CITY OF GREELEY, COLORADO PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION FOR SITE SELECTION STUDY DELTA SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT Prepared by CH2M HILL, INC. 12000 East 47th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80239 January 1978 D10828.DO TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION 1 Scope and Purpose 1 Site Description and Location 1 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION 1 LABORATORY TESTING 2 SUBSURFACE PROFILE 2 FOUNDATION CONSIDERATIONS 3 EVALUATION OF ALLUVIUM AS MINERAL RESOURCE 14 Criteria for Evaluation 4 Quality 6 Overburden 6 Quantity 8 CONCLUSIONS 9 Foundation Considerations 9 Evaluation of Alluvium as Mineral Resource 9 LIMITATIONS 10 REFERENCES FIGURES Figure 1 BORING LOCATIONS 2 BORING LOGS 3 GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS: BORING B1 4 GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS: BORING B2 5 GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS: BORING B3 6 GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS: BORING B4 7 GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS: BORING B5 8 GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS: BORING B6 INTRODUCTION Scope and Purpose This report describes our preliminary geotechnical investigation associated with the site selection study for the proposed Delta Sewage Treatment Plant to be located in the Delta area east of the City of Greeley, Colorado. The purpose of the investigation was to examine subsurface conditions in the proposed project area with regard to foundation conditions for future con- struction, and to obtain information by which subsurface deposits could be eva°uated as a potential mineral resource. Our scope of effort for this preliminary investigation encompassed the following: E Review of geologic and other information concerning the project are---a--.— -----_ --- - - --- --- -- -------- -- a Subsurface exploration. • Laboratory testing of representative soil samples obtained during subsurface exploration. Site Description and Location The area investigated comprises five privately-owned parcels of property, collectively covering approximately 160 acres. The land is presently used for farming or grazing of livestock. The subject area is situated about 3 miles east of Greeley and lies on the flood plain of the Cache La Poudre and South Platte Rivers, just west of their confluence. It is an area of low relief, lying in the Colorado Piedmont, an undulating plain that extends south to northern New Mexico. SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION Six test borings were advanced in the subject area from 30 November to 3 December 1977, using a truck-mounted CME rotary drill with hollow stem -1- • augers. Disturbed soil samples were recovered at depth intervals of 5 to 10 feet, using a 2-inch (O.D.) split-barrel sampler, driven as described by ASTM D-1586 for the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) . All borings were advanced to bedrock. Boring locations are shown on Figure 1 . One boring was drilled on each of the five private parcels of land; a sixth was advanced north of the proposed project area near the Cache La Poudre River, on property owned by Weld County. Edited field logs of all test borings are presented on Figure 2. LABORATORY TESTING Grain size analysis tests were conducted on representative samples obtained from the test borings to evaluate material gradation. Testing was carried out at the laboratories of Geotek, Inc. , Denver, Colorado. Results of the grain size analyses are presented in graphical form on Figures 3 through 8. Each such figure shows all test results for a single boring. SUBSURFACE PROFILE The subsurface profile in the area investigated generally consists of 45 to 90 feet of alluvium (stream-deposited sediments) overlying claystone bedrock. Sandy, organic topsoil, up to 5 feet in thickness, overlies the alluvium. The alluvium, which represents the flood plain deposits of the Cache La Poudre and South Platte Rivers, consists primarily of gravelly, coarse- to fine-grained quartz feldspar sands, with fines (material passing the No. 200 sieve) . Relative density, based on SPT data, varies from loose to dense, generally being medium dense to dense at depths greater than 5 to 10 feet. The alluvial deposits are roughly stratified into zones of varying gravel content. The gravel is composed of predominantly fine, subrounded, sound igneous and metamorphic rock fragments. -2- A 2- to 5-foot thick layer of brown, medium stiff clay was encountered in Borings 1, 3 and 6 at a depth of 35 to 40 feet. This clay layer is probably lenticular (lens-shaped) in cross section and likely originated from calm water deposition of silt- and clay-sized particles. Such deposition would occur in abandoned river channels (left as a result of meandering) , or where seasonal flooding created a natural levee and associated bayou. The clay layer seems to elongate in the north-south direction; however, further exploration would be required to determine its extent. The bedrock in the delta area is a variably soft to well indurated claystone of the Laramie Formation (Upper Cretaceous) . The contact between the claystone and overlying alluvium is erosional, representing the lowest elevation attained by the ancestral Cache La Poudre and South Platte Rivers. This contact dips approximately 14 to 15 feet per mile to the north-northwest across the area of investigation. FOUNDATION CONSIDERATIONS Information obtained during this preliminary investigation indicates that subsurface conditions throughout the area investigated are generally satis- factory from the standpoint of foundation design. The alluvial deposits appear to be sufficiently dense below depths of 10 feet that their load-car- rying capacity should not be of particular concern. Likewise, these sands and gravels are not expected to pose significant settlement problems. However, the clay layer encountered in Borings 1, 3 and 6 could be troublesome. Based on data obtained during the field exploration, and on the manner in which we believe the clay layer was deposited, this layer may consolidate under imposed loading, and structures built above it--even if founded at ground surface--may incur settlement as a result. Furthermore, such settle- ment would probably not be uniform, due to the variable thickness and possible discontinuity of the clay unit. Additional field exploration and laboratory testing would be required to evaluate the behavior of the clay layer. Should such investigation confirm the likelihood of settlement problems, measures would have to be taken to alter the behavior of this layer cr to accommodate the expected settlement. A third alternative, of -3- course, would be to selectively locate structures so as to avoid loading the layer at all . Ground water measurements taken in Borings 1 and 2 indicate that the ground water level is within 3 to 6 feet of ground surface. Should such conditions prevail during construction, extensive dewatering will be required to maintain dry excavations and to avoid loosening the foundation soils. This is not an unusual situation, however, and should pose no significant problems; if the contractor gives proper attention to design of his dewatering system. EVALUATION OF ALLUVIUM AS MINERAL RESOURCE Criteria for Evaluation The area investigated lies within the "Resource Conservation Areas" delin- eated in the July, 1975 Weld County Mineral Resource Extraction Plan (hereinafter referred to as Plan) , since sand and gravel are classified as mineral deposits by the State of Colorado. (1) The mineral resource policies of the Plan state that "sand and gravel extraction shall be accommodated in non-irrigated agricultural areas and encouraged in resource conservation areas." These policies further stipulate that: "In accordance with Colorado Statute, no Weld County governmental authority which has control over zoning shall, by zoning, rezoning, granting a variance, or other official action or inaction, permit the use of any area known to contain a commercial mineral deposit in a manner which would interfere with the present or future extraction of such deposit by an extractor. " _ �__ A-key point here is what constitutes a "commercial mineral deposit." ",, 7 Colorado State Statutes define this term as follows: "Commercial mineral deposit means a natural deposit of limestone used for construction purposes, coal, sand, gravel and quarry aggregate, j for which extraction by an extractor is or will be commercially feasible -4- and regarding which it can be demonstrated by geological, mineralogic, or other scientific data that such deposit has significant economic or strategic value to the area, state, or nation." This de=finition, however, does not stipulate criteria for determining what is "commercially feasible" or what has "significant economic or strategic — value. " The Plan points out tfla- in a actual determination of the commercial feasibility of a given deposit, a variety of factors are involved. These include quality, quantity, overburden, location and demand." Of these, the Plan presents criteria only for the overburden factor: "Local producers (of sand and gravel) have indicated that a 9: 1 deposit to overburden ratio is a good rule of thumb when trying to determine the commercial feasibility of extracting sand and gravel resources in today's market. " Criteria for evaluating other factors were not addressed. Additional guidelines, used by the Colorado Geological Survey (CGS) for identifying commercial sand and gravel deposits, were discovered during our research of geologic information for the project area. These guidelines are presented in Special Publication 5-A: Sand, Gravel and Quarry Aggregate Resources, Colorado Front Range Counties, and include the following: (2) • Five-acre tracts with at least 15 feet of gravel can be considered to be economic. • Large tracts of high-quality aggregate without overburden may be as little as 2 feet thick and still constitute a commercial deposit. • Commercial gravel deposits should contain a minimum of 30 percent gravel-size material by weight. These guidelines were established with the help and suggestions of many people and organizations, including sand and gravel companies from all Front Range Counties, personnel from all Front Range Counties and Regional Councils of Governments, and several planning organizations, including the Weld County Planning Commission. -5- A complete evaluation of the alluvial deposits in the project area as a commercial sand and gravel resource is beyond the scope of this report. However, based on the criteria outlined above, and on the preliminary information obtained during our field and laboratory investigations, we can address, at least generally, the quality, overburden and quantity factors. Qua I ity The gravel encountered in the test borings is composed of predominantly fine, hard, durable, subrounded fragments of quartz, quartzite, pegmatite, granite and other siliceous rocks. The sand consists of coarse to fine subangular grains of quartz and feldspar. Material gradation parameters are summarized on Table I . Whether such materials are considered "good" or "poor, " or given some other designation, will depend on the intended use. In general, the gravel appears to be sufficiently sound and durable for use as concrete aggregate; the sand is moderately well graded and should be suitable for site fill . Overburden OverbLrden ratios (ratio of deposit thickness to overburden thickness) exceed the 9: 1 "rule of thumb" at all boring locations except Boring 2, for the sards and gravels above the clay layer. For those borings in which the clay layer was found, overburden ratios below this unit ranged from 5: 1 to 14: 1 . Complete overburden data is given on Table 2. -6- ▪O �'� O4- MMN OMLnM 000 OL0d' N CD CV 0t-- 0 OM4' 4' M NMa- N m n4- CD Ln4' Ln Ln CV DI 4' M Ln v an _C O O O O O i0 O O O 0 0 0 O O O O O O O a a a lc' a W v O O O O co. /O O O O 0 0 0 O O O O a a a a a a ct a N_ C ^ E Ln1� 0 , .- NOIs. i-• 0 L) 0Ln co MO000 tf) OMtn 014• .' an s- M NOM NIA M 004--• •— O 0000 OT- '" ,-- 1-- •-• I- r"' ON •- 0 .- 0 O r�1- O • \ Ln ELD 0 0 I,. 01 0 M 0 0 0 4' M al 1. an N - 4. \ L 0 . . . . . . . . . . •. . •. •. . O O 00000M OOLnC0 ONO NMMM C1M1� M 4OLn• • t00 in 4- v ACV 4- N N 4- 4"- .- 4- 4- I. . 4-- N r- N 4-- r_ .� A A A A A A 0 L i 0 0 0 d Ifl _ Lf) Ln C o10 C0001010 C1 'D04- 1. 04- 4- LnOLD MNN - - N 0 LL M N N I 1-- e- � i 11_ oto C . Il• C ONO CO 00C10N 'I 1- 4- MN NC1M 01. 04- LIC104- Ln4' C D CO) ( V1 4' +-y' LnLf) Ln 000OO00 GO Ill tD 1.0 0nN (. I. LnN t01. 0 V) 0 OP ! i a▪ ) i L oNo < > 00NLn0 a en 01 r... OLnan OO4- M N0) Lnan 4- NM ) N " 4- N MMN fir• NNN NN4- N Nr--- MN NNN N Q V 0 0 in Otc. N d `" C) C) a) a) a) J • Ln o i' o co co co co • +' . Ln OMtn L 000 L an U') L OLn0 L 000 L CD LC) L Q a4. .- N 11 4' C) It— N4' ; N4 C) NN4' C .- NM ; � N U U) CD M < 1 Q Q Q Q 1P W ' C NJ ; 'L VI li Z Q) W i I — M4- 0C1 N4' 0 j4' 01 4- Ln0 N4' 0 CV an a 0 fill I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I (0 Ez V) V) V) V) ' V) V) V) ' V) V) V) V) V) V) 1!) (f) (I) 1!)lL• to V) V) V) V) �� V) V) V) ,'V) V) V) V) (1) V N N V) ) V) L I O N Q 0) > CU L Z I I , I I MI I i ml ' I C0 V=) O m i CO I Ln LO -7- Table 2 - _ - - - V � OVERBURDEN RATIOS - - - - _ _-� � - - ----- -- -- -_�� Boring Ratio Above Ratio Below No. Clay Layer Clay Layer 1 11 .7: 1 6.8: 1 2 8.9: 1 N/A 3 12.7: 1 5.0: 1 4 23.0: 1 N/A 5 13.5: 1 N/A 6- ___ - >40.0: 1 14.0: 1 The data on Table 2 indicate that the sand and gravel deposits lying above the subsurface clay_layer satisfy the overburden criteria- outlined in the Plan for commercial deposits at five of the six boring location -- Boring 2 shows a ratio only slightly less than 9: 1, but considerably less than the ratI0sfor` other borings. Consequently, with respect to the other locations investicated, the deposits at Boring 2 might be considered marginal. With respect to those deposits underlying the clay layer, only Boring 6 (Weld County property) shows an "acceptable" overburden ratio. Quantity Thickness of the sand and gravel deposits in the subject area, as determined from the. Boring Logs (Figure 2) , ranges from 45 to 90 feet. This exceeds, in all cases, the minimum 15 feet suggested by the CGS for commercial gravel deposits having overburden. The question remains, however, as to whether the alluvial soils encountered in the borings are gravel deposits. Referring to the laboratory test data summarized on Table 1, of the six locations investigated, only Borings 1- and 5 yielded samples having gravel contents meeting or exceeding the CGS guideline of 30 percent, and none of the borings showed an average gravel content meeting the 30 percent guide- -8- line. 3oring 2 was particularly deficient in gravel, having an average content of only 7 percent. This data indicates that, with respect to - - - -- quantity considerations, the commercial attractiveness of the alluvial deposits encountered in Borings 1 through 6 as a gravel resource is question- able. Material from Boring 1 comes closest to satisfying CGS's guideline for gravel content; that from Boring 2 does not even approach .it. The information on Table 2 does indicate that these deposits contain poten- tially large quantities of sand, but we could not locate criteria concerning the commercial feasibility of sand resources. However, based on several conversations we had with local sand and gravel companies, the supply of sand it the Gre&ey area far exceeds demand, and those companies with which we talked did not consider the mining of sand to be commercially attractive. CONCLUSIONS Foundation Considerations Based on information obtained at the six boring locations, subsurface conditions in the area investigated should not, in general, present for- midable problems with respect to foundation design for treatment plant structures. The clay layer encountered in Borings 1, 3 and 6 is potentially troublesome, but further investigation would be required to analyze and predict its behavior. Most problems associated with this layer could be avoided, however, by locating structures in areas not underlain by this unit, such as in the vicinity of Borings 2, 4 or 5. Evaluation of Alluvium as Mineral Resource The field and laboratory information gathered during this preliminary in- vestigation indicates that the alluvial deposits in the subject area are questionable as a commercial gravel resource. The material quality and overburden characteristics seem satisfactory with respect to published guidelines, but the quantity of gravel available is less than that considered _ by the CGS as constituting a commercial gravel deposit. Deposit thickness is more than adequate, but gravel content is low. -9- Of the 5-x locations explored, Boring 1, with an average gravel content of 28 percent, most nearly satisfies CGS's recommended guideline of 30 percent. Boring 2 is the most marginal; samples from this hole contained only 3 to 10 percent gravel, with an average of 7 percent. Furthermore, the over- burden ratio at,this latter location, though it closely approaches the minimum criteria presented in the Plan, was much lower than at the other five borings. Therefore, if any commercially feasible gravel resources exist in the subject area, the data presented herein indicates they are most likely to be found in the vicinity of Boring 1, and not likely to be found near Boring 2. LIMITATIONS The information and conclusions presented in this report are based on data obtained from the six test borings, and do not reflect any variations in subsurface conditions which may exist between boring locations. If such variations become evident during construction, or as the result of further investigation, the conclusions presented herein should be reevaluated. This report has been prepared for the City of Greeley, Colorado, in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices, with specific applica_ion to the site selection study for the proposed Delta Sewage Treatment Plant. No other warranty, either expressed or implied, is made. -10- REFERENCES (1) Board of County Commissioners, Weld County, Colorado. July 1975. Mineral resource extraction plan. Vol . II . . (2) Schwochow, S.D. , Shroba, R.R., and Wicklein, P.C. 1974. Sand, gravel, and quarry aggregate resources, Colorado Front Range Counties. Prepared by Colorado Geological Survey. Colorado Department of Natural Resources Special Publication 5-A. / "I • �� n RivER I v vc, 01.06 r.. it -i) /.=------- \..j \\ r if \\ 11 ��-- Z`� 11 i \�� J 1) il i/� e -.r� /C„ ® B-I #4 \ r- '\....., O �w / 6 O / I S ® (Z1B-5 /2 II II E lett ST. 6 % ..----___7(....) ( °--k.DI j....m.k,, _ B-4 0 O 0 eB-3 t n _ - e TEST BORING LOCATION PROPERTY OWNER O1 BRANCH, BILL & LLOYD (D DILL , THEODORE & BERTHA O3 MIDDLETON, WINIFRED AND • RODMAN, DON L. 4O MCARTHUR, EDWARD GALE & RUTH S. @ _ • MARCY, DEWEY © WELD- COUNTY • FIGURE 1 DELTA WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT (}i2M SOIL BORING LOCATIONS ::HILL DI0828.DO 0 O O 0 0 0 l 51 N O m0 p N O 0 •O in in in W 1 I I Z o< O J <a cr 02 5 f V i- VI i a I .<y LO N a N y W 0 O IO r W O J J I N w~in O I N I N I J W W W Z •l k\'&4:•) / '1‘..:-.-.-. ..! •• r1 �I1 OH,y''s mod - • .• /. • • Ii.L CC LL LLWm C° on 0 In P0 N N -'- 0 In -. io N en N In N -- M N < y - H' J U J. In N 1- I I I in Cr CO r r N I I I N -. In in N M W • I • ' • •• e • v .Z-. J IL n 0 O O N J Itl Z N N VINO a rn m N N ,-, Z O < rn Z 1 - CO I < ' I I in 1 n m W 0 n y IL 0 m '0 J 0 I J Y U No• m S Ill ).• O N N m > I F y re o ; o f Q\\V -. J W• • v ^ O 3 N U m 0 N 0 O - In 0 a O O N 0 r I I.- P > •0 In J I I J 10 N W ////''�� N N O y >0 m o I • .. ••o \\.\'ot In u Lin Q m 1 4 rn m s - .0 N I ,,\:\.\.„,,,. 0 Ll a Z I• •-, m CO m L, LL/0£/f ID3 o rn 0. 1‘•} ,61.• 7.,1r...7.':;, ers.r „ L50 ?I m r •-• .0 N 4 -• N0 Z O LL e- A N N .- 4 1 CO: J I y N W O JZ > Z W 3 Cr LLl < >0 -' W JZ �U rN CO 3 rn N O, F CEO Z J U D WI WW W1 I I U a r- 44 m a Z man < CC II,,, na i 4i N I I I 0 3W WLL J m 0 N Z 0. O.,D 0 LL/O£/II'} N n Z< `` re DO O 0 I k• -. ,..• .'7.a 7 •4 .?.. . . 0 • f _, , C0 0 CLZ OOP I CO I 0 In •+ IC .O is r O N r N O CON. N II N N N N en rn m to N In L L/ZZ/9� 0 O O I CD N ■ In I- H\ I- N UI O WLL Lai.—z W O> zIr 11 2 O^ 0 II In O I { , .•a - ¢2 I- I I 0, o< 0 0 0 o o o ≤2IN,a ≤a LL11- N O N h N N 2 1-17 0 2 ul 311) b 4 4 O a 4 4 4210 <2 Om h6 ■4 inn ID-I o 133A NI NOliVA313 N m 0 0 NYR1CNETER ANALYSIS I SIEVE ANALYSIS I 11S STM ARD SERIES I CLEAR SIRARE SPER11GS Qp C O - ^� V! r Ff N ID 0. O 7V ^:. N e p I100 _ y -I �� _ '_ -- = I � 'It f , I 0011 - ' _ _ - _ _ e---,-- __= v __ { V :: - ' ; .- --T --1--—4----1-- - ..« __ i" - 1__ ' ." - !� y - 1 . . i I X11 • . :_-.—- -- -�---- 1--- --- - _ - - _ ; I J . I 1 S 4 u., —_ «_. ._- f cc ty 1I_ • 1 1 t 10 30^ ___ ' -- '_ , ' _ • - � f i --1 ; , _ ._,_-____ .7---__� -- --.y *_ Lt1 I - �' ' T - -� • • :I : i ; f 100 •-"-t— -.! .`. " n n MO 0 0 0 0 000 0 o- 8 8 0 8§$ogoc Q a s aio' I CM el mt ell 4:1 ro..41100 n a per, I !m'1 � h•, P en n O N N DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS SAND GRAVEL COBBLES CLAY (PLASTIC) TO SILT (NON-PLASTIC)l FINE I MEDIUM 1 COARSE FINE I COARSE FIGURE 3 p SS-3, 15-16. 5 FT. • ILI ac CITY OF GREELEY, COLORADO 1 o O SS-4 , 20-21 . 5 FT. { DELTA SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT J O SS-6 + SS-7, 30-36.5 FT. SITE STUDY Q SS-9, 45-46.5 FT. GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS CH2M BORING B-1 CHILL D 10828.D0 I FORM 71 IMtINETEt ANALYSIS I SIEVE ANALYSIS �f i1111I11 SHIES I Will f1111E NELIIIiS �•.• . _ ...w■■irr r■� r• 1 rr rr sr�r _- 1 so ---1' _ ' - i =- _ - + _ - a :-_-_j_.... ....._____,....__.-...._ ___ _ 4:- • - -- I =4 -___ - -. 30 Iii ___. - - - .. __r_ frIri ;_- - -- -I - 0 - - �z _ - _ _ Y_�--*-t- -: _. •yam• =- - -- - - - - I -- _ _ --1 W _ _ _ �- _ __ `-�= _,ter - - - - ' - TO 1 - - — - +- - -I- --}- — - ff _ _ -. S - _ 90 - =-4- 1 .-- r 100 a i 8 1 I$8� / a 3 0$W:5'1 girl I I I I 1p Q N DIAMETER OF PARTICLE 11 KILOMETERS '` SAND COKES ti a CLAY (►LASTIC) TO SILT (101-PLASTIC) FINE MEDIUM COARSE FINE COARSE ti t FIGURE 4 ii ii r; CITY OF GREELEY, COLORADO O SS-2 + SS-3, 1O-16.5 FT. O SS-4, ZO-21 .5 FT. • DELTA SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT �7 6 Q SS •0-41 .5 FT. SITE STUDY GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS O 2 � Oa BORING 8-2 OP D1O828.DO FORM 71 I SIEVE ANALYSIS I NYOAOMETEI ANALYSIS _ - - u S S1AIIAID SERIES I ClE11 SHARE I/Etli1i5 °R.__82 9, : ON 0. — _. — "' — ",. o I 100 -_�_ » I _ _— _ __ y .A --T..-1 _ : ' . { ) yam_ 1 _ _ 1 -f_-T_ -+- - - _ 1 , i - -i t 20 f0 —?- -- - f• - �- i` .- - -- - :_ -r- - _ - _ j t - ;� - i I o - • -i - - ;: ; '- - 30 ---- - .- - - i r. - , I - - :- _--._ --, ' ---_- . I - • -- i . --- 1-40 60 - -r--- -- - - i I. - o • r_________,______-_ :: : -_ —__- -: , - _: j _ --so.•su - -_ ---r' r I 4 t _ • 4- - _ -_ fT4--_ I -_ • - 1 " ._ ___,-' _ 1 I , - - I ' r I' --'-- • 1-1..-.' , '^ n .I •,.No 0 0 0 Q 0 OO92 - - - ' ~ n t ,n i�� ~ n o ry °' "s�aggo 4 a a 4 a�' I I I I I I I I I 8 8 4 I I 00 lit O. 0 a n n o, N n cos R N 4 P O DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS GRAVEL i •- SAND COBBLES o CLAY (PLASTIC) TO SILT (NON-PLASTIC) FINE MEDIUM COARSE FINE COARSE I FIGURE 5 n. SS-4 , 20-21 . 5 FT. CITY OF GREELEY , COLORADO o 0 SS-9 , 45-46 .5 FT . DELTA SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT SITE STUDY T GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS CH2M I S HILL s BORING B-3 1 010828.00 FORM 71 d s N101OWETER ANALYSIS I SIEVE ANALYSIS _ IIS S111D►ID SERIES I CLE11 SHARE Minns �� R0 82 g . r om _ V � � � �_ .• N = '� _' - = -:_- : := - { = t II Yi . _—: ___,_ .ii. ii f= - -- - - - = i - �•-- _ 1 I-..---__--1•----', _ - i�• __- -- .--_1-_--; --- '- :. :. _ -_ _ - I I i I ---r _ - -- - - -- 1 ii - -,a 30(-- . `-� 1.- . C_ - ~ -1- _- -t_ -- . - • -,—TO � . - - _ T •----_�.�.1..--- ---- -`�--_-- _-•-- —- -- i III • O - t ! . - : - ---_= - _ — "� - ��; -- `- ! --- -- r ' - --90 - l=--T�� - ? - O - 0 000oo _ .i--i-t-^-..1^ _' '6"— 7—' n n < +f i��p �" ^ f of 4'.MC ^' QQ • `• f h C �SO 1 ° g ga §r$ggOQ Q aa4a 2 l I I I I I I I 0 pI t� 6r1 co eel n el O 3. 0.• f1 eV P DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS GRAVEL II SAN 0 1COBBLES Y CLAY 111AS11C) TO SIITIror-�LAstic) FINE MEDIUM I COARSE l FINE I COARSE o 1 FIGURE 6 6- CITY OF GREELEY, COLORADO o 6 55-2, 1O-11 .5 FT. DELTA SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT O SS-4, 2O-21 .5 FT. SITE STUDY O 5S-5, 25-26.5 FT. ia 0 SS-8, 40-41 .5 FT. GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS C�HH12M : BORING B-4 1 • D10828.D0 FORM 71 I SIEVE ANALYSIS - I NYDIONETEN ANALYSIS VS ST+11+ID Sf11E5 I CLE+1 SHAVE /IE�I�i5 - vett o7 _ . _ m �r I— _ - I ; 100 r'-r , --- .... ___ :_: _ _ ___ =_ I I I. —,- , _0:....._,_____,____ ____ __________ _ — 4 1 j - 4 _ ' t 10 1 . -•� j \__ r-- -� - rt•-_-_-_,. � " ,.�- I �. I t _40 \ . 1 cm -- - _ — 4 = 1 in , ___' - - - - -�- -_ ^- I - - • ac _ ---i me— ! _ a — _ . _'-- -.-- _ -- 1 30 - t I -- Cf - i = -, 4 1 t ---. - i n n t +f Y...Ma .+ IMO n n n h wM0 I I po_.. g 8 0 8�$8g� a a 2e 48 I- I I tal C I ,�pp DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS GRAVEL SAND COBBLES T FINE COARSE MD CLAY (PLASTIC) TO SILT (NON-PLASTICI FINE MEDIUM COARSE FIGURE 7 16 SS-2 , 10-11 .5 FT. CITY OF GREELEY, COLORADO NC 0 SS-4, 20-21 .5 FT. DELTA SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT SS-6 , 30-31 . 5 FT. SITE STUDY GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS CH12IM U LL BORING B-5 0 DI0828 DO FORM 71 I 9 NYDIOMETEI ANALYSIS SIEVE ANALYSIS tl S STANDARD SERIES I CLEAR SIU►lE OPENINGS _ locsi E �� O loo--_--"—r—,_ -- ;-_ :- :_ _ . ;_-.� -• — --- - -- '- . to OOI - ---4-_--±-.--_-______ . a — a ` .- •• I •1 I - ` { I 20 t :: I •�__ . �_'-'-' - _-1 r ,• - - • — + 4 4-- --- _ i- - s 1 101 - —__ ,- — J _ -_ -_ - = i11 1 i ' \ . 1 ! i 60 -- i 1 _ -. -- _- - - t - . -� - I- _ I - -_ .y -_ -_ _ -_ • _ - .- ----i C., CI- __ f t 1 = Y -- ;_ _ —_ _ 1 --- -- TI--90 _ � :i __ _ :....- + i _ i : .--- --1 = ! 1 ' } 100 _ — --- l - o0 8 'o c 8 ra8E a a 3 c $ I I I I I n 0 1. O en n cr' m n 1 . a N % N sr P O 0 DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS GRAVEL I SAND COBBLES ' CLAY (PLASTIC) TO SILT (NON-PLASTIC) COARSE FINE COARSE e FINE MEDIUM 9 FIGURE 8 "' A SS-2. 10-11 .5 FT. CITY OF GREELEY, COLORADO o ' O SS-5, 25-26 . 5 FT. DELTA SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT SITE STUDY GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS CH2M s LL BORING B-6 D10828 DO FORM 71 1 APPENDIX B GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION FOR MINERAL RESOURCE EVALUATION PROPOSED SITE FOR DELTA WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES i LIST OF FIGURES ii INTRODUCTION 1 Scope and Purpose 1 Site Location and Description 1 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION 1-2 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 2 LABORATORY TESTING 3 LIMITATIONS 3 EVALUATION OF ALLUVIUM AS MINERAL RESOURCE General Criteria for Evaluation 3 Quality Overburden 4 Quantity 4-5 Economic Considerations 5-8 Appraisal of Data 8 SITE REHABILITATION 9 Rehabilitation Options 9 TOTAL COST SUMMARY 11 Increased Foundation Costs 11 Comparison of Total Costs 11 CONCLUSIONS 12 ATTACHMENT A: LETTERS FROM LOCAL GRAVEL PROCESSING COMPANIES TABLES Table 1 SUMMARY OF GRAIN SIZE ANALYSES 2 MATERIAL QUANTITIES AT SITE 3 APPROXIMATE GROSS RETAIL VALUE OF ALLUVIAL DEPOSITS 4 APPROXIMATE OPERATING COSTS FOR MATERIAL PROCESSING 5 APPROXIMATE NET VALUE OF ALLUVIAL DEPOSITS 6 SITE REHABILITATION COSTS: OPTION A 7 SITE REHABILITATION COSTS: OPTION B 8 SITE REHABILITATION COSTS: OPTION C 9 ESTIMATED PILING COSTS 10 TOTAL COST SUMMARY • FIGURES Figure 1 SITE PLAN AND APPROXIMATE BORING LOCATIONS 2 BORING LOGS 3 GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS: BORING B-2 4 GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS: BORING B-7 5 GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS: BORING B-8 6 GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS: BORING B-9 7 GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS: BORING B-10 8 GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS: BORING B-11 9 GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS: BORING B-12 10 GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS: BORING B-13 11 GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS: BORING B-14 ii INTRODUCTION SCOPE AND PURPOSE This report presents the results of our geotechnical investigation for a mineral resource evaluation at the proposed site for the 6-mgd Delta Wastewater Treatment Plant in the delta area east of the City of Greeley, Colorado. The site, presently owned by Theodore and Bertha Dill of Greeley, was chosen by the City of Greeley from among five such sites investigated by CH2M HILL in December 1977. This most recent exploration at the Dill property was conducted to obtain subsurface information pertinent to future plant foundation requirements and to mineral resource evaluation for deposits underlying the site. This report expands upon our January 1978 Preliminary Geotechnical Investiga- tion for Site Selection Study, Delta Wastewater Treatment Plant (hereinafter referred to as Preliminary Report) , which is included as Appendix A of the Special Use Permit Application. The scope of work associated with information presented herein is as follows: • Engineering and geologic reconnaisance of the site • Subsurface exploration using soil borings • Laboratory testing of samples obtained from the soil borings • Assessment of subsurface deposits at the site in terms of economic value • Evaluation of site rehabilitation alternatives, assuming subsurface deposits are mined SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION The proposed plant site comprises 43. 12 acres located approximately 3 miles east of Greeley, in the flood plain of the Cache La Poudre and South Platte Rivers, just west of their confluence. The southwest portion of the property is taken up by the Dill residence and farm buildings. Remaining acreage is used for farming and grazing of livestock. It is an area of low relief, lying in the Colorado Piedmont, an undulating plain that extends south to New Mexico. Vegetation at the site consists of moderately thick grasses and weeds. At the time of exploration, ground surface was dry. SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION Eight soil borings were made at the site between 18 January and 25 January 1978. All borings were vertically advanced using a truck-mounted CME rotary drill with 7-inch, outside diameter, hollow-stem augers. Representative, disturbed samples were obtained at depth intervals of 2 to 10 feet with the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) split-barrel sampler (ASTM D-1586) and with -1- 2-inch, outside diameter, lined California Samplers. Blow counts (N) , were the number of blows required for a 140-pound hammer, falling 30 inches, to drive a 2-inch, outside diameter, SPT sampler 1 foot, were recorded for each sample. All samples were visually classified in the field by a CH2M HILL engineering geologist. Approximate boring locations, including that for boring B-2, which was drilled on the Dill property during our preliminary investigation, are presented on Figure 1 . Logs of these borings are shown on Figure 2. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Information obtained from the soil borings indicates that the subsurface profile at the site consists of up to 5 feet of loose, organic, sandy c`Tayey silt (topsoil) overlying 40 to 80 feet of alluvium (stream-deposited sediments) . The alluvium, which represents the flood plain deposits of the Cache La Poudre and South Platte Rivers, consists primarily of gravelly, coarse- to fine-grained quartz feldspar sands, with fines (material passing the No. 200 sieve) . Relative density, based on SPT data, varies from loose to dense, generally being medium dense to dense at depths greater than 5 to 10 feet. The gravelly sands are interbedded with lenses of silty clay and clayey sand, as shown on the Boring Logs (Figure 2) , and are roughly stratified into zones of varying gravel content. A silty sand stratum with practically no gravel content (less than 3 percent) was encountered in the lower 30 to 40 feet of borings B-7 and B-8, roughly at the elevation bedrock was reached in other borings. Referring to Figure 2, then, the thickness of gravel-bearing sands is approximately 41 to 50 feet, for the 9 borings made at the site. The alluvial deposits, to the maximum depth penetrated by the borings, are underlain by claystone bedrock, probably of the Laramie Formation. The contact between the claystone and overlying alluvium dips approximately 14 to 15 feet per mile to the north-northwest across the general area. Within the project site the bedrock contact varies from elevation 4530 to 4565. The bedrock contact is significantly deeper (approximately 20 feet) at Borings B-7 and B-8 than at other borings. This, together with the information that finer materials were encountered in the lower reaches of these two borings, suggest that the southeast portion of the site was formerly a stream channel. A 3- to 15-foot thick layer of clay, silt and sand was encountered in borings B-8, B-9, B-10, and B-11 at depths of 5 to 7 feet. The lateral extent of this layer is erratic and difficult to determine without further exploration. The stratum likely originated from calm water deposition of suspended silt- and clay-sized particles. Such deposition could occur in abandoned river channels (as a result of meandering) , or where seasonal flooding created a natural levee and associated bayou. Ground water elevations were measured in borings B-2, B-7, B-8, B-10, B-11, B-12, and B-13; depths ranged from 3.5 to 5 feet below ground surface. This information is shown on Figure 2. -2- LABORATORY TESTING Representative soil samples obtained from the borings were tested in the laboratories of Geotek, Inc. , Denver, Colorado to determine their grain size distribution. Tests were conducted in accordance with ASTM D422, . which defines gravel-size particles as those retained on the No. 4 sieve (approximately 3/16-inch) . The locations of samples tested for gradation are indicated on the Boring Logs (Figure 2) by an asterisk (*) . Results of all gradation tests are presented on Figures 3 through 1 and summarized on Table 1 . LIMITATIONS This report has been prepared to aid in evaluation of subsurface conditions at the described site. The information and conclusions presented herein are based on data obtained from the borings. Passage of time may result in changes in subsurface conditions from those existing at the time of exploration. EVALUATION OF ALLUVIUM AS MINERAL RESOURCE GENERAL CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION The proposed project site lies within the "Resource Conservation Areas" designated in the July 1975 Weld County Mineral Resources Plan (hereinafter referred to as Plan) , so that the underlying sand and gravel deposits constitute a potential "commercial mineral deposit." Colorado State Statutes define this term as "a natural deposit of limestone used for construction purposes, coal, sand, gravel and quarry aggregate, for which extraction by an extractor is or will be commercially feasible and regarding which it can be demonstrated by geological, mineralogic, or other scientific data that such deposit has significant economic or strategic value to the area, state, or nation. " Criteria for establishing the commercial feasibility of a potential mineral resource, particularly a sand and gravel resource, are not well defined. Certain general guidelines are presented in the Plan and in Special Publication 5A: Sand, Gravel and Quarry Aggregate Resources, Colorado Front Range Counties, but the information is not so specific as to permit quantitative evaluation. Our Preliminary Report discusses these guidelines and points out the difficulty in applying them for evaluation purposes. As presented in the Plan, a variety of factors, including quality, quantity, overburden, location and demand, are involved in determining whether a particular deposit is commercially feasible to mine. We addressed quality, overburden and quantity, as they related to the alluvial deposits in the general delta area, in our Preliminary Report. Location and demand were not considered therein, since criteria for these factors were not established. Quality, overburden and quantity are again addressed in this report-- specifically for the proposed plant site. Location is not addressed (criteria still not clear); demand is covered under economic considerations. -3- QUALITY The discussion concerning quality in our Preliminary Report applies forte, this report as well: gravel contained in the deposits at the Dill property appears to be sufficiently sound and durable for use as concrete aggregate for example, and the sand should be suitable for granular fill material. OVERBURDEN In general, overburden ratios (ratio of deposit thickness to overburden thickness) exceed the 9: 1 "rule of thumb" (refer Preliminary Report) at all boring locations on the proposed project site. The ratio at boring B-2 is slightly less than 9 (8.9) , and those at borings B-8 and B-9 are approximately 7 and 5, respectively, for the sands and gravels below the clay-silt-sand layer, b_tt the site as a whole generally satisfies the overburden criteria for commercial deposits. QUANTITY The Colorado Geological Survey (CGS) offers the following guidelines for quantity: • Commercial gravel deposits should contain a minimum of 30 percent gravel-size material by weight. • Five-acre tracts with at least 15 feet of gravel can be considered to be economic. • Large tracts of high-quality aggregate without overburden may be as little as 2 feet thick and still constitute a commercial deposit. The alluvial deposits at the site are more than 15 feet thick and cover an area in plan much greater than 5 acres. However, based on laboratory data for samples recovered from borings at the site, and in accordance with CGS's definition (above) , these deposits do not constitute a commercial® gravel deposit. Table 1 summarizes material gradation parameters for 30 samples taken from the deposits underlying the Dill property. Not all samples recovered from the borings were tested for gradation. Our geologists visually examined all samples from each boring and selected representative samples for testing. Those samples not tested have been retained for future reference. Referring to Table 1, samples containing 30 percent gravel or more are few.. The average gravel content for all samples tested, excluding B-7, SS-12 and B-8, SS-10, is 16.4 percent, substantially less than CGS's 30 percent ------ guideline. As indicated on Table 1, data from these latter two samples were not considered when computing average gravel contents. These samples were recovered from a stratum our borings show to consist almost entirely of silty sand with negligible gravel content and are not representative of the gravel-bearing deposits. Including gradation data for these samples would reduce the average gravel content for all samples tested to 15.4 percent. -4- Table 1 Summary of Grain Size Analyses Uniformity Boring Sample Depth Gravel Sand Fines Coeff. Median Size (I)50) No. No. (Ft.) Percentage Percentage Percentage (D60/D10) (mm) (in) SS-2,S S-3 10,15 9 82 9 10.2 .50 .020 B-2 SS-4 20 3 81 16 >11.4 .62 .024 SS-8 40 10 82 8 4.0 .37 .015 Average 7.3 81.7 11 >8.5 .50 .020 SS-2 10 25 73 2 8 1.6 0.06 B-7 SS-3,SS-4 15,20 35 60 5 15.5 2.1 0.08 SS-7 35 33 61 6 12.5 1.0 0.04 SS-12 70 (1) 3 85 12 9.0 0.4 0.016 Average 31 64.5 4.5 12.0 1.6 0.06 SS-1 5 16 81 3 6.5 1.6 0.06 B-8 SS-5 30 17 60 23 10.5 1.2 0.05 SS-10 55 Q1) 2 78 20 11.5 0.2 0.008 Average 16.5 70.5 13 8.5 1.4 .055 SS-1 5 21 74 5 13.0 1.75 0.07 B-9 SS-3 20 15 77 8 14.5 0.81 0.03 SS-5 30 23 70 7 10.5 0.7 0.03 SS-8 45 16 75 9 22.0 1.0 0.04 Average 18.75 74 7.25 15.0 1.1 0.04 1 SS-3 15 5 75 20 16.5 0.3 0.01 B-10 SS-5 25 2 93 5 3.0 0.32 0.01 SS-7 35 27 65 8 17.5 2.2 0.08 Average 11.25 76.75 12 12.3 0.94 0.04 SS-1 5 5 80 15 30.0 0.45 0.02 B-11 SS-3 15 5 93 2 2.5 0.57 0.02 SS-5 25 7 84 9 12.0 0.62 0.02 Average 5.5 85.5 9 14.8 0.55 0.02 rl SS-3 15 18 77 5 7.5 1.75 0.07 B-12 SS-5 25 28 67 5 13.5 1.2 0.04 SS-7 35 26 67 7 10.5 0.95 0.04 SS-9 45 3 88 9 4.5 0.27 0.01 Average 18.75 74.75 6.5 9 1.04 0.04 1 l''.1/1 SS-2 10 8 90 2 5.0 1.5 0.06 C\\*% B-13 SS-4 20 32 60 8 30.0 1.8 0.07 SS-6 30 19 73 8 11.0 0.65 0.025 Average 19.5 74.5 6 15.3 1.3 0.05 SS-1 5 21 76 3 10.0 1.5 0.06 B-14 SS-3 15 20 78 2 6.0 1.6 0.06 SS-5,SS-6 25,30 9 71 20 30.0 0.6 0.02 Average 16.5 75 8.5 15.3 1.2 0.05 Average for all borings 16.4 75.5 8.2 12.43 1.05 0.041 (1) Average gradation for borings B-7 and B-8 do not include samples SS-12 and SS-10, respectively. These samples were recovered from the lower depths of the alluvium, where gravel content is negligible. - f') ' . k51.v. ,____..., J , ' i ' n,,A j v „A We believe the information on Table 1 represents the gravel-bearing alluvial deposits underlying the Dill property. It may be argued that, in order to have representative data for these deposits, every sample recovered should be tested, that more borings should be made and/or that samples should be taken at shorter intervals. To carry such arguments to an extreme, the gradaticn of material at the site can be accurately established only by excavating the entire site to bedrock, placing all such excavated material in containers of equal volume and conducting grain size analyses on the contents of each container. Even after carrying out such an exercise, there would likely be disagreement concerning the 30 percent CGS guideline, or what percentage of gravel sizes should be used as a guideline for commercial feasibility. ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS The only practical way to assess the commercial feasibility of mining the deposits at the Delta Plant site is in monetary terms. Based on information secured from earthwork contractors and from sand and gravel companies operating along the Front Range, we have assembled cost data relating to excavation, material processing and market price for various processed materials. Our conversations with Flatiron Paving Company, Bestway Paving and Mountain Aggregates, Inc. indicate that the range of materials obtained from a gravel mining operation can be generally represented by the following three: • Pit Run Material. This includes all particle sizes from gravel (retained on No. 4 sieve) to fines (passing No. 200 sieve) , so graded that less than 15 to 20 percent are fines. Such material is suitable for granular site fill and, in some cases, for a granular pad on which to pour concrete. • Base Course. This represents material meeting the State of Colorado Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction for Classes 4 and 5 aggregate base course. An average gradation satisfying the requirements of both these classes consists of 60 percent gravel sizes, 30 percent sand sizes (passing No. 4 sieve but retained on No. 200) and 10 percent fines. • Coarse Concrete Aggregate. This comprises material only of gravel size, having use as aggregate for concrete mix. Material Quantities Based on the information on Table 1, and on Figures 3 to 11, we have calculated total volumes and weights for each constituent of the deposits (gravel, sand and fines) underlying the project site. This data is summarized on Table 2. The calculations assume complete excavation of materials over the 43.12-acre area (vertical cuts at property lines) to an average depth of 46 feet :as discussed under "Subsurface Conditions," our borings indicate that gravel-bearing sands extend no deeper than 41 to 50 feet) , and are based on in-place dry unit weights (material would be sold dry) of 122 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) for gravel, 110 pcf for sand and 115 pcf for fines. -5- Table 2 MATERIAL QUANTITIES AT SITE Material Percent Volume Weight Type of Total (cy x 105) (tons x 10 5) Gravel 16.4 4.83 7.96 Sand 75.4 24.65 36.60 Fines 8.2 2.56 3.98 Total 100.00 32.04 48.54 Processing Alternatives Using the data on Table 2, we estimated total quantities for the three potentially marketable materials (pit run, base course, coarse aggregate) described previously. We considered three processing alternatives, each of which would conceivably use all material available at the site: 1. Entire material supply at site excavated and sold as pit run. 2. Maximum possible quantity of base course processed; remaining material sold as pit run. 3. , Maximum possible quantity of coarse concrete aggregate processed; remainder sold as pit run. Our computations overestimate, to some extent, the amount of pit run material actually available for each alternative; pockets and layers of silt and/or clay encountered during excavation would have to be wasted. The quantity of such waste material cannot be determined prior to excavating, so we have assumed all material would be usable. The amount of base course material (Alternative 2) obtainable is limited by the gravel quantity at the site. The base course gradation requires gravel-to-sand and gravel-to-fine material ratios of 2: 1 and 6: 1 respectively. Consequently, less than 30 percent of the total deposit is usable as base course. Market Values and Operating Costs We obtained current unit market prices for the three commercial material types from local (Greeley, Platteville, Fort Collins) sand and gravel companies. This information, along with that from Table 2, permitted us to estimate the potential gross market value for each alternative described above. This data is presented on Table 3. Table 3 indicates that Alternative 3 is the most attractive, with a potential retail value of $7.0 to $7.7 million. However, in order to assess the -6- O1 co n O M 4' N N. m 4" 1 M Is I I I I 111 I If, LA 0 O1 OD N < :4 N N y ¢ m N La 0 U in to _ in O N 0 N C LA N in N LI I I 4• N M M n 4 'nr — r+ Q1 O co L I I I LO CV=_ mini I a M N 4.6 QE - MOD N in- CA v O Q M N t0 Ow ` ,, 0 0 10 .••• °° °. I- Ln in in in co co I..r M 1 I m I ^ 4' 1 I 4' I I I I 7E in U t0 t0 Q 4' 4' M O LO 4. .. L11O1 CO en O I Is • x .r In. o1 0 < O. O in I M .-+ 2 *CO,Q ^ aa.)o o v U •- N I N L X N N ++ 0 c • N N Z a LA r� in f• M I co a W in M• I — •rte+ 0 ¢ M ' in 0 = Q M W C `'' N a _1 U 3 j a) , Q .0 ,-. 4. O a0 I- . I I a in 10 J > J ... CO• I I C J Q ¢ Q Q .*' co Q UJ cC) LL I- $ Q 1n in W Lpc 2 a� Na) J 0a \ N M In re Cv o O N V • • • .LIC CDetI.A 0 N � '"+ N Q I I I u' LA C CV J .+ a) O 0 0 V) tJ .°+ o in U) ° Q C ' • N N V) L p N r•-• C C �, O ; V N M O �' 11 1 C >' WO .+ •r LA Ln o O C ix -CO C1 Ln = O N Z O C) ONM ca L C co O 6,-:C. L > 0 LO 0. ID 0) W 111 CP CD X I- 0. 