The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20071038.tiff u � EXHIBIT A 2007-1038 CQ GRAVEL RESOURCE EVALATION AND RESERVOIR FEASIBILITY STUD CITY OF GREELEY I STREET PROPERTYY GREELEY, COLORADO x• e rs'el A T b y ,-p- ,-,,,...*,.. �v Lyman Henn Inc. r' ^, ,, Denver, Colorado 1 A. 'f X. t� e for 3^I' , + d�5crc iii..s., of Gre 'Y ^` ` a�sa v Fit 0. !.t'. Febru EXHIBIT LYMAN v: HENN INC ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS FROM THE GROUND DOWN February 9, 2007 File No. 106006-.000 City of Greeley 4 • 1 100 10th Street, 3`d Floor .1 Greeley, Colorado 80631 .414: Hr Attention: Phil Carter ' Subject: Gravel Resource and Evaluation and F' Reservoir Feasibility Evaluationy City of Greeley F St. Property 1-,•. r: Greeley,Colorado • Dear Phil: Submitted herein is the draft report of our feasibility., # r the subjec,r"'<' _ct. This study was ^ performed in accordance with the services described to co , ed June ..:' Q06. This report contains the preliminary geotechnical findings and addresses tech t 1 fear ttng to'g;aktpl mining and construction of the proposed reservoir lip, ,.; � � ,, ' ' We appreciate the opportunity to w tth you'. .. is proje . . a can be of further assistance or if you have any questions regarding this pr ' lease contactbl1ar office.• �:':. icsx, , Sincerely yours, ' , , � LYMAN HENN. INQ• '"'" 'a y ` iiJ � t. . . „.. . . Minal Parekh, : '. r.4. Steven C. Kuehr, P.E. Senior Engineer ' R`: Associate COPROJECTS106006-1M0 Recm,roe mid Reservo 1" ry Stud.1. i t..md Cortesgendence•dt.I I ReponstDRAFT F Street Repott.doc �z. ,^ i L 16 �:r!,'e; 8:lit, '..,Y..' ',t'i:'rt.ei. GO 8O20L'5•e2 -Tel.3t,X c%24 i ;00 F; . ,- /7_.. Gec t c:i?n,c.ii TL.nrelln,_7. sin;C'on. UuctioI? ,dri(e TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION I 1.01 Purpose 1 1.02 Description of Project 1 1.03 Scope of Work I A. Mining Feasibility 1 B. Water Control Structures = 2 C. Lining Feasibility D. Evaluation of Gravity Flow from F St. Site. 2 1.04 Report Organization ` 2 II. SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATIONS 4 2.01 Geotechnical Investigation 4 i ( A Test Boring Program a PI '� 4 B. Laboratory Testing �, *`,.,, 4 C. Water Pressure Testin• g .� 5 r Y* ' III. SITE CONDITIONS '_ti ,.. i Fir("" 6 b 3.01 Physiography and Lan .th, 0 3.02 Regional Geology a` 6t 6 �.,, 3.03 Site Geology ;, 'a$ '� , 6 A ,I,,lyckurden ICL)� yH '- ( kx:`'fi k,<., 6 B. Ioai`xs;*.luvium (s SP GP GW)�, 6 G# v Residuum , "� 7 S, Bedrock ry;`1 s 7 3.04 Btrlace Water ar$aGroundw atea7 a\z. A}fig+. . su IV. RESERVOIR F.E.ASIBI ITY l 8 at -'40l ., nbFeatgittilaty 3 t 4.02IerControlictures 8 ttt 4.03 Rest II- Limns 8 A ,I4I4(impacteier ay Slope Liner (Clay Berms) 9 B. s,i `.' 11 �s Y Wall '.,,:,,IN 4 Other E V I-ering Considerations 13 A s ndwater Mounding 13 Snstruction Water 13 V. OPINI i ."-. '~ PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COSTS 14 VI. FEASIBILITY OF GRAVITY FLOW FROM F ST. 15 VII. CONCLUSIONS 16 VIII. LIMITATIONS 17 c.: G'.YROJECfSIUfi00�IXX1 Resouamn�Rew+voir Feasibillry Siujy R.RemNs and Cnn'npunAenccRJ l Repans.DRAF1 F Street ReponAnc ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLES FIGURES APPENDIX A — Banks & Gesso Report APPENDIX B —Muller Report APPENDIX C—Lyman Henn Test Boring Key Sheet and Reports APPENDIX D— Laboratory Test Results r y3 r ti x y rq r.' < OPPROIRCTSI060IJ XX)Resourneund Rewrvoir PeaciFildv susiy R.Records and ConespoodwmR.I I Repo is R WI FSveuReport dnc jll LIST OF TABLES Table Nu. Title Summary of Subsurface Conditions lI Summary of Laboratory Test Results,-kk�,O' s;s„„ Ill Summary of Probable Costs , r IV Summary of Gravity Flow y' LIST OF FIGURES a1"eft".. Figure No. Titl 3e', 9y I Project %Callon "' "' er SSA i .