0 d • 0 a' 4., aa) 17) co in 0 In W a) aa)) to C c Q F- dL a) ° M GCI3 U W Q I•- L v) ° y CD I. IA _ z U in I a in 0 O co = U 0 Cm I- ¢ 2 a CO U 0 re a i 0 L .0 a .o al I- Q co amU v� economic feasibility of any alternative, retail value must be compared with operating costs, which include mining (excavation and processing) , site preparation (stripping and dewatering) and royalties. Estimated operating costs are shown on Table 4. Unit cost information was obtained from and is based or the experience of local suppliers. Alternative 3, which had the greatest potential retail value, also has the highest operating cost ($6.7 to $7.1 million) . The low end of the operating cost range ($0.95/ton) represents the approximate minimum unit cost for preparing the site, excavating the material (no processing) and stockpiling for use as pit run. The high value ($3.75/ton) would be associated with coarse aggregate processed from material having roughly 20 percent or less gravel sizes. Net Value Table 5 presents the approximate net value of the plant site deposits for each processing alternative. These data indicate that net profits from mining these deposits might be as high as $1 .2 million. The fallacy of such an observation is that the gross retail value associated with each alternative is based on selling all material at the site. Table 5 APPROXIMATE NET VALUE OF ALLUVIAL DEPOSITS Gross Value Total Operating Net Value Alternative ($ million) Cost ($ million) ($ million) 1 5.3 to 5.8 4.6 to 4.85 0.45 to 1 .2 2 6.8 to 7.3 6.2 to 6.75 0.05 to 1 .1 3 7.0 to 7.7 6.7 to 7.1 -0. 10(1) to 1 .0 (1) Negative indicates net loss. There is very little market for the pit run material available at the plant site. The supply of this material (which is used primarily for site fill) far exceeds demand in the area. Sand and gravel companies along the Front Range already have large surpluses of such material, and none that we visited was even remotely interested in adding to their stockpiles. Con- sequently, it is unlikely that any significant amount of pit run material excavated from the site could be sold. At the current retail price for site fill material (approximately $1 .10 to $1 .20 per ton) , the following average percentages of the total pit run supply would have to be sold for an operation to just reach the break-even point for the respective alternative: -7- Processing Percent of Available Pit Run Supply Alternative to be Sold for Break-even Operation 1 85 2 84 3 91 Since supply of pit run site fill already exceeds demand, it is not likely that the quantities associated with these percentages could be sold. Furthermore, these are "break-even" criteria; even more material would have to be sold for an operation to be profitable. The average percentages shown also assume, for Alternatives 2 and 3, respectively, that all base course material and coarse aggregate would be sold. These materials are generally in demand. However, with respect to Alternative 3, the coarse aggregate market is primarily for 3/4- or 1-1/2-inch size. Gravel at the site ranges from No. 4 sieve size to 1-1/2-inch, so the smaller gravel would likely be processed out as pit run or some other less marketable material. We have not examined the quantities of 3/4- and 1-1/2-inch gravel available from the plant site deposits, but it suffices to observe that not all gravel processed under Alternative 3 could be marketed for $3.20 to $3.50 per ton, thus requiring the sale of even more pit run material to avoid a financial loss. APPRAISAL OF DATA It appears that the alluvial deposits underlying the proposed plant site do not constitute a commercial mineral resource. The information presented herein indicates that a sand and gravel operation would suffer a net economic loss in attempting to process these materials for commercial purposes. Our conclusions regarding this site are shared by several local sand and gravel companies. Letters from two such companies are included herewith as Attachment A. Flatiron Paving Company's letter points out that, with respect to the "sand and gravel deposits at the proposed Delta Treatment Plant site east of Greeley, there is not enough coarse aggregate in relation to fine aggregate for either Portland Cement Concrete or Asphaltic Concrete" and that "A commercial preparation would have to reject too much fine aggregate in order to obtain material meeting specifications for such an operation to be economically feasible at this time. " A key point addressed in the letter from Mountain Aggregates, Inc. is that "all the big Gravel producers are west of Greeley on the Poudre River: Mountain Aggregates, Inc. , Flatiron, Cowan Concrete, Greeley Sand and Gravel and Loloff Company. They have all explored the Gravel sources east of Greeley." Gravel producers are in business to make a profit, and are constantly searching for areas where processing costs would be small compared to market value for the potential products. If any portion of the delta area was commercially feasible for gravel processing, it is unlikely that such a spot would have escaped their notice. It is the opinion of Curtis Strong, president of Mountain Aggregates, Inc. "that this area is to (sic) expensive to operate and should be left alone." -8- It is conceivable that future demand and rising market prices could change so drastically that deposits such as those at the project site would be commercially feasible to process. However, history does not indicate such a turn of events. As discussed in' the Mountain Aggregates, Inc. letter, the H&S Gravel Company operated the Walker Pit on East 16th Street in Greeley from 1959 to 1963. This pit is located in the delta area, "where the Platte River and the Poudre River, at one time joined," not far from the proposed Delta Wastewater Treatment Plant site. In the words of Curtis Strong (the "S" in H&S Gravel Co.) , "In 1963 we gave it (the Walker Pit) up, as we ran into lots pf (sic) problems and very little gravel. We went in there with new, modern equipment and experienced people, but we were unable to make it pay. " Fe goes on to say that "Although the price of gravel was not as good at that time, the cost of production was also much less. There was still not enough difference to make it pay. I'm sure the problem will be the same today as it was then. " The data presented herein indicates the problem is the same as it was in 1963--the cost of processing sand and gravel in the delta area exceeds the market price. The situation has changed very little in the last 15 to 20 years, and there is no reason to assume that market values for sand and gravel will increase more substantially than associated processing costs so as to mace deposits in the delta area commercially attractive for gravel mining. SITE REHABILITATION In assessing the economic feasibility of developing the Delta Plant site as a mineral resource, attention has heretofore been directed only at comparison of market value with operating cost. Another factor must be considered. Mining the deposits at the project site, for any reason, would necessitate rehabilitation of the site subsequent to mining and prior to construction of the plant. Such rehabilitation would be substantial. The treatment plant cannot be constructed in a pit or on loose waste material (sand, fines) so an abandoned gravel mining operation would require extensive backfill and compaction operations and/or special foundation design to make the site suitable for construction. Therefore, for the deposits at the project site to constitute a commercial mineral resource, the processed materials must bring an aggregate market price which exceeds the combined total costs related to processing oper- ✓ ations plus site rehabilitation. REHABILITATION OPTIONS We have investigated three possible options by which the project site could be sufficiently rehabilitated, after mining the underlying deposits, to safely support future construction. These options are described as follows: • Option A--Mined-out site filled with loose-dumped granular fill with compaction of upper portion only (future structures founded on piling) . -9- • Option B--Site filled to grade with loose-dumped granular fill; compaction of fill in-place by vibroflotation. • Option C--Site filled to grade with granular fill placed and compacted in lifts. Each option will require imported granular fill material in quantity roughly equal to that of the material removed during processing operations (compaction will result in some net shrinkage, thus requiring fill slightly in excess of removed material) . To reduce postconstruction settlement, imported fill would be restricted to granular pit run material consisting of approximately 90 percent sand and 10 percent fines. Therefore, developing the site solely as a pit run source would result in having to obtain the same type and roughly the same quantity of material for fill as that removed. Construction costs would thus be increased by at least the charges for hauling and placing the imported fill. Option A--Loose Fill with Surface Compaction Rehabilitation would comprise dumping imported fill at the mined-out site (no compaction) until the backfill was at least 1 foot above ground water level. The site would then be brought to grade with imported fill material placed in layers and compacted to provide suitable support for paved areas and lightly loaded structures founded at grade. We anticipate that the compacted zone would extend approximately 5 feet below grade. Heavily loaded structures and those founded below grade would be pile-supported. Table 6 summarizes the rehabilitation costs for Option A. Option B--Loose Fill with Compaction by Vibroflotation Under this option, the site would be brought to grade with imported granular fill dumped in place. Compaction would be achieved by vibroflotation (in-place densification with a large probe which simultaneously vibrates and saturates the soil) over roughly 80 percent of the site (approximate area to be covered by structures and facilities) to a depth of about 30 feet. Costs for this option are shown on Table 7. The unit costs shown on Table 7 were secured from Vibroflotation Foundation Company (VFC) , Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. They are average costs based on densification to 75 percent relative density (roughly 95 to 105 percent of Standard Proctor maximum density) in materials similar to those underlying the plant site. Mobilization costs are negligible. Should vibroflotation be used, test sections would be conducted on site to optimize the compaction pattern. VFC estimates that eight compaction rigs could complete the work in 70 working days. Option C--Placement and Compaction of Fill in Layers Option C would consist of bringing the site to grade by mechanically compacting imported granular fill in 8- to 12-inch lifts. Compacted depth would be approximately 30 feet over 80 percent of the site, as for Option B. -10 • - C C C C c O O O s. C C _ ., _= a E o o E o E c E O co m EE co o = In co co c o co `— E ni .3 I ..0 I 0 I I 0 0 co a in .7 O n C 0 4 M V► i? W V► N al - � OO OO Q. y in - >.a y - >• L U c L O N -. U U C U C I \\ I 0 y O In U 0^ an UI • to L -N L 8 401- VI- Ir >. >•.>. C • . . >.i >. -0 �+ >. r 0 U U U ... in 7 C o O 0 0 0 "0 u 0 CO X O X X X 0- o y �of co I. > X In f co N.m > C C . N w CO • 10 i+ 0 00 CO o•0 to C L IA U 0 t0 Q U Q C Q) C C Q) C C C Y C O — 0 0In �+ C • Vl C C .23In - - .., 41 A E E m 8 0 E 0 E a0i co L V a E E up a V t00• = O N 01 a cs mm o i to E CD O in t. N 0 I a) _ 1n tr 0 0 In 0 to N 0 UI N►rf► N 0 • N CO N 0 V► + . 0 U U C C 0 0 y >. $ •0 y >• , w � >.>. toy - >'U1 0 U y >_ U U U U CO C O 0 0 41 C. " b 0\ y oin m0 Nc in o a r:(V .n L t0 .0 L +f- k►v► v► Z. a ≥. •0 to VI> a> c� CO "0 >. `o >. 0. Q 7 3 3 ,U Z C . E 0 O .+>` t0 V U U .L L 0 1. 3 U L L OO t0 t0 . U 0 y I C �o 0 0 o w 0. 0. C o00 O 0 L. 0. O 3 � x xx CC III a ox IX. .CC I .-O P'1 I. 0f O In 7 4- (0 0I O VI •CO VI n ''CU F• •rn .... ...• I-' —0 00 30 0 ^0 3 � O >•- U L 0"0 Z •3•0 Z — — c Q v:. co .+ co O = C co M Q coL — 3 ch ul Q 10 3 u0•' 0. Of 7 a �a) c o car- c I E E m O co Cl co - 1. " y tr 4. Q - � 32, C >*. Q a p1L. c o 0 > . X co -- coLU y a) p, y ,J Q^ n (� tU L -j O L Q cq y J y W L y O 3 ;Siy W LCV a•n Q 47 ° .. aE Ej 3 H F-- In �.E I- ca J U o Fes- Z co N E U 0 0 I- z C C O C O O an O E o o E m o• — • in o i E i In a 4- o ^ a• o 4. , o vi 44 C • m« • 8 >. In O L O N • U « I < C c' o 0 N H OF 40I- L. 8 U •O • N >` 0 C « tD U U OLD O t0 3 X.— _o aoo CXi X •In N > O •o d .co �.. N C co L N a L 0 C O C 2 Y o = o m c _ _ _ ; O• .., E o o E a�i s- 0 a _ C L O N — o• No CA _ « ca E I .o ID C o 0 0 U L• L X arF w O 401. O 8 O D.J. U a O i y • C v C O O` « O >. tin >• CC p o w d L m CM .. 3 > la « U M E U « f0 I CO C o o O.X 0 0. N Y 0. N d vF OF o. . I- 2 a' L L co d U • co>. V w O1 C.3 Z C >. 0a7 E3 o M « . • u,.0 F- « ,o u U -L. o L. L.w o. C o Io «3 '� [1 o 10 O U C 1.. C X X L. 3 t C to •a X C a �« tri O ^o U 7,„ Co3 o L % >”- s. z 3 E s o = o c H m v m Q L ,;_ L 6i ; On I- '° _ ' E 3 t o a) 0 = m �� o c c > . W Q VC Laq, ` N Q.- ce O_• U Q� A Iv m cc Po F aE E 3 F' « I- U) — U 0 I1- Z Mecharical placement and compaction would demand that the site be dewatered prior to commencing fill placement and that the water table be held at all times not less than 2 to 3 feet below the most recently-placed layer of material. Table 8 summarizes costs for these operations. TOTAL COST SUMMARY Tables 6, 7 and 8 show that rehabilitation of the project site, after mining the underlying deposits, would add $1 .6 to $6.2 million to plant construction costs. Additionally, the pile foundation costs associated with rehabilitation Option A must be accounted for. This option would necessitate founding most structures on piles, whereas such foundation support would not be required if the site was left undisturbed. INCREASED FOUNDATION COSTS We have estimated the approximate number of piles needed to support plant structures if Option A was used. Our estimates assume H-piles driven into bedrock, and are based solely on preliminary information concerning structural loads. Piling costs are presented on Table 9. Unit costs were obtained from local piling contractors. Table S ESTIMATED PILING COSTS Item Quantity Unit Cost Total Cost Material (W16x50) 1,000,000 lbs. $0.20/lb. $0.2 million Pile Driving 20,000 feet $5.00/foot $0. 1 million Mobilization & Indirect Costs 20,000 feet $3.00/foot $0. 3 million TOTAL $0.6 million Accounting for these costs under Option A increases the minimum total rehabilitation costs from $1 .6 to $2.2 million. Proper implementation of Option B or C should not increase foundation costs (except for actual rehabilitation expenses) over those associated with the site as it now exists. We anticipate that spread footings or mat foundations would be adequate for most plant structures for the existing soil conditions or for those resulting from Options B or C. COMPARISON OF TOTAL COSTS __ Extensive site rehabilitation would be necessary only if the underlying deposits were developed as a mineral resource. Therefore, it seems appropriate -11- to compare the gross retail value of these deposits to the sum of operating costs plus rehabilitation costs. A reasonable observation might be that the sands and gravels at the Delta Plant site could not constitute a commercial mineral resource unless potential income from sales of processed materials would not only recover operating expenses, but more than offset any construction costs attributable to the mining operations. Table 10 makes such a comparison. Processing Alternative 1 is excluded from this evaluation, since there is no rehabilitation option for that alternative (refer previous discussion regardirg removal of pit run material and replacement with same) . Table 10 shows that when rehabilitation costs are considered, any attempt to develop the project site as a mineral'resource under either Alternatives 2 or 3 could result in a net economic loss in excess of $6 million, the actual figure being dependent on the demand for pit and run. CONCLUSIONS We believe that sufficient information is presented herein to show that mining the alluvial deposits underlying the Delta Wastewater Treatment Plant site would not be economically feasible. We have based portions of our analyses on estimates and average values, but we have also included several points of conservatism to allow an optimistic appraisal of the deposits at the site: • Assumption that all material within the property lines of the 43.12-acre site, to a depth of 46 feet, would be usable. Actually, some minimum side slope would be required for excavation stability, and areas would have to be set aside within the property for the processing plant and material stockpiles. • Computed gravel quantities were based on material retained on the No. 4 sieve, whereas local aggregate suppliers typically define gravel as those particle sizes greater than 3/8-inch. Therefore, gravel pit operators might consider that there is even less gravel than we have estimated. • No reduction in available resource quantities due to stripping or handling losses was considered. • AU gravel sizes were assumed usable for coarse concrete aggregate, whereas anything smaller than 3/4-inch would likely not be suitable. The collective data indicates that unless the demand for pit run site fill material increases phenomenonally, the processing costs for a sand and . gravel operation at the plant site would far outstrip the income. When ___,--/ costs are considered for returning the site to a buildable condition after it has been "mined out," total projected losses could exceed $6 million. If all excavated pit run material could be sold at the current market price ($1 .10 to 1 .2/ton) , a net profit of up to $1 .2 million might be realized from mining all available material at the site. However, the site would -12 C t0 {A CU O I I O O >E 0 N al N Z I I O C O C— •— 0 0 LL E o 0 M M CU (0 (0 N N y O O O LU U C C o c `'g O N io E ‘o u; �o r+h 2 2 v V N t0 C —U rn o)2 c O — u, _ •- a) E O v `o n O O « M Tu O O `~ I-U 0 0 d— CTo M N >— N N >- HE2 2 N Q L VP... W O g 0 so n 2 N 0 I o U C H J In E al < a) N Cr) to 0I- I- a< then not be suitable for new construction. To just recover processing costs and increased construction costs resulting from mining the site, base course material and coarse aggregate would have to reach market values of approximately $7.00 and $11 .20/ton, respectively, while processing costs did not increase at all. Such a situation is not likely to develop; history indicates that processing costs and market values increase hand-in-hand. Those who are most familiar with the gravel supplies in Weld County--the gravel company owners--feel that the delta area "should be left alone," as far as gravel mining is concerned. The data presented in this report sub- stantiates that position. -13- 1 SINIMEAMEIMIIIIMMIllu tsrl IN VW / •s-• ••-17 •s-I2 •s-. •e-2 41�-� •x-uo 0117-12 S II •8'I. I __ _ SITE PLAN Qo ii TA 1 N� VP 04 � N�1 GPG \J 1 :?'' ) \\ ( ..-0 jL. 16th STS// PROJECT .` SITE 18th ST _ O LOCATION MAP FIGURE 1 CITY OF GREELEY , COLORADO DELTA WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT MINERAL RESOURCE EVALUATION CrI2M SITE PLAN AND SHILL APPROXIMATE BORING LOCATIONS o c a c - .0 =- o m • „r in 'Si n LAI _ , S S a a 1 I I 1 I I I Z < J Z o a o • • • • ° ._ CI ....-. - - ' _ - _J• III lil Y C• Z Q n O W O n a O at M 7 U uU„ J X J O CO n M a N O •O O O f < N n > a < N W W CJ < 0 i7 •-C M J W C W > 1- W I ^ U m 0 C W U O J C CC LO .U. W W O .Z_, ' BL •N•r czoll. ' \ I ? 3 LL K a IOn 2 1 . �\ IIII II 3 • 3 o 3 w m 0: .• - a _• • • .•i .. • W C • LL f .. :I�II o a a P ••O O O Is O. > 3 C P m r .O r n M 1 a �O n f W w - a Z \ U I- a Z J S LL 0 Z: M I I 1w e, 'NV' EZIIi ♦ • t • U D j ,` , L�Ot. • O • I - •.511 1111 Z2 Z Z W m I O ry O O MO s 0 ° > n~ n W O Z a RI M a a < W m J Y CC Y 1- Z 3 F n U J O J < O O < _. J Y J 3 •-• 2 W n °l- n Iv 1- > 2 > O Z < ..0Z J < 1- a Z O > W n ..J IT .. C < O W I- n in 0 3 U In CC J < Z>I- at Nrr EZ�� • • 0 W ° --J< • . • • , . • III VIII • , GO r °�J to r K� pe C-) ___ •0 N lD 0 CO S P Bc r' n291 • Im n N N N M 1 r- \ I P CO 1 ' 1W tW n w a J ac a' '2)4 • • • Z Z f o • I- rI1 l• o o _ 0 1� M •O N O a I a O Q,• ..l..l 1 ._ .-, N M S n M M N CU .p Z I a'CU J CO Z• Z W 1.. Z C Z W I.L. CC -W -a > C I- a I- O O O O O W o ¢ 0CCa ✓ < V W 1 0 I J O Ol • • • C — •• • I •••I •/. 10-. •0 3 Z 3 a a ` �el MI J f- J Q IN N 0N O N 1 P O 1 N M N II- a Ia m n CO n n M M h N M N \ N O n ... W n Y n J I� n p n Z B.. •Nrr 614 . ♦ W Q rII,. - U P n _ _ n Z r J 07 1 NI N _. In M M 4 in a �•0 N cLi CD,.M N 'n in U W -°I- O Q j n n O W < W Z LL Z a •Z O 4 O a Cr l- n.. W W o W 0 0 a m C Z o Z J I 0 0 in.- F-.O H a BL wee' Bl3•, • • • 1- Z O Z Z O W V LL ® I ._«r_ ,' • •` \w �\\�,\�\\l _ IOII O WQOm�Z ° �' • 'O:i•e0 •• • .•P, • I' • '\ . -C .- .- \` • _ •�I� w a � a 3 Jr ? •••••eo • ,{�• ► • •N • 0 '-c --c-vC��j� -.� U O a n LL Z>O a ,0OIUJ MI L-1,J r-. N 'M< Z mJZnWQN Wo -• O n 0 I N P a N N M ...ICI l0 CI N in n \ 1 < W o Z LLl f w Q n M 'p r N N CC n\ > J C -03 1-LLI n 1- 4 M < 004 r• WIZ u0 -- n Z U< CO F 0 O < W < O W 2 n J C C LL' Z J 11 H J Z j U 0° .. W LL SON 0 4 • • • • n LL O•-• O W 7,.. • f- • 0 °L. n C • 'IL: U IN ►1Z • A •• •• .Z. O °Y Q Z ,r • ♦• • <n W Y '-• CO ► \ • ♦i i•• • •• O. C 17 2 m W<0-.,. fn2 n CD •n S n O -1. O O F• W < Q H a O .-• .-, N 1 IM M CO J 2 U Z a C W > f- ..3 2 W H J W J O O W Z H n ` I I I in w < ,- O < •Z-•n rLL <1- I 4 I O 0 O O _ ° m A O n 4 ,?,I o 0 0 P n in n n in in •4 0 J a a 4 4 1 S _ N VI a 1 1334 'NOIlYA313 N W I- O Z 501110o/O I HYDROMETER ANALYSIS I SIEVE ANALYSIS , u S SIARD►ID SERIES I CLEAR SOu1RE O►EMIICS _ Qp o it�� O 82 2 N 4' O _� N c7 _O +I .,,, .fir+' -- t- «'f. : _:-_- . -+..1--. i i J 1 -.4--- - �_ -1 11.1-_-..:-.r'•• -. ' ' , ,._r; ._ .l..: :. -1--L---1 - a. a « -- r. -4 I Yi �._ : _ - �-- ~ r!. r{{ i -- 7. 1. I . H. , -.. i ...t:17.1.1::' 1 -•-- ,— .ail - -,-7-41 -r-+-1-�I --�_____.1 -4. _.:: I--•--N 1 —7—'_---1-.-' 90 —10 •- �, "_1:-..--L--,:i7-:"- =+ —TAY -- 11:,-±- ,:-..-: : -. {r I -~ a _.. _ _•l'"; -- =T=r=]--`.-} . _ '.., -+�-:. - :-"" •1.- •• - --I_ i- - 1.m,- �_._ .t._ 1r • - �! �20 a 80 _ -,,. ..r --r-*, ■ _ -. _ err '. - R! � �: .�+ :f^' Y ; ".1 '4'-'4414-4- -'-1 }} '_� ' `:$� �' i+`,--_ . __ -_ -4-' , - '-1---.L--4--_ --= -�•-- ii-_---] + TO __ I-• j -,_ _ -' --4_,1 t ,J; 1 . 1 , I :1 1 boy I .� -1,--4--t.--1-1._t- ,- -:: .. a ,- :l .i-, -:_ :.1-.�-J -1 t---, - 4-�i _ . .::, : ;-:, 1 :., - 1 a- • t-•-a--: _:2_14`2.1"___::: o _ �.`r-i•-,-4-'`-,-�- i-TITJ..11::7.1 '- -I- __,_14__,41 _r'-. 4. - _1 1.' -1. 1 - -• ^i —i_ A 7 -- i _'. _-50� ..,7,,,50____i______!....4__,_._.1...4.______1_-_-' - -1�_. j7 1 •- r.-_ +_tom_�I t - 2;1 i , - - L. -"II-7-71-1--1-r---4-1--i- ----I-•, -1-: '..._.....-11-41 - ij--- - --r .--t_i_l ' —I— -- -1 -— -- -- 1----- --- so— =40-'_x• ^ -_! � ' +� _:`::-1----F----i ,- :-: �t = 1:21_12,i:4_ 1�::. '... _....i.; - 1 ::: '17:::::_i__:_ - :- : i'.�4_---tom , Zvi --•-'� -,--_4 a- ,-.D-.- ' I - " _. _ := _ 30_- 70 ' '----1-±-1----! t, '� ---r--1� t•-•.--L-1 :: -1 r =_= =, -r- _ =i---': : --- ' _--- f _--� 1 r� .LI_ , �---a , --� 2T-1::::-.4-T-� Ti j�_=.- .._..---1-_-_,-1---i--1-4 :1-.�1� - _j__ _I_ . • - 1- �- •:_,- { v ; . � `:- - _TT y 777�� .a----- 1 ,-1--1 -I- _.1_ 1: -90 —_ -`- I -•-,-!-1-1--L-4-7:4,-- _IT-} ---I - a --- r- _-._--I- -1.r-I ,=�, -,--r- _-- 100 F'^ TT7T . 1-. -T-1--t- 75 'T R' ` ^,� n no+.Aso e n .1or•-•> v .n ano o ^' n .n on�po I I I I 0 0 .0 CI Q 4 0 0 I I I I I o. 0 0 0 a0000 cTi N f� O O. n h �' en n 0. N N nr pc O DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS SAND GRAVEL COBBLES CLAY (PLASTIC) TO SILT (NON—PLASTIC) FINE I MEDIUM COARSE I FINE I COARSE e F, FIGURE 3 z l•Zo 6. SS-2 + SS-3, 10-16. 5 FT. O SS-4 , 20-21 . 5 FT. • CITY OF GREELEY , COLORADO - Q SS-8, 40-41 . 5 FT. DELTA WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT 1 MINERAL RESOURCE EVALUATION + �_ GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS CH 2M ::HILL BORING B-2 0 I co DI0828.D0 FORM 71 NYDIONETER ANALYSIS SIEVE ANALYSIS U S STANDARD SERIES I CLEAR SIYAIE IIENIICS CNI Qp \—� _ _ O ^ate O O O \ � � _ " 10 J- I t ::. A —'�— _ t I 1 Il i-1--- -• j _ - _11i - -_- - _i 4 �' V t -'--j` —2D _ _ ' • I _- • _ _: _ -�- --- - -- -..- • ' - • - -• ;- -- - - -30 - — L_:� I __ 1 ---— — -- —_.— — I U s i i -_ - _ :`_ --- —— - --� + 1 :� -1_-I -- ---40 D - • _,_— — - • - - --- - __ ------ -- - .-_- t i O -1- - -t L__.-- -`50� .n 50 - . . _ ._ i i H - - =40 -----�- - - - J, , j 1 , 1 u., - 1 1 ,fit t - m a 30 - - - - ---- ---j ; -' - 4 { i To = - ----- =:_ _- I -,) I ' I -- j�' . ] i _L—EO _ I i I t 1-- _ i1__ [- 1 -LtL pp ] y `� - h n t of a w��G n n n •w M_ M g i g oHll!O Q h n n O �. O S D �O ROOOC a a 3 o a ao� i I I I I I I I I I I I N p N NI ^ • N P m R DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS SAND GRAVEL COBSLE5 es CLAY (PLASTIC) TO SILT (NON-PLASTIC( I ( I 1 FINE J MEDIUM COARSE FINE I COARSE p 55-2 , 10-11 .5 FEET FIGURE 4 W o 0 SS-3 + SS-4 , 15-20 .5 FEET CITY OF GREELEY , COLORADO 0 SS-7 , 35-36 .5 FEET DELTA WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT Q SS-12 , 70-71 .5 FEET MINERAL RESOURCE EVALUATION 1 iv GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS CH2M 4. BORING B-7 RHILL -, FORM 71 I NYDI0METEA ANALYSIS I SIEVE ANALYSIS U 5 S1GID►RD SERIES I CIERR SIUGIE WRINGS p p 4 ID N S = MO ...._:+ '1- t-.-- } .t ! -+ L — -.7:I—I , 1— —_-,..i_ . _ ___ --- - 1 _ . . i it- ToL_ _ -- - --- - - --- - — 4 j 1, I - }.- - _. - . Ll r �---_' ---- I 250 = - =-- — -- - — ; _—_1__ o , , • _ _ • .: ...• .... -- • 1 --160: W4 AD - ,�,.— - _- _ __ -- -- • 1 i i _;_ a Thlif _, - . I i 20 - — 1 I {! I I 14 = - COI-_• -~ _ y`r --- t i t• ii ilLL -ft1TL o - -� RR- n n � nQ^�� n � n •nMO �„ � �Oti•0 L--- 8 3 0 b$8g� o a 3 0 $qI c� � � 1 1 oa �p I I I Ogo h P 1 F O 1. N N O DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS GRAVEL 1COBBLES SAND CLAY (PLASTIC) TO SILT INON PLASTIC) FINE I MEDIUM 1 COARSE { FINE I COARSE a W Q SS-1 . 5-6 .5 FEET FIGURE 5 0 SS-5 , 30-30 .5 FEET CITY OF GREELEY . COLORADO SS-10 , 55-56 .5 FEET DELTA T TREATMENT ANT MINERAL RESOURCE EVALUATION I j O GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS CH2M BORING B-8 RHILL i . FORM 71 i HYDROMETER ANALYSIS I SIEVE ANALYSIS _ Ai S STANDARD SERIES I CLEAN SHAREI►ENIUGS - Do`,___ ;_... ..-1 -----___:-.4.:_.-__ ---_-.-._- y-- _ {, i — �� i -•e 1 _ ._ C ` I j - —30 _ I s - _ ----_ ___ • ---- — I - i 1 -4- - -�50Q 17 i - •--• • -.-- -- ----. . • i . 1 i Woo __ i i dI i _ I ; `I 1 1 _ 1—� 10 e __ - ----..--- _ _ _ -_------j'- * 1 1 301 T- -- _- --— --— I "r i - 7 ' - -1 : I 4-- , i"r�— I — 1 1.1 • i I 1 4 - T_ _-! __A_ -� :- 100 0 0 0 8 etig8 n n � Oo �" 8 $8g' Z. a a Q $^� o, 8 8 a §§h-k° ( I I N. < O 1� O O IN qt h P el F O d DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS GRAVEL SAND COBBLES CLAY (PLASTIC) TO SILT (NON PLASTIC) FINE MEDIUM COARSE FINE COARSE FEET ASS-1 , 5-6 .5 FIGURE 6 I I.- O SS-3 , 20-21 .5 FEET SS-5 , 30-31 .5 FEET CITY OF GREELEY , COLORADO DELTA WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT ii 0 SS-8 , 45-46 .5 FEET MINERAL RESOURCE EVALUATION GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS CH2M BORING B-9 II HILL OD FORM 71 HYDROMETER ANALYSIS I SIEVE ANALYSIS U S S1�IDAID SERIES I CLE11 SIu►IE IIEIrli5 p o �� j 100 -:' -L --I--t r r-1- ' .` : ii - _ -I : ' i '� $ r -. ii...: ,. _.. ....,..,_1 ...,......„....,______:,...„.. _____. ___ . iL - -, __ _. _, . .., ._ , , • •I �_- i -. I i _ - - - 1 i-r- 1_1-1--.1_ I _ 1 - 1, —�—20 60 -- -+ - - -- i r k ; I 1_.-3 -_- .-.. -_- �� 1 1 tI • •. : . 1 ... , ___ . ,___ -- - -- 1 ; 60 - - -- -- -- 1 1 I t :: _. -_._ y 1 ' n I . -L ' 1. }--=--50~ ce . -- I I : 1 t s40 1 -- - -- r I - -- is 70 30_ __t-_��——_ — - -- -- I I 1 1 , - - 4 -. r - 20i -- —_-�---- ---- — s I I ; i T I -1.` i • I 1 . .. 4 I i _ (_ ---- - -- -1-- ---4----+ • 90 10, _ _ y 1 i i r t i ; - __•: 1 ' -+-- ! - - --- - } 100 0o g R o b 7S$$goo o $ a o gaoc 1 1 I I l l I I I n P I n h 0• G le DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS SAND GRAVEL �CO6RLES CLAY (°LASTIC) TO SILT (NON PLASTIC) FINE I MEDIUM I COARSE 4 FINE I COARSE iN SS-3 , 15-16 .5 FEET W FIGURE 7 oh 0 55-5 , 25-26 .5 FEET CITY OF GREELEY , COLORADO SS-7 , 35-36 .5 FEET DELTA WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT MINERAL RESOURCE EVALUATION GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS CH2M OM BORING B-10 IdHILL FORM 71 MYSICMETER ANALYSIS I SIEVE ANALYSIS _ u S S1►1DAID SERIES I CLEAR SIU►IE 11EIIICS Q O -O 0 \ \ 4- C•7 to (W -_ __ _ITV ---T--•F---,—-1---•_-1 R+-,� : 8 —g' — ciao • 1 1-1..:::� -7jrjt- D - - - -- -- - • -10 1 i _ ` 1 _4-�'� -- __T._ _ - + ; I I • �40 _t, i i X50 - - - --- — __ -- - --- _.----- — --I— 11 i II _ _ i-- . _ i .- -- - - - - I 4 = Oar s40--Lia I ,� CA DC - i 1 I I - . { - _; - -_ .- _ _ I l Li I I ; 30_ _.__ — - — 1 I I { I i i} i {i 20- ---- -_- _ ----- - --- ------- __ , — ; ' t a __ -=- _ - -. ::. --- -- -1- 1 t - 4---t - I - , 10;-----r---17.--_-.7,I . —=—_ — -:—cr! _ • 1 1 # , I i - - . 4 - -• -` I as , - -_ _; _ + -- — : • i 1 I , —r•� ; '-' I 1 . 1 — - --100 r D.-- n n t +1 41 7....11.O r n OH 8 8 x 8 $'sgo Q g a q $�I I 1 I I I I I I 0o I I V 0, f: O P el n h P ; 0 4 NliS ^ C•4 . P DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS SAND GRAVEL �COS6LE5 ` CLAY (PLASTIC) TO SILT (MON PLASTIC) FINE I MEDIUM I COARSE I FINE I COARSE W O SS-1 , 5-6 .5 FEET FIGURE 8 Es I oh 0 SS-3 , 15-16 .5 FEET0 CITY OF GREELEY , COLORADO SS-5 , 25-26 .5 FEET DELTA WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT MINERAL RESOURCE EVALUATION GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS CH2M1 a BORING B-11 I HILL( Y AI , FORM 71 MYDNOMETEN ANALYSIS I SIEVE ANALYSIS U S STANDARD SERIES I CLEAR SOME IFEV ICS C 0. 8$ gs ( N om - • 100 _.� "�- y - : 4 �- ::'�: ___4.,...---_-: ;ter- :_,-Y '_ _�. -x- - - ! r - - , +- io iI s I-- d SO - __ -_ _ _-- ------ _ r{ I 1 I i 1 -• -- - 1 a Vie- w ' I t-, 1 -- - a -•_- =" i -1- —1 —A_::-'_i •- -_- ___ N A \ VI •PNQ N PI \ � OA�•O Do 8 $ cE$8g� 4 q aqg I I I I I I I I I I o a - , 0 N - N < P 1 itDIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS GRAVEL SAND COBBLES CLAY (PLASTIC) TO SILT (NON-PLASTIC) FINE MEDIUM COARSE FINE COARSE ss-3 , 15-16 .5 FEET FIGURE 9 0 SS-5 , 25-26 .5 FEET v CITY OF GREELEY , COLORADO SS-7 , 35-36 .5 FEET DELTA WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT R Q SS-9 , 45-46 .5 FEET MINERAL RESOURCE EVALUATION j GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS CH2M 1 . BORING B-12 iUHILL 1 FORM 71 I NY010METEA ANALYSIS I SIEVE ANALYSIS U S STANDARD SERIES I CLEAR SOUAIE OPENINGS O 8$ RO O O ' N 1 I00 --- __.�_--- i I ^-:t--__�,_ ._ __ =•{ _•x-^ } 1 i •: _ 1 .. .. ____._ 1-.......-1. • e0 - - -- t- 1 i ; Lf • I 1 i - I _T ~. '--� --------- : _-- - , -- - - 1 - 1 i '- 4- -;- M 4 X40-- i - - -- - - -- ---- i ca d -= --_-1 - j I I 1 - - __10 30 -- --- - ! 1— 1 ' , II : : I. I i •• , t ! # T ll .� 4 - —-- • -I , Itioo l • y ~ R ' __Li r et a +t a... n e, a .n e..MO N n i gf or�v•O Oo E 8 0 8 5$88- o 21 3 ' 3-4 2 I 0 oa v a n o a el N.sr °' IC RN O. N p' C �f DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS e! SAND GRAVEL IcoeeLE5 ~ CLAY (PLASTIC) TO SILT (NON-PLASTIC) FINE MEDIUM I COARSE y FINE I COARSE il FIGURE 10 ,;; LS SS-2 , 10-11 .5 FEET 0 SS-4 , 20-21 .5 FEET CITY OF GREELEY , COLORADO d 0 SS-6 , 30-31 .5 FEET DELTA WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT MINERAL RESOURCE EVALUATION a GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS CHzM i 4. BORING B-13 e;HILL i , FORM 71 M16ROMETER ANALYSIS I SIEVE ANALYSIS ` 1 S SIUIDA10 SERIES I CLEAR SIDIIE IPEN11C5 Q o - �� R 82 �1 f C'1 �_ �_o • w N - --0 . .--1.----_,.._J__ 1•± `ll • l « '1 ----- —__ - - - ` - i I ', �-- ---r-_10 __ I t T IF - -.-- -�,—_.. - -_ t: I-$ - _ _ I Via - - - _._ �` _ I : ` -. —ZO SOI_—_�.i--' - _----_----_ --- '_ �,, I $ I 1 i . _- - i 1 4 I• I ( I - I = - r I -30 10 -_,- ---- , - -- ----- ----_- --- - - - - --- - 1 I , 1 i r il ; -,"-� :- - — - - ' n i t ; - I - ' I -1- 1 _1 : I---- -----40 _-.-.- - - i ' 1 i - .74C o - - M= - - I . -�_21_,_ =- -sOQ 5 _ __ - - I i 1 I ; - . _ ___ ----- I - T ' • I + ' - H i j -60 s 30. - ---- - - a• • r {� i i - I - t 1 r II '41 - `1 ,t `�• - A• i I I j - - -₹ `�I _ - . - (� _ i I I - i L li _ - ,— t �, Li'_ -- I j.I i i _ _t- i -Cloo I .I. ..- --r..y ! .*"'- �. n t n il^gyp r n .n •nro n o.�vgg Oo 8 8 0 8O$ooc a v a a8a o� I � � � I O. I I I I I �p r P o• Oa P el i� h 0' W F O . N % N f P DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS SAND GRAVEL �CO6ELES CLAY (PLASTIC) TO SILT (NON-PLASTICI FINE 1 MEDIUM I COARSE FINE I COARSE W 0 SS-1 , 5-65 FEET FIGURE 11 P o O 55-3 , 15-16 .5 FEET CITY OF GREELEY , COLORADO O SS-5 + SS-6 , 25-31 .5 FEET DELTA WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT MINERAL RESO1RCE EVALUATION e GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS CH2M BORING B-14 Iii HILL I 11 FORM 71 • ATTACHMENT A LETTERS FROM LOCAL GRAVEL PROCESSING COMPANIES ■ FLATIRON PAVING COMPANY P. O. BOX 859 • FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80521 • PHONE : (303) 484-3257 February 1, 1978 Mr. Thomas J. Huntsinger CH2M Hill P.O. Box 39048 Denver, Colorado 80239 Dear Mr. Huntsinger: We received the sieve analysis reports for the sand and gravel deposits at the proposed Delta Treatment Plant site east- of Greeley. After reviewing this data, along with the overburden to gravel ratio, it is apparent to us that this is not currently a deposit that would be economical to mine . There is not enough coarse aggregate in relation to fine aggregate for either Portland Cement Concrete or Asphaltic Concrete. A commerical preparation would have to reject too much fine aggregate in order to obtain material meeting specifications for such an operation to be economically feasible at this time . If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to call. Flatiron Paving Company James H. Short JHS/dab LL MOUNTAIN AGGREGATES, INC. VI TELEPHONE 5E2255 AREA CODE 303 P. O. BOX 10 oak PLATTEVILLE, COLORADO - 80651 EMPIRE �` TELEPHONE 569-2824 (�•/�\C P. O. BOX H AREA CODE 303 .4, • EMPIRE, COLORADO - 80438 RT. 2 - P. 0. BOX 139 GREELEY TELEPHONE 352-6886 GREELEY, COLORADO - 80631 AREA CODE 303 March 21, 1978 To Whom It May Concern: I have been asked to evaluate the Gravel Pit on east 16th Street, that we called the Walker Pit. The H & S Gravel Co. operated this Gravel Pit from 1959 to 1963. In 1963 we gave it up, as we ran into lots pf problems and very little gravel. We went in there with new, modern equipment and experienced people, but we were unable to make it pay. The location is where the Platte River and the Poudre River, at one time joined. During the time we were there, we worked out the Poudre River gravel, that was on the north side of the pit. On the south side, we ran into numerous clay deposits and a lot of sand. In our entire pit operation, we only had 17,,6 that was retained on a 3/8" screen. Although the price of gravel was not as good at that time, the cost of prod- uction was also much less. There was still not enough difference to make it pay. I'm sure the problem will be the same today as it was then. If you will notice all of the big Gravel producers are west of Greeley on the Poudre River: Mountain Aggregates, Inc., Flatiron, Cowan Concrete, Greeley Sand & Gravel and Loloff Co. They have all explored the Gravel sources east of Greeley. It is my opinion that this area is to expensive to operate and should be left alone. Sincerely yours, /' Curtis Strong, resident CS/lf APPENDIX C SOIL SURVEY BY U .S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE 4302 W. 9th St. Road, Greeley, Co. 80631 March 1, 1978 4 • MAR Dennis A. Sandretto 1978 CH2M Hill Consulting Engineers ra Ch,Arl 12000 E. 47th Avenue, Suite 400 �j " ,C°Io. Denver, Colorado 80239 The following is in answer to your request for Soil Survey and Interpre- tation information for the construction of a Regional Wastewater treat- ment plant to be located in the Nz of the SEA of Section 11, Twp. 5N, Range 65W and a portion of the SW4 of Section 12, Twp. 5N, Range 65W.The entire area is comprised of one soil type, Aquolls and Aquents, gravelly substratum. These are deep, poorly drained, nearly level soils on bottom lands and flood plains. Typically, they have mottled, mildly to moderately alkaline, loamy or clayey surface layers and are underlain by sand or sand and gravel within 48 inches. A water table is usually found at or near the surface early in the spring and recedes to as deep as 48 inches by late fall in some years. This soil exhibits very severe limitations for building purposes due to the gravel substratum and the presence of an underground water table. However, with proper design based on soil engineeringladequate structures can be constructed. You stated in your request that the plant could be constructed above the 100 year flood plain for the South Platte River. Another document you nay wish to consult is "Flood Plain Information-Cache La Poudre River- Colorado-Volume II Greeley Weld County". It was prepared for the Larimer- Weld Regional Council of Government by Department of the Army, Omaha District, Corps of Engineers 68102, March, 1974. This document indicates the building site is within the Standard Project Flood zone of the Cache La Poudre River. I am including a copy of the soils description providing general information. An on site investigation was made by a competent soil scientist to affirm this soil type. Our soil information is based for agricultural use and can only indicate possible design needs for structure construction. An on site investigation should be made by competent soils engineers to determine pro- per structural design requirements. If we can be of any further assistance, please feel free to contact our office. onald D. Mill r District Conservationist cc: Weld County Planning Commission • - 3 - Aquolls an eats , gravelly substratum These nearly level soils are on bottom lands and flood plains of all the major streams in the survey area. The Aquolls , which have dark colored surface layers , make up about 65 percent of the mapping unit. The Aquents , which have lighter colored surface layers , make up about 25 percent. About 10 percent is Aquolls and Aquepts , flooded , and Bankard sandy loam. These are deep, poorly drained soils. They formed in recent alluvium. Typically they have mottled , mildly to moderately alkaline , loamy or clayey surface layers and underlying material, and are underlain by - sand or sand and gravel within 48 inches . They may or may not have a gleyed layer in the underlying material. Most of these soils are subject to flooding. A watertable is at or near the surface early in the spring and recedes to as deep as 48 inches by late fall in some years . These soils are used for rangeland and wildlife habitat. Some small areas have been reclaimed by major drainage and leveling operations and is farmed to irrigated crops. The potential native vegetation on these soils is dominated by alkali sacaton, switchgrass and western wheatgrass. Saltgrass, sedge , rush and alkali bluegrass are also prominent. Potential production ranges from 3000 pounds per acre in favorable years to 2000 pounds per acre in unfavorable years . When range condition deteriorates, switchgrass , C • alkali sacaton astern wheatgrass decrease and saltgrass , sedge Ls.114 Pr: and rush increase . Management of vegetation on this soil should be based on taking half o""`""+ and leaving half of the total annual production. Seeding on this - site is difficult and costly since numerous tillage practices are == ``'`• required to eliminate the saltgrass sod. Switchgrass , western wheatgrass , alkali sacaton , tall wheatgrass and tall fescue are suitable for seeding. For successful seeding a clean, firm seedbed -- usually requires more than one year to eliminate the saltgrass sod -- and a grass drill should be used. Early spring seeding has proven most successful. Wetland wildlife , especially waterfowl, utilize these areas . The availability of moisture due to the wetness of this soil allows pro- duction of wetland plants that provide nesting and protective cover, as well as some food for waterfowl. The Juxtaposition of this soil to irrigated cropland areas where wildlife obtain much of their food , along with the cover provided, make this soil valuable to both wetland and openland wildlife. Openland wildlife , especially pheasants , use these areas for cover and !- nesting, while they also provide excellent cover for deer when found in areas inhabited by deer. Maragement for wildlife would include prevention of overgrazing by livestock, protection from unplanned fire, and prevention of drainage. 1.110 .1 Where livestock are present , these valuable wildlife areas should be fenced to prevent unwanted encroachment and overuse by livestock. - __— -'�--___�w — - - _ - - •- a4- __— - - _ - _ - •- •- 007 These soils have a good potential as a source of sand and gravel. ' • • Capability subclass VIw Mrr0.. Salt meadow range site r Mi.KR • • SCS-CONS-1b U.S.DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE OCTOBER 1974 SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE ...b.- SOIL MAP INII rr,', CN�z/4 ///LL Com.5&10NG ENGRS. Operator p " k , County WEL b State ef,�PiI O K ' Y- K •L' Soil survey sheet(s) or code nos. $ -6en- Z23 Approximate scale's - //dolt 1` •4;' "l Prepared by U. S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service cooperating ` ;. T with WEST GREELE) Ott_ Conservation District '$- ., , _,- z :t f • • -it , ..., -.. • �' •• •` .r s y'/j.i -*-1`a r • r` 41i,1/ f•y. .,.r,•. 't,� �� )0'j ✓ •• • a , 11', 1 •a I �� • ! , �7•r �l r 4r t \ ,.♦ I a !` fita!• �`41 ,41.. ; f 9 +. 4 , a!T *t � j ,'k tfi• i¢• ,',t/r4 a :3 ...".r. > /' fI� 'h.' t t r ,41 i / r • , yA� g ` -,,,,�- Erf �" rya '11 '"`_ _r ,,,-....4.;�• ) r 9 r * +w_" tt} ,t l T• 4•i r,' a ` //ice "* 4. �, i ''+' r-- •y x '*"- .1,`t_P '• •, ' •,, + ; f.�r,I f S•;/ ,�, \`'�•t�''' •i .�-" ,.+ 'Al 1!•• �•Lei•,�•� y� -k"�. itf l7- ' Yr 5 3 P''''*I ' •• _T. .P '.i•a .+�': r 1 :.�'C fciv •3"S'`•! 3 e Y•1„:,...,...im ,,,t,* r' .,. , t 0e • -- -.. ••.w ,- - / '4 -' - 1tjo i I • -- -- - ti' L r.-;-"," . 'r te y _ _ _ —,— ,j.� _l i 0 ..,"e`""L�° p•.ik" —iQ A-1= V G P v , }i 1 4� , •4 - _ • i i r,$4 r,_,i, .___ , . , Ir., I, -'''4". _-• •...:„.-474r - , , 1 I I I ' 1 . TiC.: . ;L4(.. _ ,jr •4:- '..' - V .7Y#I"...,ir ". ''....' i ' I ' I I ' , .file,•r •1, 21411 • ' -_a:�rk N,t ". -'G'k `tt� +t J ;. I fa- a' �° '� r �� t' { • 1�,. ;�Y.l.assa„•i ,i ,�-;,,� }�•*' •• `i, rl y • ( :•tom • Z'. J 'I: s`,. e' e,",_.1,g,± . ,. i_.A Y'75. r ` ytd„!,." - !�/ %1'•? . '113 °t'41 r , 1 , °I�>_ -.ar- '%' s V f S: _ I r ,, .. ~ i'�•r i d ".•$":•yr j --• Y' +•S 1,g, *1 --.x -' f 1 .� y,,,*4.,11v7 s >i • V ,, `4 1 •� _ M'. •-•."' � it i, �M> Lr ,,�... 3.y F1* .-�+2P r\.. 4. . tea' =.y L S A (iir. " k' li IF ,1► —_err T i " �r rev • _ �r g •E a c !9 / Y� yr .• r o y .r*•-'` �' 1� z'' a , r. +J. y / >�„` # / L Mt} h F 'i, •KPH. s,gt•. `{�'r . •fir •• •• , . • i ' 4' !lel Al 1 i', LSD A .'1` '' , ��.-• "�, t , �' �Y /- ,.•, y - _P i v / , . , -4,..' -•'!"' *7."`N N -,',,, ---.1k• * ''' - ... . . ' ••••7:7171 ...* -V- • -„,,,,,,, --,-:-- ,,,,, , ol'ifir.. ••• 49-6 .°'j # 4.^{ ' *,.• • � _.. _ - t....�-.yam.•-...,� I�>�t�f"^''�t/,'� 14-',47.7-__—_—F174)._4-- E•Sr� a"9►��-�. Y:. _. Si/!e'.T�.-.1.- _:►. . `.u►1 APPENDIX D CITIZENS PARTICIPATION COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES CH2MII HILL ( MEMORANDUM TO: File FROM: Mike Warren DATE: 24 February 1978 RE: Greeley Citizen Participation Committee Meeting D10828.D1 Members in Attendance: Members Absent: Elmer Jones Frank Yoder Bill Crosier Marvin Jensen Jim Whitmore Don Hoff John Wheeler Bill Spectzen Sam Sasaki Dewey Marcy Doug Sears West Foster Pete Morrell Darryl Alleman Brian Janonis Dennis Sandretto Mike Warren Darryl Alleman opened the discussion by giving a background of the project and by saying that the council had recently endorsed the decision of con- structing the Delta Plant. Thus, site selection was not to be a topic of the citizen's committee. Also, the process selection had been made. Areas of involvement for the citizens committee: ■ Odor control ■ Architectural planning Ili Landscaping of site Darryl indicated the City is going to try to purchase the Dill, Mathews and Middleton properties. The Dill property would have the mechanical plant located on it. The Mathews property would be used as a site demonstration project for waste sludge and effluent reuse. Under the conditions of the EPA grant, it was stated that the City should try to purchase the Middleton property, which contains the historic Wiley building. Memo to File Page 2 1 24 February 1978 D10828.D1 Question--Is the City going to purchase the Giggy property? Answer--Darryl Alleman indicated that the City did not plan on purchasing the property, but that Brian would be discussing the project with the Giggy's in the coming week. Dennis Sandretto gave a brief explanation on how the site selection was made. ■ Flood plain ■ Minimize the number of landowners involved ■ Archaeological/historical study ■ Gravel deposits ■ Away from other residents in the area Question--Will pump stations be required along the pipeline and plant? Answer--Dennis Sandretto stated that a lift station along the pipeline was doubtful, but that we would have to pump at the plant. Question--Will berming be required at the plant to protect from the 100-year flood? Answer--Dennis indicated that berming would not be required for flood pro- tection. Question--Wi II the City purchase the property prior to receiving the special use permit? Answer--Dennis explained that the City will try to obtain an option on the land contingent upon the granting of the special use permit. Question--What has been done regarding the 12 conditions of the grant? Answer--Dennis gave a brief rundown on the status of the conditions. Question--What about the archaeological study? Do we expect to find anything of archaeological value? Answer--Dennis indicated that it was possible that we might find some Indian artifacts since it is believed that the area was used as an Indian en- campment. For this reason, the archaeological study has recommended that someone with an archaeological background should be present during the initial construction. i Memo to File Page 3 ( 24 February 1978 D10828.D1 Question--What is the project schedule? Answer--Dennis indicated that approximately 3 months are expected for approval of the special use permit. Detailed design should begin in mid-1978. Question--How much of Wright-McLaughlin's report is being used? Answer--Dennis stated that the Wright-McLaughlin report is being used as a basis for the present work. However, we have made improvements to their recommended alternatives to develop what is felt to be a better concept. Question--What will be the committee's input to the project? Answer--Darryl stated that it is hoped that the committee will help select the general architectural and landscaping concepts, and also the determination to what extent odor control will be given. A slide presentation was made showing both the First Avenue Plant and the Delta Plant sites and the proposed layout. Question--Wi II the structures associated with odor problems be covered? Answer--Darryl indicated that only those processes where odor problems are likely to occur will be covered and the air scrubbed. The decision has not been made on other areas. Question--Is the Delta Plant located to serve Greeley only or is it located to be a regional plant? Answer--Darryl and Dennis explained that the plant is so located to serve the region. After the presentation of the slides, discussion centered around types of land- scaping and architecture and general plant aesthetics. The following general statements were made: • Would like to see the use of the basic earth colors to blend in with the surrounding area. • The plant should have a low profile not unlike the surrounding area buildings. • John Wheeler wanted to go on record as saying that he would like to see as many of the structures that can be covered, be ( cove red. Memo to File Page 4 24 February 1978 D10828.D1 ■ It appeared that the general consensus was that small berms with shrubs and bushes be used to landscape around the buildings. The outer areas would have natural grasses. ■ Area set aside for future development should be put back into agricultural production. Most seemed to agree. ■ The plant should be designed so that covers may be added to those unit processes which may have odor problems that are not initially covered. ■ Everyone seemed to like the idea of using evergreens and small leaved deciduous trees for landscaping. Ideas for the next meeting: 1 . Send members of the committee an agenda prior to meeting. 