—. 3 `� s. Boring Lott on $ 3 ' -tavity Flow) i F St.-Plan View 4 7 avlty Flow Fro St.-Profile 4.-.11' �.v �lr � F4 Ai a � aHz, sf:- llcr; Isr G.AYHUJECTSI Ofi00&MII Rnwmeund Raervmr Fea'billry San AR.RecnNe mA Cunopondence\R I 0.ryniagDR�hT F Srteet Reportdoe IV L INTRODUCTION 1.01 Purpose Lyman Henn, Inc. (Lyman Henn) was retained by the City of Greeley (City) to perform a resource and reservoir feasibility study at the City's F St. property. The study includes evaluating the site's sand and gravel reserves and evaluating the teasibir of developing the mined pits into water storage facilities as the reclaimed end-use after g. The study- also a , includes evaluating the feasibility of transmitting flow originating„;"", rigm v otinp the F St. site, and,or other City of Greeley reservoirs. to the Cache La Poudre River bym ^,,f a series of gravity pipes through existing reservoirs in the F St. and 35l"Ave. vicinity - t .�. 1.02 Description of Project 7{* �Y 4 The F St. Property is located directly north of F'S C directly south of the oloradct*d Southern Rail Road line, within the middle and eas half of Seetiax334, Township 6 Vti}th, Range 66 West of the 6th P.M. in Greeley, Colora der lure 1 x 0 1.03 Scope of Work g 1,1 The scope of work performed for this t -sr ik -cordance Ali the Resource and Reservoir "SfaFeasibility Study proposal for the City Areeley .,,O‘ 28,106.4rOi In preparing thisreport, we have reviewed andior relied orttfte follow gc, mation Ati• An aerial photo, prow i, y the Crt reelcv• • Topogriphwa�Tapping prow d by the Ct k f Greeley: • Our discu4sioyyy4with City peffinel during ' visits and telephone conversations. The scope of work mnlndesan tatii*afaggregafe mining feasibility. potential water controt t uctures for conve t1g water in and ontlif the pits, and feasibility of lining or sealing the if to crest, Iatgrage res „otrs which are isolated from the groundwater. An estimation of racket value c dep�ud an opinion of probable costs for the water control structures '' d lining options i 1 O incltura the scope. A:1/4'.e, Mining Feasibis 't. Banks .«t 'o, LLC. ( ter ? s &Gesso), as a subconsultant to Lyman Henn. evaluated the sand and grave it an t<q.;.S' ated its value as an aggregate source. Banks & Gesso performed an d; evaluation o a 4 , tations and constraints that affect the mineable sand and gravel reserve and prepared a p : '' nary mine plan for feasibility-level estimates of mineable reserves and the volume of rese oir water storage. The Banks& Gesso report summarizes current market rate royalties and estimates the value of the sand and gravel deposit. Banks & Gesso's report is included as Appendix A. G:'ROJECTS100000-1X0 Resourceund Reservoir Feasibility Study\R Records.and Correspondence 4R.I I RepatlsVDRAFT F Street ReporAoc 1 en- B. Water Control Structures Muller Engineering Company, Inc. (Muller), also as a subconsultant to Lyman Henn, identified potential facilities which could be constructed to convey water to the reservoir and from the reservoir to the river. Muller developed a preliminary infrastructure plan and estimate of associated construction costs. Muller's report is included as Appendix B C. Lining Feasibility , Lyman Henn's work provides a summary of geotechnical investigatt and a discussion of technical feasibility for construction of low permeability liners ttt;SF -a tool for interactive `n design decisions. n En completing this evaluation, Lyman Henn completed tfte following tasks: ., fie • Performed an initial reconnaissance of the site ecome familiar with site condi sy • Reviewed available existing information about site; TP • Performed seven test borings along the perimetei%fle p eft'y; • Performed laboratory testing on samples of subsurfa¢ ials and • Performed a feasibility evaluatio# onstmction of eYt eered low permeability liners around the proposed reservoir. �P,,,, '4:4".,. D. Evaluation of Gravity Flow fromv St. sitemp, lit The City also enga e . �n to evaln44,the:.f$asibdttyoftt'dnsmitting flow by gravity from the F St site,_sfigftl t bee a reserv610.0he Cache La Poudre River through a series of gravel pits located south of the _er in the general vicinity of 35111 Ave. and F St. The City ter. envisions a series of pipeline sear�tts which wtR`t�nnect the various gravel pit reservoirs. In order to perform 4riscvaluattonr man-Henn pert rmed the following tasks: .:::„,, „;..,„,,,,t.it • Reviewed mapping ptded by the City to c©nceptually determine the size and shape of 'each ofthe�lptential gravel pit reservoirs; 4n_ Based on the map mg, determined the maximum water storage elevation that can be ,` achieved in each pit w it `1"it storing water above the natural ground: • moped a ground Iltace profile form the westernmost gravel pit to the easternmost grat ", . using top Lei,. hic mapping provide by the City; • Estimate. rnn,ae,n +':r f storage that can be released by gravity from each pit; and • Estimate the d-pth of dead storage that cannot be released by gravity from each pit. 1.04 Report Organization A detailed description of the subsurface explorations performed by Lyman Henn for this project is included in Section II of this report. Section III presents site topography and physiography, along with our interpretation of subsurface conditions at the site. Specific topics discussed include descriptions of naturally-occurring soils and bedrock, and groundwater conditions. Section IV presents summaries of Banks & Gesso and Muller's reports and presents the lining u:pRtsecTSItIWoo-lrn Resonmeand Reservoir Feaoshst,ty S5 , R.Records and Correspondeoce,RI I ReportADRAFr F Street Report Joe 2 feasibility evaluation, which addresses specific design concerns such as staging area, working platform, volume of suitable materials,and excavation of a bedrock key with respect to site characteristics and lining alternatives. Section V provides feasibility-level probable construction costs associated with reservoir lining and development. Section VI addresses the feasibility of a gravity pipe carrying flow from F St. to the river. ,h ftl 4 .. _,., .:x.,_,:, ..,,,,,, , ,,, , cy-. tn: 5if .rte � ,~ ti b. .'k ;-" �� °''p s-iF`9Y r � ��'� e .fi r5 . :xs ea ,..4.::.Z,,,;,:::.,,,, ` f 4S� t 74'' I'M'' )lb:`+: Ci:WROJECTSI1161N16.pro Resource and Reservoir Feasibility Scaly F.Records and Correspondence\R I I Reports\DRAFT F Street Repod.doc 3 II. SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATIONS 2.01 GeotechnicalInvestigation A field exploration program was performed by Lyman Henn in June 2006. The program consisted soil drilling and sampling and rock coring along the perimeter of the property. A description of field procedures is presented below. , a"' 39 A. Test Boring Program '7 - Lyman Henn drilled seven test borings (LH-I-F to LI4 7 F) al the perimeter of the property to investigate general subsurface conditions and to obtatasimples to aid in fhb determination of engineering properties of the in-situ materials. Boring Were drilled by Drilling Engineers of Fort Collins and logged by a Lyman llenn represe A summary of test boringtjesults is included in Table 1. The boring locations