2. Have slides of other plants' architecture and landscaping. 3. Try to have display of architectural renderings for review prior to meeting on display at City offices. 4. Set up site visit to the Loveland and Fort Collins plants, 8: 00 a.m. , 16 February 1978. ksm Q MEMORANDUM CH2MMI HILL TO: File FROM: Mike Warren DATE: 5 April 1978 RE: Greeley Citizen Participation Committee Meeting--8 March 1978 D10828.D1 Members in Attendence: Members Absent: Bill Crosier Don Hoff West Foster Dewey Marcy Marvin Jensen Sam Sasaki Doug Sears Bill Spectzen John Wheeler Jim Whitmore Reinhold Leffler for Elmer Jones John Hall for Frank Yoder Darryl Alleman Brian Janonis Dave Winger Dennis Sandretto Mike Warren Members attending site visit to the Loveland and Fort Collins waste treatment facilities, 16 February 1978: Elmer Jones Doug Sears John Wheeler Jim Whitmer Darryl Alleman Mike Warren Darryl Alleman asked those members of the committee who visited the treatment plants to give a brief description as to what they saw regarding the design r MEMO to File Page 2 D10828.D1 5 April 1978 and operation of the two facilities. Darryl, John Wheeler, and Jim Whitmore gave the following comments regarding the two plants: ■ Loveland - Plant processes very spread out, not much protection from weather - Odor problems resulted from malfunctioning aerobic digesters - Problems with tumble weeds blowing into basins - Little or no landscaping onsite ■ Fort Collins - Appeared to have good control - Facility appeared more expensive than necessary - Very compact--common wall construction with rectangular basins - All processes where contained in one large rectangular building - No odors resulted from the sludge handling system or anaerobic digestion - Landscaping impressive and probably expensive - Appeared to have a good working environment for the employees General questions and comments from the Committee-- Question-- What would it cost to cover the entire plant? Answer-- Dennis Sandretto indicated that Wright-McLaughlin had estimated nearly an extra million dollars would be required to cover the 4 mgd plant recommended in the Facility Plan. Comment-- Jim Whitmore indicated he was much more concerned with the poten- tial odor problem than he was with the looks of the new facility. MEMO to File Page 3 D10828.D1 5 April 1978 Question-- Is'the proposed berming around the Delta plant site going to be used for flood protection? Answer-- Dennis Sandretto indicated that the latest HUD study shows the area out of the 100 year flood plain. The earth berming would be for landscaping and vision screening purposes only. Question-- The question was asked about the soil stability at the proposed plant site for the structural foundations. Answer-- Dennis stated that the granular material is well suited for construction. Question-- Is the process that is selected for the Delta facility similar to that of the First Avenue facility? Answer-- The Activated Bio-filtration process combines the best of the two processes found at the First Avenue facility. The fixed film f biological growth found in the south plant trickling filters and the suspended growth process found on the north plant activated sludge process are combined into one process. Question-- How will the berms appear from the road, what is the type of cover material? Answer-- The berms will be covered with natural grass, with probably the addition of small trees and shrubbery to break the openness. Question-- Have the polishing ponds been removed from the plans? Answer-- Dennis Sandretto stated that they have been removed from the plans because more often than not the polishing ponds degrade the effluent because of the probability of large algae populations during the summer months, increasing the effluent suspended solids concentration. At this point Dennis Sandretto presented the architectural renderings that had been prepared by CH2M HILL. There were three major process schemes presented: t MEMO to File Page 4 D10828.D1 5 April 1978 1 . Campus type--low profile 2. Campus type--medium profile 3. Compact type--medium profile The landscape architect had prepared two basic methods for landscaping the proposed site under any one of the above process alternatives. The two methods are as follows: 1 . Earth berm and trees for screening 2. A large number of trees for screening, with little or no berming Dennis discussed the merits and disadvantages of each process alternative as well as what could be expected from the two landscaping concepts. Question-- Have the differences in capital costs between the compact plant versus the campus type of plant layout been explored? Answer-- Dennis indicated that it had not been done because of the tremen- dous detail work that it would require. However he felt the costs of each would be almost equal. Comment-- Doug Sears indicated that before he could make a recommendation as to the type of plant layout he would need to know the relative costs of each. Comment-- Bill Crosier stated he would support the layout and process that most efficiently uses the City tax dollars. Comment-- Jim Whitmore stated that he felt the costs was not as important as the selection of the process. Comment-- Bill Crosier indicated that he supported the landscaping alterna- tive which uses berming for purposes of screening and landscaping and would support the use of circular clarifiers if it was best from a process standpoint, assuming the costs were nearly equal. There appeared to be a general feeling that either alternative would be attractive and acceptable, that the compact plant seems inherently better from an operational standpoint and they wanted the alternative that could be operated best. x MEMO to File Page 5 D10828.D1 5 April 1978 Question-- Could we get an EPA representative to Greeley to talk about funding of odor control alternatives and other committments? Answer-- Darryl and Dennis indicated that they didn't feel that a meeting with EPA would be of any value to the Committee. EPA would not be able to respond to what the Committee would want to know. Question-- Is the City going to purchase both the land and mineral rights to the Mathew and Dill properties? Answer-- Dennis indicated that the acquisition of the property was still in the appraisal and title search phase. Question-- It was asked if landscaping could be provided for the Lone Tree Plant. Answer-- Darryl indicated that it could be a recommendation of the Committee to have the City look at landscaping the Lone Tree plant site. The next meeting would be called when something more was available for discussion. CH2M HILL would attempt to determine the cost difference, if any, between the compact and campus type plant. mr GRAVEL RESOURCES 1. Page 2 - There are less gravel resources at the selected site than at other potential sites within the area. 2. Appendix B is a study comparing the value of the mineral resource to the redevelopment costs necessary to provide an adequate plant foundation. 3. Page 2 - We conclude that the mineral resource is not commercially mineable (especially because of high redevelopment costs) and therefore extraction is not economically desirable . • APPENDIX A - DELTA PLANT SITE SELECTION 4. The Delta project area has been identified by Weld County as a mineral resources area. 5 . The material underlying the project area is good foundation material for the wastewater treatment plant structures. The cost of importing similar material to replace the gravel would be greater than the revenue realized from the extracted gravel . 6. A preliminary geological investigation was conducted to identify the amount and depth of gravel in the area. Holes were drilled on six of the properties that were large enough to consider for a sewage treatment plant and that were above the 100 year floodplain . The locations of the soils borings are shown on Figure 5-2 . The soils investigation report is included as Appendix B. The results of the soils investigation are also shown on Table 5-1. ' =tee was significantly less volume of gravel found in Boring 2 than in any of the others. 7n addition , Boring 3 showed no evidence of the stiff clay layer found in several of the other borings . The existence of such a clay layer is not desirable for foundations unless it is close to the surface and easily removed prior to building structures. Because the clay layer is deep, its removable would be costly unless structures are deep enough to warrant removal of the clay material . 7. Preliminary Report - Geotechnical investigation : Investigation accomplished to examine subsurface conditions with regard to foundation conditions and potential mineral resources. 8. State Statutes - Commercial mineral deposit means a natural deposit of limestone used for construction purposes , coal , sand, gravel and quarry aggregate , for which extraction by an extractor is or will be commercially feasible and regarding which it can be demonstrated by geological , mineralogical , or other scientific data that such deposit has significant economic or strategic value to the area, state, or nation . (This N 4 definition does not stipulate criteria for determining what is commercially feasible or what has significant economic or strategic value. ) 9. On Page 6 it indicates "a complete evaluation of alluvial deposits in the project area as a commercial sand and gravel resource is beyond the scope of this report. However, based on the criteria outlined above, and on the preliminary infor- mation obtained during our field and laboratory investigations, we can address, at least generally , the quality , overburden and quantity factors . " A. "In general , the gravel appears to be sufficiently sound vi _ ' and durable for use as concrete aggregate ; the sand is moderately well graded and should be suitable for site fill . " (Page 6 ) . B. Overburden - "Overburden ratios (ratio of deposit thickness to overburden thickness) exceed the 9 : 1 "rule of thumb" at all boring locations except Boring 2 , for the sands and gravels above the clay layer. " (At Boring 2 the ratio was 8. 9 to 1) . Boring 2 shows a ratio only slightly less than 9 : 1 but considerably less than the ratios for other borings . Consequently, with respect to the other locations investi- gated the deposits of Boring 2 might be considered marginal . 10. Referring to the laboratory test data summarized on Table 1 of the six locations investigated, only Borings 1 and 5 yielded samples_ ha3Liag_grave1 con ents_ m ting_or--ex-eeedi-n-g--he—CGS guideline of 30%, and none of the boring s sho�vacl__an_aveage gravelntt meeting_ the 30% guideline. Boring Bring 2 was part- icularly deficient in gravel having an average content of only 0 V 7%. This data indicates that with respect to quantityconsider- ..--./ ations the commercial attractiveness of the alluvial deposits encountered in Borings 1 through 6 as a gravel resource is questionnable. Material from Boring 1 comes closest to sat- isfying CGS' s guideline for gravel content ; that frori Boring 2 does not even approach it . The information on Table 2 does indicate that these deposits contain potentially large quantities of sand, but we could not locate criteria concerning the commercial feasibility of sand resources. However, based on several conversations we have with local sand and gravel companies, the supply of sand in the Greeley area far exceeds demand and those companies with which we talked did not con- sider the mining of sand to be commercially attractive . 11. Conclusion - The investigation indicates the alluvial deposits in the subject area are questionnable as a commercial gravel resource . The material quality and overburden characteristics seem satisfactory with respect to published guidelines that the quantity of gravel available is less than that considered by the CGS as constituting a commercial gravel deposit . Deposit thickness is more than adequate , the gravel content is low. Boring 2 is the most marginal ; samples from this hole contain only 3% to 10% gravel with an average of 7%. Furthermore, the overburden ratio at this latter location though it closely approaches the minimum criteria presented in the plan, was much lower than at the other five borings . Therefore , if any commercially feasible gravel resources exist in the subject area, the data presented herein indicates they are most likely to be found in the vicinity of Boring 1, and not likely to be found in Boring 2 . APPENDIX B - GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION FOR MINERAL RESOURCE EVALUATION 12. This study expands upon the January 1978 preliminary report . 13. This study represents the findings made from eight soil borings made on the Dill property. 14. Quality - The discussion concerning quality in our preliminary report applies for this report as well . Gravel contained in the deposits at the Dill property appears to be sufficiently sound and durable .for use as concrete aggregate , for example , and the sand should be suitable for granular fill material . A2.15. . The site as a whole generally satisfies the overburden criteria ,,,1ry'- ,5 for commercial mineral deposits. (Page 4 ) (The report does not �,+- seem to give us a breakdown of the ratios found in Borings B-7 tL, through B-14) 16 . Quantity - The alluvial deposits at the site are more than 15 feet thick and cover an area in plan much greater than five acres. However, these deposits do not constitute a commercial deposit based on CGS ' s definition. Referring to Table 1, samples containing 30% grave] or more are few. The average gravel content for all samples tested excluding B-7, SS-12 and B-8, SS-10 , 1 - is 16. 4%, substantially less than the CGS ' s 30% guideline. ))c v (Report indicates that if the other samples were included, the ,�i ,,u.-Laverage gravel content for all samples tested would be 15. 4%) (See Page 4 ) ' y'17. Page 6 - "Consequently, less than 30% of the total deposit is usable as base course. Item #17 -e-4"-Table 3 between Pages 6 and 7 for the Approximate Growth Retail Value of Alluvial Deposits and an economic evaluation of the three alternatives presented on Page 6 for extracting the resource. 18. The net value indicator for the mineral resource site is based on the assumption that all material from the site could be sold. One statement which is made on Page 7 indicates that there is very little market for the pit run material available at the plant site . The supply of this material (which is used primarily for site fill ) far exceeds demand in the area. It is unlikely that any significant amount of pit run material excavated from the site could be sold. Under the alternatives listed 85% to 91% of the pit run material wc,uld have to be sold to maintain a break-even operation . Sine( upl) 1 y of 1)i L run site fill already exceeds demand , it is unlikely that these quantities associated with these percentages could be sold . These are break-even criteria; even more material would have to be sold for an operation to be profitable. The figures also assume that all base course material and course aggregate would be sold. These materials are generally in demand, however, with respect to alternative 3 the coarse aggregate market is primarily for 3/4 or l inch size . Gravel at the site ranges from #4 sieve size to 1Z" , so the smaller gravel would likely be processed out as pit run or some other less marketable material. We have not examined the quantities of 3/4 and 1 inch gravel available from the plant site deposits, but it suffices to observe that not all gravel processed under alternative 3 could be marketed for $3. 20 to $3 . 50 per ton , thus requiring the sale of even more pit run material to avoid a financial loss. 19. Appraisal of Data - On Page. 8 it is stated "It appears that the alluvial deposits underlying the proposed plant site do not constitute a commercial mineral resource. The information presented herein indicates that a sand and gravel operation would suffer a net economic loss in attempting to process these materials for commercial purposes. " One of the major reasons for this conclusion seems to be that there is a sub- stantial amount of pit run material which must be sold in order to make, a profit from such an operation and there is not really a demand for pit run material . A letter from Flatiron Paving indicates that there is not enough coarse aggregate in relation to fine aggregate for either Portland Cement Concrete or Asphaltic Concrete. " 20. Site Rehabilitation - The treatment plant cannot be constructed in a pit or on lcsia waste material (sand, fines) so an abandoned gravel mining operation would require extensive backfill and compaction operations and/or special foundation design to make the site suitable for construction. Therefore, for the deposits at the project site to constitute a commercial mineral resource, the processed materials must bring an aggregate market price tl --is-m r4ce- p-r-i-ee which exceeds the combined total cost related to processing operations plus site rehabilitation . 21. To reduce post construction settlement , imported fill would be restricted to granular pit run material consisting of approximately 90% sand and 10% fines. Therefore , developing the site solely as a pit run source would result in having to obtain the same type and roughly the same quantity of material for fill as that removed. Construction costs would thus be increased by at least the charges for hauling and placing the imported fill . 22 . Total Cost Summary - Tables 6 , 7 and 8 show that rehabilitation of the project site , after mining the underlying deposits , would add $1. 6 to $6 .2 million to plant construction costs . Addition- ally , the pile foundation costs associated with rehabilitation Option A must be accounted for. This option would necessitate founding most structures on piles , whereas such foundation support would not be required i f the site was IeFL undisturbed. , If the cost of piling under Option A were added, the total cost would be increased (rehabilitation costs) from $1.6 to $2. 2 million. 23. It is indicated on Page 12 "A reasonable observation might be that the sands and gravels at the Delta Plant site could not constitute a commercial mineral resource unless potential income from sales of processed materials would not only recover operating expenses, but more than offset any construction costs attributable to the mining operations. 24 . Table 10 (between Pages 12 and 13) shows that any attempt to develop the project site as a mineral resource under either alternatives 2 or 3 could result in net economic loss in excess of $6 million , the actual figure being dependent on the demand for pit run material . 25. Conclusions - The collective data indicates that unless the demand for pit run site fill material increases phenomenonally, the processing costs for a sand and gravel operation at the plant site would far outstrip the income. When costs are con- sidered for returning the site to a buildable condition after it has been "mined out" , total projected losses would exceed $6 million. 26 . If all excavated pit run material could be sold at the current market price , a net profit of up to $1.2 million might be realized from mining all available material at the site . However, the site would then not be suitable for new construction . To just recover processing costs and increased construction costs resulting from mining the site , base coarse material and coarse aggregate would have to reach market values of approx- imately $7.00 and $11.20 per ton, respectively, or processing costs did not increase at all. Such a situation is not likely to develop. History indicates that processing costs and market values increase hand in hand. --..--, — Tom_ __ __ - * ./ OTHER FACTORS 1. Plant located west of the Delta site would not be able to serve the growth area without pumping flow back upstream. A plant located further east would be outside the growth area. Both of these alternatives would be more costly as shown in the facility plan . 2 . The proposed site includes the Dill and Mathew' s properties. 3. The first stage of the regional wastewater treatment plant will be capable of treating 6 million gallons a day . The ultimate treatment plant capacity identified in the Facility Plan would be 32 million gallons per day. 4. The Development Standards should consider odor , potential noise from operating equipment , lighting for night operation , fire protection and general safety measures. 5. The initial development area covers about 24 acres . The second expansion beyond the year 2000 will require developing an additional 8 acres. 6. Initially, landscaping on the west and south sides of the site will be added for screening. 7. Trucks, which will be designed to haul liquid sludge to farm land for recycling, will be operated to assure that none of the sludge is deposited on public lands. 8. The proposed improvement of Holly Street (Page 4) should probably be included in the Development Standards. 9. The treatment plant will consist of both process structures and support buildings . The process structures will be either open or closed tanks. 10. Have all problems been worked out with the Patterson Ditch Company? 11. Headworks Building - This area has the greatest potential for odor. However, since the equipment is in an enclosed building we will scrub the air to remove odors prior to discharge to the atmosphere. 12. Primary Clarifiers - There is no indication this will be covered. 13. Primary Effluent Pump Station - The pump station will be enclosed and appropriate noise control measures utilized to assure that no objectionable noise will be heard beyond the plant boundaries. 14. A.B.F. /Roughing Filter Tower - This is not a covered structure. 15. Aeration Basin - This is not a covered structure . 16. Secondary Clarifiers - Will not be housed in the building or covered. 17. Chlorine Contact Chamber - This will not be covered. 18. Chlorination Facilities - Chlorine will be hauled in by truck. This will require approximately one truck per month for delivery. 19. Sludge Processing Building - The sludge removed from the primary and secondary clarifiers will be conveyed to a sludge processing building for further treatment . In this building, the solids are thickened prior to being conveyed to the anaerobic digesters. This thickening process can produce odors. However, the thickening devices are contained in the building, and the air in the building is scrubeed before being discharged. 20. Anaerobic Digesters - These are heated, totally enclosed vessels that provide an environment suitable for bacteria to process the solids . After approximately 20 days of treatment , the solids are referred to as stablized sludge which will be hauled by truck or by pipeline to farmland to use as fertilizer. 21. Landscaping - The present preliminary plan calls for a 150 to 200 foot buffer zone for any process-type structure . An administration building may bx: built within that buffer area. They have proposed that a 4 foot high earth berm be constructed with a 2% slope facing the property line and a 6% slope facing the plant . A fence for securty purposes would be placed on the plant site of the earth berm. The berm would be landscaped with natural grasses , low growing evergreen shrubs and deciduous trees. Other plant site landscaping would consist of grass, trees and small evergreen shrubs , watered by plant effluent , as well as rock and bark chips . 22. The proposed plant site includes the Dill and Mathews properties . APPENDIX A - SITE SELECTION STUDY 23. Three major considerations in choosing a site are discussed - A. The land should be above the 100 year floodplain ; B. The plant should not impact on important historic or archaeological artifacts ; C. Important and economical mineable mineral resources should not be covered over by permanent development . 24. 100 year floodplain - In its EIS the EPA was satisfied that the location of the site would have marginal impact , if any, on the 100 year flood. The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers reaffirmed that conclusion after final adoption of the EIS by the EPA. t Before the Water Quality Control Commission, the Colorado Water Conservation Board reaffirmed the earlier conclusions of the EPA and the U. s. Army Corps of Engineers. The Corps has published a report showing points along the boundary of the 100 year floodplain for the South Platte River. Gingery Associates, who were the consultants for the Department of Housing and Urban Development , modeled and made a more detailed delineation of the 100 year flood. This latest delineation is shown on Figure 5-1. 25. No significant historic artifacts or sites were established through the study done by Cultural Resources Consultants, Inc. except the Wylie place. The archeological study indicated that there were no surface signs of archeological sites present . However, it is recommended a qualified monitor should be at the site whenever any ground disturbing activity associated with construction is undertaken . Any sites exposed would be evaluated in consultation with the state archeologists . 26 . Other factors for site selection - These included access to good roads , proximity to residential areas , and a location as far down stream as practicable in order to serve the largest area and the cost of land. 27. An additional 40 acres to demonstrate n land application is to be purchased which lies below the 100 year floodplain . I have a question in this area as to if the land was flooded, wouldn 't we run into water quality standards because of the sludge which had been applied to the land in question? 28. . Site Selection - The conclusions drawn by the consultants recommend that the city purchase both the Dill and Mathews properties for the Delta plant . The reasons for this recommendation are outlined on Page 5-5. t NOTES FROM TAPE - DELTA SEWER SITE APPLICATION 1. Sandretto : One of the important factors in the site selection prccess was to determine that site which had the least amount of gravel which would be affected. 2. Sandretto : The soils investigation indicated that there were 16 .4% gravel underlying the site . The areas around this, including some of the county land, had Percentages as high as 23%. The soils borings were down to bedrock. 3. Sandretto: Indicated that their analysis of the mineral resources on the site showed that there is an economic value to those resources if redevelopment costs on the property are not con- sidered. 4. Sandretto: Referred to letters from existing sand and gravel companies which indicated that the resource on the property was not apparently economically mineable. Referred to the difficulties encountered because there was such an abundance of pit run material . Indicated that in all of the mining operations that are now going on , there is an over abundance of pit run material . Therefore, the demand for such material is very low. The real need is in the area of larger aggregates. 5. Sandretto : Referred to our plan and indicating that it recognized that redevelopment costs should be considered in analysis aimed at determining the commerciality of mineral deposits. He referred to one of the basic reasons for developing our plan which is set forth in the plan. (See Page 4 ) The point may be, that it does have to be developed or redeveloped as a regional sewer plant site. 6. Sandretto : Indicated that the second reason for our plan (Page 4) was to protect valuable water supplies and to protect the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Weld County. Further indicated that development of a regional wastewater treatment facility would be congruent with both of these basic goals . (e.g. , providing a means for treatment of water which can be utilized) . 7. Sandretto : Pointed out the portion of a definition of commercial mineral deposit which indicates that it can be demonstrated to be a significant resource for the local , state or national economy. We are now talking about an approximate 43 acre site, half of which would be developed with permanent structures. He submitted that the Delta plant is unlikely to be a permanent structure and referred to the 1st Avenue plant as having to be phased out because of the growth of the Greeley area. 8. Sandretto : Pointed out that the plan referred to the extensive sand and gravel deposits in Weld County. Questioned whether or not 43 acres , only half or less than 20 acres of which would be built on with permanent structures could be considered a deposit of significant economic or strategic value. f 9. Sandretto: After our comments , he indicated that he questioned whether or not it was even possible to quantify when in the future such a deposit might be commercially mineable. Indicated that there is no real way to look into the future on such a deposit , but that there must be some judgment used in determining - whether or not it might be commercially feasible in the future. 10. Ray Robert : Pointed that the EPA approval of the site was con- tingent upon the county ' s approval of the Special Use Permit for the facility . We should be sure to read the material that Ray Robert submitted at the hearing. He also indicated that the State Water Quality Control Commission delayed taking any action on the site until the county had reviewed the application. 11. John Wheeler : Pointed out that the April 1977 study by the Corps of Engineers seems to indicate that the 100 year floodplain would encroach upon the Delta site. We need to check whether or not this conflicts with reports that we have gotten from the Water Conservation Board. Also challenged anyone to show him a study made by the Army Corps of Engineers after the dike was built on the Forester property. 12 . John Wheeler : Indicated that the plant should be built at the 1st Avenue site. Indicated that the City of Greeley regulations do not allow encroachment on the floodplain within 200 feet . Indicated that they do have property at the 1st Avenue plant site where they could expand without going into this 200 foot limitation. It is questionnable as to whether or not we should consider alternatives for the plant . Our job is to determine whether or not the plant should be built at the site that is proposed. 13 . John Wheeler: Questioned whether the site really had to be redeveloped as a regional sewer treatment plant site . 'Indicated it could be reclaimed for agricultural use which would sub- stantially reduce the redevelopment costs. 14. John Wheeler: Challenged the method by which the tests for gravel resources were made on the Delta site. Indicated that a 3 inch auger was used, but the actual samples that were brought up were obtained through the use of a split pipe which was 2 inches outside diameter and only 1 inch inside diameter which means that only gravel 1 inch in diameter or less could be brought up in the test pipe. 15. Elmer Jones : Again placed objections to the 1 inch inside diameter of the tube used to obtain gravel resources from the site. Indicated you could not get a 1 inch size rock into the sleeve as a part of the sample. 16. Elmer Jones : Challenged the consultants price of pit run gravel which he indicated he found priced $1. 50 instead of a $1. 10 to $1. 20. Also he indicated that sand was not mentioned and it was priced at $8. 00 a yard at the Evans pit . / 17. Elmer Jones : Challenged the 30% measurement for gravel resources . Indicated that the pit at Eaton was operated 25 years with a test of 122 to 15%. The depth of the gravel in this case was only 8 to 15 feet . 18. Elmer Jones : Presented information on tests they had run to the east and the west of the property where cores were drilled by R and R Drilling. We should review these test results to see how valid they are. The one on the west indicated medium to large gravel . These tests were not, however, taken on the actual site. Also reviewed results of the well which was drilled on the Middleton property indicating varying clay and gravel down to 82 feet . 19. Elmer Jones : Conjectured that the down draft in the area would hold the odor close to the ground and reduce the property values in the area so that people could not even live in the area. 20. Don Miller : Represented the Town of Kersey indicating that Kersey was opposed to the Delta treatment site. Indicated that the basic issue was odor. 21. Charles Schmidt : Posed many questions concerning where the city _ would be dumping the sludge from the plant. Questioned especially in the summer where the sludge would be dumped when crops are growing and the sludge cannot be applied. Brought up the heavy metals problems that have been associated with sludge in the past . 22. Sandretto : Basically addressed the comments on the floodplain indicating that the most recent study done was by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (Gingery and Associates) . He indicated that this study indicates the site is out of the 100 year floodplain. He indicated the study by Gingery was more detailed than the one done by the Army Corps of Engineers. Indicated that the lines that John Wheeler showed do not include the area where they intend to place process units . 23. Sandretto : Indicated that they did use the split spoon method for sampling of resources . Indicated it was a method accepted by engineering geologists and by the Colorado Geological Survey itself. Indicated that part of the tests were to determine the suitability of the foundation material. This is done by determining the number of loads it takes to drive the sampler into the ground. If they had run into large gravel or stone, it would have required more blows of the hammer to drive the sampler into the ground. They had a trained engineering geologist along with the drilling company as opposed to a well driller. They also did a sieve analysis of the samples to determine the actual gravel content . 24. Sandretto : Spoke to the problem of hitting heavy metals in the sludge which would be disposed of on farmlands. Indicated that Greeley was not a heavily industrialized city with a lot of plating industries , etc . which would create substantial amounts of heavy metals. Indicated that EPA and the Water Quality Control Commission had been encouraging recycling of affulent and sludge in their policy statements. He indicated that they have not yet gotten into the study of the best method to convey the sludge. He indicated that the trucks provide the best means and the most flexibility at this point in time. 25. Sandretto : Pointed out again it is only something like 20 acres that is being overlain by permanent structures speaking in reference to the mineral resources. Indicated this could not be considered to have strategic economic value. Indicated there were extensive other areas that contained much better mineral deposits then were found under the Dill property. a- - • CITY OF GREELEY DELTA WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 1. Permitted uses on the hereon described Special Use Permit area shall be a 34 million gallon per day (mgd ) wastewater treatment plant, with associated maintenance and administrative facilities. 2 . Specific site plans showing the type , nature and location of structures for the aforementioned 341\\S wastewater treatment facility shall be approved by Lhe Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners prior to issuance of permits for construction of the facility to determine compliance with the hereon described standards and design concepts. The intended phasing of site plan approvals is set forth as follows : a. initial facility - 6 mgcl b. 1995 - 12 mgcl additional c . 2010 - 16 mgd additional (Dates and capacities listed in this Development Standard #2 are approximations listed for general planning purposes for plan approval and are not intended to be restrictions upon the applicant ) . 3. The facility shall be designed , maintained and operated to comply with State Health Department regulations regarding odor. 4 . Landscaping plans shall be reviewed and approved at the time of specific site plan approvals as set forth in Development Standard #2. 5 . The Special Use Permit area shall be maintained in such a manner so as to prevent soil erosion , fugitive dust and growth of noxious weeds. The site shall be maintained in such a manner as to present a neat and well kept, appearance. 6. No structures or facilities used in the processing of sewage shall be permitted closer than 150 feet to the Special Use ' Permit boundary . Structures or facilities not used in the processing of sewage may be permitted to locate closer than 150 Feet to the Special Use Permit boundary. All structures sha 1 I comply with the minimum setback requirements as dc) I' i-ned in Section ;3. 11 of the Weld County Zoning Resolution . 7. Lighting provided for security and night operation on the site shall be designed so that the lighting will not adversely affect surrounding property owners . Lighting shall be reviewed and approved at the time of specific site plan approvals as set forth in Development Standard #2. 1 City ofGreeley ,;1 +k; DEVELOPMENT STt1NUI S ' Page 2 8. All accesses Lo the Special Use Permit area shall have the approval of the Weld County Engineering Department . All accesses shall be constructed in accordance with the recommendations and/or requirements of the 'Veld County Engineering Department . 9. All phases of the operation must conform to maximum permissible noise levels as slated in 25- 12-10 , CRS , 1973 . 10. All phases of the wastewater treatment plant facilit' es and operations s.ta Ll conform with a] 1 applicable County , State and Federal Health Standards and I;.e 'Illations and any other applicable rules and regulations of governmental bodies having jurisdiction on the premises . 11 . The applicant shall ensure that the .flow capacity of the Tat Lcrson Ditch shall not be decreased or prior use diminished due to any modifications made during the relocation of the Di Lch along the west edge of the wastewater treatment plant site . Special design plans for the relocation of the Patterson 1)i tch steal 1 be reviewed and approved at the time of specific plan approvals as seL forth in Development Standard #2 above. 'I' • • SUBJECT TO: 11 _ 1. The City of Grreeley ,and 'Veld County entering agreements for the maintenanc(Y ol roads ,TtTi will be impacted by construction tr; f f : • ; • ! r he in Li at ion of each of the site plan reviews 11- I te(e(t to betel ,) r,; „! an;'ttrd #2 . 2 . Adding the following to Development Standard #1 : TI•cat(•ienL plant, processes and structures shal I be of the type and nature described in the Special Use Permit application document titled Special Use Permit Application to the Weld County Planning; ng Commission for the C i I y of free t ey ' s Proposed Delta Wastewater Treatment Plant 11 Regional Facility April , 1978, and as outlined by the appl nt, in the hearing of August 1(3, 1978, before the Weld County Board of County Commissioners . 3. Adding Development Standards #12 and #13 as follows : 1 412 - Prior to and during the construction phases defined in betelopmenL Standard #2 above , the City of Greeley r 1 1 be required to monitor all water wells within 1 , 0U0 Feet of the Special Use Permit area in accord- ance ', i t h the following conditions , in order to delet•mtae tthether or not the productive capacities t , of such I5 are damaged by the dewntiring processes (•c c!Iti re(i during the facilities construction phases . r., (4/ }'� if a. All wells r,ha 1 1 he moni Lored prior to the C114' �1�� tip' beginning of each constructl,,n phase . Q h . Al ] wells shall ,m �litored a minimum of IJccl LPL U � / 2 - Limes per ,1) duuring the construction of �� ' I" I ac:i l i t ies . This monitoring shall be carried ' y� out during eac:h phase of cons t rue Li on del inod in Development Standard #2 above . c . '1oniLoring shall be required only for those wells that are at a depth equal to or at a lesser depllr than the depth required for dewatering. 4. Written recor•cb, of all required monitoring shall / - be maintained as public records by the City of Greeley . #13 - The City or Greeley shall assume all liability for damage which occurs to water wells on other properttrs as a result of the clewatering processes required etlir• (i,,; the construction of the defined wastewater treatment facilities . ( d . € d 1 Ze;rnz 4'WL l%h dAdzi 4 „z ..gut is it zed�sud o y 10 .,cv4.4C. ,mac l SUBJECT TO : 1 . The Ci ;i,eeley aiid ,W.eld County entering agreements for the math L• •.:, •i ,tt(L1.(t,i i.='l t1 ] 1 l be impacted l,y const ri.c:t i c,11 Ll'+ltI ^ � i' I �' the initiation of each of the site plan leviews defined td 1,eveIul;: R'niL ,;i :uid.rr(1 2 . Adding the following to Development Standard #1 : Treatment plait processes and st.rue�ures shall be of the type and a:• t itre des'' r• ihed in the Spectal Use Permit application docii;•.eut titled Si'ecia] Use Permit Application to the Weld County Plannin;' Commission for the City of Greeley ' s Proposed Delta " - ' , ' ' r• :� i tnen t Plant_A Pegi ona l Facil i i y tliri 1 , 1978, and I i ned lr,' the applicant the hearing of August 1(6 , 1978 , before the Weld County `ivard ' County Commissioners . Addi nr; Development Standards #12 and #13 as follows : =;2 - Prior to and dr' ring the construction phases defined is Detc 1o1)1n ut Standard -2 above , the City of Greeley will be required to neon : tor all water wells within n,r i , DPI) t t el or the Special Use Permit area in accord- . e witn the I'ol lowing conditions , in ord( r to .P ( ermine het her or not the productive capacities ,,uc 11 w '1 Is are dani.c,•e t 1,'. the dewy t -ring processes „ill red ,icii'lup the facilities construction phases . , All wells s�ha I 1 he monitored prior to the I'tv Lc I', : i.ii up of each construction phase. A \) l .'c 1 1 t',•,' I t s shall be monitored a minimum or {t� \� t `�' \ 1 l ivies per yjr. �. during the construction of fc• , : , t ic• . This monitoring shall he carried 1" ,V* ,\ out during e:o:l1 phase of construction dei•1ne(1 � in P '. eiopt ; at Standard #2 above . /s iii i I ur• i ng alta 11 be required only f t h.c 1e at a depth equal to or depth than the depth requ -- (I . Written records of he maintained (;reel '' CITY OF GREELEY DELTA WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 1. Permitted uses on the hereon described Special Use Permit area shall be a 34 million gallon per day (mgd) wastewater treatment plant with associated maintenance and administrative facilities. 2. Specific site plans showing the type , nature and location of structures for the aforementioned 34NASO wastewater treatment facility shall be approved by the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners prior to issuance of permits for construction of the facility to determine compliance with the hereon described standards and design concepts. The intended phasing of site plan approvals is set forth as follows : a. initial facility - 6 mgd b. 1995 - 12 mgd additional c. 2010 - 16 mgd additional (Dates and capacities listed in this Development Standard #2 are approximations listed for general planning purposes for plan approval and are not intended to be restrictions upon the applicant ) . 3. The facility shall be designed, maintained and operated to comply with State Health Department regulations regarding odor. 4. Landscaping plans shall be reviewed and approved at the time of specific site plan approvals as set forth in Development Standard #2. 5. The Special Use Permit area shall be maintained in such a manner so as to prevent soil erosion, fugitive dust and growth of noxious weeds. The site shall be maintained in such a manner as to present a neat and well kept appearance. 6. No structures or facilities used in the processing of sewage shall be permitted closer than 150 feet to the Special Use Permit boundary. Structures or facilities not used in the processing of sewage may be permitted to locate closer than 150 feet to the Special Use Permit boundary. All structures shall comply with the minimum setback requirements as defined in Section 3. 14 of the Weld County Zoning Resolution. 7. Lighting provided for security and night operation on the site shall be designed so that the lighting will not adversely affect surrounding property owners. Lighting shall be reviewed and approved at the time of specific site plan approvals as set forth in Development Standard #2. 1 City of Greeley � yy DEVELOPMENT STANDAt'ti�S Page 2 8. All accesses to the Special Use Permit area shall have the approval of the Weld County Engineering Department . All accesses shall be constructed in accordance with the recommendations and/or requirements of the Weld County Engineering Department . 9. All phases of the operation must conform to maximum permissible noise levels as stated in 25-12-103 , CRS , 1973 . 10. All phases of the wastewater treatment plant facilities and operations shall conform with all applicable County, State and Federal Health Standards and Regulations and any other applicable rules and regulations of governmental bodies having jurisdiction on the premises . 11. The applicant shall ensure that the flow capacity of the Patterson Ditch shall not be decreased or prior use diminished due to any modifications made during the relocation of the Ditch along the west edge of the wastewater treatment plant site. Special design plans for the relocation of the Patterson Ditch shall be reviewed and approved at the time of specific plan approvals as set forth in Development Standard #2 above. CITY OF GRELEEY DELTA WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 1. Permitted uses on the hereon described Specail Use Permit area shall be a 34 million gallon per day (mgd) wastewater treatment plant with associated maintenance and administrative facilities . Treatment plant processes and structures shall be of the type and nature described in the Special Use Permit application document titled Special Use Permit Application to the Weld County Planning Commission for the City of Greeley ' s Proposed Delta Wastewater Treatment Plant A Regional Facility April, 1978, and as outlined by the applicant in the hearing of August 16, 1978, before the Weld County Board of County Commissioners . 2 . Specific site plans showing the type, nature and location of structures for the aforementioned 35 mgd wastewater treatment facility shall be approved by the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners prior to issuance of permits for con- struction of the facility to determine compliance with the hereon described standards and design concepts. The intended phasing of site plan approvals is set forth as follows : a. initial facility - 6 mgd b. 1995 - 12 mgd additional c. 2010 - 16 mgd additional (Dates and capacities listed in this Development Standard #2 are approximations listed for general planning purposes for plan approval and are not intended to be restrictions upon the applicant ) . 3. The facility shall be designed, maintained and operated to comply with State Health Department regulations regarding odor. 4. Landscaping plans shall be reviewed and approved at the time of specific site plan approvals as set forth in Development Standard #2 . 5. The Special Use Permit area shall be maintained in such a manner so as to prevent soil erosion, fugitive dust and growth of noxious weeds. The site shall be maintained in such a manner as to present a neat and well kept appearance. 6. No structures or facilities used in the processing of sewage shall be permitted closer than 150 feet to the Special Use Permit boundary. Structures or facilities not used in the processing of sewage may be permitted to locate closer than 150 feet to the Special Use Permit boundary. All structures shall comply with the minimum setback requirements as defined in Section 3. 14 of the Weld County Zoning Resolution. 7. Lighting provided for security and night operation on the site shall be designed so that the lighting will not adversely affect surrounding property owners. Lighting shall be reviewed and approved at the time of specific site plan approvals as set forth in Development Standard #2. 8. All accesses to the Special Use Permit area shall have the approval of the Weld County Engineering Department . All accesses shall be constructed in accordance with the recommendations and/or requirements of the Weld County Engineering Department . 9. All phases of the operation must conform to maximum permissible noise levels as stated in 25-12-103, CRS, 1973. 10. All phases of the wastewater treatment plant facilities and operations shall conform with all applicable County, State and Federal Health Standards and Regulations and any other applicable rules and regulations of governmental bodies having jurisdiction on the premises. 11. The applicant shall ensure that the flow capacity of the Patterson Ditch shall not be decreased or prior use diminished due to any modifications made during the relocation of the Ditch along the west edge of the wastewater treatment plant site. Special design plans for the relocation of the Patterson Ditch shall be reviewed and approved at the time of specific plan approvals as set forth in Development Standard #2 above. 12. Prior to and during the construction phases defined in Development STandard #2 above, the City of Greeley will be required to monitor all water wells within 1, 000 feet of the Special Use Permit area in accordance with the following conditions, in order to determine whether or not the productive capacities of such wells are damaged by the dewatering processes required during the facilities construction phases . a. All wells shall be monitored prior to the beginning of each construction phase. b. All wells shall be monitored a minimum of two times per month during the construction of facilities . This monitoring shall be carried out during each phase of construction defined in Development Standard #2 above. c. Monitoring shall be required only for those wells that are at a depth equal to or at a lesser depth than the depth required for dewatering. d. All wells shall be monitored a minimum of one time in the twelve month period after dewatering processes have ceased in order to insure that such wells have recovered from any impacts which may be caused by the dewatering processes. e. Written records of all required monitoring shall be maintained as public records by the City of Greeley. 13. The City of Greeley shall assume all liability for damage which occurs to water wells on other properties as a result of the dewatering processes required during the construction of the defined wastewater treatment facilities. if 1 4. . .?, r 4 " i-41 • r 'it t 444 ' ‘:. k 'A' :)4 ' ' " }. i r, _• w If DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 1. Permitted uses on the hereon described SUP area shall be a 34 million gallon per day (mgd) wastewater treatment plant with associated maintenance and administrative facilities. 2. Specific plans regarding type, nature and location of facility for the aforementioned 34 mgd wastewater treatment facility shall be approved by the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners prior to construction to deter- mine compliance with the hereon described standards and design concepts. The intended phasing of approval-is set forth as follows : a. initial facility - 6 mgd b. 1995 - 12 mgd additional c. 2010 - 16 mgd additional (Dates and capacities listed in this Development Standard #2 are approximations listed for general planning purposes for plan approval and are not intended to be restrictions upon the applicant . ) 3. Wastewater treatment plant facilities shall be designed with odor control equipment to minimize the possibility of odors occurring. The plant shall be designed, maintained and operated so as to not cause nuisance odors at the SUP boundary. Facilities and processes shall be covered or enclosed where practicable. Facilities and processes not initially covered or enclosed shall be designed and constructed such that they may be covered or enclosed at a later time. The Board of County Commissioners shall have the right to require certain facilities and processes to be covered or enclosed if re- quired in hearings held pursuant to public request regarding nuisance odors emitted from the wastewater treatment plant . Said hearings may be called by the Board of County Commis- sioners at such time as is deemed necessary by the Board of County Commissioners and the Board of County Commissioners shall stipulate the purpose and intent of such hearings in notices published no less than 30 days in the official County newspaper. 4. No storage of effluent, sludge or other produced substances shall be permitted on the SUP area unless confined or other- wise enclosed i n a structure with appropriate odor control equipment . 5. No processing, treatment or storage facility is to be con- structed such that ground water may be impacted. Sealing or linking of all facilities and processes shall be required. 6. Landscaping shall be provided with a four foot high earth berm constructed with a minimum 2 percent slope facing the external property lines and 6 percent slope facing the plant. Security fencing, if installed, shall be located on . " 1a a the p n si t b a : . .: " sI 11 be four feet ab. ' e t :� o' d ds or, if no road, adjacent propoerty lines. The exact location of the berms and specific planting proposal shall be reviewed and approved at the time of specific plan approval as set forth in Development Standard #2 above. Berms and vegeta- tion shall be maintained in a neat and well kept appearance. 7. No sewage treatment plant process-type structure shall be allowed closer than 200 feet to the SUP boundary. Non-plant process buildings may be less tahn 200 feet , but not located such that said structures are between the landscape berm and the property line. . 8. Lighting provided for security and night operation shall be designed for low to the ground setting or if located at a raised elevation, have directional characteristics. Specific plans for lighting shall be reviewed and approved at the time of specifical plan approval as set forth in Development Stan- dard #2 above. 9. All accesses to the SUP area shall have the approval of the Weld County Engineering Department. All accesses shall be constructed in accordance with the recommendations and/or requirements of the Weld County Engineering Department. 18th Street and Holly Street shall be restored to its origi- nal condition in the event of any evidence of adverse im- pacts caused by the increased traffic during the construc- tion of the proposed wastewater treatment plan facilities, after completion of the construction of the wastewater treat- ment plant facilities by the applicant or its contractor. Design for any road improvements for Holly or 18th Street shall have the approval of the Weld County Engineering Department . 10. All wastewater treatment plan facilities and structures shall be elevated to the 500-year flood elevation for pro- tection from floods. The 500-year flood elevation at the upstream limits (18th Street) shall be 4612. 5 feet M.S.L. and the downstream limits (16th Street) shall be 4610. 5 feet M.S.L. 11. All phases of the operation must conform to maximum per- missible noise levels as stated in 25-12-103, CRS , 1973. Noise levels shall not exceed 55 db(A) between the hours of 7: 00 a.m. to 7: 00 p.m. and 50 db(A) between the hours of 7: 00 p.m. and 7 : 00 a.m. at the property lines. 12. All phases of the wastewater treatment plant facilities and operations shall conform with all applicable County, State, and Federal Health Standards and Regulations and any other applicable rules and regulations of governmental bodies having jurisdiction on the premises . 13. The applicant shall ensure that the flow capacity of the Patterson Ditch shall not be decreased due to any modifi- cations made during the relocation of the Ditch along the west edge of the Wastewater Treatment Plant site. Y i ,�, 4 �y 1 �z o _ c = ci c Sio c w a a a ran n� v. —c. n r a ao N . - ro .pro y c) n < 7ao C 3 7 6 O0.0 ^ a vv, o0 tro N N ° 3 j l" 3 - �' O a �N �, N D - -^- — o � � � o� VI. � c �� -o TJ w - G. a °; _ ` � �::(1)(0 ° `in:::::.-. c n a, N N NN, ° o ry aN n.� a.- �, — (TO " S S n - 3 •c < N n N 4. O =_ V-' C w �' O n �_ 'B ^J Cp J 7� a p `D N N S O ' a 7 a J ✓ N •• • o O coo ti ,< a a- G a a LT) 'L1 ry R a v N cc - TS S ` a c "a r. a•D N O D ° w o a < - .—• < c 00 — `� N CD N = N S CCDD a n a p- '^a'+ o p p -- -% l~D a N 7 . CD R .y W O n -• 7O [-' .. `< O O •! -•,•0 fD O < J ON o � a cro -» < 3 < b n o crco 0 _ o aa' � a S � � � a ,,, 7o N a cn •< o .D 'b a n'a. a ,.C o 7J c a N n ,-. R' N 7- O O� F• �O N n -, ,-.,C- - 70 — p N _ w X 0. 0. '•'+� (7,'C N .• ~ CDD C •" �L •D_ .N7-. CD'0 p CIO c;.c.'.0 D ...9 N ,� 70 O — '71 O O W CND CND G> N T3 a c, la.., 0. a C N a R a R a'9 G. .r 71 on < Qy O N 0. O p ^� Ni 7 w, O C o O c.'C7 \--0 N N n ✓ a CAD D 7 N n v. a " • a T r••• �"' + C p — a n O 76 < ° 0- 2 ° =- '-. n a oCD 7 n an Cap a 1, .., 0 C 3 C? 5 CD G a 7 ..•G' N N :.) Cp - N -i C R N - r G a N G .O r, n 7y 0•_, ^D CD O� 0 DC 1-•. 7 (17 ','< 'L7 n 7' S v z•' v a - ^»•< C: 'T21O 3' 7c �: 0 0 a a .D ,, rro a Z 0.O v o S 1- N O n a a , ,r-, c , rD D n v -, N O n a w a a-ar NO ro ro 3 N N _ O O ,„ a = N a b C 7 S p' --. —7 .y 0. N• f, B -•cn •O v t� ". N GL. a o a ,, p •. � 3 ti R7O � ^ .n N ¢7 R n 3 o n n 7 7�0 0 O CD p G ` .--y a 3 D C., N 7 R N -• G p vT'i N- G S .ry ;n s �- r r .0 a c CA 3 a aaa a^ 3aryCD Cr2, Ccn.D � aa =a ra • cc G. G .--. U o ='p a O a '' N rn v ' a N c r K CD n N --,7o a , •-+,0... co ru _ G S -. R 10 �i J) 70 ,n -1 Ca',, .a.. 7 .. n G G ••0 < G — ' ^.O n ••-•tc-_, ry C N C », _ n a N G O U p 3 7' -•1 G C: ^D 1rro 3 .NO (.+ %Nn70G G , < N r0- `' CD CD C' ^ C'' W r r rM G ✓: 7 L.., 0 N L.) C p in a - a_ i+ _ �_ -Ni 0 •-•N O v, a O 0.._ O = ? ")i . CA -0 rI " CD,•• rf^ G CP r �• �. .-.`< G v rt. S S -1 • C.") . r O O •< 70 7 a G -t .n-. .-.,r. - a � _• ✓. �, Ct "1 G • 0- R Tao a •I° " a FP rDD •N CD " 7v, p o 7 rD 3 cm 0 S c% S O N •< S N - 7� n o en - a N CnD G -, b a a �,- n a 7 in k.) ro n `"'-• v. a a N a a a CD r, N N �' A ✓, n• -, r- 'C N -t _ O a- :n N a -n n. 6 N " n ? ^ =� c R O sr a •• 0r, C 0 a 3 a a a n 0. 0. G - '' r. rT1 ~ •o f v C r `< -rte,-, S a '� R 3 d a n CS G a G N _ 7 ^, N �1 n :J ""t R'J n IN ,Ny, J << < S v '�'p G, Orio < '27 C N ?Q C — r`, C.N •`-t = • p a. ✓ n_ a .G s_ �. v, p S G.-±! -�n 7 •• S CD ^+ G N N O G J .11 y •G ry -+ -n G R "Cl t w o s ,, • ^-: 7 0- r t=' F '0 a G �O v 7 a v, .! O .»au .••] O •^'y faL 7 „, Tao c 7 c p -, n C2D �° '' r' a' o 3 = — N °- o ,_•7c o' N ' 0.°c 2 3 et O o� rsc a s .".. rN t '" S < p O a t y C7 7• a C a n N .o v. C 3 1 . VI a G �l G < < R N •S 0 an ^+ ^^� - •- D • _ a v a O7 a co •a- C a - ra-. A 0 `d C v, c a S O a p'G 3 a a N a - N w, S ` 0 1 N .1=1 , 0 „ S S a n = ~n v a �' n r7. c n ` '� O a 0 3 '.... _ n a ` O a O n •.» --n `< R ? -' L' n 0. 0. ry n a a _' N O ^ < O 0 n G O CADe. (� N n'C a o f�D r7� o p N -. 3 a O ,b =•-, a 0 R - Nv-'.(17 'fl !' ry N n•a R a C a ;C3 '7 ~ v, G ,-. p a -� S vpi 3• ! 7 n ti �,., a 7 7� ^J a N 7 a 0. N �« .b I� 3 O a v N''' a N a' .„, N `z7 C1l a p a R ., 0, l b 7 ,.� Cl) r' O N R rro N n C� a -, D • R 3 n •n CA a 7 0 0CD 3 R N.R a - a" 3 n O 'C N a a' :� D •,ry. Ei _ 7y so a 3 •< '-' O" .' Cp 70 v; E. G 7 C ^ a O v, �D TJ N C ,-" •=r % �-. n a R A% R (� Cr• v, �,'.b O •D w --�- G 2 _ 7 G �-r vN ry ' a n v ^~� ", ry n co p V y •., a C G S i N - rror: N a IJj La, ti 7 T 0.� v1. r ✓ ., w, O b G.G v, �.C p a ? • r• 0 r S 0. N\G n •-• . CD •-s (m •-s 0c v n v p a lac 7 p c ,, G a n a N N C a J N w ., a o a G 7 G N `I G.,CD a w ' w C p o a = 7 7c r = 0. ✓ .., 7 'n G C N _L-.., n G-✓,' a T N p a _v, �-+,3 •_ v: N 7o CD a rri ._ -,•'< - C C J,S 1G '< C v — fr0.D .�-. .o-, CS n VI S a N �--, N G - a V. "N'4 o N a.S rai, a a ",a •D N CIO 0-N -y S v 3 N v n n a S � n ry G r i C, c O n _• w RS n _ u., N S7 C �' Cap C--. ,r, O o =7-oi 3 n n CD C a a N a 7 N O 'O - ., a N O G v 3 R� N 7 o a 0. _ o N 3 � o G' = a' (i C17 • — ry a T _ G .o Ro et' a s as 'CJ O a = D 7• J 0 ry 'r N Gn G 3 G p 7 i a 3 G 70 -+ CD v G ✓ C — �» a O 0. CT • O S p p 3 0 — a • r, - -1 0 G a•. N r» ^ e' C�De, ro O C6-'-' rrq J -' N N G Sr 3 �' N a •,^t 3 3 a R 0 c N N G 0 N N G N �' `� .-j W •C7 a v GN .—. N v N 3 Q. N 7 CJ a s R n N a CD y v ^t a 7o f o �".1-; .� , N v S N R a ro • G R G v. S o N NG. a N o< C~'. v.' W • ,f-.1), O V ^N, n N '- ry - „ R O CD ✓y n ✓ J a CD G as 0 G y CD n a n N ,:noj � r F T a u CD �'_a c 7 ti N a . a O (ro — n 7 S S r• (D N G a 7 a a --, N '; 'n n —' 0 fCD a n. N v. N N a v, , a- v- `≤ 0. -, R70 C= L . . _ .,.r.ni.MPI.. o -o c. 0 17 " CD n y Co " c., t.., n O aD O n n n '< a -, ° 0- � , o �. -.,^ r., p _ 0 p �• -„ -.,• o p p °°' o co n O U) n = 7- 7 n fD -_, '-,, 7 •',., n 'I-3 o (70 rD 0 a`< r7 ? , ., A, CJ ,L a 70 Ca C n a) O �, 7 n C t.... ° -- -"+"-- .., to �' — (D a7 �' �,, 7 '• �' CD a0, • p jw.. `. C7D `< ° (ID ,4" `< ;• -. C v 3 i�• 9 n • 2 n k• c n ,, •.,, : -•, �. -i 0-.0 (D a -,, ,-. W -o - , .., D0 •. -, 0 - n '_� D ?--3 `�� O � --l �' H = 0 -i ; - D ° � � o o � � ° sue c n n o � � D Cl..c:, w a a a "a O 7 rIq = a, ,S`< a. ....D S .7 v) C O n v, S -, �y C O O O 2'< a "`' 9 1 _ > 0 C 13 n _ fD p n � n `� .n n, v ,< aa•n c 0 _s _2 C_ 4"• c � � = mo w n•Q. °b -, G, O ° n t4 •-. ... 3 ~ -C -; CD tCn c o " 0 n ~ 7 N S 7 O 7 r 6 rD `G 'fl C a N G _N = `no n ° .D G ° c = n �� 7 �? N r�D �' C, c n v O "" ocr —o ='p cm ,�, p < CD n n, N C °••.4 7o v " ',nm -n, `C O S _. o -n, (D 2 ° C? G n '-•b ✓,�. w n CD °r3 O� O 7 717 0 < 7. O S�t n a, ,' o C - ry 't3 7-O p,• -•, B O _ _L', 0 n ° ID 0(lc, n •S p; o n• n �• 7 7. `n, O '7 �' J O 'M rrDD O C N N f7D _^ < a• >y (IC7 CSD 7 n O 'U O C7D CD n0 n 'fl �, . :J rD `< rte•• `< ✓: ffo (D a rM n rD 7 •=�-~i O a.,� a C a �p (p p 'LJ �' O. P% O r-. -1 ,- C./)O N T O O L rD C O 7 a n i v °i rD O _ (D �_, O CD 7 C = C v n _ ' a U n t7 < rD ,_,, ,� -, n n. 0 .-••,7 fD n _ -, p v, p -, O N to r):19 a C G 7 �i .., `< 0 Co= O`< C v, S O a 0 n n c n (m fSD 3 • _ •• a.'O - v a p CD n n rl0 AD O o• — n m-a n n D ._'•= n -'7 =ti v O G C.L. 7 C rD G 7o v G ! ° n `< rD -- v a° C ry Y n C p a n a, .te r CD n c K < - < < c "' c C~o n CD 0 CD `' o •-•-,7° �.n c 7 ' � 7'7 c n ,-. rCDD G rD 7 n a °„ C v, O 0. D n a. S.90 ,-. 0 O v-y, `•G °' z 0 70 0 0.7-. C 0 ....,7 O• .-.n n 'O C a -, n _ n 7 p.. 2 p C a rD `p C , p C n' -� Vl a v c 7 —`< 7 3> _ � n CD 0 - G `< (D •D G — r+,r10 _c C n SJ O v'. -, O n S —vn, 7; rD Cl.S '°",� '3 �. co --C., C n .n ,_m . 7 C7D 'B 'D 0 7 c 7-F, " O7 n s.c D S -n-ti S rD O �' CD tr n CB n a, 5 n 7 a 3 a J -, -• 0- o -, 0 _N• O o aao -- ^ w �� a ° `"- co - ° t?rDD a, n G '+ O v, ,� ^ n G n a. fD :J 7 n C a, n '� ,D ,C,, C n ` tit ~'C '' n n.o C U S fr. n0 7 0 _+ a d G ? O O'CI ° a fnJ ` j O CAD , v, O. ni 0 v, Cr O 7 n v) 70 7 S ,.. n a S S _c O 77 ) 7 7 . 5'_a n ., 7 3 _n `< p. A, C • �! - � Sn ', ° � � � � f° ° � Sam Gnn ° �' � o 7- L-. cCI'- n•oG w Ana—' • go ,-< - a, -, a-- o 'a CD - o'�,C - a..° = < n. c =' 7'v) v rro C° c' -, — a < 0 � < 7 7 y -t .- f 7 rD _ f •CS a n CZ „" = 70 CD 0 a n. 'L7 S v•,^ • ,a; V, ` c --Inc S -t S -, 770 7 :1 -6 7,•70 .- CD -n•', 7 o n -• -, C n -, i n a, a 7 S , a .» 7• G (, 7 G n -, n 7 . '7 ,i. y a co CD �. O �. -0 F w_. a a .� ;< C.? ;� ^ n a rD 7- -n, a' G n -ni 3 n 77o C G a �. p 7po C 7 7 O p S O 7 7 7 G a s o n S 7 ? 7 7• •✓ = fZ n 7 7 < .n7 "h 7 -, 70 7 7 C 7 n - 3 v 7 O _ S(l7 CD _• < n 7 C a c r C u., 7 ° v 0 Do 7..• -n, -ti Q' O n l n p n p a C rD O 7 O v G 7a a rD �. A: >y m n - a , o _ =.o ° " y a an rn n aa, acv o _.v_, • _`< v a CD < •-•:: f• n = g G '_ n p rD O �'_ 7 ✓'n n a rro w •� _ °-n 3 < O O O n = t0i, 2 0• O S a S a O •�••° a�• p 7 v,' n v,•CD a.,ny 7 7 -CD 0 (70 0 'D `< CD ., (10 , S v CD C.. , CD T ° n r ^.o o n ^.CI- a, O O p w O v U •___n C.J a S S O i. • _rj o c ...- -.,-I 00 O CD . < 7 -, ^ n n S n w is 'o o N CD c A 0...0 c,..0 J a'v, -,•a- ---- - G7 .0 .., ,< 3 w7 O -- ', a n =-, r p .n, 4. w, .c7. oTJ •t7 is .7. n C .., o C ° rD N 0-. J o n 7 N r-. G'Fs 7 n `< D �+ '..+n, O s`< ..n •-• —_ :, - o CD ...arm n • -»,7 G S r. n '_' O O G 3 O�? n -.'W V v,, C s O7 7 7 ' ,--3-0 C c 7_ c o _s 7_ . 7 rD � 7_ . -, 7 a - D o rD -, - CG O !x n '1 n _ n s u, n 7 G Cro o •= r' f7D 77'a C7v G -. n 7 7 •7 `< 7 rj .., n - ,< ,_ •Cn 4,..-„ r ,r AD a O - , CD Le, v __ r err, •rfD c N 7o c rro .D c �• ,�'a n. CC~D �_ •.ter'. 0 a`< .1 A • -r ° N 7 fD S° -I ,<,. '�-� C 7 ° .. :J 7 n. C a, 7 7 �'ED- O'p •• n 7 G el) ° . .., O �' G • S C p i S < a 7 p 7 J A, _ _ n _• n 7 0 CD Dr a < v �, fD CD a; n 'n `< "', N ° n -.'", 7 . C.-,... O T., G 7 n ° -+ i a n, :.. 3. ;., `i — ., � W. _ -. 0 oo .-. a - xn • 7 7C0RarD �. c 7 4-- S 7 7 7 •n fD a 7 a, 7 0 7 0 " 7 7 O• n a, _.7 0- —1 n a n p v' p g_ cb, N G•70 ,�(7a c =- o CJ S'ro c x rD f7o ° ° o p•=-• �S `"' �' '�- ,n rD n :r Z — 7 7 Q a; n °, O n J O C -, O CJ v, " 7 • °-, n .' :J 2 CD C G Y 0• 7 m •, = O p '/, n CD _,O 7. n a v, ry c.'.1. a _ .., O n p �' v N• ., a - C (7 () n 70 J S n.S t? -, »•< -- O a rD N n n -' '7 o a- R c T3 n ro v' n 0 7 40 O. - I 70 _•rn n — � .. a,• < — `' O� 0 �' o S av -n, C 9 n. C C -' G = C v,•'� 7 o aa) > � .! — � c p r c' 7 c. o,� , •0 o -'� c �•u •c 7.s�.a� jO -, CD •✓, S ^' n Try, cl' 0 ^• n �.,`< r1'� = o a% 7.O O = ; — n n 7 pp Cm •>;} 70 v, `_' C �' va 7.n �' ,< =o < 7•.D < 0 0 r., 70 -, y ",y m �-(7.70 ~ o T o ° o n a 0, -' ...J -C•t Cr1 = 7 G N nn n rCCD n �, 7 p n n • 00 o ,,, C O -, C O _ N n i., 7' N Li) Z l,, rJ .=n+ a 7 rr'' -I 3 'U '" N n C G •5-• C�D 7 CD Cr ~`` v. CD CD ,0 t4, .7-. Og CD 3 n ° .n-. Q. a O Rl ,.0, C -, a=, `< rD CD rD a ,nJ- `< a n0 �'- n, >< ^J c CD G , n0 A' < ,�. .R"y N N } G ^- n' 33 p n C o a• g a l a, C. S 7 7o ai v; -i 7 �.p 7 Uo3 .., c t J p N -, N a, 7o rD O. �• r r J �' �- 7 ° �, W C -� 7 C �• a' r10 n n -" < iv ,..., •—,a n v, 0 .< 7 o a aJo a C o' 7 n CD(/� , G O c ,n_, O -0 O rD p rn^ ? a < • O -., _ •y N -, Cr 0-7 • a n 'c.. • G ° '< N c C- • —-..,. y ro 0 °- u ao •y a" -.,n C_ -' (w a° °0 O c . a o o a 7 arm a �o � 0.� - ob N � �� ° ° a ; CD o a.a-°o 0 CD - . •........ "'i ^0 o a 0 7 �G 0 ~ 3 O� n O.. y -t -O a, .C-.O On o p a rCD 0 CDD ! O C a CD ^, -, G; O S`< n a 0 < �" ro n -p, »'� O n .c n 2 G a 3 -, o 0- C n 3. G- O W CD a, -, 3 ^y.' 3 a •< E.;• a, :J 7- w O N C c ry" °� ~- r~D C- n, s y C O p '+ ° n 7a ° ? - CD ° 7 n 7 A� -, S -», 7 o c _ n -I N n CD 3 C o << a- ' CCD < fi n•. ? rD << 0 `< C .r :� rlo 7 C .n» -, -. _ . -, 7 ."'7 -CDi S 7 n tiv n C < 1 ry W --n =. n n n r• S a F O..O o C 7 -� O -, v 7 O ro °, ° < O n 7 77o O° G n A, O •G v: n 7 ° 7"'< • < a A�n 0 n a G W Cu G W r, r, i p Z V' C N a ry c....) l a T. �" ts r. $ '' r V' O • 7 a- O 1. J 7 07 W — N C a �' ti o rD pp C C O v -• G 0+ v ,� r W C •"O no W C rD • i. I p o w - . R' ° o -I ' o- c ` � - c `C Y 1'o n � � � rJ � c' CA c o a a. y o n•n r) 9 9 .17 `r G a w n•b G D < N o o Cr O r .p rD 0 r CL C ] C r, O n rD G p y o a .7 7 r O. c'n O. rD .- r, C rD ryD r ='D C K m w 7q _ O .y -I '-- F? rD n z CI. G C rD c. ^ v) n cn G) p u o y v o r r r CH _ r- 0 0 r y p C Qo 1A C - o ro O _ r o' v ] rD 07 " _ O �- Cr w C v. r O r 7 coC Z o 3 Y w � °, �. � Y O r � G ` ° rS , ✓ - G y Cz7 A o n y X j C O Sy CO 0 T n d r�- �' O p �� cell ,O ,+ l Y. 1..1 Z —y •n• �/ r- -1 Go, P) O CD :r 'l - A) — as ] ' -' t'' �, • r, = 3 l< ° H '' ,,,,, ;,� 'i7 et Ci7 O P) C G G P) cr C N �1'J, n v,, tNj rn Z O p'CL pc p _.'OG n �. CJ fn .. D. CA O --•,O n 0 . O G o r. 0 c o ff �."-! rrDD• U) 'B O C P.', H T3 r rD XI .7.... p cr., ..1 ^ b 7 ^ GA"Ai N Z A rra n•A) v `^ '< C ° rD C 'O O• _ _ p T3 rC p ~ _.p C O O , �.Q < C'� w 0 G O1 7- r r, d `7ill • P) C O O �, v) (o) 2 ` 1 . " O' ... C rGo r1 C r 'r n ^ G n _ r G 0 O r: O '� 'LS C r) 'L3 O rD C H Z b `y v' S .O A' -i n a 'p is 7 7 A) O O G G • V, C V O- = -1 7- ! f) 5 I 0_ C•' fD A) `< . c1. a —7 Io /4� co (Th L) C ,. r, C t� O G C A) c = i. i- 'h i.' i i-is a .....1 h a. •h % 7 C C' I C 4- r C _r C• a n ,- Cr S a 4 r. $ • 4 IJ 'J IJ IJ IJ IJ 1J I.,IJ 1_,IJ IJ IJ IJ = 3 C....) o CM - P rD A) rD w ' r ., w _ _ C/) ^ _. _. N n -• �; r S c rya' ?ti C� N �.n .. C O r'N+ t-. '., I J — .� :� v a .,,1.. •„I J— C O 0 W rD G c .J• f c� 2 .D N2. - •S 2 Ou O -o 0 D r)r 7_ 7 p >o'-to r -, c... ;n ti r - a. r a'.. i r- G r I^ 7J G r 3 r r r °-' n a C) fr i — J r r, _ d ''J 0'-- - O• p 0-^ _ n"C r r•-. r-' r cono° r a s w .n n n. G r G .ry., r a C ,` —v _ .-., vl �! G .�» rD ti '0 .~r-a �' " _ .: _ -• O _ _ - G I.,J r .".) ") .-. G ,-. '-! -t 7'7 'T7 G.- a O v 3 I G Oa 'J J G v p,-"-y-� j 7 r a 1 J r• r O' .� rr �' G ^ _.."� S O rr P) j,' O "1 7 R7 7 7 r. G v, r 7 a r, n r Cr_ C rD " n . . y r 0 rD .-r• n 3 c o a_ n O n G �) r v - n (M.7 = _ 0 _ ^ , � O- ca. v C o r � r c,:..- Cm F C n o rac (1 "^ .,S' n U P) •� - r a' �-p G `• _ _ r-. r� r rn r v --? c;0.O r ° '.c p7 ' O . p7 _ .col G. • J.C 7-•� O p n cr., v''S O rD r� A) eD '- r fir. I •a °° G n. y ° J v, �' O G C • O r ^ N P `1 -I r, O r '� r ti re ;n r -'�*. O. r G o I .- y 7 't -z A) p 0,7 • r fj n rD . r, n rDD '-� v _• I p j d »' r G Cv, n r. , _, C 7 A) =' O— r C rD ,L7 3' 0 n I r�n - c p •'� O r !Pr .! Y C n r O r _ r In - �.1 s "- 7 ar v'• r� w ,n m J • A)• -'.a G �, p O rJ G n S, r s co a 'n 7' Y ,�' r `� 7 ° , a � r a � o - ° _ � w v, 0• r.. •• r - r, c- a et,0.' n 7 n ° 0 I ;v n x7 0, � � a _' r rro c. '-•;": = 0 o c. r _o , I -� IJ < r- • _ .r u, T a c In ° :a o G _ r c � ~ c. tom' c r, r, "'A) < In p v p. A) L 1-. ts i t. % ". i-. i" i MI r a �' o G.. - r '�••• G r.) r) n r G i r ",_j IJJ IJ IJ IJ IJ iJ IJ IJ IJ 1J n N CIO r) r9 J l G ],' S' y rD n To J fr a I, I.! IJ IJ - - - - - y G ;4- r G C — ". y O r � Ci A 7'. c J c x J G n In ' �•n" rD r arro `! c.v G _ C r o c 3 r ' c o O C c r ro v Y ,� G O• c c c r, c _ c C ,- • r c •ti r `_ In J O vG -• C n C c V o EL,n n a y L o T - n 2 = rD . rD In ^ c n o I 53, Pi Cr. C O r o n G Ai C r, y' = o • c.... o n s -' • c p r as r I I^ r C -1 � r 7 O -n .., r 2 C ti a n c' o ' r r 0, y G. n -I A) C C rD '� C '✓ Ai O G ,r. G 'S ... n. A) -, 'n s a • �, ,� C, n. .. C' 0 G• -, C .! 5 C .CJ S G F-,..- S C r o r I o „ I = Ua O r a r --, rT •••• _ •..rl rr -I -�•, (' rD - - - _ r r' I _? r . . /-1 s _Ili/ 1 . • • ' -----.... i I --- , -i / I 1 1 `!i I, , \ ,....---"c....-- t 4' (-' c-') friA '67r-C/P I id SO LA 'la C:: ! i . !(-,14_,k- (;i:j1/t.; eL4 '(• { ) 1,i&i,r4, /'J� 1 I T I + t XI( 6 / //-+ i` ((//+ 1I I `� `-✓' -41- 7 . 4'i t s:: ' \it- ( J`�1..�"c+— is '1�.1 1 ).'- _` 4'^ ,,� "\ ' ^/1( S l�l /' -* J( /C0-1 �-L : 71 '.._ ,1,1_-.€ - I i, r ,� -, , •, D /4 (---. 7".''. i;0 2 i , I ' ,---- I ,j; . 4 , „ , ,(1 I!' L u_ r kit !: k,t, /lJt_� {� �1k ,i ! Q) L 4' n A O I�:i l if .41 ,,_:,_ FiL , , ' t ,i/.1 f „Li, cc_,-: _ _-„'_c. 1 4 :/a. CI I 'D / C .:*: • ..-' ,',,4k3.k - ,- '..1 i , I 1 c i I i /, 'fr- . ,/,i '+'- ',_‘,..._ , . : ..,,,' � r /1/ r � lTI f., l 'f � F ' t 1 i1 ,:'/r { l i t I/I C-,/ , ---4j X11 r , . 1'. t'J, �j 1 , jl1 �t \�l i�" I�Qc L Y. ( Slnr r n - v':Z k,—,,, ,�" fir' 1 � r �'{ �•'_ • �y" �' ,-,-,14", v V1;�. n � — �� uak r - '\ 'A-,, (L f,„„4 i Itt„ R5, C-11,0 .)+ln{ �.t CG�1-. 1.„J Sti, .)::,,,I,.e 4-v,_,c: )2 ,_') -..„ , . ‘ , ic e., i , 0 tc,J ,t, (,., i„ ,1 ( 1.- ..i / ,t, ,- , - i_ (,,Tii , +i), t 1 F' C . ' jii' ' _'''))? f I'2,,,t't _ t F.)( _ i ' ; ,,f i ti,.-tuf.- J :),- !)f: ' ,' r. , / , ., /, , , , , , , " „, i . ,4 , , ,, . i !,/..) i (' c ',) ' 1 r Cc* ' i ' -- ,' ,_,:_ '1,- lil,' , ! -IA,. l' CO c-,4 -1 b 4 /scuci,,i..? ,.___.c ,,_,, , i,_.a., v...-., ;a ,: ' __:-/c(1 _qo ,,,y_ttc, r/0.1 , ) -iv s . , r r r 1 L, 1., w .._.4 ...i ,), ........u., , .._. ,. , ,/ .. , r2 > l, ,.:.) IC! ,") ' ' :•1 at),-cc '2',„.:' (?1,,t(1 .','(-i-1-1' 4 /. I iii,t (Lt.atL, Fi)Ci e.— ,'" e, ' , , , . ,,,i , L.,,2)6( l iJ s_ c_`:�; (J c .tai 7,,Iii_,C, ru n 0,(/' ` C `'' -( e_C It -., , ,i, "7).0,', , ' ''N :,, ,' ! ,/,,C.I., 0 tr(:_L',1 id :,' / / 'Cil0.( '' ;e_ S 1- J.Z.r ((I., j . � '; � 4r � ' Y 1. R • '" lE i o !✓ i tifL .,r, '..! ) ,-Ati ,,,: 7 f"'4 k"\ , 1 :_/-N. I ,-., 1 -° ' f- , ' i-‘,, 11 i(1a((1 r c- (1-'`,1,(-,( t I151 t Li v" f �. t: d ,., € (.-5 ,/: 'ref 4 `. V \e f �,' `<i ri i v"�rJ ! t, l Vvtiik'C. ',-v J',, ;, ,tar1I d sG,.,�,,4Ii .,,,r•r VLF '-J-e - %(it' A6 ei) (5U-C,k 6 ' H,i'7',,,/,itii4 L.1,1A.71, dj_ 04'9„,‘ C iL.,'')-4// '.') tit -10 . (-31 e ..,,, I /,/L ','�",1, �,; �ltv,( I,I,/I/ " �"d -�' —Iii /V: a`T i ' (t 4 C.ii' c r^ ..J 'o)t) ,, , c'4 ,! �.-'-•t V� V Kul' mss' is i.k. k 1 '-,t' l(, j , ill..(k)( ,1..1.12- . �" 411 CO t. �1A.Gfrlt ( ., t'l - S-4V(/' ' i ' f i7 c'. kc i ,1„'�+ i'� (y.); c c-°i,;,;' / ktdf I �/. ✓iit't! '�.i 40 A.( ',1- V.,(ra-PC l'''' 'fi'k..G 0,.! ' i ' I "-1 ( ' .\ ' ' 1:'' I %.. 1 '''.1'rl � (14 c,_ O tr. .)-c ' ..i. / ._(_ 9:., ) ,;, (, ,( icc,,) --tvve ',10,t''`t' �' CA',(0)` in , Cf 1 n ' ' (4t; 7r ' 6 ' � ) sn !s' / 7% ' ir f 1:,,, 1 I' ., 1 'Y k GQ 4:i,/ ,j), r;N --yLcr( r.4 ,‘ 1,i t cc i <' f 0. a 0 ' _i ' (;L, ( ) A ' ( LI k '' C ^ '. , 'ii' f� - + /1 it _. .,_, \\ , ,ii,, , . .,,„ ,_%_1. , _, sl, i. y y_ Lccu,,,/ irLi ,,d (-, „., J 0 (it,,t,Gt,,LC_ V .>� /1 ( ;; , I -.-, tr t (P r. ,„ }r k.., -1-1)1 ,J1, A-°t_- t f t , -1 :,_.; ' qp.tvoP-ii ,, __,--1 . 1 ,i I '( ."' a /1/ �C I it, ttC1C)% ,y /- 1H('c-1 ��.i Jl,.�l ,4..,''?'r` '111.n�i r ; f 1 IA , i- I , @- '::.'?; -':' c- V ID Cc:T, 1 '?4, ' ' ik �� i j F� 1�} 1 If�,A� • '� J' 4II \ ' 1 ;) f,,,1 e:;- (-; L-Q-'..1-., ? rr'1 tt � � t`f ri✓. tr . �r �, ' , / ! j�00/5 ./1,, ,,!.f9/ :,,,, c.,11, .!� i ,) 6 ;,,,.. 7.‘, ,, .; ci 571d-r‘t_c. ,,/,(2,. :,?fVe e.'/Yij,!:1(V i 10 l',.4.'//1.(i" ','''' 5/.1 /- 1— 1\.\ (7, , ,, , , , , s I/C I ' / 0/3•:',;',,„_ ,' ./, - 7;,,,I ' '',.:704 , :':, ii,: ''://';ec'it_i6//'5 a 7,!;//_(€ (471/ 4 ,t).1, (,;-, (,)-1/1(2,-ii,/ O,./ a, )c(lit'' , ;(1:i ,/,-- -A'{itr'? / -* / ' ae-,.)e; ,7-,--,./f2 , , . , ei eilitdi ,g/eikevarq , 9 ale // , " (1 .f'c V t (ilyle . :.1':-K.:' .1`Y '',�; �£,�, ,if ',#� (i") � 7.0 ✓(j t ltd 1.7'`.' /' ded,.0 z i ,,1 ; ' z°i r!, 0 r r '(t',/,'',L11, 1( 216( -I itr, ,'el' rc2f 0� ' SSG%,� i,� Je '. '4T.� ` ''(1 �' 't /' A ) Cil 'I lit) ;w . , t'+yf , - ,oar ` , ' ,. �,,,4¢; t_ // s� ,.., .. „ A L .,,,,t,,, co , v 62,,J,(:),.,ce„ ,,, 1 ( ) .L... . i L...t.. ,04, _etr.,L.k , ,,,;, c_ 0, .:1_ ! ,, k. O. 1, , ,,,-, ,,,,,, :t .tA lc k-) cos ‘,,,,,t, ..,st 1 1 ; 1.0,,,,(r.,,, .,.-t,..4,1 r) . .) ./., ...( ax.iiidli...„„,, v,„1,Y 4, ..! C.. s �, t ' ; t /cei ,�C .t .K. ' - ' , '' ,� , /Y L a ( i„r 4 r 1 � .( , 1 .') �4� t ,/ aki v �./ .�;ri /1 to ',,-. 11....t(I�' e l IT) / ' I� k ' t,- ®i ip D ,i °Lye ,,),,,/,,,I, ,,t,..t., . ur u '. c !) --, -.44 t q:-I 1 f' I' ' : 'r r,11'1- ,' :`1 -„,/.. , :-, : , , /U11.2 3 : 4.e(IA: ",0 0 t :A.; I ; , ' ( C '_'-:„'.4', u 5, 9 4, P t, _ „ ,iti;t, C 1 ‘,-ii fit; � 1 p \) d , ‘\__If ; - c ,, ,, , i- /4 ,((i...4. el (z'.' ...." r 0 _4';',' ", C, /- 1/1/1 11 A fl '44 f *5 ' i' JGIAA o `'t-i 1 .( `✓� ,- ` '✓.t ,4 { `1, C„, ' ` ,--- . `")lk ' t-i,x.d �lnF latu't cU {C4 ',;11,/;, __1"�. i tom' ,, ,,,,,,, , ,, ,,,,„ , r ,fs 4♦ JOO '4 rt e j s >� i1 ' r, �5 s d (d.'„),.; :, O,, I bu f il r 1 , 1 i / a6-0(„,,', 'i'.' CA v,"'. .-tii ke c --wfv,ts ,-1-fAiko kcci c ' „,,,( , 1 ,.‘„,,,, ,,,,. _ to _., 1 6,,,A , ,.. ., _i JA V . ,....,.._pl C‘ _ ic- , 1, IC -Li ‘c, ,i-1--,,6D,; )b , , i .---,) _ _ , LiJi..c,i : 4A; ot.(, ‘ ,, . i H. , P ,--7,0(e.,, 0, - 1 "!. ns,%1_ fr,. ' :- r ,, ;? friAit4( ), L.)-(_ cc it.----, (lis.).(_,AC (A(3),,its-o_C:, "I 1 0 c ' c • 1 'l pc, ts -Ai a ' t ', : : (/,' Jki? '..L, S S:, 'i' 6( /00/4 O c (/ j)//:;(5 ,4 1/\,/, '44C,-P 5:--j1:: : aittCt } d. -gU e,37 ./; It-C (//- ,5(P:-.;O1 Z,,i ) /a ,e/I 5 -AL_ y a;iL, ,, qL--- il?) VS, Jiii ,.give,e( .5,,, ", - es)i-ei-, , / , . -6,..e -,--/ - aoL /5/6(-/ (c-./;(95,7r,--6/,d/6. 7. , ‘7 . , ,„, /7 (' ..,(-:: /Al is.,/,'d-tiviote,(&4/9fru.oci(tty: is I s, t1.5 hwi4 ,, ire,, // / ,�% �.-7, tis /' / r' ' , , , �if • r- , . r 1\ ,. 1 \ , illy f hat) ,!((.., Rid (7,i,r,,:'if 4. i(5-4,6 e8- i 'qap 64/Lis 9-/ _tv:..i),:yde.a) 00 ii.,(., :::*,,,,x-i c a,; ',.-.(' / i_, cbi,t: ' .f &'/1,0,0,-(6-,,,,,y alike /_l C C, i(z!,ci- )eo;rr:-,:-ci-.(--4. -gel.-4447. We 30/2„,,t,,,,e14 ,,taiic6t,',Le. , 4 i) ., ‘' " r''�6L1- Z , N(Oft(e7k2;444 (eLi III lit 9Wkd 111610-N4.96/it: W O4c eel. , �/ D Oil ti,/,, e7/L't'l_L- % f o Ai2 �,14;A �i((iha f s L-- 4,4def ,4 A.e. (IA /7) • -am;(4 eas,(heyi. ,'5) iff - 7 ,.,11 ri #4:eie?;t:. ' ,i'; ,'''..:11-)-(1..e:5; ,a- (lb ot,,,,ew, ,_ Cka , re , .,/ 14- ! y,;id e-, /ii-.7.?,,, ,,.,,„i !r" 1 1 r,!,) Altilj.f 41,-,A 1/ u '- (4 ti-C.) i 144__''5 ,(:(;).r`e•'� ,:#1.43 5 ." 1 j s (165 .'701qt ( (-(txf,.47 -P a Ira_,' le ark L'Il/ / i ,, a/;' Agit / 1 -(.,' rjerkt 45 P,(-;2 V-) --° /r 5 WI i d ,,,o„ / j,'gi ' (_/ •' '1- ,,tell o ref\x 7"; ;i(7/(:(/' : ' fl I, ''r, 2-h i i, Y6/ ' . - ,- , / ' ' 71.71;4( , , -,LI ',' ," ' ('' ./ . , .- i , -- / ii.,/, -fr fL -, (f✓ ,_f 6- ,-e,, ,/0 `44 :.:t. ,664- //' - as,'r(,7 4-Aki; szci.ty-1 6_' !,.--4 a_./ ( eiL(.,-77,,e2„.:0M, as a 3,/,; //,'"/!erof ,ta,./i().(/tr, oafe.,i-e, Jb kg:),-ti.i. (ie 41t4 iif(14:ti,(;;;' ,/,6)'1 (--e 6Aa 4 a Fr_,/r,(1,) - _-('5 ;.-.:-#- -,,?, (,/,,,,iy 1 LsW .1' i:),-)6_ (,g (I.,,,--a- ___ f 5:)."-,77 ( - ) - . 1/,/' i iL i 4 ,.,, ii a , 4..<!- ., it/04 Irk‘ 1 - / 4,4)/ '(t../ i - .,n_ t:v.),,_ , /6,!„06-6 aa,c/ . 7 er/,-144.141K-6(iekt la" v) -6 (/' /-"-- - c/ ' 3'7 ell- I lit(i ti(i 1/b eY(4.1 (7 6 5 ,/t j ()IX. I's 1 „ l d '9 eJ.,',;. ,!'t/,:i(-,v! f - /s, ,?.4 6 L:( /21c-e,jj,,a( • 1, ittf,C,-( (V-jt&ke ?:2,2 ,--(tP:,_), 10 ' ,. ,; , Z //). uill - ,,,, - '71 ' ' • C .- i -.,-- ( ' ? ,.,,,,t, , v... 7 /,_. ,,,,-e- 'el ji , , 6' ' P ''6.- 7 ._.w./P,'!) rcs '.1'itt 6' _� ) t k,'. l /). (4. Fl,, , I (/ 57.E / 9r ;��ycfir G l:�/ t�(L i; �J '�' .,..#/' i i •'-'� ' a C 6"' y 7 (' ' '1'��L �r' �/V L (.L'&'' I (i P �srv` lj .`/4/, ,,_ , ,, ,fr A 7 i •• I/ �i __ .e.'::.':1';'(/ ,� icy f-r`� . i1 � (. Lis' I .__, r7l)60..::; ow_ts'( "/f 42,p' 129(4.e ‘)-�4,,,t-t, e L.,y'i" /2Gr ! e, �,�L.��j S i. „...../i .‘ ... ,4 idi,CS;7L'il (5. ,,etz c-. . eri-L. L., S fi_ icriCalls4...Jitz41,---:_c__ , - ./ a-i- Lt/ 6,-„,,,! ;?ii, e7tr-T(,,,,,.. (i__;(// _,-,:/.1(..,,,(, ,e,, , ; ,t 'E( 4,,&.i LGEC i/L'�, ✓'6= r J tb el, at t:. -',, I, -.4 7;(4 c20 4/). i ‘ 69-1,,Y:11 ai;c- cee'-1(//�/ � ('y,` �^/dry///�� • /,n F ��-� / 4> l a za .., c.', lam, X '" o. J l > " ,-' J1J.")--(1 ¢car � � `f",�.�- � ..�' tote/ • 4i ,' i / Y Ft16— j./ ' t' J f1 L ) J J p a a 1 cY1 ; < , 1-'-' !.., "t11) ' ) 3LA 1,-"Cf•-k, c.4.t.--1 1 0--n/CSi 4 5 3 0 p -J =* , .k0110 C; 7 C, ILeo (c-iL 1 J'i v6.C1,,%'-1c 0J1/1S G� � . (- ''' (,' 4.71--- ...1) `.1 ; l, , j; k..., 2;4A,L___ ( (....-;-• if"•, .„ I 2,•••,' ,- 1- ,1‘,.. : 41' ( C_ r ) ; /,' . ...-1,- r V/, r - e \J is ..,.c J -: ,, ;j ! 0,1 c•11 \ I \t' F ( , +,, ice-,, p/ ' 1-'-x- ' ,),_, 'r 'fn '' /I '.i, C', tcr I j' 1 , r . , A .! A, { r- I , . , ? ,1 !, ... ,-, i _ ,liO � , 1 1 Jatr - V' - ..� . ,,C •1 .7.; . • _(. 4,,A-1., , '., /17._ie 4, ' \f,,,(.i,A, 11' .'/J1C' i V_Yjtiti /kL,CS ' 64(),,t6 L\ , 1 k_)? Z00 )(. :'" )b ' pi > ll ff ^`( lam' LfiL , / ii g(2 0.'.,,,, r ttel --'7_',C..),-1 :- -e-',0 k) '7 ''Y 3661,4 air( I dil. pikit -( a-, 'Le a/5114r-e-yir4e; iefi` r ,i " _;i4-,,y‘ ',et c it,/,',1./bt biii .,�4 ./ 4 le ir,1:1 161/ 6// 'k g& .C ' ^ 'v o,� { . './(-,'e Cg.,,'; 4 '1/ 56k. . ,1/) a (4 t_r''/:((:( qr,. .':_cyL/ Sa/615 r , ., /a e-tte 6,(.11".tpt etr -,.2s-74, c f i 4)/1/A., f \\ I- ,... q !:? '' 7 (c‹.Q."-tr •lit • • ' "' ' (-2 -/ 1;5 i6-4 1 V f/..L / 6 l 4-7 w c'C L,c= �,/ ` , a .' -'a�( J ,[/jp '(-76 (_ ( � //�/�1 / ` r' v2G i )"1 j 5 d �!/ ly flri y 1/(Y i` : `` ifiC , I '' 1 3 II. / • df[ 14 (! e_ 69/ i� .�FS c k I ,I r , i J_-, -1 , 'z ?.. , ..) (.,i,:f.;:,,i.,; i (ii' a.,, t1t,,,O4-orto ,)(2c./),.- , /_.„ ,,.._.„ „ .4 , ,, iy' , • , (. , • ,,( _e' i 6,, I r c4/,' 4.„' u:f.,—.(-,- i ,A47 , ,,/ (-17 P '/I) ;t1:1/ e6/ 1_ ;17 f://:=1‹ a eOl/g, ;':‘,q el"? (7O/11(/(41( 2 9 5/4 441 ;a//a/ c., I/Itii / r ,' 1.1 , ,,,,, i , ./ , 1, ,fs,(,1 , /6 r ti4 '6_S:/ 7,;, ./... f,",,l.-,,,,z, /),..7(c. 71' 5-(/& 4 °I!o'iiii-u. L& :; -,-,f -;c1 iii ' / �6;tt t, / sox: fie , fai ��( '., • !p l E� : . ,.., .�� C 1�1 ?f � a. cup's (4/ � ?��4 ` B -,1("iff,,i 66, 5 r-f) tettli:_a 70 �i ' Q 0 ' (tt'?"';'-'..-.6:; r)filtS frialT t) ' l" Z /J! 1 :ry',/:-.1),;` ;•� (/)/PV :4 f' Fl't(71 I., 1 t;:: If"L 76 11" ' .- / -74 li 6` d "Q.,, ail(oa,3"(47,4 , - ,-- : , 7 , , -, ,,, ( Li, " (/' (.,' -" A/ Lk: / t°.1- , / M" 7,4 (.71,1 &}'67/0,,,..(iL. ,/,(02,/,yi / til,-; a& .6d-p,(,/,,,,/ ... ..„,.. :/, i/1-v a (,1,‘,v7„1- .„( ,,f7,,,,,, , ,, , , ,,, „,t. ,/,_ _ .,.:,, c , , t ,,, , , _,..:,. , „.... . k.-.. I \\ le‘pt/eziefiae (1a/6 /{;t744./. ).15. z,,f2.t R;-,i,e':i.,/.." / i / .,i ��"'"r'r p. / r , / �,r �i , if�j��f i •)(.G' 7/ .v ,i.vA 1, ,' 1 0 7r^ ' ^r> ' ( fY L 4,( (,� .�eye gfriatteisx)if(iy-z. ai' ‘'`(.6 , , 11,242,Y s&avii..,1 ati O, -t,s:////;;, y v--;:Ygs-i4,b, � i z r, _ ' tom J 5irt�1 4' C^�` v li , i 6 7� C::�9�✓lJV -to .,;(_ 4','�L1!, f•t_ f l,/` "`�'E` ( ii al'?! f'/ /- /:,:i f/ i6/J iij1 ,,,,,' ,-, -/---, J- 4/wee/I $6 / " l (...'.. f1 - { I /f/- , '12 ,_"/'('/ q '/ - r v J - - (, , I ,i- ' 2_, 'l ri t''. ,}/)J' , _ �;'iJ /, ,1'l t , ,F �`4.r/f,>°� „ ((,y / 'l . ?, /rt t . 4 ', '-+ -,i t-T/ J 4_ v 7 y' II.? il %L ', _ A'yJ('_' ) 1:/ d l- } t I -! 1 ' 1 1,6,-:: -r -� ii, - M 1 _ , _ I .(7s , ,z)c Mfr,: 1- z ,s_fc_ � , � - A '-T _-k filk.V ' -.Aet !._/: o C..e P A.,//✓,_-L `J .\ LI/ 1 L - --2 J yv i, -d`f j_9 n--P ^ •1 ` !-,•J C4 6(44-S ,,,g, I - 5 () :)-:ir s"--V f‘-` (, -i u'DI {A_ 11 if .1 _ */: 1 rj-_— 42,- ---(' c) ,' .'"), 4 aA If' ( r'"'"-------- Z - ma.k ,4,11_,,,,,,_ _ . „.,,,-f .'•,) , 4 "2 ') 9 L'' f L!.I_,4) t; i)4i..s.'-‘3:,,,l', 0.,‘.._ \-c) .3 u1J ; \r. G. ; .'C. (_ , /).. Ji, IA js1 C�r./ `� 1 - I 4 _L,. ( / r 07 SeN:PA <IRA e 9,1 4eN( I (.0 pi_,, ,)- ‘Jv\_ --Als _!: 'k'e;::, _14,,, — ? c,..),:,: ,,,, e.. " ' :-L ! R_tet(k. 4,, '.0!,' IQ/V.4: Cic_):'Llii,v,e. .*,),,,,i ')...)/ CkAli - ‘'').."',1)..46 (V A m oabHilA_A):,(C 1, 601 u` - !, i' 5 ,,/''2,./t( l L < ti --HAI 3 ;) Y- .fib+,,r'c,! ,�:r r r .! Ju u3 6,'t'i t j V\ ,, LL('_- 1 t <el .''( ` .iii 4-0_'I`,/.4 , C Ai SO � - +-C r to /lX��'��CC J o l V TICA,R,'(kild'rc,1 0--ti A. O 1 e._. (mu i.k._(,-26( tuso ,,p,..cc,s tt\„, , cis,.„ tA__, ..; s 04 .1,,_,.J._$ (.:,Q,, :.: L (- 5 \_w' t-,.°,,,/ ---C-1474,04$:7;;-2,- ----- / , .e-i./ __e, e4-t_te 5. .e:).,', ._,-a 41 c?, ) ---) (if-7 "I:)-,',C ,.. Z,-,1 ,-= ,,-.7, 2,-_ ct - //* . ' - - ?, / re'2', -(4.-1 ‘..°4.:'.. -4 t p -.,_ __. ...-.4_,_i �/ r. (#(6 `� /L . , 1 ‘ (1 „..776,' v cy-.2., .c?,,17-te )e-4_,-(r--tv ' / . 3. C--)( , ' " ' ' ' 5---A i; (.114 .a_?_14 _. 00.-9eli 411,ir. ' , ,_,''. ' c'./ v#4.1 -7-4;,.:;',' 1,t71.4,/..C "/-A- ge,t."?; )-1' .!.-el?,/?.E, __/Ye/',Pe, //13itiCti‘i O!- ''5C r,,. We 7/C-((i4,-.1- ' 47 '2/die/El* 11 �" 4-,:.,_---L., �j1, r tf 4/(;-,a,, 1 1 `�r l�I ''. //1 ✓�' L1... 1 s p f , 4,-.4.' !/1/ .1ref. `t 'f4 `/� , �• J( Salt �.. �,i.5 (-/-0 fri. .L.O,_c_;) 7.3:- el-v,--/-L7 4..e......5 Jo ( ( (7 _ , , (7,. . _,.,,,./.4(( i..!zi ,,,,„ , �' A 4; 1,14"tp:-;/ .11.,. ... /9 ,, " e 3/35 o--7 5 1,ie-.5 41479 (Ai; /if 6u;i 't i • . 6, c645/dc;' ,.,(;1 c e #t v - , i , , ,...,.... , --ify a e -4,5 ,k---..p/c4.^.,.. /, Q//1-(((:?„--: -24 0 --Ile 1..,_ ,4.2 f' ce:-; s.-.) „„› ,/4-c,A,c_ ,:, 4 ,.,4,..e / , C,-,., i foii,2 fl;t4 A---- (OP t E 4 , i/e ) 444-et 0\-(k ;-0-7.4/16,e, ,, \ - 1 .„, .‘‘,..-- jil_.„, ui12 4<' ,t et , e.;IA/L.'!"c, ti:,-'i,i, , .-,__f_r ,,.:.:(- ; _;,., , ,;(_,L.c. _,,(2e,_ 6_, f Z- ,,,f444_,E' 11,t ,c,9 e,t. r by,,.- ,77,4fril -1- 444 v I, iere.,\._ e,,E3 _ _..? , 74;''' — delik',i.vl - =-14.) 4zA:t,! „Iiiii e--- C; u0Lir r n It G u. s 1 -- _ ! si f-- ,,, 7 4 cl . ' n r 8 p $_, (...,, c , ecx.). (.:A.-Le(141 --- L\-,....„ 0 O ),c , \-v es (0 _ 7., .. ts:--......... 0'( o C , e s •__ I, q„- 1,41*--2... / ._ C i. (.1.-:,t,,.(-) ;„ , ?n ',.._ A (., :<:.;) tAiut....,wLe (....vutc.A_A__,Q_(.;;;O...t-Pi.t_CI(,,'k ii",;_f, U(0.,LD-o 5 `-s� t._- ,,2,t�. C �� ', �� e��1�� (Ny f CiJLJL C'.A'lrl,�j 2 .0 p� �� U� 1,��t; '—E) l,�s 111.;(, 1`+) 1' " i C!' C--Lt ..r� l �.sf5-----.. lJ 1 p r P. 4.1 ty(A,A4 n 1 . L.Q c', 1 j..;.1 C—C,c7 0 C (1 e:, i cs :I_ c,dat,,c(ifiA., _ I 1 itsc-c-_ ,., 'e (7: c'r.:, ' A.P r..,3 ',,t,` CX) 1O( ;--r.LI' ,: A '; 1)A/it/I/I 1",Lii,M,C1,=,..y ----- 1 OG ; -_S 40 I.); .4ar (I) 2 ; ril _ n ti I r 44 4 _ Ai r `Giat,011:41,j CAA- 4421144rUMA.19 '*4 d �/Jr lJ'c ri((t,---- ' CiNt.f-v-c, I L, .1 ,--_,:- . ck...,(..t,t, i ,,Q- F Via""'"'_` v'a 6 -�°,.(..� c \_.1.4)(.1-ILL i ,' r c_ '11 4' k's_) v ,,os_A 1.,14"` ..„. , _ ...._ ...J..__.,„_, .(7. I �. t r' ti 6 /7 r"' 1 ' 0 .i CAS '(/ x... ex_14, ,_.ic-. 1-' 4. 0 V Vl r---Ro,v,_,j-----..--1: r . ,-,,,,t, p;, / 44,,,A,,_,, ,,,,, ,_#:,,i,,, , , & / - '' 1 kl/L.) r)ivini( fyt6 J' _'.‘ . TIO,/ Oxi ("i (t-u4--e P),._)-kc(( a rxp 44.k? ,/ 041 ��( Pe f( ciii�r �r )1 )}7; iii/pi ley;' (1: o' ,PL 1' 4 -P --71;:caz:/cIt '9. i.,1 /, a ,,/,(4, 1 (4 Ai"' di/J[1_ , i t., ,, .,:oLei _ !e' :( i _i_eie .4,Lir, -(' .,/,(/ it-'::::,/ :, : 7.74 du ' biz( izi_e741-ii /11,167,;, 41/acil '31 14),;(://,, ifil,tet-'7‘417 ,, ,',.- ,..ce.,/,,:y1,v/i, /�/ �i?" /i-V01:46- �', C ` a ,49,E 'w-, t 1' l,, ti /- A '‘ " I. - / - .,)-//// '' / , ' ",,, i ,/, ' •) ' ,.."-- . ..'/ : - 4ao, 4,e , iz,,,,,,,i,-,_-- ,, ,,,,, ,f,- , c/ . , ,.... , , , _ i t is ,.., _., .„ (..., ... r _ / ......g. , , 7u ., �� c,,,,V ,, ,tom ' '• l♦ ,,n 4 4 ,5a ,- �j/J�J{�>�{� ////,,,, / z.. /^r f> / . �r 9 ¢ / /4 a .,, / l.! a,e. cii./,'167'l' 1 e 0-1 ee,y, ,,,6 e/2,-66 , 9,-,;:i refal 1 /-- ' it / ,, - ( - ` vl.J r)14„p . . i , . _'..? J; ,,/z,:/„..•/ //..._ , „, .„...., '� �i ,rte (5- 7,',,2 t5 � LE l r ll 'f r R' / / // L)//1 7:;,/zure.,6i1 a;r z_i- . ,,,..,„ e' 41-,„ / 1:.- 7 / , , (.2 - i r` I , ••. /i , 1/: 1/7 -3/1AW 0' /1/(61 .1;/ 'X) 244.44 '' r 1 hoc il- -ih /L ( Li az€ a,,ie. ' o,-77;4, 5--/.*)-fc_(;f,,r 7.ey ad 4.1. r( y4 '7,.,:2 " ir k ° -7-(/),/,--R.A. Z,i; ry(_47,-, ., / ., -7/2 7A : ( V : 'Z-4:- : (-4-`F i' Lf 'l,' '' I'� ''t •' / - ��r' ,I. au-g,_;:,r,,,, _ ) ' / .1. / , . .. ,r ,i' f r ' ‘ 1 . (1 ''Ill- '_ •'' ',, .'"ie.., (, ' ,e 7/:/._r(VI-14 a it/ 16 OM it 01! ' 3. 9 r i ' --d i Gil _ , 4G✓7iWK ' W(- r1(71 ° 7.(( a e r /,,,k f 6 j: -I ', ,/1C,"2/a-_/-6, 1'; ,--;;;/(' /7 74 /61 1 L 1 �. C e,.2 1l' .1 ' ids' i01 ��r ,,�, .�- ( ,--I-z) V"t 0, ),:.4.•/ ♦L.L tt„_ i/'l 1.� ,/ '1 ti\-, ,_/,-..7/ 'i 6-&9 ( '.dlg J -d " ,o. .6 '..i ( & ? 1; it,n,iy , 97 / 4 ,viii `�/ ` - ,,T Zi:(''., . -- l A(i Ii?., . i f-) _ , if"' C ),Id‘---;:',_,;,:, c GUi CA.k)41 ,I,S) vv.v.c,„-t, • 4 . I 3.)(_v-7( Lo /1 'r J,'( c . , r uLc., 0 --i-vi_,,,,, r-,„i, if,>\.. di ii SAILv , ), ,' -,c 1,,,,i ,e,tt ( , 'i ,-' , ,./)_, tit,/t .(41, ),/y /1 '".,„/) ) ,„,. ,f, r, ) 4,:: ' 4/ 60 D'''', f/t_ , ( 1 L , ________ ____ i . 9 �'f �---f, /ill, _ ______ ___ 7 /-- . 1 ' 4 :37 , Lyku,,),:k>,/-1, g,e.,_:,',()_!.. ,, — ,,,),,,'.., ":4-,;'4,4! ,.:, 1 ../).;.,,,,,f, c +/-,i. -:Its 1 ;-,)( C2J7' afitc. t .,-- , _ , , ,,,,, .. . / / iw( L.,(„;' ,/. ', ii(i/ ' ,./. t)c.-i," ,o,,,, isVii -1_,/,AK,), /,,,, c . „, _ , ��l — '1,�� ,/�/ I. :�;, . e 9 ,y- , ( u l •, �, /.: , - ___// ,/1 , _ ., �i / Gf 1 i \ � F, i i t �1t:".", ' ! �`/" ../ ,r , ,^• , it . :, ' //f` J 64'. ` > ,%/^4 / /C� ' i ids " �itr�''✓' it f �/ !�/�✓ ��' �1/6.;4 / � ' / A / /. ,f i ),.,raerr'o-(4 1 /O a 6ve AO , qa..c- , , r9 0 ;.ket/71g f'61-1- 5 -n9 /41 t` O' oy,?j (,� l efff-yu izA Li i t it yit io,'Li; /// /le le../' ki. 10. 6. ✓V�- �!� j�/ 'il Ill I 1 ' y I?�,J,..�' : i.(_ /. 1'�t jIr'- ../,-*,.;-, f ae / , ae!--_, 'cl':',./i'' A ' . 9-v ( i/e• e . 7,ub '_ :�' tn./Z(_ ;'', ' "Gi ni` f(ii• '�S /P2 'l( ' 1 led1)t /4. t:6/2 /.., fi.7,,,, :„--2 4' 1!..,/,!;,1,_''.:,','.,:: )1 i'''7:_‘,//r hi'5 / , :.( ,2,,-)/21 eet a/;-/,/". , J . J ' 1 _le/ -7162 7Z--N1)(7/ ," (7O - 4 v..k, (72# 0/1./(ivi).,/ • f.eif.z 4..(a mit , oi yiti 1 q _ , ,,,0._ 4_i /1 s, 01.1:0,,,) 0 6ActV(di,,::,_, isodii ct(m.w__‹-.. ,,iik;:,.. ,p,.• 5Anzu de(iv,(dei; M P V,..../f 4,.:;,(4:1 ir f(_/ , 'Ai/T;(2 '/�/t 1 `4 , rl t.T( S ♦ / Opt v�^-1 _''''_1/. -` (C��rf ✓+ Y ac,._( i/' . .:: $ C/% a J 6�f:0-{ t ( ( -`�'�' .��'; :�/' 'bi ' �, :-'2' 4 , ,, " i • f (.-1.',/ &�'y' (i`a r) ....., //' pd ,,, a LA'S //�/' ' .ftr ,:e, cA, i...e Ort !/.1,7:': ' -'-/1/C ..,, ,, .. , •1. s 0.c:"az , ) ._ ,, ) '' ' ''': alt, '<._)%/7%.,t / 61.1(045, 11 ./;;/(, /e24/ .( 1,01/6( c OW'.(1 I, a it,c;;5:: 6,t.x_- --,,v/i,/,;z4a_(/(rsovipz ,diLic 11/(1{-0:-/ C //Pr / /6A,11 , t'', /' \(/ (c, ;5;!(// (9ted/LAL.t ' ''' ((' ON (' 1 V`;,,,,' /./',16.14/1 / : L.7'11.../I:./.,/,'/ (00 5C(U 0 V I ft 1' 1'1 1 A ki (a 4i,i/k/.7,/,,,,,,! Za4e / a, ,. i iYel ///VIII« ? t,A� .[ 28,;/._(1 /r',r 1/lES777 j .cif 7 /j ait?4ii_ ‘,_(271e64? ao a ,/ y, 6,.//:CC��%! 67/� . 6 ao,e Flood Stage The stage or elevation at which overflow of the natural banks of a stream or body of water begins in the reach or area in which the elevation is measured. Head Loss The effect of obstructions, such as narrow bridge open- ings or buildings that limit the area through which water must flow, raising the surface of the water upstream from the obstruc- tion. Left Bank The bank on the left side of a river, stream, or water course, looking downstream. Right Bank The bank on the right side of a river, stream, or water course looking downstream. 10-Year, 50-Year, 100-Year, 500-Year Flood A flood having a 10, 2, I , and .2 percent probability, respectively, of occurrence in any year or an average frequency of occurrence in the order of once in 10, 50, 100, and 500 years, respectively. The flood may occur in any year. It is based on statistical analysis of streamflow records and analysis of rain- fall and runoff characteristics in the general region of the watershed. 26 GLOSSARY OF TERMS Flood An overflow on lands not normally covered by water and that are used or usable by man. Floods have two essential char- acteristics: The inundation of land is temporary; and the land is adjacent to and inundated by overflow from a river or stream or an ocean, lake, or other body of standing water. Normally a flood is considered as any temporary rise in stream flow or stage, but not the ponding of surface water, that results in significant adverse effects in the vicinity. Adverse effects may include damages from overflow of land areas, temporary backwater effects in sewers and local drainage channels, creation of unsanitary conditions or other unfavorable situations by deposi- tion of materials in stream channels during flood recessions, rise of ground water coincident with increased stream flow, and other problems. Flood Crest The maximum stage or elevation reached by the waters of a flood at a given location. Flood Plain The relatively flat area or low lands adjoining the channel of a river, stream, water course or ocean, lake or other body of standing water, which has been or may be covered by floodwater. Flood Profile A graph showing the relationship of water surface ele- vation to location, the latter generally expressed as distance above mouth for a stream of water flowing in an open channel . It is generally drawn to show surface elevation for the crest of a specific flood, but may be prepared for conditions at a given time or stage. 25 Flood Profile A graph showing the relationship of water surface elevation to location, the latter generally expressed as distance above mouth for a stream of water flowing in an open channel . It is generally drawn to show surface elevation for the crest of a specific flood, but may be prepared for conditions at a given time or stage. Flood Stage The stage or elevation at which overflow of the natural banks of a stream or body of water begins in the reach or area in which the elevation is measured. Head Loss The effect of obstructions, such as narrow bridge openings or buildings that limit the area through which water must flow, raising the surface of the water upstream from the obstruction. Intermediate Regional Flood A flood having a one percent probability of occurrence in any year or an average frequency of occurrence in the order of once in 100 years. The flood may occur in any year. It is based on statistical analysis of streamflow records and analyses of rainfall and runoff characteristics in the general region of the watershed. Left Bank The bank on the left side of a river, stream or water course, looking downstream. Reference Po i nt A numbered point identifying a specific location for correlating the data shown in various forms throughout the report. 30 GLOSSARY OF TERMS Bearing The Horizontal angular measurement of a line, in degrees, east or west of a north-south reference line, ' Flood An overflow on lands not normally covered by water and that are used or usable by man. Floods have two essential characteristics: The inundation of land is temporary; and the land is adjacent to and inundated by overflow from a river or stream or an ocean, lake or other body of standina water. Normally a flood is considered as any temporary rise in stream- flow or stage, but not the nondinq of surface water, that resulis in significant adverse effects in the vicinity. Adverse effects may include damages from overflow of land areas, temporary backwater effects in sewers and local drainaae channels, creation of unsanitary conditions or other unfavorable situa'-ions by denosition of materials in stream channels during flood recessions, use of around water coincident with increased streamflow, and other problems. Flood Crest The max:mum stage or elevation reached by the waters of a flood at a given °cation. Flood Plain The relatively flat area or lowlands adjoining the channel of a river, stream or water course or ocean, lake or other body of standing water, which has been or may he covered by flood water. 