were su d by King Surveyors Inc and* shown on Figure 2. The individual test boring reports ate, ovided in App radix A and the elevations „ are in accordance with the survey. O` F * k �SJ� k d. Borings were extended to depths rang,trom 25 ft to 33� s with hollow stern auger (RSA). Bedrock was encountered in each ho '" ]qec„bedrock was e � tered, auger boring was continued for 5 to 17 ft so that splits sampI $J.vtthin the 'k could be obtained. NX coring was performed in two of the bore (LIEy}d 1_11-6-F "} �'r`approximately 10 ft into the bedrock, in 5 ft runs. Standard split-sfq�i barrel tt- $ ,h ID 2:inch OD) samples were obtained from all bon airsgeneral accord e wgh, 'te sta t4rdppnctratron test procedures r ,. h a st'.p specified in ASTM O?,:::. g8n�811y at 5 fttevals in the overburden, alluvium, and bedrock and sometimes rcquently a� yeeded Thtpenetration values reported in the boring logs are the number&lows of a I4Q- 'Hammer failing 30 inches, generally counted over 18 inches of sampler peneti n �' r Descriptions and visuatOlasprfications 0r4Silliarock strata and samples were logged in ecordauee withi-tllc ASTt&D 2487 or ASTM ["2483 Soil Classification System. The completed test ocm ,repoita:re provided in Appendix C. along with an explanatory sheet c tming the terms'eon thet * ts. The recovery and rock quality designation (RQD) were ' rded for cored be.g . Sa information. and other pertinent field data and .. 9 ations are also i .cued in test boring reports. B. `ry 't't.4oratory Te 7;t Laboratory �,s e `r gned to further determine soil characteristics from samples obtained from test bortn 4”,,, n Henn's internal laboratory and Construction Technical Services, Inc. performed soil laI.atory work. Tests performed included grain size analysis and index property testing. The grain size distribution plots are included in Appendix D of this report. The results of these tests are summarized in Table II. i'Y.Lvv c'PRUJECTS10600[OE Re,omeeand Reset,our Feasibility Study lR-Records and Correspondence'a I l ReportsJDRAFr F Street Report doc 4 C. Water Pressure Testing An in-situ water pressure test(packer test) was attempted in the bedrock stratum in the cored section of one boring. The test was performed for a single depth interval and the bedrock was subjected to a pressure of 15 psi. However, the pressure could not be maintained for the period of time necessary to gather equilibrated data. A permeability value was therefore not calculated for the bedrock. 3 .;Y dl V � " G3 �{r� n ttiY L IFr ei� t A •5•`v k v^fie 5% { 3 ys r ill'_' . iNV GVPR U CTS IO{{)61%Y1 Resoume4, R rvoir Peas, lay Sexy 10..Recar sand Corta�mik e R.l ReOur¢��RAFT F tilreu RepmI a 5 III. SITE CONDITIONS 3.01 Physiography and Land Use The F St. site is located west of downtown Greeley between F St. and the Colorado and Southern Rail Road line, immediately south of the Cache La Poudre Rivera The Cache La Poudre River borders the northwest corner of the property and a L it trgF;L. ling operation border the entire east side of the property. The Boyd Freeman Ditch cses the southern third of the property in the east-west direction. The City of Greeley RovvvtAn Park currently exists in the southwest corner of the property. The majority of the property consists of unimproved land,a portion of which is used for agriculture An oil gas fagltiv is located at the south end of the property, adjacent to Rover Run Park. The total area pfthe property is approximately 60 acres. The ground surface is relatively flat, gradually sltsping down from the southwest toward the northeast, with approximately 5 ft of overall retiptkin