24 COPY OF SPEECH TO BE GIVEN BY MAYOR GEORGE HALL AUGUST 16 , 1978 l l_ti om i SS lc;A Q,ZEVAQ • The City of Greeley was assigned the responsibility for planning wastewater collection and treatment facilities for the Greater Greeley Metropolitan Area as shown in the first figure. Also shown in this figure is the development area of the Weld County Comprehensive Plan. This assignment of Planning responsibility was made by the Colorado Department of Health and the U. S. Environmental •Protection Agency (EPA) as a part of their responsibility under the Federal Clean Water Act, 201 Basin Planning process. A Facility Plan for wastewater collection and treatment was prepared examining all the alternatives. Both citizen and local, state and federal agency involvement took place during this process. The result of the process was to recommend the alternative for wastewater treatment which included a regional wastewater treatment plant to be located near the confluence of the Cache La Poudre and South Platte rivers, known as the Delta Area. An Environmental Impact Statement was written by the EPA on the project. It concurred with the recommendation of the Facility Plan for the construction of a regional treatment facility in the Delta Area. A site selection study was made to determine which specific site in the Delta would provide the best access, would be able to serve the greatest area within the projected growth area in the Weld County Comprehensive Plan, not have signifi- cant archeological remains which would need to be protected and which would have the least amount of mineral resources, i.e. , sands and gravel, underlying the site. The specific piece of property selected is that which is presently owned by Theodore and Bertha Dill, for which the City of Greeley has an option to buy. This Special Use Permit is requested and required for the first phase of the Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant for the Greater Greeley Metropolitan Area. Throughout the planning process, both prior to the Environmental Impact Statement and following the issuance of the Environmental Impact Statement by the EPA, the same issues and objections were raised in every public forum. This hearing before the County Commissioners, we are sure, will prove to be no exception. At every one of these forums the arguments against locating the plant in the Delta Area are, for the most part, not supported by responsible agencies as we will show in the following statement. The issues that have been raised over and over again in the past and undoubtedly will be raised today are the following : Other plant sites 100-Year flood hazard Mineral resources Property values Ground water pollution OTHER PLANT SITES INVESTIGATED FOR THE REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT In the facility planning process numerous sites were inves- tigated, either to serve as the single site for a Regional • -2- Wastewater Treatment Plant or where two sites together might be considered for portions of the Regional Treatment Plant. The City of Greeley is presently upgrading the First Avenue plant to serve until approximately 1995 when it will be phased out and replaced by an expansion at the Delta plant. The First Avenue plant is totally within the 100-Year Flood Plain as shown on the second figure. This figure is taken from the report "Flood Plain Information - Cache La Poudre River, Colorado Volume 2, Greeley - Weld County" prepared for the Larimer Weld Regional Planning Commission for the Department of Army, Omaha District Corps of Engineers, March 1974. This figure is an enlargement of a portion of Plat 5 of that report. .The sites east of the proposed Delta plant site were also considered. The Comprehensive Plan does not indicate that the area between the Delta site and Kersey will be a growth area. Therefore any interceptor sewer pipe from the Delta to the treatment plant site would likely not serve any significant number of users. The costs for a treatment plant east of the Delta plant site was shown in the Facility Plan to have a 1977 construction cost of $2.7 million more than a Delta site which,because of delays, would now be expected to cost $3.5 million more, The present construc- tion cost for the first phase of the Delta Wastewater Treatment Plant is estimated to be $6.5 million dollars. The City of Greeley does not believe that it is in the public' s best interests to spend 54 percent more for con- struction to move the plant further east. In fact, no matter where the plant is located there will likely be several nearby residents who would rather not have the plant located next to them. Unfortunately this is a price that must be paid for both growth in an area requiring larger treatment facilities, and also for the protection of the environment by requiring greater levels of treatment before -3- discharge. While on the subject of cost and delays, it is important to note that any delays in the Delta Plant cost taxpayers about $50,000 every month in inflation. This cost does not include the extra work required to readdress the same arguments in hearing after hearing. 100-YEAR FLOOD • The most recent flood studies covering the Delta Area have led the State Water Conservation Board, which has the responsibility for determining the 100-Year Flood boundaries for the State of Colorado, to state in a letter to the County Planning Commission that "Our review indicates that the proposed site is located beyond the limits of the 100-Year Flood Plain. However, the 100-Year flood limit is located along the fence line on the east boundary of the proposed treatment site. " The third figure shows the 100-year flood plain at the Delta site. The arguments about the location of the 100-Year Flood Plain are based on old reports, and maps showing the extent of flood waters from previous floods. Improvements on the South Platte river system since that time, such as the flood control reservoir behind Chatfield Dam, appear to be ignored by the opponents of locating the plant in the Delta Area. We do not believe it is in the public' s best interests to ignore such improve- ments, for to do so would be to spend the public ' s money twice, first for the flood protection improvement and secondly, for the unnecessary flood protection for each specific project. MINERAL RESOURCES The State law, together with the Weld County Mineral Resources Plan which cover the protection of mineral resources, -4- essentially require that wherever a mineral deposit is considered to be of commercial value, the area may not be - used in a manner which would interfere with the present or future extraction of such deposit. The Colorado State Statute suggests that the State' s geological survey standards would be used in determining whether a deposit is of com- mercial value or not. The Colorado Geological Survey in a letter dated 26 June 1978 to the Weld County Department of Planning Services stated that "The present economic viability of the sand and gravel resources is very marginal and the future viability is uncertain. " and "At the present time the economic viability of the deposits is severely limited by the relatively low gravel content, high estimated reclamatiof costs and by the small size of the area. " The site which the City has selected for the Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant has the lowest gravel content of any site in the area investigated. The site is in the best location with regard to the County' s Comprehensive Plan to enable the plant to serve the greatest area without undue costs associated with locating the plant further away from the development area. In the State' s letter they suggest that a condition of granting of the permit be that should the plant cease operation, that the land will revert back to some use which would not prohibit future mining of the gravel resource. The City of Greeley would not object to such stipulation in the granting of the permit. The Environmental Impact Statement prepared by the EPA stated that "Since the total amount of aggregate resources along the stream valleys is quite large, the alternative facility' s plans will not, in any case, result in significant losses of critically needed sands and gravel. " The Colorado State Statute defines the term "commercial mineral deposit" as that which" . . .has significant economic or strategic value -5- to the area, state or nation. " It is our contention that the amount of gravel underlying that portion of the treat- ment plant site to be covered (approximately 23 acres) • cannot be considered to have a significant economic or strategic value to the area, state or nation, and thus is not a commercial mineral deposit. PROPERTY VALUES There is always a controversy as to property values sur- rounding a proposed treatment plant. If an area is already served by a treatment facility and that treatment facility is replaced by one closer to the area of service, then property values in the vicinity may be expected to decrease. However, in this case the area is not served by adequate sewage treatment facilities, in our opinion. The treatment plant will serve the Greater Greeley Metropolitan Area including the area surrounding the plant. Thus the property values will be increased to potential residential homeowners. As pointed out before, the area is identified as a growth area in the Weld County Comprehensive Plan despite the present land use. That is, although some of the present owners would like to retain the agricultural and rural nature of the neighborhood, it appears inevitable that development increasing the density of population in the area will occur, and in fact is being planned for by the County. The County has indicated that this is the area in which they would -- prefer growth to occur. Therefore the County should support the City in its efforts to supply these essential services. GROUND WATER POLLUTION Objections have been raised to the treatment facility because of concerns that the ground water in the Delta Area would be polluted by a treatment plant. Since the treatment -6- structures are concrete tanks with sealed bottoms and the pipes are designed and constructed not to leak, we expect no pollution of the ground water to occur from the treatment plant. In fact, there is much more likelihood that the existing individual waste treatment systems are polluting the ground water, including any wells used for domestic purposes. The treatment plant in the Delta Area, because it would be available to serve those residences, would very likely decrease the amount of pollution of the ground water. The County Health Department in a letter dated 19 June 1978 (Exhibit A) states, that "When the water table is only 3 feet deep (as a local resident stated in the Hearing before the Weld County Planning Commission) , a conventional septic system poses a serious problem to water quality. Unless the absorption system is lined with impervious material, the septic effluent may enter the ground water before it has been properly filtered by percolation through the soil. Therefore, any existing septic system located near ground water (within 4 feet) has the potential of polluting that ground water. " SUMMARY The City of Greeley has been thorough in its examination of alternatives for serving the Greater Greeley Metropolitan Area as required by the State and the Environmental Protec- tion Agency. The proposed Delta Wastewater Treatment Plant is not only compatible, but also will satisfy the future needs in support of the Weld County Comprehensive Plan. The mineral resource underlying the site cannot be considered to be a commercial mineral deposit because of the low gravel content, because it is too small an area and because it cannot be considered to have significant strategic or economic value to the area, state or nation. The Delta plant will be located outside of the 100-Year Flood Plain as stated by the -7- State agency having jurisdiction and is in a location pro- . viding the greatest good for the greatest number, which has been the traditional and accepted concept for public agency programs. The City of Greeley requests that the special use permit be granted without further delay. The issues have been addressed in numerous meetings before many different approval agencies including the Council of Governments, County Planning Commission, the State Department of Health, the Water Quality • Control Commission and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. To' delay the decision further or to deny the permit would not serve the public ' s best interests, would increase the cost for adequate sewage treatment to the citizens_ of the Greater Greeley Metropolitan Area and would also have the effect of delaying the inception of better treatment of the wastewater from the area. The City of Greeley recognizes legitimate concerns of the people of the area, both those who are for the plant to be sited in the Delta Area and those against. The City of Greeley will do everything reasonable to accomplish the goal of protecting the health, safety and welfare of the citizens and to protect the environment, which includes the air, land and water. • -8- i',..1 T• _t ice' — r _ t �tL• { - ' (,,,, ` i. 'I , VI 1 i It • i(„9.-1, WIZ I \ n ;� PA . ; 7 ;\1`, i O Z N ti Q `f 1 � �� 1 � 1 ' 1 r):;(- T�] � MU 7 1 IN - �!•---;#--t-'• -,` - ' - : . \ :eV 1 - �r---4 • /!' M a . 1 ( 1/; \ , aT� 1 1 -]Z I -`71 • M' •,- ___ �� , ''-,,.--,''�Y c t •� ,ter^ '� ,� ( 1 �-• 1 1� t- 7.•24.A.7.1 N • 4,, \. ,L.,..i . ," ,.., ..,, -r ` I .....'"--4-1,',..•Y F• .'1� Lam, y �`.- `i`1 I I r t q i a F. ? 1 a ftt^—s, ' / ,, C. -nf } ViV:•�,� � te /1 , \�• rr : • . '4 11 l '' ' .-jc •k t . . � ti `` o', _ t ••7c\\ > is-til, ,.. •1`—'_ r-1...--)----A•- • yc, ¢(,.,1 / _) y , . I/ • 5 IV "'-'-1. 1C ' ''''. <-4''7.‘'s',.'• k,'.V-.t.t.' l 1 •-4 • ,, ,,, -:0;_-_-- ','-?,,--,..):''... :A-4. • - 't.----‘ •1 t =L t`—L.`v-'mo•' , f M �, r ,• t 'l _ . 1 , C} J • - \ :'"- , S'` •' , t\3 I. •ZDI-N `.........7‘ f, \-• 1 \ 1: t f: ;{ 1 . ti--., --N ,, /t ? / N. ` r� r -/ i. I//r' '. U Il�• I \...• 4� -r�11`�,�- `;-/ \ �•f r r`';.�; lid r1 • I/ U • 1,j,-L. A\ ` ,�/ \ , r � -17".^ ,1• 117 ,) - -�'l y. ` .`i t v,. -, ,i, ./- \ (�;,.n ' '�, I • L / "tt i ., _ �1 f 07":...7eLts\ / r a� / . ( ,1. .-.► `\ ,� \Xd ,�iN grr',r.4'; 1`;. VE- - ..00`,` s trip'VP. 41r '..• "'et.''11(^5N,. .)•:•\740.(1 , i-...,- `.•:. . es,i1.411,:l ,..... i ,-;/--k., lk, ." ' .....„,i.„4„...) . ),,,,,,it-. _ 1 .: • .,, L,.., _...,. .!'a may .— Of ',.:: k 1.—. �•' �-� o`.r-- - � r+ q 1 w ,-, / / 1 Ni_x 4• .; t-_ y s_ ; _ f '- l• r/ 1 •: \ f 0 J r •'''i d •�d co 0 S.-.....\14,..,,,/... •,___... , --""--s-i._- . , ." ----4 i- • ‘ '1 0..\"&:, ,* ...... x . e�� .1 _ '',/' ,� '' 1 O -� per.: . - ,.1_, .,.- - ; , __, --,-- „- )) ;_,,- ;I 1._ (.9 N ,/I.4....-:/.—...—, :,-.., '•4I •� - ' �tY�\' - • '•� , ^1-L1 —,'1 r j . ,''Y ' f"fitly t v ,, a v, -'r� `�•`./ ▪ Y. lNr�4cy \•, r r _ r 1- "` •�' � .'St ` Li. ..,-.-1.- .; ,j!•' • -,dici> - t 4\41. -,-,..:;/, t-___ ,. : • is 'N\ 'N- 4.. .." \ 7 -) , .,,,/,`" • r 1 t ',1 ''' I • .. .- .--- i'------;/.. - . • , - :;:4`,..- .,-• ,'.:.;‘ '\' - - tiy „. P‘'•‘4,'\..1.:-.... ':::;14 a...4 2 '''e:,_,..\., '''':,,'.i,,'. .,4 1S\fit y` - l \~• �- f----4-----.1 `�.�J I, �l',,t \ �ry ,.•IC\Y" • - • y , - • - �+.` y-/ a+ti. „S\\ '`• ''R--- -: ,,• y, J 1r sir � i` { \, ` C - ,rr ,"N • s • a s` k r\••CQ)•-�} :....4,0'" • Ro-Y ,, c i it,,.r-- 1 t`X13 • '- `� r` q ,(1�;\ f�v • ✓ - �'- - „y , / a� - - - - LL' . •_ -•-` A kips 4,• \.•V .,.'.5. -""7"..-Lam• �.v 41".1,‘ /1!! \' i / L r ►, %.,, .-,c,i,S, . 2 .W.,./.0 -, /�' 'l )( ` ' ti tip.. 1 • r-� r ,--t�;i. - I - as •, ' • 4 II f `� , , • - - r, r.+ • 77 -f. , 7,' • ,`• r ''mil .-' :� (t '.. '' K -� ;• '\ - •y q"i' 'jam \ '1t� a'i..,f, Z • .. - i '' Y.- --40:7-, ---, . .. • l''.4,,vt . ... ..4. .k r — . ..„ . . ,, '\''' rl, j161 Illetv."6 =III I ..t. .".., minal 2 ,14.V.i( '• cl0•• A. i �• r+''.'*1' �•I ." Tie Q�k+a �� % 0 • • -�'' / ''fir �^ f 4 "-:: e �' " �;\\�"•.1,,,‘ „E > \ 1 P I -/ 1. {0 ..\'‘i-& .\k! O ,44; i'I.,, -.- - i „ ' ' '' '., . 4454,,S3 40Vr • • • • / J r sip • r - J' ` '4 A ~ ffil A •' \� `';,t-'*-;"- ' '� ...sr . / i r- , 1 Via , �` / •r ,, O 0 ) '. V.41"... , -' -1 ' v" /--, ---._1 ---% , -.1-%715'7-----„.! I . e ' e,...,. 4. W.77 ..-' s\e''-4 ,mji °"*1 • r." • . ..• tr4.er l A.J. /" ' + / /' J L a' • a I\,:)1;7'-4'. a 414" iar Lt. r J / 4T7 / -�l `., 9" V j'�: V IC's / jlA/, flifitl (/i 1 ..- --. ,t- 4 '-'1:I ' k • L. L. '' t Ili ' W i O O I.,1,I f . , 'fril 1 !i . • ,, r-"" ......", (-I________.--__j cn- Y $ 7a I I 'i0, • ,T _t---- - �'Y}a h rI f , ! L S ail • I I I ; #*r ' '' .COI it , � 0 \D 44�,. IL _�t9 L f } , . . - \ '" - I (..) ! ( _ ,,,,,,i: • i al 9 1 \ ,4,:\'') i il • y 1 1 ..- ,„ I f ,EX /Z3/T • / C BOARD OF HEALTH 1/Veld elci ounty Health Deportment DAVID WERKING DDS Greeley FRANKLIN D VODER MD MPH Director • 1516 HOSPITAL ROAD RALPH MB Greeley WILLIAM BLICK Roggen GREELEY, COLORADO 80631 coms DEFFKE Greeley (3031353-0540 DONALD HERGERT Windsor ANNETTE M LOPEZ Greeley HERSCHEL PHELPS JR M D, Greeley KATHLEEN SHAUGHNESSY Ault June 22, 1978 JOE STOCKTON Glcrest /2 , CH2M HILL JUN 27 1971 h)12000 E. 47th Ave. Denver, CO 80239 toy Coic •ATTN: Dennis Sandretto �• RE: Acceptibility of septic tanks in the Delta Area Dear Sir: We have no permits on record for individual sewage disposal system installation in the immediate vacinity of the Delta site. However, when the water table is only three feet deep, a conventional septic system poses a serious problem to water quality. Unless the absorption system is lined with an impervious material , the septic effluent may enter the ground water before it has been properly filtered by percolation through the soil . Therefore, any existing septic system located near ground water (within 4 feet) has the potential of polluting that ground water. If I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to call . Sincerely, Frank1iM D,. Yoder, M.D. L-/ FDY:dr cc: Darryl Alleman - John Hall, Director of Env. Health Services • • t E I )1 1 I MI t•I 1 HI PI ANININf `;rr vIC[ WELL)COUNTY CENTENNIAL CENTER 915 10th STREET t\ GREELEY,COLORADO 80631 GARY Z. FORTNER qv; PHONE F DIRECTOR OF PLANNING }} �, ; PHONE (303) 356.4000, EXT 400 • COLORADO May 1, 1978 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Enclosed is an application from City of Greeley for a Special Use Permit for a Regional Wastewater • (sewage ) Treatment Plant This item will be heard before the Weld County Planning Commission on June 6, 1978 . If you have any comments or suggestions, may we please hear from you before May 16 , 1978 . The 1 oca- ti on of the parcel of land for which this application has been submit- ted is Pt . NA SE*, Section 11, T5N, R65W Thank you. Location of the proposed site is 18th Street and Holly Street . 0 AA Assistant Zoning- Administator Enclosures • WE l_D COl1NTY COMMISSIONERS GLLNN K EiILLINGS VICTOR JACOEIUCCI ROY MOSER NORMAN CARLSON rim ',HI IE,J�.IARF mdnORRflDUn ! To Chuck Cunliffe Date May 30 , 1978 COLORADO From Drew Scheltinga subjectCity of Greeley S . U . P . ( Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant) The Engineering Department has reviewed the application prepared by CH2M Hill and the site in reference to roads . There has been no drainage information supplied as of this time. The report indicates that design would not begin until the Special Use Permit was granted . There are no records at hand defining the right-of-way on Holly Street or 18th Street at the site. It should be the applicant ' s responsibility to clarify what and where the right-of-way is . Eighteenth Street will not bear the impact of increased traffic during the construction of the proposed facility . Consideration should be given to requiring the applicant or it's contractor to restore 18th Street and Holly Street to its original condition after completion of the project . No major traffic impact from service vehicles or employees during normal operation is expected . The report indicated the City ' s intent to pave Holly Street from 18th Street to the plant entrance . Design for that improvement should be approved by this office . 0hkw- S c 3 Drew L . Scheltinga Civil Engineer DLS : sar 111gLP Y1978 �+ R Wed �® �laaaia CDON v g 41711Wss• CO SIPIZLA IY1Y eld County Health I"l ltl BOARD OF HEALTH Department DAVID WERKING, DDS,Greeley FRANKLIN D YODER, MD, MPH RALPH AAB, Greeley Director 1516 HOSPITAL ROAD WILLIAM BLICK, Roggen GREELEY, COLORADO 80631 DORIS DEFFKE, Greeley (303)353-0540 DONALD HERGERT, Windsor ANNETTE M LOPEZ, Greeley HERSCHEL PHELPS, JR, M D, Greeley May 11, 1978 KATHLEEN SHAUGHNESSY,Ault JOE STOCKTON, Gilcrest TO: Gary Fortner, Director Planning & Zoning - Weld County FROM: Franklin D. Yoder, M.D. SUBJECT: Regional Wastewater Tr tment P1 t, City of Greeley This department has reviewed the Special Use Permit for a Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant as requested by the City of Greeley and submit the following comments: 1. A fugitive dust emission permit must be applied for through this office. This permit will apply to such activities as earth moving and road building during the construction phase. 2. An emission permit must be applied for through this office for any process emitting air pollutants to the atmosphere. 3. Noise levels shall comply with those standards listed in 25-12-103 CRS 1973. 4. We concur in the need for a regional wastewater treatment facility for the Greeley metropolitan area. FDY/hv cc: John Hall, Director Environmental Health Services �� 191 f MO eCt tft ••� t i V CI .-2M HILL 4,-6212- engineers planners 4-) 301 �J economists 5.1\/ CO N sclentlsts r) RAG vA w • 19 June 1978 V°°% slat Ol D10828 .D7 669Z9SVC,2 Weld County 915 10th Street Greeley CO 80631 Attention: Mr. Tom Honn, Zoning Administrator Gentlemen: Subject: City of Greeley Special Use Permit Application Mineral Resources As we pointed out in the hearing before the Planning Com- mission on 6 June 1978 , the gravel (mineral resource) under- lying the property presently owned by Theodore and Bertha Dill for which the special use permit application is based is not worthy of mining under the Weld County Mineral Resources Plan. The Weld County Mineral Resources Plan states: "The basic purpose and intent in developing the plan was, as indicated in the Weld County Mineral Resources Study. . . 2 . To provide, both during the mining process and after mining operations have been completed, for the reclamation of land subjected to surface disturbance by mining operations; 3. To provide for the protection of the County' s basic resources such as water; . . . 5. To protect and promote the health, safety and welfare of the people of Weld County. " Rehabilitation costs are the responsibility of the mining operator (the present requirement on the zoning request by Best-Way is a good example of this) . The geological survey claims that develop- ment costs should not be included in the economic evaluation of the commercial mineability of the deposit. We believe this is in error. In addition, we believe that the costs to develop the site for use as a suitable foundation for a sewage treatment plant to serve the County should also be considered in view of the fact that the County' s purpose and intent as stated above is to provide the protection of the County' s basic resources such as water, but also to protect and promote the health, safety and welfare of the .peoile of I)rllvrl ()Iln i• EJ I 'Unll l b ill,\\P IM'. I h•nv1•i, ,1I1n,nl11 l4U14'1 4115 4,'I 61 •U Weld County Page 2 19 June 1978 D10828 .D7 Weld County. We submit that the purpose of a regional wastewater treatment plant is to accomplish both of these items. The site selection study was performed in an area which had earlier been determined to be appropriate for a treatment plant to serve the greater Greeley Metropolitan area in the most economical means possible keeping in mind all resources including the environment. The Environmental Impact Statement prepared by the U.S . Environmental Protection Agency as a step in the planning process for the regional wastewater treatment plant stated that "Since the total amount of aggregate resources along the stream valleys is quite large, the alternative facilities plans will not, in any case, result in significant losses of critically needed sands and gravel. " Further, with regard to the deposit the Colorado State statutes define the term "commercial mineral deposit" as follows: "Commercial mineral deposit means the natural deposit of limestone used for construction purposes, coal, sand, gravel and quarry aggre- gate for which extraction by an extractor is or will be commercially feasible and regarding which can be demonstrated by geological, mineralogic or other scientific data that such deposit has significant economic or strategic value to the area, state or nation. " It is our contention that the amount of gravel underlying that portion of the treatment plant site to be covered (approximately 23 acres) cannot be considered to have a significant economic or strategic value to the area, state or nation. The Weld County Mineral Resources Plan states on page 5 that: "Weld County contains extensive deposits of sand and gravel. " A part of the argument for not covering mineral deposits with permanent structures until mining has taken place rests with the issue of future economies of operation and sale. There can be two interpretations of the word future. We can either think of the future in terms of the short-term such as the next 50 years or we can expand to an infinitely long period of time. Economic evaluations for an infinite future are ludicrous. Some economic evaluations could project for the next 50 years, and we contend that the mineral deposits underlying the site in question cannot be considered to be significant within a 50-year period. The proposed sewage treatment plant is expected to have a life of no longer than 50 years, and, therefore, the use of the term permanent structure must be held in the same context as the word Weld County • Page 3 19 June 1978 D10828 .D7 future. That is, if the structure is only expected to last 50 years, then the mineral deposit underlying the site may, in fact, be accessible once again (as will be the case in 1990 for the First Avenue Plant structures) . Therefore, we must restrict the use of the word future to a short-term period during which the gravel underlying the site cannot be considered to be of significant economic or strategic value to the area. The Delta area is the best location for a regional waste- water treatment plant as determined by the facilities planning process required by the Environmental Protection Agency. Arguments continue to suggest that the treatment plant be located at the First Avenue site or at a site east of Kersey. The First Avenue site will be completely inundated by the 100-year flood and construction of the facilities in that area would likely not be eligible for 75 percent funding from the Environmental Protection Agency as stated in their regulations. It was shown in the Facilities Plan that an alternative location of the plant by Kersey would, at the time of that analysis; cost approximately 150 percent more than the cost of the facility in the Delta site, without any significant benefit other than to remove the plant from slightly higher density population than is in the area now. Growth is not expected to extend much beyond the Delta area, as shown in the Weld County Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, a plant by Kersey would not serve very many additional people. Given that the Delta site is the best location for a waste- water treatment plant to protect the health and safety of the people of Weld County, we selected a site which has less gravel than any other we could find above the 100-year floodplain. That site is located adjacent to Weld County lands which were purchased for the purpose of mining gravel. There will, therefore, be over 50 times more gravel avail- able in the immediate vicinity of the Delta site , which is readily available, more economical to mine (because of its higher gravel content) , and of a better quality of gravel because it is in the Poudre River system. Also, there are even greater gravel supplies not presently owned by the County further upstream in the Poudre River basin. We ask that the special use permit be granted to enable the City of Greeley to begin design and construction of the • ✓I Weld County Page 4 19 June 1978 D10828 .D7 • Delta Wastewater Treatment Plant to serve the greater Greeley metropolitan area. The gravel resource underlying the site cannot be considered to be of significant economic or strategic value during the life of the treatment plant. If you have any questions on this matter, please call . Ver .7 truly yours, • . Zi7..,>,-// ,---, (7/.--,. Dennis A. Sandretto, P.E. Project Director bjs cc: Darryl Alleman, City of Greeley • • CE 12M 0o H ILL r G i2�� engineers • Ntb 4 s� planners co JUN 19- economists `L �8 -13 scientists REC�'f 1/FD 30 May 1978 Pia Oh7g• corn�l0e D10828.D7 G`> �� >l81169d�� Weld County 915 10th Street Greeley CO 80631 Attention: Mr. Tom Honn Zoning Administrator Gentlemen: Subject: City of Greeley Special Use Permit Application Patterson Ditch--Delta Irrigation Company Per your recent request the following information is pro- vided regarding the Patterson Ditch as it relates to the City of Greeley' s Special Use Permit Application for a wastewater treatment plant to be located on property pres- ently owned by Theodore and Bertha Dill. The correct name for the company owning the water rights in Patterson' s Ditch is the Delta Irrigation Company. The company has a May 1 , 1871 decree for 19.92 second feet. There are presently 48 shares of stock, 17 which are owned by Weld County. The three shares of stock owned by Ted Dill would be purchased as a part of the City' s purchase of the Dill property for the treatment plant site. There are two stockholders downstream of the Dill property. Mrs. Middleton owns two shares of stock and is immediately adjacent to and downstream of the Dill property. The 17 shares owned by the Weld County Board of Commissioners are also downstream of the Dill property. The president of the Delta Irrigation Company is Mr. Norman Carlson, Weld County Commissioner. Jeannette Ordway is Secretary and their phone number is 356-4000 extension 223. The following is a list of the stockholders, the number of shares owned and their address. Denver Office ❑ 12000 E 47th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80239 303/371-6470 Weld County Page 2 30 May 1978 D10828.D7 Shares STOCKHOLDER ADDRESS 3 Ted Dill Rt. 4 Box 189A, Greeley CO 1 W.C. Mathews Rt. 4 Box 190, Greeley CO 2 Gale McArthur 4800 N. 68th St. , Unit 242, Scottsdale AZ 2 Lloyd Branch (c/o Charles Branch) Box 36 Evans CO 80620 3/4 William Israel Rt. 1 Box 230, Greeley CO 1 Estate of Roland Krier Rt. 4 Box 18, Greeley CO 4-1/2 William Roth Rt. 4 Box 319, Greeley CO 1-1/2 Ronald Jurgensmeir Rt. 4 Box 184, Greeley CO 1/4 Joe Garcia 3025 8th St. , Greeley CO 1/4 George Walker Rt. 4 Box 177 C, Greeley CO 2-1/2 Russell Squires Rt. 4 Box 183, Greeley CO 2 Mary Jane Davies & Diane Peters 2140 Fern Ave. , Greeley CO 2 Irving Middleton Rt. 1 Box 188A, Greeley CO 17 Weld Co. Board Commissioners Box 758, Greeley CO 1/4 Alexander Grauberger Rt. 4 Box 184, Greeley CO 3-1/2 Dewey R. Marcy 3226 E. 18th St. , Greeley CO 4 James Clark Rt. 4 Box 184, Greeley CO 1/2 Douglas Howard 3226 E. 18th St. , Greeley CO 48 18 If you have any questions on this matter please call. Ver truly your , ,-dill/ -L7�-7 Z--`. - ennis A. Sandretto, P.E. Project Director ksm cc: Darryl Alleman i ADDENDUM Specific Performance Contract (Farm and Ranch) Legal Description - - continued _ Beginning at point which bears south 0°13'23" west 2,657.22/from the north- east corner of Section 11, said point is the northeast corner of the N-SE4 of Section 11: Thence south 89°11'46" west 323.75/to the True Point of be- ginning: Thence south 0°14'10" west 1,342.75; thence north 89°44'29" west 1,837.07/thence north 29°27'24" east 567.24; thence along the arc of a curve right whose radius is 425.OO'and whose long chord bears north 35°01'32" 82.51'; thence north 40°35'52" east 647.19; thence along the arc of a curve right whose radius is 200,OO'and whose long chord bears north 24°06'02" east 113.59; thence north 7°36'12" east 121.98; thence along the arc of a curve right whose radius is 50.00/and whose long chord bears north 48°23'59" east 65.16= thence north 89°11'46" east 984.07/to Point of Beginning. Said parcel contains 43.12 acres , more or less. Purchaser: Sellers: • CITY OF GREELEY e'eeAd.e -e--)t--egf-- /--7--(777 bOeti ` (t 7/2,go ,_c-x-78 Theodore Dill date date s i�,4 ez- /2, (7(2., -,'- /s c--Jre Bertha Dill date C �'12's .c am V: `fit Sgigo A 6`�La J -- - ----- -I-A - -_r-_ -rte - - June 27, 1978 SUP-362 City of Greeley Jim Edwards, Fire Chief o£ the Western Hills Fire Protection District , indicated in a telephone conversation that they had no objections to this request concerning fire protection for the site. I • • 131411�j�� TOWN OF KERSEY AUK 19 `%� P. O. BOX 67 `� RERREY. COLORADO 80b44 �0O � �� t`lcld C,d,;ty YHON6 $63.1682annr'ng eo^��isslos L� August 15, 1978 iI = - � ; ,6Z�2Lti 1 ill, ' I r 14781,211 ll/ Ed Dunbar, Chairman �J r2L_t �ls. Weld County Commissioners CQEzz, Weld County Complex Greeley, Colorado 80631 Dear Mr. Dunbar and Commissioners: The Kersey Town Council has discussed the proposed Delta sewer treatment plant and has done some study of the proposal. Two objections have been raised by the Council: 1 . The Town of Kersey is in the direct path of prevailing northwest winds from the site toward Kersey. Odors would be almost a constant plague in hours per day and days per year; 2. Real Estate in the Kersey area would be greatly decreased in value . Ever prevailing odors do not entice people to buy land and homes already established, certainly not to establish new homes as has been anticipated for Kersey growth. Sympathies of the Kersey Council extend truly to landowners anywhere in the vicinity of the Delta site. However, the situation with respect to this proposal becomes very critical for the Town's future growth if the presently proposed site for the project is confirmed . Values of Kersey property would spiral rapidly downward . Within recent years a lagoon has been established for waste from the Monfort Packing Plant . This lagoon is east of Greeley. Residents in the area of the lagoon testify to unbearable odors emanating therefrom and the residents of Kersey itself are also often plagued with these odors. The project, apparently, is not satisfactory; according to some, a complete failure. Could it be that the lagoon, referred to in this paragraph, was constructed without detailed and cautious study? The Kersey Town Council feels that the City of Greeley has 'repeatedly ignored alternative proposals that would adequately take care of their sewage needs, to establish their sewer treat- ment facility at the First Avenue site. This leads us to believe that odor is a major factor and a prime reason why the City of Greeley wants to locate their facility outside of the city limits. Ed Dunbar, Chairman Weld County Commissioners August 15, 1978 Page Two We are appealing to the Weld County Commissioners as a last resort, because we realize your sense of responsibility to all Weld County citizens. We are sure you will concur that the drawbacks to the proposed Delta site are too great to ignore. We hope we will not be forced to take legal action over this odor problem. Thank you for your consideration. Very truly yours, KERSEY TOWN COUNCIL Donald L . Miller Mayor DLM/l j s • STATE -bEPARTMENT OF -;2IIGHWAYS JACK KINSTLINGER �?. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS DISTRICT 4 E N HAASE 11 �� 1I • DWIGHT M BOWER , CHIEF ENGINEER "' v DISTRICT ENGINEER STATE OF COLORADO P 0 BOX 850-1420 - 2N0 ST. • GREELEY, COLORADO 80631 • (303) 353-1232 June 5, 1978 r Mr. Elmer H. Jones Greeley, Colorado Dear Mr. Jones: The flood plain of the South Platte River east of Greeley, contains abundant amounts of fine graded sand • and gravel. Material of this type has been used by the Colorado Division of Highways for construction of em- bankments, shouldering along highways and has been mixed with salt and used for deicing. The amount of material thst we would use from this • deposit per year would vary widely depending on our con- struction budget and severity of winter storms. DWIGHT M. BOWER DISTRICT ENGINEER r -r)(3-(77-- Leo O'Connor District Materials Engineer LO cc:D.M.Dower I). F inater File BENJAMIN F.STAPLETON FELIX L. SPARKS Chairman,Denver Director or CO 0 FREDERICK V.KROEGER A= 'A LAREN D. MORRILL Vice-Chairman,Durango ' d Deputy Director AA* * JOHN H. BROWNELL ��^��* Hooper Jaze '� JOHN R.FETCHER RICHARD D. LAMM Steamboat Springs Governor C.M.FURNEAUX DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Walden PATRICK A.GORMLEY COLORADO WATER CONSERVATION BOARD Grand Junction 823 STATE CENTENNIAL BUILDING ROBERT A.JACKSON 1313 SHERMAN STREET Pueblo •.'• :JO' DAVID LEINSDORF DENVER, COLORADO 80203 Crested Butte TELEPHONE (303)6343µt HERBERT H.VANDEMOER May 30 , 1978 Sterling Mr. Chuck Cunliffe Assistant Zoning Administrator Department of Planning Services 915 - 10th Street Greeley, Colorado 80631 Dear Mr. Cunliffe: We have evaluated the flood hazard for the city of Greeley's proposed regional wastewater treatment plant as requested by your May 1, 1978 letter. Our evaluation was based on the site locations as denoted on sheet 3 of the attached maps . The proposed wastewater treatment plant is located in the South Platte River floodplain. There are three sources of flood hazard data for determining the degree of hazard for the treatment site. These sources are: 1. The 1973 flood documentary for the South Platte River - This flood was the flood of record for the subject stream reach. 2. Special Flood Hazard Information Report, South Platte River, Volume I, Weld County, Colorado, dated April, 1977. 3. Flood Insurance Study, South Platte River, Weld County, Colorado. Our review indicates that the proposed site is located beyond the limits of the 100-year floodplain. However, the 100-year flood limit is located along the fence line on the east boundary of the proposed treatment site. Since no topographic data was provided for the pro- posed plant site, we cannot determine if the site would be subject to Mr. Chuck Cunliffe May 30 , 1978 Page two flooding from a 500-year flood event. It is our recommendation that the plant's structures and facilities be elevated to the 500-year flood elevation for protection from floods . From the study findings of the flood insurance study, we have determined that the 500-year flood elevation at the upstream limits (18th Street) to be 4612.5 ft. M.S.L. , and the downstream limits (16th Street) to be 4610 .5 ft. M.S.L. The reason for recom- mending the 500-year flood protection elevation for water and waste- water treatment plants is for the greater protection from flood. Should the treatment plant become inundated and no longer operational, it would be catastrophic to the community and downstream water users . Should you have any questions regarding our evaluation, I will be happy to respond. Sincerely, Larry F. Lang Chief, Flood Control and Conservation Section LFL:mm Enc. Azg 3031 MAY 1978 --O., Rztzveo -4O3 thir ten, co Rake!Ga fay O ��8�11 gl 51 \.0.1) (..--;-„,T4T__O-f:- � � DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY ,� -=-.. . v, OMAHA DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS c' ''I!'" + �/ 6014 U.S. POST OFFICE AND COURTHOUSE ,,, .,: OMAHA, NEBRASKA 68102 4ntio� / MR00P-N 18 May 1978 Weld County Planning Commission Service Building Greeley, CO 80631 Gentlemen: This office has received your "Special Use Permit Application to the Weld County Planning Commission for the City of Greeley's Proposed Delta Wastewater Treatment Plant" in Section 11, lbwnship 5 North, Range 65 West, Weld County, Colorado. The information has been reviewed pursuant to the requirements of Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act as amended which regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material in our Nation's lakes, wetlands and waterways. Under the Final Regulations, Patterson Ditch does not qualify as a waterway of the United States and, therefore, a Department of the Army permit for the proposed activity will not be required. However, the above determination does not obviate the requirements to obtain state or local assent as required by law. If you have any questions, contact this office or telephone Mr. Ken Harris at 402-221-3059. Sincerely yours, 1(;', e `2r' RUSSELL L. BYWA` ER �' n, \ -In , �1 Chief, Operations Division n�i_ `lt\ °-7V)S `y ��''` t ld_UG5' or �o i M • COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH , 4210 E. 11TH AVENUE DENVER 60220 PHONE 368-6111 EXT. 329 ANTHONY ROBBINS.M.D..M.P.A. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR • DATE : May 18, 1978 SUBJECT: NON-STATE ASSISTANCE REVIEW AND COMMENTS TO : Mr. Gary Z. Fortner Director of Planning Department of Planning Services Weld County Centennial Center 915 Tenth Street Greeley, CO 80631 PROJECT TITLE : City of Greeley Special Use Permit for a Regional Wastewater (sewage) Treatment Plant STATE IDENTIFIER : COMMENTS DUE BY : May 16, 1978 Yes n No I Is this project consistent with the goals and objectives of this agency? Yes LI NoIE Is there evidence of overlapping of duplica- tion with other agencies? No �J Is meeting desired with applicant? Yesj1 No Lmj A 15-day extension is requested . Comments : wovo RSC A Brit Catt'c!sib mom w c?1°168Oc* Name , Title 6 Phone Ron Simsick, Program Administrator SOC-3 , Feb 77 ATTACHMENT B J enteilll 14,0 VI RICHARD D LAMM * � '`/` * JOHN W. ROLD GOVERNOR * , * Director 1876 'F COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 715 STATE CENTENNIAL BUILDING-1313 SHERMAN STREET DENVER,COLORADO 80203 PHONE (303)839-2611 June 26, 1978 Mr. Chuck Cunliffe Weld County Department of Planning Services 915 10th Street Greeley, CO 80631 Dear Mr. Cunliffe: RE: REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT, SPECIAL USE PERMIT, GREELEY In a letter to you dated May 16, 1978, we discussed the proposed Delta wastewater treatment plant. In that letter, we indicated the sand and gravel deposits beneath the site are, at best, marginally economic and that the County should take those actions it felt necessary regarding plant construction. Most recently, we discussed the pro- ject with Mr. D. A. Sandretto and Mr. T. Huntsinger of CB2M Hill, Inc. , and clarified certain items in the report. This conversation clarified certain aspects of the report and, thus, we would like to expand our initial comments. The present economic viability of the sand and gravel deposits in the subject area is dependent on many factors, such as overburden thickness, percent of gravel, and deposit thickness as well as haul distance, local demand, proximity to similar deposits, and reclamation potential. At the present time, the economic viability of the deposits is severely limited by the relatively low gravel content, high estimated reclamation costs, and by the small size of the area. When these factors are projected to determine the future economic viability of the deposits, severe interpretation problems result. To avoid these problems, we recommend that the land be reserved for mineral extraction after the plant life has expired (generally believed to be about 50 years) . In other words, it could be noted on the recorded plat that the land would revert to agri- culture, open space, or mineral conservation when plant operations cease. ') JUN 1978 W P1aneMg�Co ouR rn GEOLOGY 97'SINELZ04\\11 STORY OF THE PAST . . . KEY TO THE FUTURE s V June 26, 1978 Mr. Chuck Cunliffe Page 2 In general, the land-use decision that is made with regard to the plant should consider the health, safety, and welfare of the Weld County citizens. We feel that the maximum benefit to the County is proper and adequate treatment of sewage with the reservation of the future extraction of minerals. We recommend that a decision supporting this concept be made. We must stress, however, that other gravel deposits near this site are likely economic, and their potential for extraction should not be hindered by conflicting land uses; for example tract subdivision with many land owners. In summary, the present economic viability of the sand and gravel resources is very marginal, and the future viability is uncertain. If the above recommendation regarding mineral extraction is followed, we have no objection to the approval of this application. Sincerely, Walter R. Junge Engineering Geologist Stephen D. Schwochow Mineral Resources Geologist WRJ/SDS/ds cc: Land Use Commission .O1-co __.C4'" Vd ��RICHARD D LAMM * � JOHN W. ROLD GOVERNOR * ., ,r * Director 1826 COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 715 STATE CENTENNIAL BUILDING-1313 SHERMAN STREET DENVER,COLORADO 80203 PHONE (303)839-2611 May 16, 1978 Mr. Chuck Cunliffe Weld County Department of Planning Services 915 10th Street Greeley, CO 80631 Dear Mr. Cunliffe: RE: REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT, SPECIAL USE PERMIT, GREELEY We have reviewed the report on the special use permit application for the proposed Delta Wastewater Treatment Plant. This report, prepared by CH2M HILL, Inc. , evaluates the mineral resources of the subject area and concludes that the alluvial deposits in the site area are not economic at the present time. Included in this evaluation is rehabilitation costs of the site subsequent to mining and prior to construction of the plant. We strongly recommend that these rehabilitation costs not be included in the economic evaluation. The economic evaluation of the sand and gravel deposits should only consider the value of the materials and the operating costs. Although some of CH2M HILL's data are questionable, they suggest that the deposits on this tract are noncommercial. Our information, too, suggests that the South Platte River sediments in this area are, at best, marginally economic, although we have noted 10 other pits in the South Platte flood-plain and terrace deposits within 3 miles of this site. The most important consideration regarding the future commerciality of the South Platte flood-plain gravels is the continued availability of Poudre River gravels. If the higher quality Poudre gravels become inadequate or unavailable for future extraction, producers will be forced to utilize the lower grade resources available along the South Platte. GEOLOGY STORY OF THE PAST . . . KEY TO THE FUTURE May 16, 1978 Mr. Chuck Cunliffe Page 2 The county's mineral extraction plan should account for this contingency, and its decision regarding this case should be based on this policy of mineral conservation. If we can be of further assistance, please contact us. Sincerely, Walter R. Junge Engineering Geologist A7., Pe-611.8'-(4/1 Stephen D. Schwochow Mineral Resources Geologist WRJ/SDS/ds ct‘nr in Weld Ce A Cts �i 4eist'►ej C l68�95� .OF'CO RICHARD D. LAMM Governor \d C.J. KUIPER State Engineer -4` ` * * 1876 * DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES , A11415 ity Department of Natural Resources `0 1313 Sherman Street-Room 818 6142, Denver,Colorado 80203 g i � 414 Administration(303)839-3581 CO � 19.78 \ Ground Water(303)839-3587 1� C47 LID o May 12, 1978 pi°sa va go�°U4J � ,� (CI 014 Mr. Chuck Cunliffe Weld County Planning and Zoning Weld County Centennial Center Greeley, CO 80631 Re: Greeley Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant Dear Mr. Cunliffe: This is to acknowledge receipt of information pertaining to a Special Use Permit for the above referenced plant. As requested, we have reviewed the report and have no objections to the permit application provided the following conditions are satisfied: 1 . The relocation of the Patterson Ditch is accomplished with no reduction in flow capacity of the ditch. 2 . The proposal does not appear to include successive use of the effluent by the land application method on agricultural lands . However, in Appendix A, page 5-5, the possibility of purchasing 40 acres for this purpose is discussed. If land application is being proposed, we recommend that the City of Greeley carefully evaluate the effect of this action upon downstream vested water rights . Advice from legal counsel competent in water law may be desirable. We trust that these comments will be useful to the Planning Commission. If you have additional questions, please feel free to contact me . Very truly yours, CJIVHDS:mvf . J. ipe State . ngineer cc: Jim Clark a - E CT 35 C 36 31 1 . c If w ►-- ` - - w • w It CO ►— F--- II t -/ t. 3 dad 1 { to c (% I ' C I I TEN ^ - — -- , --- BL BLISS ROAD �f - -• -- ..w. r. TS N • \ 46.11% \\,„ t N' •,{ , N...%."--.....--1\ WELD COUNTY \ ` ' � • MUNICIPAL AIRPORT • i 263 • 6 f L aovt� 2 1 1 � y I • , ie---- 7._ se t+ l r - /{ � Floo � n st a Area . • ( Lc j) i . . -ji • )) 7 I l FIN Iii } . ,>ss....;7; . , -- --- ----ha -z-----.:..-9 ' \Ails • lie - ...---- ---- i I �/ ' 1 H s_escipiel Q.— r. 11 41/7wor 12 alai 7 > e<)/57:.... _ ..... .... .... — it. t-t.et1 eN,, * ‘‘... ic- . (4 \ # I El i1 { 1I 7 z h a . N . • 5 u .✓ 14 Cr f _. _.i # 4.i a c 18 STR name requIreu �v�a f . • s. ! i-- lit CC A ‘-.--> ____.----17- i a CC f1 C.1) i/ . cs i f' I US ROUTE ! 3 , i 1 US ROUTE Ss - 6 ✓� ‘4T N\l‘ \ilet 1 (*fk' V°47" .1 �! ..a 7: :: ` r -64 Zete-- v sist 24 ------ —w 19 STRS 3 naive fr - Li :.; ' I ; P . ^3Si . a (=i" h , im- STREET lame required cc : . ' \ . . ... . .... Q? .t-- ay 26 t(1 N - ,-, c C �\ NJ _ _ Lime& `thy Well , 7 �' Clovers er y 4s \ � ---\s) ` CHI. \HI N T r ..86O \ co co \ \' • •° O� \, f • Peter Bro n oo• Ple .•. , nt V . - • o • ° . 4 0 �� S¢hool ROAD •• £ SC1100 .:° • ' 4683imp. a 1 4 . 1 MOODY • ROAD • 1 . fir- . • I -^- c O / . �� \.\\\Q r\s. 0-‘ec .e 0X ( 61 -------)... N. o I On 1 \ -4 • •1' Ihks • - __ ill / 14'61°- 34 i 35 I 35 36 • • _____ ... ag, i III , ia c _ , II ii L L �: E Y 660 _ _ • II II • RD rr OO tr II Z. • u II • II a 4,0 • o p p pp �� p -- II a 6' • ■ ° II • - 0AD 4659 114653 �' BLISS ROA • ' _ 4662 —• ■ -- • • p - — • • r . . 4649 O '¢ ■ 0 ° . 0 • N 1 .. a � . . X65 \�\ ______........„.....--.._4660 " I , 7I � ....,_ II .`4, ii, ii ,. , \ ti -------,,,„:„____. n ` \ rr . �- :7 I ./'n • ° II \\ st _ WELD COUNTY \:, II `0 \_ MUNICIPAL AIRPORT � / \ \ 4610 no tl o .� `` 7 Y _ f� � ' ;; 1 `mil �� 2 ji reeley • f �'' II 1 j unicipal II ` (_ It : ... 1 T✓+� Airport �Gr, II Pi . ) n, I Li: • r1 � /© —•u r V1 • ,rY 0 a . . 4s2i 1.;` / 263 / �� I. A P O UD E I f o �' ' ► — � 4 39 � �� E © •• 46.20 � , l 1 a • _ — • _• \ 0 I ' f „ (.. =- ... c J It , , • /li o . r \VA" ilk , 1 : e uII - �IP � it # � // _l \O},1 ll // L. • �/ • ii • 4 • °�_" ■ 0 4613 p • 10_= �� - - - - fl • • ( • • ; 4t Ira • T-- 11 . 12 _ _ - ii �� •7101-...\\ _ __. ? „.. .'///'- • „ ‘,. „‘ Gra ef`"PitOP 0 : i A „.......„._ I' m . • • . (-///Th 4.„. , ••• • • • • / • • • • • • 464 ' 6/6 ' • ' 0 p' �+ ' o - N ■ . •• •• ° •eel — . l 460* �� II :II 0 II (r • • II \ . II o n 41 Gravel P 4619 - II • • - - IL, • • 11 II 1 • Oil IIt `� • rr� h i v 1� "I/ . • ° AO' , / I . V II . • !. • o C� • Gravel Pit W ° 0\ / ice7-1 —1C-6 \ ve is :% - /1` _ __ _ 4 6 77. _- - • . • -- • I 14 / 13 7-1 j 4610- �- TE 4.62° . r / c;:1•9/....// \ II, ;� 46221 '/, .` .,io no j a ('(4633 ® Gravel P LT: _ - - - - - _ =q�4-622 �� ' °•■ I Q 637 _ i • - 4630 0 . • . 1 •16 ..----- ---11- ------/-\ C L' lT ( : ri i 'S, 0 I l pu e I ----------- ----____- a ---.-------6\81.\\\22 • 464642 4641 \ 23 • - - - - - -_ - - -.. I = - - ____ - - - 23 �- 1- -- --4638 - - • -- -- • - - 24 ■ _� t o 2 o • o • , Z N 1 j t` . P „4 I e V , • irs .. N ' . • 4,64, iNik, 4,e • , • • •. \I . •S t , a . i • Ai d ' 44.1 , . i 10 • 4 ill 1 .btii: .. tiltai.t, ......."‘‘ . „in )44., ktif 0 1 4 ale /ill s • ••'• / � ' •, y. • • • 1 •at./ y I ' ! • •4• s • 7 'ter t : e1 VI 44 rd N\ • • 4 i • rit SNP AL' , . AP. Al Or t • `• r gle y� elf 41 / , ` r ♦.-'fit« tre,* MIX '14••• ..• rr ` ( '. � i\ a • . • Q�+i'1`,y�.• Air �• Y \ . /� / • • .1"49 "•111 t% , ! •d•. . � D -yL� . . • .. 777 + r • / . It • . . . , .41 N a • ... . - I: r ie. • 4 , . -,• i ill V i • i • • or. ! • • few - , • , �.-♦+J1 ��- • ' �• � / J'4, i ' . I • • •h r ♦ A 6# a • ,14, / sat V •' • to ; r .� !fir •: �`'{'• ��'1f1• 443:t �, di • • • •• ~ r N. • ` •• • • 2" • • 3. fit a't CI 1 Y ( , r �' .. a • tde M • esi• •• i r �' bk • • , ,in . kirk ••bolti - I: Ilk . k1/4.• if .. 14 , ..,.• ••• . . r ... •ft. ,. , .... 2 _ • ' • `i• # .....h •iiii 6 • ir - Syri. i•., ' • , ..I '� 4" .• •\if 91frZe4 r , �r a �, • r VI• . % N . •• ?a 1- ' . !Stit' • .4?.• , T 1, i • .. TT , i Iris . %.,...:4;) 4 ,fil 4 4 , h, • . • ,. . 4 • . ,..„ „.,,,. z ..... ... . . ,. i / r e it I •jj' M. , .[►'a•...I_ e • - •}• �J I . . ` r • ' t• '• � t .' • I♦1 ,, ' r ill ' • ilipi • t• , r 1. • / �, _ f i, , 1 �,. ) it: ♦ 'rJ • • � •' ( �' � • '�' •.1 difiot t; . ,r .4.4 ., ,.....41 •v 11 t • • • • 4 t r•. ' J•� 1 .•� ` � ; t , ' •t�i iiik 1 ` ` •F .•,,,JJ `I - '� Jet.brt' is . . •ti. Joe t • . • 1. , I '3. I -. NI . •-•; r4. i 14 : ..try •J• 1 J/ •• •r C ��•` ♦ SI• 1 , ~ '!♦ - �I V, !..1;11{t"\i* *". .4‘t..,. ,.. Y I �. . y ` ` 1r. . • a I .1.:1 * si• I 44 jilt •• ,� , �, • ,. . r ,‘„,,, „. ,. , 4 -14 6 • I::. •' , • e" • t 44 „ - it • „ .),Ne ., , , . .„.. , ' I, ; in. ...• :41 • , 4. • . ' ;4, iit : , ;It I it • p. i t4 ( 1 : . el: •4 1. •ill:tom �i / �;` d ' �i' ; ��' ` Gt 1••tit ''•' �1. . 1 t , J ! 4. + ' , � • I, .1/4 �� I • •• ` ' �' rya' `` • y� �1 ' ( ,T+ , Ji r' •y • y . r�. JJJ ` \ .1 ♦,• . t Ir1r.. I•'• '� ' ♦ '/": `4 • i .' rf ••„ L • , a {. _1.1fr :. • .al ••, r + .�� '1• 1"..-fie � �-�'� 't 1. J Y•. ` '.�. 'a. • .x 1. • ,•�V'' ! +` ', it j •. ( 1" ` ' ♦ • �• . �, f 1 �r '•+•'1 •'1'• . ,„ *7 •{, 1', ♦ ,.*� •► t dam' 1 ' /Ifttil • Pilltr‘•• 2 . ♦• , , f' 1.. ..• ia __ilk Tip -i. Vie ' ,< .�. ' . � ` • � � a • • , jl• , �'. • • nd,a 4. • . , f' d (, < -4 ,. ' r Odtp 1 t • ' v,,4 • k1 d► •1 T" Y M i . e . j ` Ito. . .JS ,' J• 1• ' (•,' •s. , �y 1� r- 't .i,ihcali „1 J 1 • • . r M •• • • ti tJ •}'r *-.� .r •.� 1 r _ •' r • •3e ?T •• 0.sar -I- ' •IA • 4 1 ..- /sty. Sr 1;... I 941. di •., "ill r yobilat Sas- . bt 41_ . ; -.. . , . .. . fr. tirt t ittpt., , .t . ii . .. . . • % . t.. t : i ..• 12441.k ts II lit ia. , ' - • - 14 l • / • • : i`• ` •t1• • 1,• . T., • .' f,, �. • ..t `• M4• •�� ' _� • 3. �„T•' � .1 * 'ate � I, 71.11.6 � 1 ♦ I . f* • ••V:). ! , • ` T y, r L ' liii"\I . .1 ,• lo•1 �d eft 1•‘‘, i a. •••�•• � '• 'aa '.7 � •�1• A• t t. • r ,• r�,. , •r ,* ♦ -.t 'G `It� ♦ ti,t ••.r, ` •f' , C ' . I• .. C.:It 'i it ii, • 1i •• �y.' .� 44 a' • • ►-'I`/f'� 'a� R •t.' • ''fir" j ''' •' 7�, T' i -• 1 • -r i• 14 r"a p % ZIP ill . I.tders;, • , ,4 •• j•1 t.` . +.,.. „,,iir .i •� •�.• • 0 �•,y t''.• L ! '• % 1 •!• J r ' '' • gy� Mr �•O.�r ♦ •r •R•• , a - lit S „( 1•' v • � i , :41,,c1 it, A• sibt .�.•. rl ' • • �' •� 14 • * a r` 14 ` • , ••. 4'' • rill '`JA .44.,„ , i 11 7 •J� �• .4. ~ �'i1I), P ' tacit • • t • • • •I'�, `I u •• . •,• • 4 •• • j �- • f .44; ' 1 a "• • .. .. I♦ •' ,l ♦ 1/4 • + 1 •,t. list, 4 • 1 ••-/ „ � ' ,. , ' 1 ' ' `�, fti , . % I. � .' • �I'� ' IIV,. r i' • • Y , • + ,' i• ,� - ly t• '• re f•,♦ r • 1 } ' I 1ki4H4 • v� r , +• '♦ • •' • ! 1 � � r} 4, •1• ' 4 • •`•• '• i' �, 'i •= "t .�(`jsJj� ♦ f 4. + •�. .1• t�• ♦- fi t aoty *,•y• �• ` ` ' ' ` • • f +- ! ` •J•p ti •( ♦ 1 _ +'-.`I 4:46.•,". I.• • •• .. ; i ‘' l •• • ,l,' t. • , `• 7 � -1/.' • , • `::,! : .%%.414tes I, MD 74 I.„ OA ; 4 liill i LID: .. ,i4ID . I i • :411411 a • . , • iblitiii. )Pi it '. f '^ . a t ' i • :�✓ tir.- Y •( • `y j ( 7:.J . ' 144, ' •‘:0 AC - • S. .,,,,. . ...ft, it; , „As. i, . ., ,lill> ... tit, • . ••••, ..4 -4•••• . ° .4' ••••... IIV,as, I lis , ,, , ipc . %ni 4 % . •'•iii •• r ` "y_ e� +`fI' t Ili • hals'4- 1 • " • of • '•10 ',(`� S ,4.4 ssaTeti . sitNt , if> • *Nltititcli. ' ' i ' I 411 , . • . sr. tbili• Ilk 4141; - III •' t .f ( 'Of . `7• . j• , A „ ►. , 1 I • '.. , el /' t - •, .' • 1 .~ • • `/ ' I `k \` ' ♦ 7• 'NikyI ) ..A •; . ,-...e t. ••r, f' ` • • I. ni %�`-,• 7 ri It4l„t_ • . f _ • •• .. , • •, ;a l 1� ` - 1 • ; 4411 + -•• �,;3 .444 C ii 4 iiiv, It ls ., t• . S I • .. .1 t • f(• ' 1•, ypt • , '•�' •. "tb i.i •••lid '• i, il• • ,fit Y • 1 • (. • • , 1 • 4 •••4 .. , • 1 44* «. f ••� - r x '� • S .• I. 6 lb it I. Ni• . ......._ • .,. % .- , . , . , • • , • . . , . . .„ , . • .,. ,.. . • . . . • ,it 4 v4 i' ` • - • - (' '�e.• • { - ( I ./• a• .T 1, , , �• • , ' +, '` , • , ^♦r'• 1 ` to��r•, rte , i � J <f !.• •}I'' I. �p��Tt r • �. •. • 1• 1 t f 1 1r • ii,„ . ;i I• 44\ , 4 A :t • '• i.Y��1. tI •,11 7 - .' •i fp e'� { . t t.,. 1- • 4' ** 1 _ • • t '` t,l• �� • r• ' r rill'II 1- i0 i b. , f. 44;Ai l' ,rye ' P. • r. .• .• •l. 1' J , •. � •v . a, • I r • • 4 ,„. .I, ‘. _' � •* ,�••• „�. ! ' ,. a >%.� .. .,; �1` •/ '! �1 •. J /' t - fit Y" ` r '• . rL ,. it. ' �. L At ,. ♦� I 'o!11 • '•• il ea 4.) . O.. :),,,„ di , . I 0, t I . ,A , P • • tel ..• • 1 •airit e 4:11 . obj Ihr 7•14.". fri ir ,fl • • • • p: t I ' ' kJ' ill:Pi. • .'-' _. ..,r ,.. YYYY 1 1 / ♦ 1 -- 1 + 4 -.r .. Y:: I •� !"', �,', . } I �•• J � . r t , '.. r� tiF'- , ' . - r f r' f ' ` " - r, �' ;1 t '• • ttlki.'• t 1•''tj't � 4, • • • 44 ` �� 'f''• v .�. �. , 1, • � •Y t y �-• �i,f 4 ;� ' , 411 � ' � t4‘ '. hs • �•'a, , • r • , i. tili "hot , i 1� v •' • ti •`• ` • 7 �� t41 elitilliiit . . . I'a A? N• • • lilk• / •1.. ' t‘ k...-::. . N. itiaV, i . • 1. • s, ..‘is. cf „, , .. ., • 4 ••• - • cs .T .� tF • i i 41 . tilt% a d . .16' ? . '414°I ' . . . ''dik 4 . .. .• , . •A . : . ;at t I • . i a I iii liP i .. .. .,.. ...... . ,,, ,, 4 , . :4; Al. • 6 ,4111 ...Yd.. Plin it id . ..r. iv • • • : .. vr „. 41 „ ., • , •• • il i •440 • A. . i ,IPC Ill iiir 3/4 ),. , . 441, . , .t.t.'(kis - 44 • il ' • !I'. . '• * i• 1, • ' 4 • k t.. • ( 14 ti to 44 i ••t ••• 4.k * 4 , ..... .., .4 : . - .4 t e\- - 6'1.5 VI? .. rt -4,. 1.-.)- 7 , . . • • • • • °.n -. ^ , 223Z42526 The printed portions of 0,4 form npprosed by the /� Ay (- 3 Colorado ]teal Estate (ummission ("C ^_5-10-75) ••�ek X9'8 114 g. SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE CONTRACT gifissioe (FARM AND RANCH) ```O!6 S __-- _-- -- Greeley_.______ Colorado ----------- -----April 14 , 1978 RECEIVED FROM __THE G lTY_of_ GREELEL_Greeley, Colorado _ _ _ __ _ _ Purchaser (ss4aiut_tr iauts), the sum of $ 500.00__ ___ __ __ __ __, in the foi m of check_ _ _ _ _ _to be held by,RC Moore Real instate _ broker, in his escrow of tiuctee account, as earnest money and pal t payment for the following described real estate situate in the County of _ ___ Weld—_ __ _ —_ _ __ Colorado, to wit: Part of the North Half (ND of the Southeast Quarter (SE4) of Section Eleven ,(11) , Township Five North (T5N) , of Range Sixty-Five West (R65'1) of the 6th P.M. More particularly described on the attached Addendum and by reference hereto made a part of this Contract. with all easements and rights of way appurtenant thereto, all improvements thereon and all fixtures of a permanent nature currently on the pi emises, except as heic'inafter provided, in their esent condition, oidinary wear and teas excepted, known as ___ THEODORE and BERTHA DILL FARM iihich property purchaser agrees to buy upon the following terms and conditions, foi the pui chase piice of $135,000.00 _-- —____-, payable as follows. $_500.00 - - - - --- --hei ehy i cceipted for, $134,500-00 ___ _in cash or certified funds at the time of Closing and Delivery of Deed. This offer is subject to and contingent upon Purchaser re- ceiving the necessary Conditional Use Permit from the County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, to enable Purchaser to proceed with Purchaser's plans to construct and build the Delta Sewage Treatment Plant on Seller's land. This contingency will be removed by Purchaser on or before December 31, 1978, or this Contract shall be, at the -option of the Seller, declared null and void and all monies tendered herewith returned to Purchaser. 1 If a note and trust deed oi mortgage is to be assumed, the purchaser agrees to pay a loan transfer fee not to exceed Io_t-Applicabland it is a condition of this contract that the puichaser may assume such encumbiance without change in its terms or conditions except_Not 2. Price to include the following personal property: None. to be conveyed by bill of sale at time of closing in their piesent condition,free and clear of all personal property taxes, liens and encumbrances,except: None. and except any personal property liens in any encumbrance specified rn pal agi aph 5. , The following fixtures of a permanent nature are excluded from this sale: None. 3. Price to include the following water rights: Three (3) Shares of the Capital Stock of Delta Irrigation Company, and any other Ditch or Lateral Rights appur— tenant to subject farm. 4. An abstract of title to said property, certified to date, or a current commitment for title insurance policy in an amount equal to the pin chase price, at seller's option and expense, shall be furnished the purchaser on oi before __ ____-D2cember_10___ , 19_78_. If seller elects to furnish said title insurance commitment, seller will deliver the title insurance policy to purchaser after closing and pay the pi emiuni thereon. 5 Title shall be merchantable in the seller. Subject to payment or tender as above provided and compliance with the other terms and conditions hereunder by puichaser, the seller shall execute and deliver a good and sufficient Genera).___ warranty deed to said purchaser on_ _ -December 31, 19 78_-, ,ir, by mutual agi ce- ment, at an ear het date, convex mg said pi operty lice and clear of all taxes, except the genei al taxes foi 19 29 payable January 1, 19 80 _ and except 19.79 _ irrigation_Water Assessments and subsequent years which Purchaser agrees to assume and pay. flee and clear of all lions and encumbrances except: None. No.SC 2rd-ill-i5,,P"rfu l',rfo,, ,,,, Cnnlrnrl (rill'',and liunrh) I: ,(I Il'uLh bun-(,,• lh_I Is'Noll hrrv,l,llrn ,,,(•ulmodn 10 7L f' MAY 1978 &Ze _ Ti.E CITY OF GREELEY, COLORADO Wt1d o�y�D (') s., aeifil eoM4ISs/01 RESOLUTION NO. 28 1978 :25l cni A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO SIGN A SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION, TO BE FORWARDED TO WELD COUNTY, AND TO NEGO- TIATE FOR CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED IN WELD COUNTY TO BE USED AS A WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANT SITE. AREAS, the City of Greeley has embarked on an endeavor to modernize and increase its waste water treatment capacity by building a waste water treatment plant at the confluence of the Platte and Poudre Rivers ; and WHEREAS, the Engineering Consulting Firm of CII2MHILL has recommended a specific site for establishment of the waste water treatment plant ; and WHEREAS, it is necessary, pursuant to Colorado statutues , to present the site to the Weld County Commissioners as part of an Application for Special Use Permit . • NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GREELEY, COLORADO: Section 1. The City Manager is hereby authorized to sign a Special Use Permit Application to be forwarded to Weld County for the use of certain real property located in Weld County for a waste water treatment plant site. • Section 2 . The City Manager and other appropriate -City officials are hereby authorized to negotiate with the owners of the following described real property for the._purchase of such property to be used as a waste water treatment site . The pro- perty to which this Resolution refers is described as follows: 50 . LEGAL DESCRIPTION Part of the Ni of the SEi of Section 11 , Township 5 North, Range 65 West of the 6th P . M. , Weld County , Colorado, more particularly described as follows : Beginning at point which bears south 0°13' 23" west 2 ,657. 22 from the northeast corner of Section 11 , said point is the northeast corner of the N?:SE; of Section 11 : Thence south 89°11 ' 46" west 323 . 75 to the True Point of Beginning: Thence south O°14 ' 10" west 1 , 342 . 75 ; thence north 89°44 ' 29" west 1 , 837.07 thence north 29°27' 24" east 567. 24 ; thence along the arc of a curve right whose radius is 425 . 00 and whose long chord bears north 35°01 ' 32" 82 . 51 ; thence north 40°35 ' 52" east 647. 19 ; thence along the arc of a curve right whose radius is 200.00 and whose long chord bears north 24°06 '02" east 113.59; thence north 7°36 ' 12" east 121 . 98 ; thence along the arc of a curve right whose radius is 50 .00 and whose long chord bears north 48°23 ' 59" east 65 . 16 ; thence north 89°11 '46" east 984 .07 to Point of Beginning. Said parcel contains 43. 12 acres , more or less , and is subject to any rights-of-way or other easements as recorded by instruments of record or as now existing on said parcel . PASSED AND ADOPTED, SIGNED AND APPROVED THIS DAY OF `�/��fi� , 1978. ATTEST: ( // THE CITY OF GREELEY, COLORADO q/l/ City Clerk �Li�yor APPROVED: /11 I .( ( 1,C./&NZ( City Manager Ci y Attorney / J I I� DEPARJMFNT OF PLANNING SERVICES c F PHONE (3031 356-4000 EXT. 400 a t 915 10TH STREET GREELEY, COLORADO 80631 17.4.t a1W� ,A !fin et)C COLORADO May 10, 1978 To Whom It May Concern : You are receiving a copy of this notificatiom because your name appears as a surrounding property owner owning property within 500 feet of the proposed use. The Weld County Planning Commission will review a request from City of Greeley for Special Use Permit for a regional wastewater (sewage ) treatment plant on property described as follows : Pt . N SE* , Sec, 11 , T5N. R65W location : 18th Street and Holly Street • If you have any suggestions or objections, will you kindly notify us in writing before May 16, 1978 . The meeting by the Weld County Planning Commission iS scheduled for June 6 , 1978 • This meeting will take place in the County Commissioners Hearing Room, first floor, Weld County Centennial Center, 915 10th Street , Greeley, Colorado, at 1 : 30 p.m. If you . have any questions concerning this matter or if you would like additional information , please contact the IlepnrtnuonI, or Planning Service - office aL :i5G--1000, ExL . 40,1 . ZOn i ni;- Al . i n i ti 1 crop £tw+k� 4' 041, .lo, /97? �� . a-f- 4;2aPot Al# G ,1,6-,7D s /4,<_zi 6 3 97.vLe_g-lei eet-6-e-d-,-26' cge5 6,9/ G /4j /97, ze)_,a,e, e,„<„, c?„,,, , vf.,.z,z,_} VL _,,,,,,.� (2.,„_e,„,_,6, , _,,, .,2,gre -z ,i,,,,,) d,,,,,, ,,,,, _zhif-i-eya- -6iJe-'16/4 4-°' Z „te.,./ , . — -, --zed e-1)—LW-4e g etie-4-t-tj ji-et4 .24 72,izz 7/ 2-4g-e--/ . kzez-l-ey -e-e-de---- 4e i2 Qtie_a__ 4/Le_ et / .4-1 e4,4, e..4,, i- ° -f'-- W-4- - 7. 2 e _ Cice r '( a-'fd - zo_.,_ ,y,, ,i.." - Y„,6-_,,,,e —e_e-4, .a j7--4 7 1 i YL'") -LIU /2,9—E,,_z__ vi-/Lp_e_.,y . _4 -e-e.._- -de ' ;, r - -e reZ(')/-4 --C-e-bLI-- .,a „,,, ._,_24,, - 4_,, D - ,__,_c,-,„ de -Ai-a-me a-2-e-eL- - .z „t e_ _..„)_44_,_,pc t.-ems e-- �42--) _Ae_e9 O. -a t cQ�Lyzgee. ,et. -L./' _14 .41 ,,..3 --e-u-e-- --t9-z ci-e-e-, --- tf:±1,_ Ceidef-,-d-lizeyi-e--z-6e4 &,--,1) -a-e- a_e_e- ---,x,O-1-e4 -e --(- -jie 14.;Zie (SeLe ) ed °-CQ-4�----' 42--i- �1� di .-e-e - —ff-- -712-4C--- fie. A-1A e- ' %2-e-0-- -2 eV e2-e2 c--z-- un-e- -a-e let-"-e----- ete.,t) c._, -e2 6L, 4ecy ____ 4j_ii_z7, ,1,t, ) V e:..e-i.-- I.J. _-i----z I,a4t- --)-2.-e__ --e-eLez- - -tiz-tc-c-- t-LfZe , CO eet4-‘4_ ,) ..z.a.,e- d_> - a.,c,t..,e,TA47ZZer /u,,,,„„ifa_ 64_ d _ 0,21,, ,thi -71e_ r-eg, --e--- .21,0 a/te., e_,,,,,,t2.Ja& ---6 =7_4, ,e_i_.„ , /7k, _<_,, ,<___, X44 a 21Z'e 2 . U w) a ‘e_, L - _24de `72. -ze....Wj-4---,,e-f ,,--1-0- -) 11- a-t-,-2 __de liet-7-1% i "--1, 20 t1 ,C ce ., ,�c_:t C-C�Q e�-e _2-Ai `72'1 e 2 e- `7,��ll p �7 te r/ ��UC�2.C- G 4.,L.-1C_ : 2- .4-(---- , - 6 _7C-1 --1 .-/s6-f-,;-, 2,--de k-f-- j;2--t-e_szil. , __e2,4-e .. .-c-z/'-e-t-e--' -.dae- -t2__eZ ,i1,4,z/c-:_cipl--a- e . _eL_r_teepla-°- - -6e or-x_e_, ._ , ,,,,-/_,.,:,_„-r. -- ---- ,,,,_. ,4_,.,,,, , _,,„,,,ix„ if,—z, .,,,,, ,, _____ ,_k2 ._, ,,e_,, ,,,_,)/4„,i,„e_. ,4-4-f-a-4-).,_ ,,a / _,.&-c- t. e__c_ Jae ereL-4t-c_ /771,w -1-d.--0 .-t-e_ e,.. 6.d f 2-e-ze__teel ___,_ ...el -ciet --t_, -&-12ri. ,v4,_,t,c_ee_ ._,eile •7,0„,t-i,z_gy axml,e1- Q`ie zf _ _ _. i',7-p. -c/c Q__ _J2- --(-71-4.e_A_Z- sCr / --- a.rAxie.c ---, A lei ea tC-- /7)X1-e 'C-- . 2al,e ( -I-6t- `tgAige- 4t d-e-ediz-a, c-e-/-14-e el, 7/0-;(1-11 7_ t_cz,,, _Zie - aet--7-72-erd--4e-e-- 42_.}__.t,p ) d_JA-2 " -A_ c ,-e -eif--4- - "1"-egajetz-j df--"e- dt--cLJ p 4.ett,e, , v iee,L1 _,Z6-e , 1,Jzh 2 „X ,A&L ,a0 re4-_ _, . /et- dy _e2,L,ei,e ---3z_64 __c„,__e_„ a_ 2z00 !_e_,. _cJ _62, 1-__- 6_,L.e., -(e -f„ a.2.„ _ _- _,a_e-e-cFet-,--e— r "a--e-4- 1ea.„-Iti-e_ d_i"2-ci /, z _2 �2 �d / --��-2i�-C� �ci�-cam _J.,‘� gp4 � (( - itg,e_i _e__ e)_,-c} L-e -t_g..e_l_ i_e_. 7/ _72 ` ) --- J-i-_,,,.7,„e0 . _, -1--tk-a-'4-i-7_60---cz-,) __Ae—e-e. --4 `k--e , , .4_u7La-1, diva et,i_Jz__ _L„ d,--Ve.c_ giv-i'° ),_e,.,61-)2-e4,.,e1 -e __,z, ,,e,e (-,f-6 -6tE, --Ie ,c, --_,ih __L,,c__, _x.dez--oe-e_ __e_vtg-6 ef/ &62-6(7 461 . ,,,e1 1 :)1/4/- C1-742/ ,2,b,÷) [VQ(/,ie2� l/' 4L"L!'(/J�/aLereat x' 7o� ve4 August 15, 1978 24145 Rd 62 Greeley, Co 80631 To the "VELD COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Ho-hum, here it is summertime again and five years later and we are still facing the problem of odors from the Lone Tree Lagoon. How long do we have to live with this odor, especially when we know everything possible is not being done . 'le have no faith in promises, but want ac ion. Before putting in the Delta Site, insist on the City' s good faith by cleaning up odors at the Lone Tree Lagoon. Sincerely, Mr. & Mrs . John Ehrlich w July 5 , 1978 J Received from Joanne Truitt , representative of the Delta - Environmental Protection Association , July 5 , 1978, g letter from Elmer Jones, a letter from Paul E. McClure dated June 30, 1978, and a letter to James Whitmore from Darryl Alleman dated June 28, 1978. -- Gary ---)01/Z. Fortner Director of Planning The letter from Elmer Jones indicates in Paragraph 2 that there are copies of data sheets from which the table of prices were obtained included as an attachment . These data sheets were not attached to the letter when it was received . • .."&a/1/(f7 ..1o/?- 77-e-c , Gary Z. Fortner Director of Planning DOI Delta Environmental Protection Association, Inc. ROUTE 4, BOX 175 GREELEY COLORADO 80631 Gentlemen: I wish to present further information showing that the gravel deposit at the Delta Site is a commercial deposit. In order to do this, I have obtained retail prices from four gravel operators which I summarize in the following table and com- pare these prices with those presented by CH2M:Hill. All prices are dollars per ton. Cowan Cowan Grly Sand Ramsour CH2M:Hill Greeley Platteville & Gravel Bros. Pit Run 1.10-1.20 1.85 1.35 1.25 Sand 2.25 1.75 Pea Gravel 3/8 3.15 2.25 2.00 Base Course 2.20-2.30 2.25 Course Aggregate 3.20-3.50 Mortar Sand 5.92 5.50 You will note that CH2M:Hill prices pit run gravel at $1.10 to 1.20, while the price of pit run quoted by the gravel companies we contacted all exceeded these prices. Also, much of the gravel would qualify for pea gravel, and mortar sand could be produces . These could be sold at even higher prices. I am attaching copies of the data sheets from which the above table of prices were obtained. I also enclose copies of two letters for your consic_eration. Enclosure A is a letter from Paul E. McClure who operates a gravel pit in Creeley and considers the Delta Site to contain commercial mineral deposits. Enclosure B is a letter from the Director of Greeley's 'later and Sewer Dept. showing that Greeley recognizes that odor at the Lone Tree Lagoon Plant is a problem and will continue to be a problem for some time. I feel that CH M:Hill in presenting their figures have under- estimated the retait value of the gravel deposits and have overestimated the costs of extraction. Sincerely, Elmer H. Jdhes Etitclasuif ' r�eley n.e 7- •e .. • - ,t' , - ^ 7 .. .. : �. 7.).--T Co. , for - -- .._,.-.- st o!" -� .v�- ,r .7�..+n._ •ry. 7 :tt o. ,-r 7.�. .-. J - _ ,n.7 -_ 7 �_ 7 .C ,C_ . --: t- 73, 7 +rt> S �.,,,,,,A,.w�--•--"R- ---T f--s= .. _....,.._ .sue.•, �.„41.- _., - _ --- ,---------4.-A .I` �.- Ai.--;14-... �,..... ..2a.,,(11wo—... ...... + �'+YYr>...------1-4,....... ......,...:—___r '41 �1rr� '. �r . ---____________-1?--,-. '71 7.'1 vs' Artil - _ ..._ , ,_ ., " .1 _itzlirl'i - : 1 t'::!'lt---' -2-".'a- --:-1---..""'-"----"'"---- ' . -- 1 •_ r 4 �—_- # [`y / � .y r';,� 1 — ,tea♦ r.-i ' �I_ - '_ "�AaL� " - —% ,!. ��IT`V ".'r: - _tom., 7 80 b rIS `'��;-- •..a� Alle.rivir d am• ! •..--.rte r '• e(' �, - ♦ 401:1s1 .4 e.'IL. i i.� Yi \ 1tt..A GREELEY CIVIC CENTER E /bSLIVc B GREELEY COLORADO 80631 June 28, 1978 - PHONE (303i 353.6123 Mr. James Whitmore 25550 County Road 62-1/2 Greeley, Colorado 80631 Dear Jim: As you know, Brian Janonis and I were at the Lone Tree Lagoon Plant and the general vicinity around the Plant between midnight and 2:00 a.m. last night. When we were there we could detect an odor from the Plant along the road im- . mediately east of the anaerobic Lagoons. Recently, our grease cover on the anaerobic Lagoons has decreased in depth. This is the likely cause of any noticeable increase in odor that you might have observed over the past few months. In order to build up the cover again we have asked Monfort to bypass their grease directly to the Lagoons instead of recovering it for sale. This has been done for a period of about three weeks now. We will ask them to continue bypassing grease until we regain the cover that we have lost. This will probably take 30 days but could take as long as three months. We have also directed CH2M Hill to study the Lagoons and to give us their • recommendations. They should be ready to discuss their study with us and Monfort around July 12th. Sincerely, CITY OF GREELEY i � Darryl . Alleman Direc or Water and Sewer Department DDA/ld "A COMMUNITY OF PROGRESS" G June 8, 1978 . 4 >>i Weld County Planning Commission '� J(/ N�978 Weld County Complex RACE? '43.1V is Greeley, Colorado a Be: Delta Regional Sewer Plant Site : vcfr2E2ZZ ��Gentlemen: kZ" We live in the immediate area of the Delta Site and are stock- holders and water users of the Delta Irrigation Company. Thus far, our irrigation water has been delivered to us in a convenient and satisfactory manner. We have attended frequent public hearings pertaining to the Delta Site. Obviously, the Delta Irrigation Company ditch through the Dill property would have to be relocated if this site is eventually approved. On numerous occasions the question arose as to how this was going to be specifically done. Thus far nothing regarding the question has been answered. At the hearing held June 6th, the engineering consul- tant for the City of Greeley mentioned casually that the relocation "would conform to governmental rules and regulations." The present location of the Delta ditch through the Dill property is at the highest elevation in the immediate area. This provides sufficient gravity flow to serve its stockholders. Any relocation of the ditch from this point is going to require elevated construction to maintain this gravity flow. Relocation away from the Dill property would create an even more serious problem in view of the lower ele- vation. We would like to respectfully request that the Planning Commission require the City of Greeley to provide specific plans for the relocation of the Delta Irrigation ditch. We would hope that our present headgates are not disturbed or relocated and that the gravity flow would be such that we would draw our irrigation water in the same satisfactory manner that we have in the past. Very truly yours, M s. Irving Mi dleton M . C. Mathews 1681 Holly Ave., Greeley, Co. 3791 E. 18th St. , Greeley, Co. e �� ,5 4/�`, , ��, 4 moo. Delta Environmental Protection Association, Inc. 4 ROUTE 4, 8OX 175 GREELEY COLORADO 80631 June 6, 1978 My name is Elmer Jones. I am President of the Delta Environ- mental Protection Association. I would like to comment on four subjects : In the past three years the residents of the Delta have probably studied this area more then any area in Weld County. Besides the cost and time spent, we have studied The Comprehensive Plan, Flood maps, Mineral Reports, Aquifer Recharge Area Maps, Water Table and others. I would like to ask the Planning Comi s si on a question. [hat does the ?oird• Delta mean to you? Delta means a triangular tract of land between two rivers or more forming the mouth of the Platte River. Usually the water table is just below ground level. On may 27, 1864, the Book, " The Overland Stage To California" quotes on page325, " The bed of the river, which ordinarily was only a few rods wide at the ford, had now spread out until it was more than a mile wide, and the surrounding country, north, east, and west, l5oked like an inland sea. The water rose until it was from ten to t1Lteen feet in depth, carrying, down houses, barns, stables, bridges, stock, pi€-pens, chicken-coops, ect." This in time was only 114 years ago. Now, if we know that this hapened tlen it can happen again. Are we forgetting the tragedy of The Big Thomps.rn? This also took human lives, homes, cars, livestock, and was so destruCtive ' in_ so many other ways. We can' t stop Mother Nature from flooding, but we can beware of the path in which it flows, and not build a permanent structure there. The propbsed Delta Wastewater Treatment Plant is such a structure to cause the water from flowinn freeley. Because of the flood waters the sand and gravel bars have been created between the two rivers. I feel this sand and gravel has a good market value. The residents of the DEPA will not accept : the gravel core test that was taken by Colorado Geological Survey for this reason: In the Ceotaechnical Investigation for Mineral Re- source Evaluation Proposed Site for Delta Wastewater Treatment Plant --Appendix B, page _2 , tells of a two inch outside diameter of the California Sampler, but our objection is that the inside diameter of the sleeve is not mentioned, and this is only one inch. This I will explain. J ) , Delta Environmental Protection Association, Inc. ll ROUTE 4. BOX 175 GREELEY, COLORADO 80631 i Checking on the price of pit run gravel, I found it priced at $1. 50 a ton in place of X1. 10 to $1.20 a ton as stated. Sand was not men- tioned. This was priced at x:8.00 a yard at the Evans Pit taken out of the Platte River. It was also stated that the guide line for * gravel is 30 percent. The pit at Eaton was operated for twenty five ye9rs with a test of 121 to 15 percent gravel and the depth of the grovel was between 3 to 15 feet. Good sand and gravel in Weld Co- unty is fast becoming a scarce commodity with all the construction that has taken place in our rapid growth. We must protect this re- source, just take a look at Denver now. Sincerely, Elmer 'Jones, DEPA President r. i//teu i`e,i re/ SUITE Qt," June 6 , 1978 .4600 sc7..'H VO:+tt,TE A@EA CODE 3 SOUTHEAST S1ATE L4U,LD,r. TELEPHONE 7.3_2,2 D-NER C('..^.4ADC E,02.4/ Planning Commission Weld County Centennial Complex Greeley, Co 80631 Regarding : City of Greeley Special Use Permit Application I represent the Delta Environmental Protection Association, Inc . (D.E .P .A. ) , an association of over two hundred citizens . D. E .P .A. has awaited this long deferred Application. Certain of the statements in the Application should be amplified . 1 . The State approval alluded to was only approval of additional study funds , including the funds necessary to submit this Application . The State Water Quality Control Commission specifically has not approved the site, reserving its ruling pending County action nor has it considered substantive aspects of the proposed Delta Plant . 2 . No approval by the Council of Governments was necessary nor, to our knowledge , ever given. The Council submitted detailed , generally critical questions to the E .P .A. during its compilation of the Environmental Impact Statement (E . I . S) . E . I . S . , page F-39 . 3 . E .P .A. approval of construction funds contingent on County approval, 4 . The Delta plant is not the most cost-effective alternative. According to the E . I . S . , the First Avenue plant would cost $11 , 793, 000 to construct . (All monetary amounts in constant , 1975 dollars . ) The Delta Plant would cost $14 , 463 , C00. Not included in the cost of the Delta Plant is site acquisition cost ; extra cost associated with maintaining a third site (in addition to First Avenue and Lone Tree Creek) ; Pump station and pipe line to restore water to the Ogilvy Ditch re-routing the Delta (Patterson) Ditch; cost of land acquisition for the Poudre Interceptor; and cost of improvement to Holly Street . As outlined in the E . I. S . by using a different technology, the cost of the First Avenue plant could be reduced further , to approximately $9 , 334 ,000. • • Planning Commission Page 2 June 6, 1978 5 . The question of the sand and gravel deposits at the proposed site has not been dealt with previously. Although D. E.P .A. pointed out nearly three years ago that state law prohibited municipalities from building on sites dontain- ing sand and gravel deposits , the E. I. S . merely mentioned that building the plant would prevent extraction of sands and gravels . E. I . S . , p . 125 . Other representatives of D. E .P .A. will speak to various substantive issues . Detailed commentary is difficult without a _specification of what structures Greeley would build , and where the structures would be located. (Once Greeley finally specifies what structures it intends to build and where it intends to locate them, of course, an updated E. I . S . must be prepared. ) We also wonder if. certification under CRS 30-20-103 is necessary because of the collection of sludge at the ,site. r /,,/( /y) Raymond L . Robert RR/sb 6/5/78 As a concerned citizen and property owner in the town of Kersey, I am here to urge denial of a Use permit to build the Sewage Plant at the Delta site. I have two reasons for my objections : #1. Odor----as Mr. McLaughlin of Wright & McLaughlin, who were the original engineering firm for the City of Greeley stated, Kersey will bear the brunt of the odor problem. And when we are promised an odor problem by the City of Greeley, from sewage plants, I believe itt Also the people of Kersey in general object. Aitho this meeting is during the working day and many of the people are unable to attend. A recent survey, (Feb. 1976) , called the "Town of Kersey Socio-Demographic Survey ", revealed that of the 82% responding 88% were opposed to the Delta site plant and only 2% were in favor. I believe this is also worth your consideration. The other matter of concern to me is the fact that the proposed site is very close to the Air-Port, and the amount of fog that this plant can and will produce will be an extrem, hazard. It has been pointed out that open water exists at th, site---however during the cold months the stream flow is minimal and the water temperature is very cold------but the temperature of the effluent will be much higher, and will result in heavy fog conditions. I hope you will give consid- eration to the detrimental effect on the air port if this plant is approved at this site. Again I urge your denial of the permit. / c% Robert Frank, Kersey, Colo. 1-11 C\ June 2, 1978 TO: The Weld County Planning Commission The Weld County Commissioners Thank you for giving me this opportunity to be heard. My name is John Wheeler. I am a property owner at 2100 East 18th Street. The proposed delta site for a regional waste water treatment facility lies approximately two miles east of my home. It is my intention to present logical and persuasive reasons why the Planning Commission should recommend to the Weld County Commissioners that they deny the Special Use Permit required by the city of Greeley for construction of a regional sewage treatment plant on the so-called delta site or Dill property. Among reasons cited by CEZM:Hill for their choice of the delta site are: 1. It is cut of the one hundred year flood plain. 2. It has good access roads . 3. It i-s the most cost effective location for serving the region, and 4. There are less gravel resources at the selected site than at other potential sites within the area. intend to demonstrate that: 1. The delta site is probably w th_n the one hundred year flood plain. 2. Access roads are limited and in Poor condition. 3. Expansion of the first avenue site is an alternative ecually cost effective. 4. The gravel resources cf the delta site are considerable and therefore Colorado Revised Statute (CRS) 3L.-1-3C5 will probably prohibit construction of the plant on that site. First, with regard to potential flooding at the delta site, the following is offered. . Although CF2N:~ill in their Special Use Permit Application (73.1) states that the selected site is out of the one hundred year flood plain, The Wright- McLaughlin Engineers Facilities Plan 'eLcrt, Part two, section .iI (p.6) states, -2- 1__ "The new regional plant site cn the delta area encompasses approximately forty acres"----"and is located on a slight ridge between the Pcudre and South Platter flood plains. According to the Corps of Ingilneer& Flocd Plain Inf orration Report, the delta location is outside the one hundred year flood plain of the Poudre."----"However, some potential exists for encroachment from the one hundred year event on the South Platte. At the bridge just east of the delta site, the 1973 high water line was at elevation 4609 feet." ---- "it is ex- pected that the one hundred year event would rise to about 4610 feet. The Present site is at an elevation of 4608 to 4609 feet. Therefore it will be necessary to build up the plant-site location and berm may pond at the site to at least an elevation of L612.5 feet." The Final Environmental Im aot Statement (7.7=:1al s) Creel ear .eg;raaa.1 Wastewater Management Program dated 7 Dec. , 1976 prepared through a contract with Midwest Research Institute (1,1a) of Kansas City, Missouri, makes the following statements regarding flood hazards at the delta site. (p.117) "No detailed flood plain study-has been made for they South Platte River at this location. By interpolation of the 1973 high water marks, the Corms of argineers estimates- that the 100 year flood elevation at the upstream corner (southwest corner) of the site would be approximately 4612 feet mean sea level. Because of the site elevation of 4608 to /.609 feet, one would expect appro:r-aately 3 feet of water if the flood reached L612 feet mean sea level"----"4deauate flood protection would be provided if a berm were built approximately 4 feet above ground level" On page 116 of the same Final EIS the following statement is mane. "The construction of farm levees- can also be a factor affecting flood ctenti`-l. - levee built by a land owner to protect crop 1snds'ma;t indeed protect that parcel of land, but may also cause e.Irene flood hight and damage up stream or on the opposite banic." -3- Such a levee was constructed by John Forrester in 1973-74 following the 173 flood. The 1973 flood which encroached upon the S.L. and :I.3. corners of the delta site was relieved by washing out the opposite river bank and flooding the John Forrester farm land. This is showngraphically- on the county aerial mar which I` have collored. The delta site (rill ' property) is colored yellow. The boundries of the '73 flood are shown in blue. These boundry data are taken directly- from plate 14 of the April 1977 Special Flood Hazard Information Fepurt, of the Ai-:iy Corps of Engineers. The black curved line in auuronately the center of the flooded area shows the location of the new levee built for Forrester and designed to keep-the waters of the next flood off his farm land. As you may see, if the levee holds, it will cause the flooded area to be- displaced west— ward further onto the delta site and causing it to be flooded. Page 22 of the Flood Hazard Report shows the 100 year- flood elevation to be 4611.5 feet at cross section number 51 which is the county road at the delta site. Page 16 shows- the' 173 high water mark to be 4609.1 feet at the bridge east of the site- on the county road. Thus-, the 100 year f ood is erected to be 2.4 feet higher than the '73 flood and could be made much worse because of the new dike. The feasibility- of expanding the first avenue site rather than develop— ing a delta site is treated with by ill in the Final EIS (p.117) as fo'l ows: "Current. Greeley coning ordinances dictate that no construction can take place within a zone 200 feet on either side of the Cache La Poudre centerline. --- The first Avenue Plant can be expanded without violating the 200 feet right-of-way. The city presently awns land beyond this limit and additional acreage is available. mansion could take place �n this area and levees could be built without interfering with the flood plain river right-of-way." -4- Page 109 of the Final EIS shows the flood prone area of the Cache La Poudre and South Platte Rivers. The first avenue site is within the Cache La Pauth e flood prone area. However the delta site is within two flood prone river drainage areas, that of the South Platte- as well as that of the Cache La Poudre. A plant there would have a double exposure to flooding. I mentioned excansion of the first avenue plant as an alternative to building a plant on the delta. The August 1976 Draft EIS prepared by (p-.153) states "The regional Delta and regional First Avenue plants- concerts have been selected as cref erred alternatives.t" Ry November of 1976 MI/EPA had all but completed their study , and were- finding it veryr ' ^r', c' It to choose between the two alternatives-. It- was reported that they at first leaned in favor of expansion of the first avenue- site-. On November 12, EPA staff members met with representatives of the city of Greeley and others to obtain last minute in-cut. As a result of this meeting, on Dec. 7, 1976, the Final EIS was- released reccmnendng the delta site-. I have gone into this detail only to point out that up to the last moment, after all engineering studies had been completed the first avenue and the delta sites were considered substantially ecual. Other arguments which would suggest that expansion at the first avenue site may be preferable to building at the site areas follows:- h delta The first avenue site- is adjacent to a 4-lane interstate higi- ray with north, south, east and west access via the interstate system. Access to the delta site is via a county road which is in pcor repair having many chuck holes. It would require extensive rebuilding in order to 'ce trade suitable for carrying the 3000 gallon 43,500 017W liquid-sludge tankers proposed for the facility. The 13th sti eet bridges going east from the J -5- delta site on the county road are posted at the present time limiting loans to 3 tons. • • From a consideration of the cost effectiveness, pages 74 and 78 of the Final EIS show that overall construction costs through 1995 would be 4538,000 lower for a plant constructed at the first avenue site rather than at the delta site, with initial phase construction costs •�1,024,COO lower for the first avenue location, mainly because a 48" diameter lower ?cadre interceptor would not- be, reauir ed if the first avenues plant were cnanded. Other disadvantages of a delta site location are that for 20 to 25 years, the city of Greeley would have three separate sewage treat— ment facilities to operate, which increases the potential for operational problems. The delta site location would provide an additional potential source- of sewage treatment related odor. Finally, one of the most persuasive reasons for eliminating the delta site from consideration is that Colorado Revised Statute 34-1-305 will probably prohibit construction of a sewage plant on the site because of -commercial mineral deposits underlying the site. The statute reads: "After July 1, 1973 no board of county commissioners, governing body of any city and county, city, or town, or other governmental authority which has control over zoning shall, by zoning, rezoning, granting a variance, or other official action or inaction,. perait the use of any area known to contain a commercial mineral deposit in a manner which would interfere winh the present or future extraction of such deposit by an extractor." It is apparent that CE2N:Hill has been suite concerned about the effect this law has upon their site recornendatior_,-- and 'for -good cause. CH2M:Hill states in their a•onlication (p.2) nil potential sites in the delta area are in a mineral resources area." Included in Anpendix 3 of their application is a Geotechnical In1r stigation for Mineral Resource wommi . _ : -6- Evaluation of the proposed site. The investigation included nine test borings on the site and showed that (p-.2) "The subsurface profile at the site consists of up to 5- feet of topsoil overlying 40 to CO feet of flood plain deposits of the Cache La Poudre and South Platte rivers, con- sisting primarily of gravelly course- to fine-grained quartz feldspar sands, with fine." Ca page 3, is stated "The proposed project site lies with in the July 1975 Weld County Mineral Resources Plan, so that the underlying sand and gravel deposits constitute a potential 'commercial mineral depositr." Concerning the quality of the deposit, pages 3 and 4 report "The gravel contained in the deposits at the Dill property appears to be sufficiently- sound and durable for use- as concrete 'gregate-, for example, and the sand should- be suitable for granular fill material." Having established that the quantity and :quality of the mineral deposit are suitable for commercial nurnoses, the report then estimates the market value of the mineral resource to be ;;,5.3 million to :7-.7 million depending on whether the material is all sold as pit run gravel, or.:rheti_er the material is processed to obtain maximum quantity of course concrete agregate. The study next estimates the cost of extracting and processing the material to be from .4.6 to $7.1 million, leaving an estimated profit from operations of a.0 to ,?l.2 million depending on whether it is sold as pit run or processed Travel. Those figures so far do not take into account site rehibilitation costs. I do believe it reasonable to expect that a better than average operator using a better than average choice of machinery-and methods for extraction and processing might exceed these nrofit estimates by a wide margin. • But what about site rehabilitation or redevelopment costs? In calculating rehabilitation costs, CHM:Hill assumed that the -7- regional sewage plant would be built on the delta site,-- Period! : Thus they based rehabilitation cost estimates upon the cost of purchasing, transporting and refilling the entire site with imported material, com- pacting the material, and then purchasing and driving in piles to support the plant structures. On rage 2 of their application, CH2M:Hill makes the statement 'We conclude that the mineral resource is not commercially mineable (especially because of high redevelopment costs) and therefore extraction is not economically-desirable.' Of course, redevelopment costs would be high if one erroneously assumes that the plant has to be built at the delta. And can you picture the city of Greeley waiting for a sewer slant until the gravel is mined and processed and sold, and then all the redevelopment events described above have taken place? But the regional: plant does not have to be built on the delta, and redevelopment costs do not need to be- high,-- indeed, they could be almost negligible. When the Weld County Commissioners purchased the Day:is ranch for gravel, one of the reclamation plans called for the area to be redeveloped as a recreation area to include a large lake or lakes. The natural result of mining gravel on the Dill property or on the County aped property adjacent on the west, is a large lake. The 21 Dec. 1977 Greeley Tribune announced that the Weld County Planning Commission gave approval to plans for one of the largest gravel pits in northern Colorado to be located about 2 miles east of Greeley on a 230 acre parcel northeast of Linn Grove Cemetery. :lease note that of the 163.9 acres to be involved in the mining operation, redevelopment plans call for a 132.6 acre lake with the remainder to be agricultural I -8— ground. The lake of 132.6 acres would be 80-.9% of the land involved in the mining operation. If redevelopment plans cn the Dill property called for 80% to be a lake, and the remainder to be agricultural ground, re— development costs would be minimal and the mining operation economically- desi abl=e., Indeed, if the Dill property were- to be combined with the County property adjacent on the west, perhaps the entire Dill property could be a lake- in the redevelopment plans. To helm convince the Weld County Planning Commission and the County Commissioners that the property is not commercially mineable, a letter from a local gravel processing company was included in Appendix 3 of the application. The letter states that it is the writers opinion that the area east of Greeley is too expensive to operate as a gravel pit and should be left alone. However, a geologist named Walter Doeringsfeld received Planning Concession approval to develop the 163.9 acre ;ravel operation mentioned above, and the County Commissioners, after having 13 test holes bored, purchased the land on two sides of the Dill property for the nur'ose of mining the gravel. In conclusion, I believe that the application for a special use permit for a regional sewer plant at the- delta site should be denied, not only because the site probably overlies a commercial mineral deposit protected by Colorado Revised Statute, but also because an alternate first avenue site offers several advantages over the delta site, including accessabi?ity, availability of city water, lower construction costs and savings realized through single plant site operation. Thank you for hearing me. John M. Wheeler 2100 last 18th St. Greeley, Colo. .d Harold and Betty J. Law 23459 Weld County Road No. 58 Greeley, Colorado 80631 May 15, 1978 Weld County Department of Planning Services 915 Tenth Street Greeley, Colorado 80631 To Whom it may concern: We own and occupy the farm southeast of the proposed Delta Plant (within z mile). We graze and feed around 350 cows and their calves. The drinking water for the cattle is provided by wells and surface water. My concern is about contamination of the water as was experienced by the farmers in the east lagoon area. A twenty-three acre proposed plant is an extremely large one that could do a great deal of unforseen damage if a leak should occur. Living conditions in this area due to the odor would be most unpleasant and this would most definitly affect our personal lives. On page 112 of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement it shows 12% pollution for my area. It would probably be nearly impossible to hire good hired help to live under such odor conditions. My recomendation is that the plant be located farther east where it would be out of the more populated area. The present proposed site is only about three miles directly up-wind from the town of Kersey. This would make it very unpleasant for anyone living in the Kersey area. I have heard that there is some treatment plants which have no odor. I only know of the very bad situation which has been existing east of Greeley. - page two - It would not seem like the City of Greeley has a very good track record when it comes to sewage lagoons. We lease the Davis Ranch property which is directly north of the proposed site. The Delta Irrigation ditch runs across the proposed site to bring irrigation water to our leased property. In order to reroute the main ditch around the proposed site there would have to be some grading done. Sincerely, Harold Law t:<S 1611 led? MAY 1978 cr) PO CO RECEIVEDno OW eat � IP &OM Cools' ��`�� 1E0c62cs2'L 3197 East 18th Street Greeley, Colorado 80631 !Jay 14, 1978 Department of Planning Services 915 10th Street Gree ley, Colorado 80631 Dear Sirs : We are very much opposed to the building of a regional sewage treatment plant at the proposed site. These are our reasons : 1. We have lived here for 18 years in a beautiful agricultural area with clean air all year around. We do not want the odor of the sewage of the city of Greeley to pollute the air around here. 2 . The proposed sewage treatment plant will lower the value of our property. 3. The treatment lagoons ' contents might pollute the underground well water. 4. The proposed site was underwater in the flood of 1965. Future floods might cause considerable problems. We suggest that the plant be built on east 8th Street on the north side of the river in the vicinity of Road 47 or a similar less populated area; or expanding the existing sewers in Greeley and Evans. Thank you for your interest in our opinions. Yours truly, 1O 1,,1q�51614, o MAY 1918 ,tea Mr. and Mrs. Henry Hillmann op tl vED w ^/ %.;� WOid CUYIty 'A W r 2( / s :i L! s. _ V �J I-Y- it � 14-.y.L.G y y a .-, r L J May 14 , 1978 Weld County Planning Commission Gentlemen: In regard to the letter recently recieved as per the Delta site proposed for the new Sewage Treatment Plant, my hesband and I have lived here for 3 years and owned our home for the Last 2 years. My father, Irving Middleton who has since passed away, ran and managed this area for the Robert S. Daivs Black Angus Cattle Ranch for 15 years, so I am well aquainted with this area. I have several objections to the proposed site, not only because I live here , but because I but because I do, I have seen so many more things than most peoplt have. Firstly, there is the location itself.Between both the Cache La Poudre and the South Platte River, where I Can remefnber having seen the water in flood stage at a dangerously close point to the proposed site. I am sure no one thinks that the probability of flood water reaching the site would ever occur. May i Remind you of the Big Thompson? I see no reason after such a tragis lesson as that to jeopardize the taxpayers hard earned money on a plant which could be flooded and sustain thousands of dollars damage. There is also the water level in the area itself. Being getween the two rivers the water level of the ground is also a factor to consider. Secondly, the wildlife in this area is tremendous. Now there is not much traffic or noise, and the wildlife abounds. Thirty or Forty deer can be seen almost every day. They gave been unharmed, and are unafraid now, but what will happen when large equipment and crews come in? There are,,not many places so near to our city where they are safe. Not only deer, but many varieties of birds and animals. Thirdly, there is also the point that the ground for the proposed site is fertle farm land. Thy destroy a field of food shen there is other land used for nothing? Expanding the present site would be a much more practical solution all the way around, It would be cheaper, easier, closer and safer. I really don' t want to see the sewer come here, but either way, I am going to do my damnest to stay here in my home. I hope you will respect the rights of all these people to stay in their homes where they have lived and prospered for so many years. Another point I would like to make, is that there does not seem to be enough money or manpower to even maintain the roads in this area let alone spend money and energy to build an entirely new sewage treatment plant. Think about It. Thank You, Mrs Debra Rodman Mr. Donald Rodman Jr. Nth Y 1918 Guam; k WgiiP ti � 1 May 13, 1978 Weld County Planning Commission To Whom It May Concern: As a concerned property owner within 500 feet of the proposed treatment platn, I strongly oppose building at the proposed site. The late Irving Middleton and myself purchased our land to retire on. Unfortunatly he passed away last August. I certainly do not look forward to having the City of Greeley' s sewage problems dumped in my back yard. Mr Middleton managed the 1, 200 acres known as the "Davis Black Angus Ranch" for 15 years. Had the city of Greeley approached him, he could have told them about flooding of the road right past the proposed site. Many times he could not get into the ranch except with a four-wheel drive vehical. In some spots the road would be completely washed out. Evidently the city is so anzious to push their problems on Delta residents that they have neglected to study and get the facts. Despite the testing for gravel, we the residents know there is a lot more gravel than the reports showed. The 1, 200 acres adjoining the proposed site has been a game reserve for years and is posted as such. Have you ever seen 25 to 30 deer leap the fences and feed on corn stalks after harvest? I have. Two of the corn fields where deer graze and ducks and geese feed are on the proposed treatment site. I and other Delta residents choose to live in the country, and enjoy it. Do not let the city of Greeley disrupt our lives. There are certainly other alternatives to this situation. Upgrade the First Avenue Plant and keep the always present odors there. It would certainly be a lot cheaper. Thank you, Winifred Middleton • <15 16 177.0 MAY197$. _ •�O V�c4d Cc m `�� ptannin�Co�,�isslsu �,� May 13, 1978 Dept of Planning Services 915 10th St. Greeley CO 80631 Attention: Assistant Zoning Administrator Weld County Planning Commission Dear Sirs: Please record this letter as one in opposition to the Sewage Treatment Plant proposed location of 18th St. & Holly St.. This proposal should be considered as very potentially dangerous. The Delta area, in which the proposed location lies is an area between two major divers- and it is in the 100 yr flood plain{ (Ref: Ron Miller, Greeley Head Conservationist, Soil Vonservration Service) . Even though the proposed plant is a permanent struc- ture, .permanent structures often succomb to the pressures of floods Please do not allow the possibility of contamination spreading over the Delta and downstream by allowing this loca- tion to be approved. Please explore further the economics of this matter - We under- stand that other land has been volunteered for the site , which seems a considerable monetary savings . The real estate in this area, which has much historical background, offers pleasant living to many residents with close proximity to Greeley but this proposal in itself has stagnated the appreciation. Please consider the Matthews ' plight in the event the site is approved -- the neighbors in this area feel great concern for them. Thank you for your considerations. Sincerely, Mr. & Mrs. Douglas Howard 3226 E. 18th St. Greeley, CO 80631 ,(01516?") MAYrZ: 3)42 Y 1978 r> Co RECEIVED r' Weft Ceonlr S, Planning Goniissioo �' ZABKA FARMS 617-6th Street P.O. Box 446 Greeley, Colorado 80631 May 12, 1978 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES, 915-10th Street Greeley, Colorado 80631 Attention: Chuck Cunliffee, Assistant Zoning Administrator. Dear Sir: Writing you in regards to your notification requesting, The City of Greeley "Special Use Permit for a regional wastewater (sewage) treatment plant." I am returning a copy of the noticiation you sent along with the legal description of our property. We are very much OPPOSED to this treatment plant in this area. We have 72 acres of pasture that we p asture our cows and calves. Our pasture is in the flood plain area and the treatment plant would also be in the same area, why would the City even think of putting a treatment plant in the Delia Area, we do not need stoppage for flood waters. With the plant right across the road from us, it would be very detrimental to us and our livestock. What would happen if high waters would arise, we all would be flooded due to the permanent structure of a sewage plant with a brim. Again I say that we ARE VERY MUCH OPPOSED to this treatment plant in the DELTA FLOOD PLAIN AREA. We would very much apprecicate you considering this about twelve miles out of town and not in Greeley 's surronding areas. Yo s very truly, M . & Mrs. Duane D. Zabka Doro by Dewey Za ka DZ/bm Dorothy Zb a MAY 1978 GI° RECEIVED r— Wei Coeb N s) Alain Carr ,tiy CI 1E0E0 • May 12,1978 To Whom it may concern; We would like to register our opposition to the proposed sewer plant. Our property is located immediately east of the proposed site. During the 1973 flood our complete property was under water except for the house and a small strip of land angling to the south-west of our house to 18th St. When the flood waters began to run over 18th Street east of the river bridge, this was our safety, the water didn 't raise anymore on our side. We were evacuated from our hone by the Greeley Fire Departmant. Since 1973 there have been two dikes put in East of the South Platte River. One paralells the South Platte river the other paralells 18 St. These two dikes will force all of the water west of the river in the event of a flood. The city of Greeley now proposes to put a dike along the west side of our property. I would like for you to visualize where this leave us. Mr. Mathews is very ctitioally ill with Bronchial Asthma and border- line emphysema. If there we re odors which the City of Greeley have admitted there may be(They told us at one meeting that they were made to stink and there certainly is odors from the First Ave plant and the Lone Tree Plant). This certainly would cause an adverse con- dition for an already serious situation as far as our health is concerned. We live in an area where there is a great deal of fog. If an open sewer system if put in in this location the fog ammumulation could be very hazaradus. There is a great deal of gravel which makes a very pourous soil. We have a small furnace basement room. In the winter time it is dry but just as soon as the fields west of us start to be irrigated then we have water in our basement. We have a domestic well and we believe that our well could be made unsafe if the sewer plant was put in to the west of us. The irrigation ditch which runs through the Dill property is our source of irrigation water for our property with a headgate atd both of the north and south end of the property. If this ditch were moved as they propose it would create very serious problems as far as our irrigating our crops. The people of the EPA assured us that they would not give the grant until we had been considered with possibly a good trade for another farm. This has not been ever considered by the City of Greeley. We feel that if this Sewer Plant is allowed to be put in that our property valuation would be greatly decreased as well as the health and saftey hazards that we face. We strongly urge you to deny this request. \-0216 ti4 do Sincerely, Sincerely, , MAY1978 ; G, 7 C6�?, ��-�-,-�, e-f co RECEIVED 1a c, , C, / ,c to Weld Conntyl ' / (Planning //� G� Waitaki l e IS �� ( a C f rwf. ,,re*,,y i. iY „ -� CL ` p J/ cl .s, _Q 'i.^ 5r'X` 'gar_• .., `=+.W.,r y.� ,4.N..':Vitt77: :i.-1,.,,;-,P,*,,3„..,„.„. :---4,,,,.li A-A-----<- ----,,,.14.------) ..-c--.-../1---_6:4, (-4.-c-e-t-tria-4- e----GQ, • - / L..„-tC/ , V'tt.-V--( - (-L., -( a, e. L..x'Y ..R..» __,_-/.:-- p),L,__`-±Ly r_4....,,,Az if\c,,, .12,,,,, " r ,ek,K4F�.',. T,........ .-..,,....,.4..e,. Lam11: . -�7// /" ' n f G, W' Sao/ 4Lx- -rte !'yLc-c9L_4..1.. ___,..-1.----t ,• ANY 1; L -/_.....4,---0-0., -bIA--,--- , ......-E.c.,1" . ---/714..._e_.• O„.j.4.i_bt ,..i. 0-1.---"LLA lv/ i 4 6/44"\l' - - - _ s___AL1•�nw.,v--o-/�, •rl,.-L.ist) L-fit- i --(.3-' `- J �� -- --60 __A...----I-‹.___,-,__X r::::1-Y'L A t r r- C ' •• •••4.---E-17:1 ..........,,,L..," O 'r V /�/'� `V'.�.-a'L....7-e_�.\G--L.Q....... ., 11_,A,j hji '-6,./L4..... ___„6„..1._e it,,,__..) -Co --t-L.L.,--/.......) �/ �-C,-"�L •�.t'\+�- u-V\-- Ci.J��J` 7 J `1-0,--y�� L y 7 Pi.C.l� �� J/ I� / � /) ;)0 -•-'11.,t- Q— v►� �® ill yV`� / •.j (/\-CL L'�� LL C,./6\-t1 (-U U Cc 1-- c c - L<? -1_ ` L4 /' pri,,....___. o • - L � / ? 7 Sludge use may hold dangers for humans CHICAGO (AP) — Rejuve- Chicago. nating farmland with sludge She is leading a fight against from some urban sewage treat- distribution of sludge to home ment plants may hold hidden gardeners by the Metropolitan dangers for the health of people Sanitary District of Chicago. who eat food grown on the fer- "There is no question about tilized land,scientists say. the danger of cadmium," Sludge is the solid, dried Weddle said in a telephone in- waste that remains after raw terview. "The heart of the de- sewage is treated For years bate is how serious the problem cities all over the country have is since it takes 20 to 40 years been giving it away as an or- for damage (to the human ganic fertilizer for lawns, land- body) to occur The Federal scaping, home vegetable gar- Drug Administration and the dens and cropland EPA are concerned" But Bruce Weddle of the En- In 1972, the World Health Or- vironmental Protection Agency ganization recommended that in Washington said there is no one ingest more than 70 growing evidence that sludge parts per million of cadmium from many cities contains risky per day levels of industrial poisons The EPA has proposed regu- which can be picked up by lations, now open for public crops and transmitted to hu- comment,which would set lim- mans its on the total amount of sludge The major concern is cad- on agricultural land. The mium, a metallic chemical oc- regulations also would prohibit curring in zinc ores and used in the application of sludge con- . a variety of industrial appli- taining cadmium at more than cations. 25 parts per million to farmland It occurs naturally in some which grows particularly soils and accumulates with age susceptible crops, such as in the kidneys and liver. lettuce and carrots. At its extreme,cadmium poi- soning can cause kidney failure and there is research indicating it may cause cancer and gen- etic defects, said Dana Davoli, staff scientist for the Citizens for a Better Environment in • ($(q(j f, x'L t \if t:t �}ii;1,'1- (r( • • .t,ll( ( �`I / f� \ 'L''lit� t . ( 1It1.lt l�. ��g1ElGER DEALERS FOR A DEM��94� // v - en w m w m m i o z o m R- ILLINOIS 0 Sewage sludge®- m M Auburn . Beatty implement --I zChadwick .. ..Handel Impl, Store „Ti . ^a g^.0 O Hamilton.Midway otvs cn what It' d worth as fertilizer o Henry __Read Brothers Mcri what w Kewanee ....Warner's Turbo Shop Monmouth . .. Martin & Clark m w Co„ Inc. m ¢ Morton ....... Bill Bartelmay Equip. 9 Q Oswego .. . . .Twait & Buck, Inc. O E It sounds like a good deal.You get Sludge is no bonanza to end the Rantoul Birkey's Farm Store, Inc. M g X. "fertilizer" organic matter for fertilizer shortage "All the waste- ° Ridgway Downen Enterprise I— LL Rockford Walker-Schork Int. 7m0 only what it costs you to haul and water produced in this country could Sheridan .....-- Twait& Buck,Inc. cn w spread the stuff, and the city Y gets a fertilize only about 2% of the culti- Sparta .......Sparta Equipment Co. '1 w-J Sycamore .... Sheahan Equipment Inca cheap method of sewage disposal. vated land,"reported Tom D. Hines- C INDIANA T But it's not that simple First, al- ly and R. L Jones, University of Ilil- w Goodland ...Burton Imp[ Co., Inc. XI though anaerobic digestion of sew- nois scientists. cD Princeton B & W Ford Tractor m age turns out "stabilized" sludges Still, if you take certain precau- in OHIOille J. E. Dean Sales, Inc. o containing N, P and K, it often does bons, you can use sewage sludge Archbold ....._.Liechty Farm Equip. O0 not remove heavy metals such as now to reduce your fertilizer require- LL Norwalk . . ......Lang Implement z copper, zinc, nickel, lead, cadmium ments. First, have a sample tested F . .. . ...Springfield Carich Ford Tractor, Inc. XI D and others. Tiny quantities of these for heavy metals as well as N, P and o Upper Sandusky __Bowen Impl. -� metals, sometimes called trace ele- K by your state soil testing lab. w Co., Inc. z zz Van Wert .. Harvey Equip. Center, z ments, are necessary for healthy If you can get a liquid sludge low Wash. Court House_ . Greenline m growth of crops and animals but in in heavy metals, you can apply it Equip, Inc. j,w Wooster Mcnvaine Impl co. m large amounts they're toxic.] safely for three years, at rates up to z WISCONSIN Z Some scientists also worry that 10 tons of dry matter per acre per O Dodgeville .. Hennessey Motors m Janesville Equipment, Inc. o sludges may carry diseases. Others year, believes Dale E. Baker. soil C Oshkosh Pansiewood Impl. Co. -i believe that the danger from patho- . chemist at The Pennsylvania State in Shullsburg .,Harbach Farm Supply 2 Z0 MICHIGAN Bens in sludges are a "figment of University. Heavy metals in sludge z Marlette .Tri-County Equip Co. m imagination." should not exceed these limits zinc, Wo Sebewaing —_.Gettels, Inc. y parts million,per pp 1,500 copper, 750 MISSOURI M Jackson .. Jackson Imps. Co, Inc, m Secondly, some sludges are ppm; nickel, 150 ppm; lead, 500 i w Perry . Roethemeyer Equip. Co. worth more than others as plant ppm; and cadmium,50 ppm. < Sikeston . Cooney Equip. Co, Inc. m° food. For example, nitrogen can "Just as with anhydrous ammonia, 0 ALABAMA D range from as low as 1% in one you have to incorporate sludge or O MarionWu. ilbourne Impl. Co, r g in KENTUCKY m sludge to as high as 15% in another some of the nitrogen gets away," CC Q Hend TENNESSEE erson Cates Farm Shop 0 from a different community,pointed says James Ryan, EPA soil scientist. w Trenton Gibson County out Albert L. Page, University of "Don't overload your soil with more tJ Tractor Co, Inc. > California soil scientist. Research in- than recommended rates, and don't Cc NORTH CAROLINA Si w Pantego ... .Coastal Steiger Sales m dicates a range of 1%to 6%for phos- let your soil p1-1 drop way down." w FLORIDA m phorus and .05% to 1% for potas- 0. Oviedo w COLORADO "Oviedo Tractor Co. 2 sium, he said, presenting a paper in Most sludges have a built-In C/3 Bennett ...............�....Stelger Saleso z November at the American Society nutrient Imbalance.This is why sci- F Burlington .Harrel Impl. Co.,Inc. of Agronomy meetings in Chicago. enlists recommend applying sludge LL Greeley ..... Hammon's Imps., Inc. 9 Another soil scientist thought it for its phosphorus and then supple- 0 Lamar ... H. Manning Co. O would be useful to calcula ty the mentmg with nitrogen fertilizer,pot- Sterling ....Sterling Truck&Equip. z co. z value of an "average" sludgen a ash and lime. If sou applied enough wO PENNSYLVANIA dry weight basis it would yield a sludge to satisfy the crop's need for Fairview .. Dick Brady Farm m g [n Trac. Sales, Inc. O fertilizer analysis of 5-5-0.5 of N, nitrogen, you would be putting on Z NEW YORK Z P OS and K,O, reported Robert G. too much phosphorus. O Batavia . . Batavia Farm Equip. IOWA o Gast, University of Minnesota That One treatment process that re- LI Adel .... ..--...Riverside Implement = would make it worth about $26 per duces the heavy metals concentra-in Fertile _. North Iowa Tractor O Hamburg . .... ... Glenn Impl. Co. ton of dry solids, or about $7.50 per lion and kills pathogens is compost- • Hampton A. C. Benton,Inc. m 1,000 gals. of a liquid containing 5% ing. Unlike anaerobic digestion, the LO u Iowa Falls .._, A. C. Benton Co. 1 solids. Gast figured N, P and K at bacteria in a compost windrow re- w Jewell .... ....Jewell Impl. Co., Inc. !r w Red Oak Kerkhoff Impl. Co. 20i,34C and 8c per pound 7 quire air to decompose the sludge. Rockford Fischer Chev. Xl Gast admits that5nder present The higher temperatures developed a and Imp), Inc. O cc conditions it costs more apply during composting kill harmful Sioux City . ...._. Sioux City Ford m o Tractor, Inc. r- sludge than the stuff is worth pathogens better than tht anaerobic Conroy -„ _ Ed Folkmann & Son m XI All of the drawbacks and the cost process. Composting seems to lessen w - have not dampened interest in the the availability of heavy metals for oD idea Other methods of disposal— plant uptake, Ryan says 6 chiefly incineration and land till— Trouble is, few cities use compost- v' �„ra may be even snore costly and more ing because it's more expensive than 0� p polluting than sludge application. digestion. ,_ —Gary Reynolds �'eS353141 d0 3NO 33S-NOIIVHISNO.- I I1 //,, 1 , (.1(C)1 11 t o t'i,l,, \l till[ (<, 1 ► I 1 i ( , Nil R.' To Whom it may` concern. - T ran a gravel and sand business from 1946 to 1923, Tho last 7 years I took the sand and gravel .front': a pit just 1/4 mile soith of the Delta plant site , .1L. . ' � 'as' � d� end ravel ��as ,use ony st h ,pr�c��. �� g' • tie �i y rese vo�r, rm.Jnp; Elwii�e '8o, ?��A ,.: . Morter sand for brick at the College Brown‘s s tile works McKinley read;_ mix concrete r Ralph Couan for laying br ; c't Tree° Schnc i_der{ builder concrete plaster 'n hr 'el r.' lay i_.ig. / The ,s;,!10 ;'�;lf�_ 1'�'',',o� i,�,; cue ,_ �,'�i�; 7,11; lding Code at ti time. We never had any eomplaunt on the material . . Thank You, . M. E. Davidsl)ri • l*S • C ' • p. • • =Mi-_I __ - ._ + cC't 7.1 ccc Cr -( f- lCc //l,,c/c i . (4 /C- / /(( F' (2-/ 16 ,4'-1 z,,. -�,; _., L / 7(-/ rti C (_‘ c.1 ( /f(c� / e: ,---176) C.. , _ -\___ /, ;'cl t, :_ Z6- rey ,,,.,,,,,c,, 7Xe2...., (5 /rC.L =�'—/� ) _ c t C-t L le/ 0 - V e/(E'v J Cwt / 1 - z/ j r. 1 - •G.T 2 e, fi C `C Gk e (.--/ ,�<' )z,--- 7/<` c e,. l! �C.)/'C C G✓ (f //� G ' // G; ,-- )-- '//7' 6".6t 44.(--"" 6 34-1 (-- 77 /, L a,iy' ( 3 A t 711,,7G e ,i e?612 ...- c/ rG!'' 'e' ��G sG f / T 1 L. c ( e,'__. 2CG,e -r - V-(-- 7-,Z(I ,,,,/' e',',,c Z(/)--- , . z/Le ,2 2 (let___., } 'i ' ;, ' , Lir2-- 7 6,t e476‘f",,.d.A.z c,e 6:e,/ els-2'_4.:- c_ -'-'-i-7/6'c. "'-' '' .i.W-2-e/(C'ef ZZ:1. .,../..dite- I, h/ I „X: 4 1/2 CZ' //ccit: (A...? Z/--- ..,-)? ? e't s.,:e 4 2,:: - --) ,7 Z-Z--0 6.,-/-- ---Z,a /ee...--c_ -, _....-e-4-c /-6-c-i/7 c ezA,; 4 A4 J.)? -'l / ( c- GilC</ i '`' G-) /&2,,.' (-Z.e"t"/C E' Z� 4'/ .6,--e-t, f of t % l fG L rte- C_ �F • ` c- (:',3-/ZL i ,-6.6 Z- -C , yf:P) '6717( 6L-71 z/7/z,z_ /C�,�-/��` 'Vie ilk 67/ ,)(-7; 6 ev' 7/e— - r-e-e-ei (CAA E 7c: /e.f? (-1TC- ,(7",-L/efti (ex,c; E /( CSz.1 /04 Z / 71.? __l 1CL 7/ ce A Cti9,-/l/./c‘. ie.:7 z„/,1 /4-7 .'1(4( (e--- /1-X (---7_62,/-7- z,, ()/1- rc it l c LIZ -7 <' 7- C e) ,z. _6/Ji ,267-) , (-(?2,/. • ;let."C'aer-Z2Zf: (/"/". /O /4, ej- Iza / y//2--ecz z ez._) Cr;6-7 ( (;), //c/ 22,ee47 r,e6i <<rZ-7e - k ,PLC.Va C-'zJ, , A.-2-z/ C6-6 )Z2`'r� L '�)/lze 662- % I�aLt C J • ic e iz ')2 f C.? (c.e04.47f„,_ > (7Z26?:- 27/I ,r,' �a A �I�Gy' _rev c��l ('lC�.� lac Vic / ✓ • tq' ' )-L 71‘- 7 i;--A _') _ (_., /- - >4. / --e7-2(- , (e6f-- ,,o (, .?,, _ ('‘',-) )1L-76) Z 6"-c•/7..2 . .ze_tc:- -r7eL. e 'z'rk...i. )m .e"zc d e6 -( e. ' -ea / )z---6"76,16?" 7Z-1 e'a/'a'e 2 ��e Lc'C�l - _ sL G7_ Z (27(ex2-41 n 9? 6";t bac/ 72,=i/•; 6/. g22(:, l Ccl,, (--.1;V-_-7-zi.- .,-- - --A--- - - -- ..., ._.i.2 4(: /,' / zz_, -:11.e' ' le 7Z. .I'Z':,/ C? . .....-e'e_- -/--•ZcZ )2Z l Z-71:/lpi (7/L X-' -6'6?%(. /6" e'›c"-- f •-i.44.-1.ez-- n..-,i,, ---7-/ 5 /./.. r 66i Z cE/ z� 7/� ////4-/ 7 e Li /7--(a',./6://, af_ .1,--11e-W '>(_...)/e'-.7e7:) 2(1 / ,6.-:?--e-)i cel) ,.17) ''' ' yz,i_:_,/1 L� '�� G6,�iK- . Cep L 61,- LPL. o _SSG CF ,,e -.E.. ., ' ( i(1, e (3/e„-:;/: ,-__3(2(..) --Zzkti ,./aa 62/41, '/ - -, / .; - - 0, _,t1 . ‘. 2- 6-i• a //i-e7-4 ../ ./7A-e ,k (0/7-4 -,-,-/A2_ L it-T-7;7 ZZ-v-1---tc_L: ? /(d Z"-ez-'147t170/__. .)e:-c-- �� 6 /r� C)762 ,'.32'C e-LLB` les' J4A; i'-)fri,L-i( .1z(c ) , :e a > /--i-On/T/c.',) Cd'," (-,Z2,. �' --_,/-4 1 £J 1'a A {e/, �(c/..., 7i (VI__ oar, ir ) '1t, Ala-` 2, AZ (?.4' 0-, .:1-11z t'G1,,,t,, G'I;� /,c' %cad/ c„,d Lei/(X., 7,-/IGD,7c ,;AZ_ ,12-1-676--ecZ -cj., -,2.( (16L- ,-_ -.. "' .„4--J e-it'e_-/- -a e ,42'- -•/ , .,.)-' '4'. �& c. a- " e- c� y //e7 --_,.„-_-..32 z 1:, (2 ,ze( X- *≥C /I //la 6. c•f.._ ?f-- 2 (.66 2e. (Vz z )Z ce-liz1_- < / <<.-/ „- v- z �// e'/ f .--/l 66 c/�' .2e-1i- el //z V / CzGG'z' /GzC�C'.i / z -- _ 171--- i x ) , ✓fit= L G / -l.� --6"/C cam'ey- c'in -6 '7(6')C.— c't/Z('-,1 .i‘- -4.---2ete.".-1 ' , ;2'' ' ..e' e' 7 e___, __le_ _ %fr . e-e7 e', 76//- c(,.._..4?_-/ eZ- )i--(77_ ez_ze____ AC-ife.ezeTi i/y) /7 ze-e6-7. - z e ceel,i ‘,77-=--,Lf. 3e:z-/ ,-a -// (e6cf_ 2z --c--z c a ,,2 .‘(_ - ___‘ . c.:7/_- _ , --,4c,-,.. 2., . ( - r . e,,' )z 6) (e- (/Z 2 1, -- --) 62'6/ 6--)z,/:- 6;--,-__-/ 7-X-_e__, j E /72-L, , ,17,6t) ,.-1,6 7 z 4 ce.,./ z"--X'e__ /4-e Wye_ / / *L.-- Cc e--1C`; 7/z-'- ,/ x it a e__, 2 c z tz.1! . ) 14 L d.,, )2 ,,,,r /1ic ,� c'-<.--- ; --4/-6-c_C > Zerrc>( j �� ---3 1 z�Z C z t , G'i�d a �aL"G/X J 1 . cli,,,, )4.ve•- //('‘?6, --,..-- ,,,2.- -z---_,72,_/ t. / L,,?!)--a e- (i 1("?' ..,-.7_,/ 47(6-e, -t'/77c.;e 4/l ,>'.-e/:,2_, )( 4 ___„ ,. ,, ,, ,., e ._ 42 (,-;,:` )2/a/A-e/7-? /--Zj 1.,. C.e./l C c -e-&-k,.,e t ` e , b,----74. •_:7 C(Gic) ,72.,a(-, I ((Z.). 6' .7i (er-, '�',�/C,fz-r —/Ci- 1 //t iwe Z6.4_ e a? -7 ct-L,I 6?) e 6/i ec:.?___ 'k' AZ/0.-Gl(i7(16--/- 6''-7 ;2-4 Z', C C'e-- e ',..) -*'t e* </ rt6 2 C'-2--,-1 .-- /c ‘ /Z.,_; C e-V,;Z--72-;7 Z142 2 L'-- ),77.-01-t--_ Et"- ('-77i2/-- VVV- ' ' Z. --4-ZL (2-1---- 77::27-2... .... rf, C. 'C d:Z_, . �-1LC�- CZ� . -ii `� " �zl� _ )127 Cr'd (G/L'tt,' )itav,/ - 6.-z,/=-- -2-,, z 2 &,, ,,' z e.- ‘,4.. .,, (._.„ , • /CMG C LI Lt e? e f,C,' a../r?ei 1-‘,6/ ,,,_,,,,,, (____ /'�G /` 7zi/70/-- 72.-z7eZ/ z-_. GC1 74-..---/ . -' 6t/ZZt/ yG1i lt'- C`Vc 6,z 6"-? /e. e A i. 6' ,11://c? P)///c-Ty / /(2 v) /4?-z/Li -,--'1Z c. L c.•t Y!( (-- / ,,.12-z(.../ _ z i (I.- -,.-- /4.-e fie!ert. ,, s�?L=') 0 1,_'tt "•% C<'lc.-1 �'G'-)-y.(2-14'f c / G ..)eG`7 ; e"/c s /P7/ L.) •'1 0/ ec--; Z('/-=h (�✓tie/ f Ccr/c" Cam' j T Je/7k./ f r C_ z 66 (2/Cc-1 )7/(t'/"= Cie.; vt, r z O C.-6 C?"e7y17Ziate,_ (E 7:e(7 4(' /c_ yo(,) Ste, ln�- C My husband and I feel 1 . c we have a very vital in Est in the question of the sewer location. First of all I would like to locate our property for you. We live just east of the proposed site. We feel that we have a great deal to loose if the sewer plant is located at the proposed site. The Dill property and ours is some of the finest farm ground anywhere as can be verified by the present crop of corn now growing on the property despite the fact that it has been called unprod;ative land We have lived here since 1958. During this time we have seen a number of floods, the worst one being in 1973. We were evacuated by orders of the Greeley Fire Departmant when our home was totally surrounded by water except for a small strip of ground angling to eh southwest of our house out to 18th St. Water across our driveway was half way up on our pickup when we drove out. Our safety was when the South Platte started to flow Over 18th street east of the River. The water did not raise anymore on our side. The dike which paralells 18th st. will now force all flood waters our direction. In the light of these facts our home and even our very lives could be in, imminant danger. The City of Greeley is now proposing to put a burm or dike alnng the west side of our property. If we were evacuated in 1973 without any of the dikes in, can you visualize oup problem with three extra dikes in that were not in in 1973. Our soil here even though is good farm ground is very pourous type of soil with a great amount of sand and gravel. We have a small basement room which is only a furnace room. During the winter time the basement is dry, however just as soon as they start irrigating the fields west of our house then we get water in the basement and it stays there as long as they are irrigating. In some parts of our place it is difficult to keep fence posts tight because of the sand and gravel, any pressure on them loosens them. We have a domestic well which we have had recently tested and we have a high rate of nitrate in it,- but as yet is is listed by the health depart- ment as safe. If the sewer plant is put in to the west of us there is no assurance that our domestic well would be safe for us or our animals. Even tho'?gh the people of Greeley have said there will be no danger. I would like to know who is going to moniter it to insure us that our wells are safe and what are they going to do abo ut it after it is in and our neighborhood wells a re ruined. We feel that if you the county commissioners OK this plant , then yyou should insist that the City of Greeley install at no expense to us either North Weld water or water from the City of Greeley to insure that we have safe water to drink. We were assured by the EPA that the City of Greeley would have to buy our place or in the light of my husbands critical physical condition that the City of Greeley should obtain another farm with some of the same qualities as we have and negotiate a trade. Nothing has been done abo ut this by the City of Greeley. It appears to us that they intend to put the sewer plant in and leave us sitting with all of the bad side effects, the odo odor, the danger to our health, the danger of flooding, and the devaluation of our property. They have stated in public meetings that they intend to buy oup {ryproperty, but dthe��Jj ha a mad/e/ no move to do this. .,,}'�'.[, l• `.M'`✓" /V' �Iv'�LLC It y -2, The fog situation 1iere along the river should bel a factor to be considered. r Many mornings the fog is so heavy in the winter time that 18 street isn 't really safe to drive because of the heavy fog. If the sewer plant is put at the proposed site. The density of fog on 18th street will be greatly increased. There is presently a school bus that turns around near our V9Y'L' driveway which is our . .nion is not now safe. h.e fog is increased what about the lives on the bus. We do not need to have a tragedy such as was surrered a few years ago with one of our buses and a train. We have asked and have had no satisfying answers to the plans for the Patterson(Delta ) ditch. Our property is under the ditch irrigation. We have a headgate at both the North and South end of the Dill property. The ditch is built at the highest elevation to all ow the water to flow freeley both to the east and west. If this ditch is moved to a lower elevation then the flow of water will be greatly minimised. The people of Greeley have said they intend to truck the sludge. I don 't think I need to stress the conditoon of some of the roads in our area. Most of the bridges now have widhts posted and are in very poor condition. Before heavy trucks could go over them several bridges will have to be renued. We have taken some picturers of the bridge near our driveeay. We were contacted by a county empooyee only last week who informed us that they may have to put colverty in where the existing unsafe bridge is. In flood times the bridge had water up against the bridge. Culverts would make the flood more hazaradous for us also. I feel • that we need a lot of answers tha t we haven 't been getting. We have discussed thse and many more points at several meeting but no one listens to us. I would like to ask you our county commissioners are we not taxpayers, are we not people with pride in our homes and community. Does it matter to you what becomes of us and our homes. Do you Care? If you do care I urge you to take a hard look at the facts we have presented this afternoon and vote NO to the proposed site. My husband is a disabled veteran, not able to do any form of work or many days not even able to be out of the house. The past long months have been a real drain on his health with all of the nerve pressure. We have worked 20 years to pay for our home. Do we have to stand by now and see all of our efforts go down the (sewer) drain. Do you dare to stand up and be counted or are you too sitting there with your ears closed, not hearing a word that has been said. 61-2-e-ef efy a gua.//G /97,, Gt.f 4O4/2 ,gym, i <u i.- &u /G/ /97F ) a - ',,zoMI -'- , / ., , ‘---h-,- ----------- L k -y7--!2 _,/1 I ,1.- 'j''--� v'' -,...(:_.,..7-2-.7s--c;- ,�%�' -/ ' -,,.i.-' !'ate: . ` !,He.,,i , ;2 /fa 'f (..) - ..6?--1'(-tt ,r's_-'.-Lrr'/"! „fir. 62I/e .`el ----4-e-7') -4'-f•t r4 / " L1) ` ,-/. .1? k.,':;?( ,----)!; _.-__'7--;—;q „..._.c:::-i-1:=,---;::--e-----,-":e- ..‘":- -it-4; ,----:_''- '•,..-.:_-L.:_-(" A 6,6-4( _tf? _ / 1/ 1.4.(eit t _ , i 4 I/ /,_'. --71, , �� y �f C f,� /.) / l i , tr. 4 ,,•.''�r, �'__7 : 4'7,-4/ - �.. rte.' _l -r_-cr / -,--....:,,-,.,-_-e f f t.. /-li.k 4 n�i.'` 1�f`r��J� .�, �� _.I= ?� ► lam*'- .- :-1C/; //1/ �i r e,.-I2 -1--tts-;4". -i .9.--/--.1:1- 1- j'--2-/-7 ,-..--,.,- - y ;,` Js- 7-1:.---,%-1-- , - , ii ,„ (" .,_,,-,...; ,-;; , c_-_,3-7_4-2....,___._,-,---,_,,,,,,-- j 63-e44.4441 ..4 4-421 � � - M -, - r``J !i j 1,Y" ,/ / , . r 1 / Z f' el / '' _ - , i '`' d' i ' 1 J i (G,J e , > " / .' ' , i N. �� i 4 2 f, 4 • r .. - ' . ., , t ' I I Y / ' i i l F < 'd L _ _,f (., - I - - C >t . , > / .- ,'_,) - ,i '' > 1I., lill s, ,_.,- 0 7'' • d ------"''Cf' i -- /CC, .-d ';' R !` _ • 1 B.r. .+/ C C: s a' d •-• ? /,, w r' -, f Al r r S.'". (_ 1.' ! t , , l el 1-t w `.1...7. 1. 1, , .....# / / " � � i.2, i s '^`/ , __. _ .i . . ,,," ! . i L - i _ , , {mil c r• ' ~ t c do- r, /--4 _,,, . _' ,_ + l -:/fit/ .-e--1.- t t r r" F ., S 4 t -_.-z- l '� `.—r`- L it t- - ("Ki ,g/,'/.,( • --; `` ' - c,— L. ` - ` . / 64...,,,cf'77, tr. 0- r.-----i--vil (rot i," i L t A,"(------" City of Greeley SUP-362 : 78 : 14 SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS May 10, 1978 Winifred Middleton, Don and Edward Gale and Ruth S. McArthur Debra Rodman 4725 West 12th Street 1685 Holly Avenue Greeley, Colorado 80631 Greeley, Colorado 80631 Harold and Betty J. Law W. C. and W. Catherine Mathews 23459 Weld County Road 58 3791 East 18th Street Greeley, Colorado 80631 Greeley, Colorado 80631 Josephine Clough and Robert M. Theodore and Bertha Dill Gilbert Trustees.J?„S 1734 Holly Avenue Apartment #408 Greeley, Colorado 80631 Greeley, Colorado 80631 Henry and Herta D. Hillman James C. and Nancy J. Giggy 3197 East 18th Street 1620 Holly Avenue Greeley, Colorado 80631 Greeley, Colorado 80631 George F. and Rita F. Gonzales Robert S. Davis Route 4, Box 184B Box 836 Greeley, Colorado 80631 Greeley, Colorado 80631 Richard C. and Donna K. Connell Weld County Route 4, Box 189 c/o Weld County Board of County Greeley, Colorado 80631 Commissioners 915 10th Street Dewey Marcy Greeley, Colorado 80631 3430 13th Street Greeley, Colorado 80631 Richard D. Stevens 2770 East 18th Street Greeley, Colorado 80631 Douglas G. and Sandra M. Howard 3226 East 18th Street Greeley, Colorado 80631 Duane D. and Dorothy Zabka P.O. Box 446 Greeley, Colorado 80631 Bill and Lloyd Branch i /1�sL//cif/1 Gr o orad�- SO63L � - Jk 99 L��`�O 3GG a 6 Delta Environmental Protection Association, Inc, ROUTE 4, 8OX 175 GREELEY, COLORADO 80631 January 3, 1977 JAN 1 ,77 Mr. Gary Fortner oc- Rc,_._, _J l- eld Planning Commission Centennial Building � 915-19 Street Greeley, Colorado 80631 cc Dear Mr. Fortner: We, the members of the Delta Environmental Protection Association, are a non-profit group of property owners who live in or near the vicinity of the Delta Site where Greeley is proposing to locate a sewage lagoon. We are resisting this proposal because of the obvious unsuitability of the river-bottom location and anticipated distress created by its proximity. We have employed the firm of Hoyman, Nanney, and Dixon to represent our interests , and they are doing as good a job as possible . However , we cannot defend ourselves adequately without knowledge of decisions made or information about the county level. 4e ask that you keep us informed of all developments regarding our welfare . It is just and fair that we have this information, as it is our properties that are at stake, and we too are taxpayers. We will be most appreciative of your cooperation. We have had great difficulty in this regard at all levels , including federal, state, county, and city officials . This has cost us a great deal in terms of time and money, not to mention worry. Thank you for your consideration. Executive Committee , DEPA Elmer Jones , president Tom Kime , vice-president Iola Broeder, secretary Robert Frank, treasurer SEC . ( / - -�) 0qq/ N - o - oc. - ( - - =) ( ,- . --,7 ,2 �r�� f GC)-SID Cwt- ,C) ; �_ la-30._761?mac-/j 70763' et) 1:D ti g- ---' . , 4 Co'-- -) i i/i I pr.-724:= 7 C 1),'-'144//14/ _,' -'i"jh - , p,:t- E - AjZ-- 4 , c(C)69-1>M19 ,C) , Z9.-7-1- 1, - - t I _-e,,e/`?-ek_ c,11, 4 a-7-X17.7 7,13 erl 0(D l 6 /4 _ Cb _,(.2,4/- / , (L' --_ - , Clin �� 7 N�=�JC'i ail C, �` G.�'. � jE L .Z./�- J A fi kli 4S� - 7q/ E-, lF' "-�f-T-, . Li t) /15(//5 ici/j, 7 c>74:;) ,AL/LcJam., , C CI % ' Oa 1.-- `,Satie-elez ' O66.-t-a-41,/ �. / /v5 L ,4 1 t z /7. // (i� cso . , -. ey ` �3-=E-- ,aA , U %eIP (41/ 5O— < < C7 e i / � l� l ,T<tl � - 147 � (-_-ei- -___,;\ '. ALL N r�)/�.1 /7,,,,,�. , /�%�' , i , rY a'/01/5,-,115 r 'tti`456�;4 .� ( 5 3 147 (6' ,- _ ',-(2;9[6,6-1/ // -V/1372132 ^ - ,41 )1 0' I D A L -`3 G4- , rk R%_ tiJ, =)- 5 ' G/ p4- L'2 f5C 1 /:' 4 N 1 5-f 8 ) 7U t fi Ct", l -7 ' & cq / - 3 71 J _� c— / / - R R 6 C--) ;WA-418- (:/() 0 1 7_5o 3 "2/7- ( :3 - id I 5 (0 2� / � /C - 2, �' JL atej1/6:&,-EAA,A. a a , - 77 je 7,--k)a) d-g_ Ocz,,, &/),,, 41, a' 4.-p,,,ha_ X, t 'S' 32.4 6 e( ' . (5" ✓. J) f'� 75�� G C�,lY� W :6', ell( ` - 3 7i 0'./C91 ale kili "0,, , ,Q_ oc6 , ' -' oDdLt4t4 yit, c' Vic' 6-3 7) /7qq /7,2 c� 9) 10 Pr /()P___ --)-�� 3Q ,UcH1i�dr dard n---61- 4-56?) ei., c-c- -it IA' , 1 8 (C7 /- 6, I, 6'7 16-14 ,?%)-F1 ,@e2-.1 64 e5 21. Et q / AlC �R ;I�ve ehweiceeetP,- 9'-' 7.-1 /761-z? n'o' OD 6L ,Xi __' c, -,L,,J 6,6 � / -- 3/-z1/ //1s ) ` 6,/ VD 0 , rn ,2 -+k a 7 C-- 1 a - c---5 _ 6) c---) (6s . L_-_ 9- 560' 5L'_el_e f,t,) /,)t Ce-t_. 4 /9u) /-4/24-6/ `1J-diel, j , 2345'7 (1) C k 2, 3 --/70c cXc )42)0 5 tL1 :7 , i.-� 1 lb (\ C66 7779 t� - L) ,, eC' �s 60 (7--# �, f 50) 1.cia '/ (A),I-Pitt6_, L,t>>7? /-_t>5J/cam 1,�7:-/C/ /"3 J,7- tti P- - .3.7;D CLa.)63/7/ ) t*ie ,k- - -77- 61,2_13 -1-p T f, v./1k__ ipt.52.414: 70 1 IF d/P/4" ./P..a-e-(:.' d 4 , 647--( `).-(---LI.4,-Lei_ --X1- .,& )1p7( c1-6F ;. -c rF P 1 -44 . (,(-1 7/./ c?-(D C-4 ,.,4-2 %C,4 / j ,I -) C/7/ // IM TY-E1/0,5 a,./ (6), (.4.,zc,,,,i,,- .:____ -\7> C CCU / -,-'4-- - 4X6'-4,L l /1)0/19; t,' I.' A ` ;i t / 63--- --:/--; /. (z/j., �- ' 1-1 dt4e . 5 -)7 77/1 l / 7 _-376 ci ble-e- U l / / V V, >c•c411i VL+ ' 1',011•UC,die 4- _LL 7677g6117e76736 PR (e -)-??) . __,ID P- u) , ,PS,(y.; ' tu' g/ o >E' �l�'u� `� >- : 6 3,C O 55. 1 . tde: 4-ID C-Co-alin- ----) DAU r- 0 5; 7 oSqr r Lo s i`'3-L�--T J I g T O &. cur-4.4_, } , 6-7I , \ � O 1'1 +eel ` / • • • • • I --, Glovgil D5 ( . MA 7 N t w 5 . - . SECTION FEET 660 1320 1980 2640 3300 3960 4620 5280 QUARTER FEET 330 660 990 1320 1650 1980 2310 2640 80 SCALE 40 SCALE Po CITY OF (g0 LE c v cU/7)74_le_ Tb� �T� pi-11_4,17 joifi A, 7 SUP-3g2 ":eif 62(-04 41/11/2 j Walla #0a17 411-7-z-C2 doe I/L4 era) . Rea&-ck Le-e one, /731 l £e .)2 fy 31017 ,km , -1- l� / r 3-136 /3- A) , kldua 37, 7, , e, Do_eyee.4 laa/d./i g , . �.cCQn2e 39�u1c�u1 ‘( ,) ,PizcziLA, 4725 C,0, 1,) ✓��tee- V iclax,e41 z_315`,� 1/(JC 5 8 16, o d aa-e- - • • 14N To Whom it nay concern. I ran a gravel and sand business from 1946 to 1963. -` ; The last 7 years I took the sand and gravel from. : a pit just 1/4 mile so-lth of the Delta plant s Lee. The d and �rayel �rais .use on, su�h ,prc��oGA � the BIy n" reservoir, n�ng unl ce o p`w z ` r.2orter -sand for brick at the College " . Brovrn i s tile works McKinley ready_mit concrete Ralph Couan for laying brick Sake Schne idere builder concrete. plaster 'ni brick 1 ay: lg. The s- :10 nfi �l'L_e'. 1 1- �o e u'ld ing Code at the time. We never hod any complannt on the material. - - Thank You, M. E. Davidn ei • • .`� � W ( ate• /-P) 1ell - 1_ -- ---7,,e_.0 e/f CZ - 6,/S- Ar?-e%) /1 it. • I I, ; t7it 15 LI'2�� . y I - �S �j -A)r I •1 I Xi,0-49, ,, ,,,, _ . _ . . .... !,. ib ;vm ,u\ . e.,,,, - ...,,,t_ ., , l„,, , . _ _...r. :. _, _,_ , • _••• , , • ' \ , . j i . I Io s ., , _ . • . . , . . _ •.. I, 1 I I '' ti, L(1)1 --.• 1 , : . , 1H , ,*: 't',ft': • 2r . ' f i p:.y r r f ' . . . A ''. '! ' -,,:t.3 - : ic7j (O.-. 14.-c d 7 T'T I '' * / ()D ' • _ - • • 1 • • ��• • - 4 dreeiey Colo. - Jute,30, 1978t . To Whom it May Concern: - • Subject: Gravel Deposit in Location known as Delta Area, East - of Greeley, Colo. • Log records of various test holes drilled by R & R Well & Pump Co., for Weld County, on the Davis Ranch property in the Delta •rea, matt of Greeley, indicate an extensive sedimentary deposit of gravel. • The..size of the material, as logged, is from three inches down to sand. Other core tests and well log in the area indicate shale at approximately eighty feet. The tests as recorded, show that the area has a potential for commercial production of concrete aggregates and/or road surfacing material. Respectfully submitted, • aul E. McClure 17....:---7---r-r"-77:7:- n . `' "''''-=- -,] L.-4.S�d.: ''•-�°]ii4.=-''fir; �� irt�i:—► ,. - :-rte`. s t R _r YF`5„�-'�z 1 r',.let tall;Fl:y i" ', -waFl3i,t +'�._ _ ..`..� .,1 ,� t1 R � e l I , tt.y<ay �•. Y t,rs•%=='t -. to .fil };., 404; `, 'Ns=t-' :.9 i, :17:t;IAT!�' a" ,C -mad, -�\I zv •� v'" ems` -`ek sty d�+ r��`- ' -J.jr; SI ♦ rr -7— At.......... L frtelaSuve. GREELEY CIVIC CENTER June 1978 1.3 GREELEY. COLORADO 80631 28, PHONE i 3031 353-6123 Mr. James Whitmore 25550 County Road 62-1/2 Greeley, Colorado 80631 Dear Jim: As you know, Brian Janonis and I were at the Lone Tree Lagoon Plant and the general vicinity around the Plant between midnight and 2:00 a.m. last night. r When we were there we could detect an odor from the Plant along the road im- / mediately east of the anaerobic Lagoons. Recently, our grease cover on the anaerobic Lagoons has decreased in depth. This is the likely cause of any noticeable increase in odor that you might have observed over the past few months. In order to build up the cover again we have asked Monfort to bypass their grease directly to the Lagoons instead of recovering it for sale. This has been done for a period of about three weeks now. We will ask them to continue bypassing grease until we regain the cover that we have lost. This will probably take 30 days but could take as long as three months. We have also directed CH2M Hill to study the Lagoons and to give us their recommendations. They should be ready to discuss their study with us and Monfort around July 12th. Sincerely, CITY- 0 F GREELEY / Darryl , Alleman Direr or Water and Sewer Department . _ DDA/ld "A COMMUNITY OF PROGRESS" ir • 6\11-0'. R & R WELL & PUMP CO. Lan.• :: WELL LOG & TON MILE TAX RECORD • Cr Name) !(6`._ 6cAe-2ex,.,,e-_:f :Z/ (6Date Address Truck Used Weight Weight To Miles Weight From . Miles Kind of Well --s Gam,• `L/� Depth Kind of Casing Amount • Amount Water Produced Water Level How Tested—Pumped Bailed Time Remarks Well Log - / "{tqt �• 9 .c.7" 1! - ✓' -- s„3-75:„. ze._A ci Wei l� - / fer So , / - g SQrwet S/;/Q7/ exoa &el 01O - - t118 G), TL Aar6 Q' cauei ZI D- -v2 Shims `'a#a vu / Q� sq de G I I • 1 S 0 EXHIBIT H Final Environmental impact statement Greeley region wastewater management program Located in file folder PL0079 2e4e-"'4'gr O1i"i 4444 /Sew¢/ acee'u al w • U 16,, /f 7,F,' �:�S p m. CPS Pazu.ited 140441 geM14 C2.07144.1 £i 1Lib (t' August 15, 1978 Weld County Commissioners Greeley, Colorado 80631 Madam Chairperson and Gentlemen: My name is Elmer Jones and I am President of Delta Environmental Protection Association Incorporated. On behalf of tie people in this organization, I urgently request your support to reject the City of Greeley' s proposed Delta Wastewater Treatmentant. for the following reasons: (1. ) In the past three years the residents of the Delta have probably studied this area more than any area in Weld County. Besides the cost and time spent, we have studied The Comprehensive Plan, Flood Maps, Mineral Reports, Aquifer Recharge Area Maps, Water Tables and Others. My first objection pretains to the flood area where the proposed Plant is to be located. The people of this Area are con- cerned about flood waters with a permanent structure proposed to be built there because of the 1973 flood in this area. People living one and one half miles upstream on the Cache La Poudre River were aroused at 2 :30 in the morning by Greeley City police, who were acting on orders of the County Commissioners, to beware of the flooding of the Platte River. - Now rve are told this is not a flood area when many of us witnessed this 1973 flood. : . (2. ) My next concern is the Bridges and Roads. The bridge on 18th. Street East of the Site is in poor condition and is at present barricaded. The large long bridge crossing the Platte is in bad condition and is not wide enough and has a load limit on it. The bridge on Fern Avenue is only 12 cars wide and has a hole on the South edge. All these bridges would have to be crossed with heavy loads so the County Commissioners would be obligated to repair or replace these bridges to accomodate the sluage being trucked to the East. The roads of the area also were not constructed for this heavy traffic. (3. ) The gravel issue: The County Commissioners bought 800 acres in this area for gravel extraction. Now the city claims that the fence line of property to the South is the boundry line of the gravel deposits. We (DEPA) coo not agree with this. The city had a core test taken with which the DEPA feels is very inadequate. atie would like to prove our point and explain with pictures, gravel samples and core test. I have checked with other gravel c^mp^_nies and I learned that one company operated for 25 years on 12 pea curet to 15 percent gravel size .material by weight. . 4 r • • -2- • In contrast to this their claim is that commercial gravel should con- tain a minimum of 30 percent gravel size material by weight. The DEPA took a core test on the Est boundry and West boundry and we will ex- plain the core test taken by R. .''iR. Well Drilling- Comnany and also cam- p?reit with gravel used in the DRI-MIX CONCRETE CO. . of Denver and Grand Junction. I will present to you two letters--One from a former gravel owner and the other from one who is still operating today. Also in a letter - from the State Hi Way Department I learned that sand and gravel of this size can be used by the Colorado Division of Hi Ways. I got a price list from five different gravel companies and the city in their quotation of prices failed to recognize pea gravel and mortar sand. These two items are two of the most expensive and most widely used. The price of pea gravel ranges from '2.0C a ton to 113 . 1.5 a ton and mortar sand from 35. 92 a ton to 38.89 a ton. (4. ) Mineral Rights. If the C..ty purchases this Site, the min- eral rights should be a prime consideration as gravel and sand could not be extracted once the site was built or from the area adjoining the Site. Sincerely, Elmer H. Jones CFIM EEHILL ��0. 122 .? engineers �` $ `s'� planners ,UN 191 _', economists ,-sives) scientists c? R� �ouotYrsj Weld issloe 19 June 19 7 8 planp�o�Com o► ow >w D10828.D7 68� 99V ' Weld County 915 10th Street Greeley CO 80631 Attention: Mr. Tom Honn, Zoning Administrator Gentlemen: Subject: City of Greeley Special Use Permit Application Mineral Resources As we pointed out in the hearing before the Planning Com- mission on 6 June 1978 , the gravel (mineral resource) under- lying the property presently owned by Theodore and Bertha Dill for which the special use permit application is based is not worthy of mining under the Weld County Mineral Resources Plan. The Weld County Mineral Resources Plan states: "The basic purpose and intent in developing the plan was, as indicated in the Weld County Mineral Resources Study. . . 2 . To provide, both during the mining process and after mining operations have been completed, for the reclamation of land subjected to surface disturbance by mining operations; 3. To provide for the protection of the County' s basic resources such as water; . . . 5. To protect and promote the health, safety and welfare of the people of Weld County. " Rehabilitation costs are the responsibility of the mining operator (the present requirement on the zoning request by Best-Way is a good example of this) . The geological survey claims that develop- ment costs should not be included in the economic evaluation of the commercial mineability of the deposit. We believe this is in error. In addition, we believe that the costs to develop the site for use as a suitable foundation for a sewage treatment plant to serve the County should also be considered in view of the fact that the County' s purpose and intent as stated above is to provide the protection of the County' s basic resources such as water, but also to protect and promote the health, safety and welfare of the people of Denver Office O 12000 E 47th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80239 303/371-6470 Weld County Page 2 19 June 1978 D10828.D7 Weld County. We submit that the purpose of a regional wastewater treatment plant is to accomplish both of these items. The site selection study was performed in an area which had earlier been determined to be appropriate for a treatment plant to serve the greater Greeley Metropolitan area in the most economical means possible keeping in mind all resources including the environment. The Environmental Impact Statement prepared by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as a step in the planning process for the regional wastewater treatment plant stated that "Since the total amount of aggregate resources along the stream valleys is quite large, the alternative facilities plans will not, in any case, result in significant losses of critically needed sands and gravel. " Further, with regard to the deposit the Colorado State statutes define the term "commercial mineral deposit" as follows: "Commercial mineral deposit means the natural deposit of limestone used for construction purposes, coal, sand, gravel and quarry aggre- gate for which extraction by an extractor is or will be commercially feasible and regarding which can be demonstrated by geological, mineralogic or other scientific data that such deposit has significant economic or strategic value to the area, state or nation. " It is our contention that the amount of gravel underlying that portion of the treatment plant site to be covered (approximately 23 acres) cannot be considered to have a significant economic or strategic value to the area, state or nation. The Weld County Mineral Resources Plan states on page 5 that: "Weld County contains extensive deposits of sand and gravel. " A part of the argument for not covering mineral deposits with permanent structures until mining has taken place rests with the issue of future economies of operation and sale. There can be two interpretations of the word future. We can either think of the future in terms of the short-term such as the next 50 years or we can expand to an infinitely long period of time. Economic evaluations for an infinite future are ludicrous. Some economic evaluations could project for the next 50 years, and we contend that the mineral deposits underlying the site in question cannot be considered to be significant within a 50-year period. The proposed sewage treatment plant is expected to have a life of no longer than 50 years, and, therefore, the use of the term permanent structure must be held in the same context as the word f Weld County Page 3 19 June 1978 D10828 .D7 future. That is, if the structure is only expected to last 50 years, then the mineral deposit underlying the site may, in fact, be accessible once again (as will be the case in 1990 for the First Avenue Plant structures) . Therefore, we must restrict the use of the word future to a short-term period during which the gravel underlying the site cannot be considered to be of significant economic or strategic value to the area. The Delta area is the best location for a regional waste- water treatment plant as determined by the facilities planning process required by the Environmental Protection Agency. Arguments continue to suggest that the treatment plant be located at the First Avenue site or at a site east of Kersey. The First Avenue site will be completely inundated by the 100-year flood and construction of the facilities in that area would likely not be eligible for 75 percent funding from the Environmental Protection Agency as stated in their regulations. It was shown in the Facilities Plan that an alternative location of the plant by Kersey would, at the time of that analysis, cost approximately 150 percent more than the cost of the facility in the Delta site, without any significant benefit other than to remove the plant from slightly higher density population than is in the area now. Growth is not expected to extend much beyond the Delta area, as shown in the Weld County Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, a plant by Kersey would not serve very many additional people. Given that the Delta site is the best location for a waste- water treatment plant to protect the health and safety of the people of Weld County, we selected a site which has less gravel than any other we could find above the 100-year floodplain. That site is located adjacent to Weld County lands which were purchased for the purpose of mining gravel. There will, therefore, be over 50 times more gravel avail- able in the immediate vicinity of the Delta site, which is readily available, more economical to mine (because of its higher gravel content) , and of a better quality of gravel because it is in the Poudre River system. Also, there are even greater gravel supplies not presently owned by the County further upstream in the Poudre River basin. We ask that the special use permit be granted to enable the City of Greeley to begin design and construction of the J Weld County Page 4 19 June 1978 D10828.D7 Delta Wastewater Treatment Plant to serve the greater Greeley metropolitan area. The gravel resource underlying the site cannot be considered to be of significant economic or strategic value during the life of the treatment plant. If you have any questions on this matter, please call. Ver truly yours, / '. .:-%-"?‘• O li avt 6-4/1--- Dennis A. Sandretto, P.E. Project Director bjs cc: Darryl Alleman, City of Greeley R . To the Weld County Commissioners August 16, 1978 Subject; Proposed Greeley Sewer Plant We of the Delta area r^ve been accused of standing in the way of progress. In fact we have been threatened with a law suit for practicing our democratic rights in our attempt to preserve the integredy of our neighborhood. Each time our efforts have succeeded in delaying the project, a frustrated city official gets up and says, 'It is time to get on with this. These delays are costing us a lot of money. ' This is true! But inflation alone is not the sole reason for this increase of cost. If one considers the original proposal for a sewer plant that included a large open sludge lagoon, and compare this with the upgraded plant now pro- posed, it becomes obvious that the city planners set their original sights far too low and every costly addition they have had to make in their plans has been done reluctantly and with much protest. The day will come when, no matter where the plant is built, the city officials will have to thank the Delta people for forcing them to do what they should have done in the first placeThe main point I'd like to make is this. Why has this relatively small group of people been so very successful in delaying the construction of this sewer plant? The city people have maintained from the very beginning, way before any extensive studies or impact statement, that the Delta site was the LOGICAL location for the plant. Their studies have proven this to be so. . . and our studies have proven just the opposite to be the case. So much for -- impartial studies. . .except, if the Delta site is indeed the logical site, why isn't the sewer plant already built there? If it were the logical site, would we of the Delta have so successfully raised ore argument after another to the contrary? If we were simply a biased group tiling to forestall progress, why has one committee after another lent credence to our arguments and made further requirements on the part of the city planners? If it were the logical site as the city planners and their engineers maintain, why have we been able to raise so many doubts along the way? We hope you commissioners are not to be persuaded by such rhetoric as this. T e other issue that needs to be considerec' is the e proposed plant hasS)-' categorized as regional by inclu •' ,, reluctant participation �. of the city of Eva nd Hill and Par er has it been proposed to serve -4 - the very area in which th opes to locate it. Does this constitute a • " "regional" plant if ' - sexclusive. n't our taxes also support the EPA and why are we not 'gible for the same bene as Hill and Park? He certainly qualif eing as much a part of the Greeley ar s Evans. It appears the city of Greeley would like us to accept all of the detri- mental aspects of this plant and the advantages. Small wonder then, that we choose to commit a great deal of time, effort and our personal finances to this cause. Thank you. p v,,., L'Y uv,cter .C l Ir. CC l II,, 55 z Eci ast I$thms�treet ley ,0-6,0a/d I/ p � _,jam Cky ��, !9 ? of , ---;a--5--'?M' NOTICE Pursuant to the zoning laws of the State of Colorado and the Weld County Land Use Code, a public hearing will be held in the Chambers of the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, Weld County Centennial Center, 915 10th Street, Greeley, Colorado, at the time specified. All persons in any manner interested in the Special Use Permit are requested to attend and may be heard. BE IT ALSO KNOWN that the text and maps so certified by the Weld County Planning Commission may be examined in the Office of the Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners, located in the Weld County Centennial Center, 915 10th Street, Third Floor, Greeley, Colorado. Docket No. 78-49 City of Greeley c/o Peter A. Morrell, City Manager Civic Center Complex 919 7th Street - Greeley, Colorado 80631 Date: August 16, 1978 , Time: 2: 00 P.M. Request: Special Use Permit, Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant LOCATION: Approximately two miles East of Greeley, Colorado. THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WELD COUNTY, COLORADO BY: MARY ANN FEUERSTEIN WELD COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER AND CLERK TO THE BOARD BY: Keitha Hubbard, Deputy DATED: July 10, 1978 I • NOTICE Pursuant to the zoning laws of the State of Colorado and the Weld County Land Use Code, a public hearing will be held in the Chambers of the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, Weld County Centennial Center, 915 10th Street, Greeley, Colorado, at the time specified. All persons in any manner interested in the Special Use Permit are requested to attend and may be heard. BE IT ALSO KNOWN that the text and maps so certified by the Weld County Planning Commission may be examined in the Office of the Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners, located in the Weld County Centennial Center, 915 10th Street, Third Floor, Greeley, Colorado. Docket No. 78-49 City of Greeley c/o Peter A. Morrell, City Manager Civic Center Complex 919 7th Street Greeley, Colorado 80631 Date: August 16, 1978 ' Time: 2: 00 P.M. Request: Special Use Permit, Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the North one-half of the Southeast one quarter of Section .11, Township 5 North, Range 65 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, Weld County, Colorado, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at point which bears S0°13 ' 23"W, 2657. 22 feet from the northeast corner of Section 11, said point is the northeast corner of the NZSE4 of Section 11: Thence south 89°11' 46" west 323 . 75 feet to the True Point of Beginning: Thence south 0°14 ' 10" west 1, 342. 75 feet; thence north 89°44 ' 29" west 1, 837 . 07 feet; thence north 29°27 ' 24" east 567 . 24 feet; • thence along the arc of a curve right whose radius is 425. 00 feet and whose long chord bears north 35°01' 32" 82. 51 feet; thence north 40°35 ' 52" east 647. 19 feet; thence along the arc of a curve right whose radius is 200 . 00 feet and whose long chord bears north 24°06 ' 02" east 113. 59 feet; thence north 7°36' 12" east 121. 98 feet; thence along the arc of a curve right whose radius is 50. 00 feet and whose long chord bears north 48°23 ' 59" east 65. 16 feet; thence north 89°11 ' 46" east 984. 07 feet to Point of Beginning. Said parcel contains 43. 12 acres, more or less, and is subject to any I rights-of-way or other easements as recorded by instruments of record or as now existing on said parcel. I r ': - 4 THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WELD COUNTY, COLORADO BY: MARY ANN FEUERSTEIN WELD COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER AND CLERK TO THE BOARD BY: Rita Jo Kummer, Deputy DATED: July 10, 1978 PUBLISHED: July 13, 1978 in the Johnstown Breeze '� ". .erase. 1iC�111 the i THE O�ficr- BO�1R1) 017 1, _1 t ['/LLD COUNTY COi,;l I y COI�1b1ISS T Is ;� •-• r CO1,OI�Up IONI�'RS C'rec'le Y, Colorado Publisher: July 10 1.978 • 19 �ugustPlea'se insert the enclosed the 7 1978 — enclosed vouch One time notice in your 11 voucher_ cr and only. Rec nc1s Ire the k o f corn p}Vase •inc forward ]arci Wee complete our files, ludo an affidavi t to us' W1len o,Yn{c nt ' comE�lete of Publication turnip !'hank you cation so we may for your cooperation. DOCKET #78-49 S.i ncc'L c] Y, 'I'ilp BuOr it1 Oh WELD COUNTY, (OL,OR'y COI�INISSI COI,OI�nUO ONLRS Bx: r'Iary Ann Count , reuerslein 1 C1cr1' ��nd Recorder • and clerk to 13'y• - - r �— the Board LILY' Coun tY Clerk -— k A '" -----•mow-.�..,_. A ° • 1I. I i w a� N T SENDER Complete item; 1. and , ® Fo s Add your address in the "RETURN TO" space on r/�J reverse L �3 00 ° ° `'m 1. The following service is requested (check one). I �' ) • -. 0 Show to whom and date delivered 250` '• ' :c ° . •: -::_- ' P O Show to whom,date,&address of delivery 45c� d !"r"""'I"I I o RESTRICTED DELIVERY. �� Show to whom and date delivered i..Romminsii Q3' 850 =.a 8 • I ®a RESTRIC U D DELIVERY. mitriew : : !® 7.wtrcrerngcr'%::1''''''' �•- 4• Show to whom,date,and address of delive '„' ' • �,n a oaf' ry •.$1.05t;,o vo " a Q �+' F*/,4 �,. (Fees shown are in addition to postage charges and other -4e' "": r�� :;-2,;f3:';':5-2 e,I ® e;-'.'" r.: AH 'a.r�,�Ni F - ^•�Mr•i•tnok a r-4 ®'o-.0'I _ _ I '...itT1".,,r. 21 M 2. ARTICLE ADDRESSED TO: I re^ r�i. ,9�U q T I •:r• - ,. c GREELEY TRIBUNE 74r} Et'„.4 /y� C ° « ` -. ,----- :.= A •,0004:4A" .,.�' � r�l tJ T:J`' 4 e _,�• `' 1. • z •• •°� EII !CO:CO •-4:.ti' I >''•_-.,^� , : ' .. A 3 ARTICLED DESCRIPTION: ,-");)1::''':''11 , ";,,aL•,,_• —«sp�'41 •n 1.12 Z) , ESCR ION. ).)r '' ''`-' ›-I I W > J o m 4i ?� _ 'j'v« REGISTERED NO. CERTIFIED NO. c •`.. a .--'-`i'''',- "f'; a INSURED NO. W !N r n n I _ Sr •-:-? 1 (Always obtain signature of addressee agent)'. a a a-! I_ -,I z I have received the article described above. r` rZ %I o w �i o .,'...7,,.;,.':,-•.• 4 m SIGNATURE Y L I ! o i yy p ❑ Addressee o I= !a , o I -;•-'t+ , ❑ Authorized agent • ti6.6.ca Lid aI I_� • N , z > cs _y n� Il • o v �viy wri C - ��. • 4 �,A 1g I a G c u, o v, � w xi DATE OF DELIVERY l , ~- z iiiiimirr- - ___ _�_.�____ p 5. ADDRESS (Complete only if requested) • )<,t , rn C 6 UNABLE TO DELIVER BECAUSE: - RK'S C - IN TIALS i ,,-;:,...:"..777-"' ; � � . r it GOP 1976-O-203-458 • -- PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE Pursuant to the zoning laws of the State of Colorado and the Weld County Land Use Code a public hearing will be held in the Chambers of the Board of County Commissioners of Welt County AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION Colorado,Weld County Centennial Center, 915 10th Street, Greeley Colorado,at the time spe:ified.All THE JOHNSTOWN N STOW N BREEZE persons in any manner interested STATE OF COLORADO ) n the Special Use Permit are requested to attend and may be SS. heard COUNTY OF WELD ) BE IT ALSO KNOWN that the text I, Eugene Thomas, do solemnly swear and maps lo certifinninged oy the Weld tht I am publishe of The Jonstown County Planning Commission may be examined-in the Office of the Clerk to the Board of County Breeze; that the same is a weekly Commissioners, located in the newspaper printed,in whole or in part,and Weld County Centennial Center, 915 10th Sheet, Third Floor, published in the County of Weld, State of Greeley, Colorado. Colorado, and has a general circulation Docket No 78-49 therein; that said newspaper has been City of Greeley c-o Peter A Morrell, published continuously and uninterrupted- City Manager Center. Complex ly in said County of Weld for a period of 919 7th Street more than fifty-two consecutive weeks Greeley ,Colorado F0631 y prior to the firsi publication of the annexed Date August 16,1878 legal notice or advertisement; that said Time 2.00PM newspaper has been admitted to the Request• Special Use Permit United States mails as second-class matter RegioPlant under Wastewater Treatment under the provisions of the Act of March 3, LEGAL DESCRIPTION. 1879,or any amendments thereof,and that Part of the North one-half of the said newspaper is a weekly newspaper Southeast one quarter of Section duly qualified for publishing legal notices 11, Township 5 North, Range 65 and advertisements within the meaning of West of the 5th Principal Mer- idian, Weld County, Colorado, the laws of the State of Colorado. morfollow particularly described as That the annexed legal notice or Beginning at intwhichbearsSO advertisement was published in the degrees 13' 23" W, 2657.22 feet regular and entire issue of every number of from the northeast corner of Section 11, said point is the said weekly newspaper for the period of northeast corner of the NiySE%of Section 11: Thence south 89 consecutive insertions; and that the degrees 11'46"west 323 75 feet to the True Point of Beginning: first publication of said notice was in the Thence south 0 degrees 14' 1 west 1,342.75 feet, thence north 89 degrees 44'29"west 1,837.07 feet; issue of said newspaper dated. /3 thence north 29 degrees 27' 24" east 567 24 feet, thence along the A.D. 19 7 , and that the last publication arc of a curve right whose radius is 425.00 feet and whose long chord of said notice was in the issue of said bears north 35 degrees O1' 32" 82.51 feet;thence north 40 degrees 35' 52" east 647 19 feet; thence newspaper dated. 3 ,A.D. 19 7g... along the arc of a curve right In witness wh eof I have hereunto set whose radius is 200.00 feet and bear s long chord bears north 24 degrees 06' 02" east 11359 feet• my hand this 5044 day of... thence north 7 degrees 38'12"east . 121.98 feet;thence along the arc of a curve right whose radius is 50.00 A.D. 19 7 feet and whose long chord bears north 48 degrees 23 59"east 65 16 41714-64.-2-- Publisher. Subscribed and sworn to before me a feet, thence north 89 degrees 11' Notary Public in and for the County of 48" east 984.07 feet to point of Beginning. Weld,State of Colorado, this..s--76"i day Sair parcel contains acres, der-4-A-7 more or less,and is subject to any Of A D 19 7.1r- rights-of-way or other easements as recorded by instruments of record or as now existing on said' parcel THE BO CO gs o R Notary Public MMIWELD COUNTY,COLORADO BY•MARY ANN FEUERSTEIN My commission expires WELD COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER AND CLERK TO THE BOARD BY.Rita Jo Kummer Deputy ' DATED: July 10, 1978 PUBLISHED. July 13,1978 in the Johnstown Breeze Co. Legal 78-132-Clerk to Bd Affidavit of Publication STATE OF COLORADO `gym` ss. NOTICE Pursuant to the noble laws at We state County of Weld, ,f Colorado and the Weld County Land Use Code,a public hearing will be held in the Chambers of the Board of County Corn missioners of Weld County, Colorado, Vickie ��a�T00C3 Weld County Centennial Center,915 10th I of Street, Greeley, Colorado, at the time specified All persons in any manner in said County of Weld, being duly sworn, say that I am terested in the Special Use Permit are an advertising derk of requested to attend and may be heard BE IT ALSO KNOWN that the text and maps so certified by the Weld County THE GREELEY DAILY TRIBUNE, and Planning Commission may be examined THE GREELEY REPUBLICAN in the Office of the Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners, located in the Weld CoJnty Centennial Center,915 10th that the same is a daily newspaper of general Street, Third Floor, Greeley,Colorado circulation and printed and published in the City of Docket No 78 49,City of Greeley, c/o Peter A Morrell, City Manager, Civic Greeley, in said county and state; that the notice or Center Complex,919 7th Street,Greeley, Colorado 80631 advertisement, of which the annexed is a true copy, has Date August 16,1978 Time 200PM published ublished in said dailynewspaper for consecutive Request Special Use Permit,Regional (days) (weeks); that the notice was published in the Wastewater Treatment Plant LOCATION Approximately two miles regular and entire issue of every number of said East of Greeley, Colorado newspaper theperiod and time of publication of i THE BOARDOF COUNTYduring COMMISSIONERS said notice, and in the newspaper proper and not in a • WELD COUNTY,COLOPADO BY MARY ANN FEUERSTEIN supplement thereof; that the first publication of said t WELD COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER notice was contained in the issue of said newspaper ANDCLERK TO THE BOARD bearing date seventh ) BY Keitha Hubbard,Deputy t DATED July 10,1978 The Greeley Daily Tribune August 7,1978 day of Aii siiAt A.D. 19_7 and the last publication thereof; in the issue of said newspaper bearing date the SPv nt1i day of -august A.D. 19_.8 that said The Greeley Daily Tribune and The Greeley Republican, has been published continuously and uninterruptedly during the period of at least six months next prior to the first issue thereof contained said notice or advertisement above referred to;that said newspaper has been admitted to the United States mails as second-class matter under the provisions of the Act of March 3, 1879, or any amendments thereof; and that said newspaper is a daily newspaper duly qualified for publishing legal notices and advertisements within the meaning of the laws of the State of Colorado. tiuRust 7, 1978 total charges ,i`1111 .02 lit/.7be) 44,,,,r?-9/ Addertising Clerk Subscribed and sworn to before me this 7th a of liugUst A.D. 192_8_ My co m' ion expiy mf n,, -,,„, Rio 2,', ;,d7 Notary Public • i PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE Pursuant to the zoning laws of the State of Colorado and the Weld County Land Use Code, a public hearing will be held in the Chambers of the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County Colorado,Weld County Centennial Center, 915 10th Street, Greeley Colorado,at the time specified All persons in any manner interested in the Special L'se Permit are requested to attend and may be heard BE IT ALSO KNOWN that the text and maps so certified by the Weld County Planning Commission may be examined-in the Office of f:the Clerk to the',Commissioners, B f locad n the We'd County Centennial Center, 913 10th Street, Third Flom, GI ecley, Colorado Docket No 78 49 City of Greeley c-a Peter A Morrell City Manager Civic Center Complex 919 7th Street Greeley,Color ido 80631 Date.Aurust it 1978 Time 2 C)P 11 Request. Special Cse Permit Reg,onal Wastewate- Treatment Plant LEGAL DESCRIPTION Part of the North one-half of the Southeast one quarter of Section 11, Township 5 North, Range 65 We t of the 6th Principal Mar idran Weld County, Colorado inoie particularly described as follow s Beginning at pint which hears SO degrees 1'3' 23" W 2657 22 feet from the northeast corner of Section 11 said point is the northeast corner of the N i4 SE 44 of Section 11 Thence south 89 degrees True Point ofBeginning e 3 to the Thence south 0 degrees 14' 10" west 1,342 75 feet, thence north 89 degrees 44'29"west 1,837 07 feet, thence north 29 degrees 27' 24" east 567 24 feet, thence along the arc of a curve right whose radius is 425 00 feet and whose long chord bears north 35 degrees 61' 32" 82 51 feet;thence north 40 degrees 35' 52" east 647 19 feet, thence along the arc of a curve right whose radius is 200 00 feet and whose long chord bears north 24 degrees 0 02" east 113 59 feet, thence north 7 degrees 36'12"east 121 98 feet,thence along the arc of a curve right whose radius is 50 00 feet and whose long chord bears north 48 degrees 23 59"east 65 16 feet, thence north 89 degrees 11' 46" east 984 07 feet to point of Beginning Said parcel contains 43 12 acres,more or less,and is subject to any rights-of-way or other easements recorrecorded o ras now existing o saidf parcel THE BOARD COMMISSIONERS WELD COUNTY,COLORADO BY:MARY ANN FEUERSTEIN WELD COUNTY CLERK AND CLERK TO DRECORDER BY Rita Jo Kummer,Deputy DATED July 10, 1979 PUBLISHED i,,, - In the ,lohnstown Breen io Legal 78-J'iC 1 1,•K to BO 33D mN ,,iKF--- m0 - > ., . m �frr it ' I 22 ..i> IA -I X) la 33 r I. ' i I, r4- t• --- gt, , 3 �. ' 1� v 4 0 n , m .< �' yn m m 0 m �:. 4 / ter , . -)N\ \(\ ® m ` `� � 3 � m ' >�u=. D °< ',/ ,. 0 0 :•n =N r \ II „III . II II . I . IIII ,� ,` CITY OF GREET-- 2: C PM 78-49 I I"4-k R I•;1)11 I..' 'I• AUGUST 16, 1978 S , WASTEWATER TRE. TMETT - PLAN NAME - -_ ------ - -- - - - --- I ADDRESS - - - -- -- - -- - - - --- - - ------ - - p __...3-) - - - i � - - - -- - - - - - S!`-=- ---&1 C� e - --- -- - - - � - - ?9 ,-1--- -- -- ---- ---- .„a_A1,---1 i .:7eL.---:& _ ____ --2-/ iz-j4-- it‹-e-,_ _ t'_ _ __ . . _ .-ek / 9',3 f_,'__I S2 4".a..e____ _ z, _ _____C-Z_____ ____ __ ______ _ czvavg? eCI agr-C-W --- 44 I / , '1,44.(A1/ : 00 e<)_e_e _ ,' , C4_, 70 _� • __ - Z® ✓ e___ ___IfiL7t . , , _ -,g_g_ 3 #5-yza/ c,. 52 ,_67i.a_ c_ . ..,, /4/J.-.1.-,„.......- „5.- __. A-A-x-1 — ./ ' '/ - _ /6 Qo - - - Co -. - J 60a V_At. ezec..e. Aii_e1.44 AA %-i7 (6-- _ O ke_e P 00 -j it- . O_%.../e...:4 c2,,,,te I A_ I ? _ _F--e- . __a 4 i - -14-&-L-1- , - - - _ _ __ ./zithtm ___c -5-,,.57AV.-2 a- ‘02-__/_ —_______ _ __ 2 — _5-_.1--.3- O go 42 - Cr-LX .., (17):) .L___ lit C 1 _ !/ `� '1<7-e--7--4-c_ _�!Yz _�7 /ef - - i j :-/ , ,{ • --- — ,- C 2/1 / /�7Ze- , . - 776five_ vli. �,, Co ege6- 4e . 7/:: A _ ZIA; -, 9 • /- 17„covc,1wA44 „..„.6,. _„,__44 ( (-iAj ____ , _______ A 1 I I'. II II A I, I, i ‘ 10 I I• Al'PI, I CANT . ,;ey l7,L., , ,rlME : /. /' f. 2 DOCKET ii / l DAT I'. : (i R ION EST : f5---Get NAME ADDRESS Q 0 a /- rft441.4%LIA4A ae.414' 4744 G-a,, c=.‘2.3 Y-5-_,(1 __ ,fai_42/45:11)2at-24 aP.X2-i'l fw- e • '217 GA 7 I- I l9 1 V • 5 „‘A 4‘:e.-,. r,ii i i i 1 Le- C:LeLa, K, j__479 /11___, ---c Ce- V e i 14141 C-4 „.2if:Z/L_e_ yel7 Zi____‘ - 1 ,„ 5-0 i c, 11----b: 36AL) AJMQQ-1.,,1 0. 1 eL- L� (, / gL,7 ✓- , -1____ CZ__/-2J e! j a C . '� ,c // 6/) G/-,-,/-e / L / ,),----,. ..,,i_ __..,. q _____„2".\_:,J. ,., 7, _ 1 i .. 1 a 1 d i o t 15 I 1 i / CITY OF GREELE,Y ti • SENDER (omplete items I ind Add your address n the 'RETURN TO ' space on reverse I The following service recuested (check one) EShow to vs horn and date delivcreel 25C o Show to whom,date,& iddress of delivery i5C RESTRICTED DEL IVFRY Show to whom and date delivered 85C RES'I RICTFD DELIVIRY RY Show to whom,date,aid address of delivery SI 05 (Fees shown arc in addition -o post,ge charges and other fees) 2 ARTICLE ADDRBbSED;1I D E I T Y L`'IA!2C i L�. C IM ' a Z . .r m DOC 78 -4 C) 3 ARTICLE DESCRI TI0 st, • REGISTERED NO CERTIFIED NO INSURED NO WINIFRED MIDDLETON, DON & m 64.070 DEBRA RODMAN (Always obtain signature of addressee or agent) inI have received the article described above O SIGNATURE uthonti el age nt C/I C 4 DATE OF QUAVERY PQSAMARK i IC•°1 5 ADDRESS (Complete only tf requested) r) rn F, 6 UNABLE TO DELIVER BECAUSE CLERK'S 0 INITIALS D W.C. & W. CATHERINE MATHEWS -o • SENDER C omplete Add your addresr n the RLFURN TO space on reverse owe I The foliosA mg se re-ice is requested (check one) Show to vs horn and date delivered 25C o ❑ Show to vs horn,,late,A address of delivery 45( ❑ RESTRICTED DELI'.FRY Show to vs horn and date delis red 55c RES-I RICA FD DELIVERY Shoes to vs horn .late, and address of delivery Si 05 (Fees s`iown arc in addition to pos-age charges and other fees) 2 ARTICLE ADDRESSED TO • RICHA1;D & DONNA CONT,LLL THEODORE & BERTHA DILL z m DOC 7_ S_-49 - m 3 ARTICLE DESCRIPTION REGISTERED NO CERTIFIED NO INSURED NO rn 6407)1 (7) (Always obtain signature-of addressee or agent) e I have received the article described above in SIGNATURE -\ddrl ss luthori,t d agent N C 4 DATE OF DELIVERY POSTMARK O 5 ADDRESS (Complete only If requested) t7 -71 rn 1 Fit 6 UNABLE TO DELIVER BEC,USE CLERK'S HENRY & HERTA HILLMAN O INITIALS r L r o V 'C,. - v1 4 V, v1 I/\ Q O ID u N •'a' oo ,-, .v v a o O ° Y YJ N AV©o b 40.� / 91 I a 0 6 N I- V- °' O 0 CI Z i o iI7ii LT_ 6 g'p?u N .C Jo. [��'l!.C -C 'C W re C ., -� ®z'• !n .-u so¢x 11L�E'7C 40 a s V a a v ' U a ❑ J� EW '0(e 'V -‹n�=• 7, i ov C V . O W I y O O OW O � ooii,, coO 00 2gor'' o r o Q• O .C .C -Z W.4 �" U �-I J K ; d' W WJ -,C� G n�', �lz v � rn warn h 'Z OF .1....„ � m m ��I- I. ,mJ[I�,�' r. • r••1 vy., N m a' H y a I(1 IG W I o r�- a` on o y r= o PS Form 3811,Nov.1976 RETURN RECEIPT, REGISTERED, INSURED AND CERTIFIED MAIL P a I „ ,a r,l B il I- : ; , n: - -- ----_-__ - Pt' I L1; 1 'C]IbrJ en. ..1 1 N p e ro, 6n MCI' - Ii O o z Or '� .b ! Ilia. •l W F - m o cob � � D p / vows 0 C w y U] y ;. ,f I - o o'r on CA z o v e a z o o :! r� n r^� ca ▪ x Ca ki ^d 4-1 •O cu w � o a •u• v y o H L A❑ tea. 0 p d b > otri u ≥ -o O O O v C ea z w Pr 0 ,, W O b �c''O 1:4 0 o . o c\1 o v p m tC W O N W �' `� o r c H -0 - a v a Y.O. w.y -A.r .• e O wC •9. Z. m 1kT F A[r�r' 0 A 9 0 u ee u. K, -'— A - A b -C.t ti'�++ y O U M O< y�j c > _ .. u. x v o o A.rl o (A(.t� a O" !, s w , ,p'lue-- E .5❑ J E o e-ok. a s aUa o I az o .0 o 0g av 0.‹ 'a o o x ° a ° C < W o0 0 o r •v a y v� �,� . o' �I m O s` a t,-; at Hr� a W Ur W W w o O y W W nr c'.%c m z IQ ffe A `, CC t r�vic4vii y - a0 Uv_ F S ui- I- c a �� '� �� D' nl� o • d � w ~ y � Z O o Qe: �a\ m Ui F ❑❑ ❑ 6 < Ur Q < W � C9 < <y V ti n �lL� • ,� w N m ra (A v Iri tti © ,o v cJ U I.< �rl ,KT N r9 ti, I PS Form 3811,Nov.1976 RETURN RECEIPT, REGISTERED, INSURED AND CERTIFIED MAIL T , r- -T ra 0 c: b �y '-7 O i u i - m I, N in m bL 'r' '0.:n.• n '''.5 : - ii=c' r V v\ ,-, E-o -, - g J c ,� o vii tn v. Q VW Mo �� I�. `2--fm,- of urv • O Z Of. Cr d'- �1 -' �i 0.-.00..�., M n - d • • �• C W Y 'D UZ ® o'ano— q 45 > O ® � - nlroric u .j u H Z o 0 O _ I qZa Ll w o ar :, .b< ,_ . I B 4 ..� O " Ito v E v mac ' :c ,„ v LS o A❑ i a ri : Iga ,.b y v � ,O o KC z 9 .C , W P . El • Y -o >-+:- ›+"g w x z w `� • , v . l u cam o,.I ui n° y �cyd W v W C ,r" W 01 • u < * B I I�l<4..<ua 0 41 t ,..7 O - kill Wro'▪ '(� Z w wF O ° a V' cto m 8 ro -C A ,ay A-O -V• W'1 O U r.� c0-O o W o O0 ■ a< W o > o �2 L.'o v 8 o AoAfi.9y ' �: rn c > O. J o 71.>•,, m .� W s T. o'tO + q a a L) L) U b' f �•U o�7 ❑ W ° o T, o AID 1) U< • s O O O ro G O 00 C z �, > ,` 0 r.V 0. AI= G� w• o o W� x _, QO t` U ¢ co E z .,,, �w .W, d A v� a� � h F W O F ., „� • a `a a h F ❑❑ ❑ tu • < E O > < O Q �. w W < E I Q < W x �.// w ° m C r., En a ui 6 PS Form 3811,Nov.1976 RETURN RECEIPT, REGISTERED, INSURED AND CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPT FOR CCEI TDFOCED RCQDL=3DY Wags postmo) SENT TO POSTMARK . GEORGE & RITA GONZALES OR DATE STREET AND NO OI P 0, STATE AMI ZIP CODE L_ - unarm. SLRVICES VCR AODITN6:;RL FLLLS __ \I 9. bi. u r„cam,to _ c:d Cato ccltvcrc3 . 15y RETURN nth delivery to cddrei. ca only ... 65¢ �� RECEIPT CCiPT 2. Storm to v,i::,,data c'7d l.`cTo delivered.. 35¢ SERVICES nth delivery to addrec_cc only......... 85Li .,, DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY .. . .. .... .. ......... 50d - -- --- --- - © SPECIAL DELIVERY (cotr©fcc required). • ••••. • -. PS Form 3800 NO OC'SIIRAN8E C0UEDIRIE PROVIDED— (Soo othor lido) 0' Apr. 1971 CI04 ffOL INYEGWAVIONAI, ram .•GPO.1974 O-551-454 • JAMES & NANCY GIGGY �.F�_. O�t �t�tk „„ Hurt¢ in the RD IURN TO spur tin �ta•r.e lil „l t,,ll , t<1 it,(, Ntit, ''hart t „nt r, ' ',it ,It li,t IL'l ,iu,,� +�, ,',• i 7.'„I- , 02'ltvcrV �r kh,I R I( l i 1; II l Ih l lh\ uts H ; I ° Ii1° IIT) 'Iii Ihl' , , .kits( t }, 'it\�n I r ; 2 ART I CLF ADURES`,_D Tc. V;.C. C A &BFINI, ,q1 I,rrr�, 2 • )n 7 -49 m - 3 ARTIL L F DES'T.Rit" ON m RICHARD STEVENS RECISTERFt1 NO I FR-TIFIED NO INSURED NO 9 m• - - --------- �l 1% -- c, Always obtain =�gnature of addressee or a({ent?__R! - 1 m 1 lttce tet, n," drs,Plird .t6nc� • �Ir,NATi_1RE iii , C 4 DATE t,. "L'VF POSTMARK O tCORE`.,S t r»nr I-'t• ont y it requested) C7• ' INAH,t 'i rSC P t ' CLERV'S F� �F7Ad1 f �_ AU`,. ,`v ITIAL`, ' ROBERT DAVIS vii w nrNni R t,.r*,pier¢ r. AT I .,u „'tfre,c In the RETURN TO ,pace in se,s< LO:4' 1 I h, 11,1lt,�t rO. rr. , - yt,c,t III IL onr_ r) ',ho" 11 art "ttl Vhnv, •�� 0 1,I„„ of Icltcc rt FIHI 'TII.1\11l c1,,A,, i, ,,,, t'' t .1, i',tul I It IL,I I'It FII t,F';V'I EY. hog r 4,1,1 t t i"c,s of tii lw I- ' ,I t, hr„t t,c t h.tret 2 ARTICLE AUDRES,ED TD D H )D I�H`--'0=c , ,,U1„ G HAROLD & BETTY LAW z )�i3}J 'OD H m I;cc --49 m 3 ARTICLE DE-SCRIP' ON 2,1 RE(,ISTERFI, NO FRTIPIED NO INSURED NO m 0796 --- -- - - (7, —(Always obtain•signature of addressee or agent) m I Rico 7r+u,cd tht tthcl- titstoiled ah(ict m SIGNA7JRF • Anihtn, C7 N DATE Or !TEL lb 15 POSTMARK 2 - - 9 S AD)RES", t t top',,e only cf requested) n m m JOSEPHINE CLOUGH & ROBERT GILBERT F FDE L ;EECAUY L, �"V` "EDWARD & RUTH McARTHUR — w�" .`" • ''\irf P ' '•nplett item -', t ,{ r ��{dtest m the RETURN TO ,Pare or. 0 J.- I Ih nL` nu cioll, ,t, ( , 1, rct1tc5i1J c''rt�t� ' nes, 25 ``IIU„ t,,tshmu!, ta . . ...ttc .Ic •.litc .1 . .... C r , o CSC Shtl,'r i„tt Iwm,,latt i addre�5 0l .tt hvcry ttl �� RrS(RIC TF.D UI Ll�'i12Y ��;' a' S'htmt,l,tllf:ri.n,i ,l.tetic, ,,. _ RFS I R)CTFD 1 111 t lItY 31 �5 s, t.,,thorn,t..rtc.a,,, ,,,I,I,t�-,of dclivtt} rte, ,,,}1)\\I, ,y, In .t,l!tt:,,, L7 potta c_c lar,t;cs ,11) ,I .1.t fec1 2 ARTICLE ADDRESSED TO ll4 �,G',''S SA :DR'� I:OVI1RD c z z taOC 7'3—^9 -- ------ tn m 3 ARTICLE DESCRIPTION REGISTERED NO CER71FfED NO i INSURED NO BILL & LLOYD BRANCH G40788 I m (Always obtain signature of addressee or agent) BILL BRANCH i% m I have ret t tc ed thr artule dt:tilled ibed above m SIGNATURE �. thountt c""t a 7 POSTMARK 0 d DATE OF DELIVERY rn -- — - - — If requested)l O 5 ADDRESS ;Complete only i m -4 m CLERK S to G UNABLE TO DELIVER BECAUSE INi`IALS DUANE & DOROTHY ZABKA ' • �E\DER f mpletc nem, l' n Add ,,,t,,� Iddras ,n t 3 retrtr C 1P RFT(;RN TO ,Pace on w rn Thf'f!T Sri..it-\li y� c,rt. �,�tk nnc, z [ Shut ..,,,,Iii in ,n: d.tt. ,I lr. �1 t )jr, Shr,,t to Ichrnu,'Lite,tti.t,i,iresi:,I tic livery ..'i5(' V RFsIEIC7FD OVFRY Cr 'n-7- shl,,, r ,,chom.,r,cFL1' .I,Ilccr.,, I RFS'I IlICTID llF1. '1ltl - _SSr Shiny to t+hFom,?Li±,It antl.t,'hirt,. -,i dclivt ri' S1 (1;‘c s tho,n .'rc in ,1,1,,ttun �o,t )� fctsj to I tr is .tI „th(r 4 2 ARTICLE ADDRESSED TO -- - POL3E-„„ D iIVIS x z i)OC 7�-49 m 3 ARTICLE II REGISTEREDDESCR ND PT ONCERTIFIED NO m NSURED NO fAtways voram slgnature of aNdressee or,agent) m I hate reu',t'd tt c artt(le des(tibed al)lve�--' O• SIGNATURE 1 It A t,,l,/rd ,tt,, 2 !n c 4 _ m DATE OF DELIVERY 'I 7 POSTMARK CrelV 1OH VICINVS '3 SVrlDf1OG A z 5 ADDRESS - - - — J fJ (Complete oro t r n Y equested)i m -a I m" 6UNABLE TO DELIVER BECAUSE: CLERK'S 1 INITIALS' Di • SENDER• Complete items 1.2,and i. o Add your address in the "RETURN TO" space on reverse. 1. The following service is requested (check one). Ea Show to whom and date delivered 254'` Show to whom,date,&address of delivery 450 RESTRICTED DELIVERY. °' Show to whom and date delivered 850 O RESTRICTED DELIVERY. Show to whom,date,and address of delivery ..$1.05 (Fees shown are in addition to postage charges and other fees). 2. ARTICLE ADDRESSED TO: . c HAROLD & BETTY LAW zu z m DOC 78-49 - m 3. ARTICLE DESCRIPTION: 4 REGISTERED NO. CERTIFIED NO. INSURED NO. Cr)CD x m 6407R4 LI 0 in (Always obtain signature of addressee or agent) 00 rn I have received the article described above. a) m SIGNATURE 0 Addressee 0 Authorized agent O E / � / ,i" P E 'd , y O '� 0 Cd C 4. DATIF!OF DELIVERY ' �ppSTMARK • C1) C.) 7" iii - ? • Pa) 4a) r-1 > d+ a) a) Cl) 0 C 5. ADDRESS (Complete only If requested) tag) S 14-) U - cd 0 0 Cr) m a) s~ a) i +) cd ti•i U -_ a 7i CLERWS 4) + 0 G 6. UNABLE TO DELIVER BECAUSE: INITIALS a C.) a l'•r-1 Cl) • +3 +P > 0") a) W U U U C F S'l GOP 1976 O 203-456 U Li outsv,zu vnitnr,dare,&address of delivery 450 cccc t° O RESTRICTED DELIVERY. w °' Show to whom and date delivered 850 cn D RESTRICTED DELIVERY.. C7 Show to whom,date,and address of delivery ..$1.05 Z (Fees shown are in additioa to postage charges and other z f )' Q 2. ARTICLE ADDRESSED''JO: u. c EDWARD & RU 'H -McARTHUR f-1 . Z m DOC 78-49 2 n 3. ARTICLE DESCRIPTIO(4j I- REGISTERED NO. CERTIFIED NO. INSURED NO. Ix 0_ m 640785 wQ -i (Always obtain signature of addressee or agent) mrn I have received the article described above. ® 0 SIGNATURE 0 Addressee 0 Authorized agent - X 4. ��, ii , f ; ,I ` m SATE'OF DELIVERY POSTMARK_ B by w ,sus O 5. ADDRESS (Complete If requested) ' m ((1`'"'`. 23 LC908 OGVUO"100'A313380—133li1S 4301.9L6 .s - 11 , m 6. UNABLE TO DELIVER BECAUSE: C4ERK'S O INIITIALS C it D F. 1 * GOP 1976-O-203-456 7, • SENDER: Complete stems 1.2,and i. o Add your address in the "RETURN TO" space on g reverse. re 1. The following service is requested (check one). " ® Show to whom and date delivered 250 o Show to whom,date,&address of delivery 450 4 RESTRIC1ED DELIVERY. cn Show to whom and date delivered 850 ❑ RESTRICTED DELIVERY. Show to whom,date,and address of delivery ..$1.05 (Fees shown are in addition to postage charges and other fees). 2. ARTICLE ADDRESSED TO: . xI JAMES & NANCY GIGGY xi z m DOC 78-49 . _ ___ m 3. ARTICLE DESCRIPTION: REGISTERED NO. CERTIFIED NO. INSURED NO. m 640782 64 Co 0 CD N 4 (Always obtain signature of addressee or agent) • O m I have received the article described above. O CO C SIGNATURE ❑ Addressee [Di Authorized agent N di 0 , O C 4. • ,C, '3 m DATE of DELIVERY 5' PASTMARK C) -I-) 03 o /r-' G v O N PZ /' H di O 5. ADDRESS (Complete only if requested) 0 n r1 (f) C...) A i r-I td - '-1 W n m 6. UNABLE TO DELIVER BECAUSE: CLERK'S M f-I 0 INITIALS O 4) N O O F cn N ) * GOP 1976-O-203-456 LIJ U U = 2i Show to whom and date delivered 250 a cc Show to whom,date,&address of delivery 450 RESTRICTED DELIVERY. (7 °' Show to whom and date delivered 850 z O RESTRICTED DELIVERY. z Show to whom,date,and address of delivery ..$1.05 Z (Fees shown are in addition to postage charges and other a f )• u_ a 2. ARTICLE ADDRESSED TO; O JOSEPHINE CLOUGH & ROBERT z z GILBER t Lu m DOC 78-49 t� I- m 3. ARTICLE DESCRIPTIOW ' Qn_ REGISTERED NO. CERTIFIED NO INSURED NO o m 640783 tw (Always obtain signature of addressee or agent) o ® m I have received the article described above. 'a, m SIGNATURE ❑ Addressee JD--Authorized agent cn .4' m 4. DATE OF DELIVERY POSTMARK o p„:,, 0 5. ADDRESS (Complete only if requested) LE908 OOb'Id0100'A3133ElO—133ELLS 410E 9l6 m zi rn 6. UNABLE TO DELIVER BECAUSE: CLERK'S O INITIALS C r y} GOP 1976 O 203-456 Ars c` o x, . '0--\-1 >- W r '" H • SENDER• Complete items 1.2,and 3. �� Q r -, Add your address m the "RETURN TO" space on r\14 i reverse. 0 4: m1. The following service is requested (check one). <,,,"0/ z ICI Show to whom and date delivered 256` Z�' Show to whom,date,&address of delivery 45¢ (.? 0 RESTRICIED DELIVERY. °' Show to whom and date delivered 85d O RESTRIC:11s'll DELIVERY. 1-1 Show to whom,date,and address of delivery ..$1.05 V') (Fees shown are in addition to postage charges and other CO O U 00 2. ARTICLE ADDRESSED TO: cd c xi DUANE & DOROTHY ZABKA kxi z - . MI CD m DOC 78-49 'd O m 3. ARTICLE DESCRIPTION-.„ ›' N REGISTERED NO. CERTIFIED NO. INSURED NO. 1: ai 171 640'787 s~ in (Always obtain signature of addressee or agent) 6‘..' I have received the arficle described above �j SIGNATURE ❑ Addressee ❑ Aut,horizcd agent b H 2 r .� C 4. 1 _ 21 DATE OF DELIVERY POSTMARK w C4 rtl C7 o U . ' C 5. ADDRESS (Complete only if requested) U .�� 0 W L7 tO Z M "2„, _ 1 '' t F, 6. UNABLE TO DELIVER BECAUSE: CLERK'S Z C� D INITIALS a. U �� GOP 1976-O-203-456 iii V CC W *, /-i o 6£509 OOvli0100•A37331=19-133Fi1S 4301 9L6 y7171:17—,m.-77,--,,777-77-7--------, d�. Te - 1\1 1 ' Add your address in the "RETURN TO" space on la �(S g• Complete items I.2,and i. reverse, y Add your address in the "RETURN TO" space on .mW. 1. The following service is requested (check one). , : ' reverse. zID Show to whom and date delivered 254 `oI 1.,2131 llowing service is requested (check one). 254 l< Show to whom,date,&address of delivery 454E Sow to whom and date delivered 454 t° 0 RESTRICTED DELIVERY. Z Show to whom,date,&address of delivery Show to whom and date delivered 850 0 RESTRICTED DELIVERY. 85( 0 RESTRICTED L)L BY. Show to whom and date delivered Show to whom an,date, address of delivery r� _ ..$1.05 (,(IDg+ESTRICTED DELIVERY. (Fees shown are in,atfjil ,A postage charges and otherf �. Shgqw to whom,date,andpddress of delivery ..X1.05 ``- u e` „J..... Io rshpdva are in addition''to idostage charges and other zi 2. ARTICLE ADDRE E4 70r•u .4 e.esv.. U a . .. C BILL & LI, YD. 13PdCxjART E ADDRESSED TOs A Z�B RICHARD STEVE', z s r �� .. m - z a m 3. ARTICLE DESCRIPTION: nn(! J 8-4 9 . REGISTERED NO. CERTIFIED NO. INSURED NO. O 3. ARTICLE DESCRIPTION: 4 A. '. ' m 16 4 0786 I REGISTERED NO. CERTIFIED NO. INSURED NO. F, (Always obtain signature of addressee or agent) v 640789 rn m I have received the article described above. rn (Always obtain signature of addressee or agent) SIGNATUR p ❑ Ad se 5Authorized agent A I have received the article described above. /`` zAuthorized agent cn , to .SIGNATURE 0 Addressee 0 a O DATE OF DEL ERY H ,` ,\, - /•a,\ ,' < rn POSTMARK a ( _�Cp C 4. POSTMARK > ✓ Xl DATE OF DELIVERY p• 5. ADDRESS (Complete only if requested) O ' C 5. ADDRESS (Complete only if requested) .23 77 Zoo m m 6. UNABLE TO DELIVER BECAUSE: CLERK'S -A_I a INITIALS =1 6 UNABLE TO DELIVER �'gCAUSE: CLERK'S F �9 C INITIALS > '* GOP I97o 0-203-456 -- ----- �. F *GOP 1976—O-203-456 to ..\ a , 41 4 , „lir 740 • . i 0, 4 sk , .. oil • , . to • t ' t)' IP ;tab s z • # . . _ Il71; i sIlit • !'•i._ ire a.it _ 7 • / . ` .1 • - ( I • • 1 . 0.31 , • 0 A • • P • a. • i ' 4 4+ - `` 'f t �w • • _ i • 1 s S illid511;;IIP . t , JI • S it4 • • i . --• ill y f • ✓ - , . , _ . rte �, r r. iv gir. Ara - A Nks .. . • '► • - r ) 4 - ! • t. yL • "'I's ' . •e.)0( li . a a . _ ,r / �'f ' " • i. 0 + _ — r .4 _ r'f .If . 0 .. ... .. ......_._ .. ... .. ..1 .. , . 44, _ 1 I A ie -4 * tub •• tz 1 •` • • •4 ' • ` j i ..;'• ' 41: " a • • •, • - a 41. ad, A es ois . .••••rio t , .rni •4 WI lir ear _ ` if re-24 1 i + i I -a 1r1 St 40 • r �'a 4 • • 4, 7Aar 4 ih • •1' , •- . t • 1 • r. A ~ ii . . • . . :. - _ l T ��11. . , 0•• : 4 • , � 1• t lit % 4,, . . ki:, ..: 6 \ -: ,..4„. .,„...: ., • . . . . , . . . A'..• . • _ w , ... L 016.... - s • tIlli.• • •1.•• • 1 - _ _a1 a 4 im VIII >r r' . • • Oil • F _ f :4.1 1:::kv •' �lali a' •,.0, f , .siitivt_ .. .4_ 71(11\- iii . ` .isuir_.:It:lavas:. ;r:..-'6 i 1 • -s- At R� • , tiA • • l 4414 I till A `` , f f_ r� 1 • /• • / 1 • r r - +/ o .' + • x • -..- si , -1V]-41P • yi ".- ••ib.• 6901 i f t Y 41 41111*: 1/4 . eN .• •t•*1:1' et . .44‘: ....7 • • •i ., • • • 0 411.`j ' I • , v _. t t •• • • - , - 4r, . 4' - -,,. • • `. . • - � • • "...P. may' _ � _ f� • , �( ..• - •. . c I ••. .'-♦ ; - a'' 4, ,, -•rte • V :, / • I • I' ,M •. ' _• • .., Nit ,,� h; •we ..-.eity • — — — • hill ; - JO' OP at S. t -' a r• I 4r 1 . is IN • rI 1, kill t, . iiimereimnp. (p " al I ` Swim egiri .+. 'Par .1 t f +� VIPIP Olt Ie. 104 MOa ii it e, sir� , iii.. •"_ ,...i,„,1* isti 1 . . .... • • , 4. . A...4 ii ; .: f <, lift I ler- -tic! „ I r` .. IfI: :•.-... .. .. .. •_..._ id .. _ i • • ` 1 4,2 i • 4 i 4 _• 41 it y Hello