El. 4637 to El. 4652.)';'-.7',N 3.02 Regional Geology ylkArk The regional geology consists of fluvial surficial depo�ov p}ing sedimentary bedrock. Fluvial deposits vary in thickness, tentwro Jo be thicker neat Cache La Poudre River. Surface deposits are mainly compos •.xi too roo coarse alluv `tsands with occasional clay lenses and scams. The bedrock is Cretan uverag,', imentary of the Laramie Formation, which typically consists of claystone, sir' sang #wd occasional coal seams. These sedimentary rocks were deposited dunngtY1eCretacc pg Peixoti as a loge inland sea covered the area. ; e • N �.'.�' "'^" 3.03 Site Geo 2i(gi The site geolog `rl.i.kars to consist bt a relatively thin layer of overburden overlying coarse alluvium overlying B,gdrock. iBejreck conststsof gray, interbedded claystone siltstonc and sandstone Detailed destiptiecns of materia1%encountered are presented in the following paragrOhs:*fix1 Soil Otssification System group names and group symbols are used for soil Apparent aZ 11.y, as repotted below, was determined by correlation with blow counts. A 4Sn Overburden s#' Chr‘env.,en consisting o'i7't n clay with and without sand was encountered in 6 of the borings (LH-I 'AWL, h LH-5 an.i: t-7). The overburden was encountered at the surface and was m approxi ,.,2 to 3 fey ^q , This material was moist and stiff to soft with standard penetration test values r a,-,t;r n f, to 14 blows per foot(bpf). The average lines content from two laboratory test ;:'aa ax'x.urden was 73 percent. B. Coarse Alluvium (SP, SP-SC, GP, GW) Coarse alluvium consisting of poorly graded sand with and without clay, poorly graded gravel and well graded gravel was encountered in each boring. The coarse alluvium was encountered below the overburden or at the ground surface and ranged from approximately 11 to 19 ft thick. This material was dry to wet and very loose to very dense, with standard penetration test values ranging from 2 bpf to 50 blows for 6 inches. The average fines content from three laboratory tests on the alluvium was 10 percent. I ilcz_ GVPROJECTSI 06006-IXU Resource and Reservoir Feasibility Sody'R.Records and Correspondence,R l l Reports DRAFT F Street Repon.doc 6 C. Residuum Residuum consisting of a soil-like, highly weathered bedrock material was encountered on top of the bedrock in two of the borings (LI-b2-F and LH-4-F). This material was encountered 12.5 and 16.5 ft below ground surface and was approximately 1.5 to 2.5 ft thick. The material was wet and hard with standard penetration test values of 43 bpf. D. Bedrock -. Interbedded claystone, siltstone and sandstone bedrock of the Lara1 ormation was encountered beneath the alluvium in each boring. The top of h&oc :encountered between 15 and 19 ft below ground surface and extended beyond the b i' 'n of fiie,'` ing. The bedding was generally thin, with bedding thickness on the order oftN��inch or less. The;bedrock was moist to wet and highly to moderately weathered. with3tagaard penetration testlues ranging from 50 blows for 12 inches to 50 blows for 0 inche icenetration. Rock field hapness, defined as the material resistance to scratching or ion, for this material was soft,-, he average fines content from five laboratory tests t : Brock was 6,„Z e rcent. a 3.04 Surface Water and Groundwater Surface water at the property occurs ttx dO'ache La Poudrec r (along the northwest side of the property) and the Boyd Freeman D ciao the souther 3 tud of the property. A pond 57.4 exists in the center of the property. Lyt Henn nds that was created by excavation of a test pit for a previous stu' a (the sit " > Fie Groundwater was encotft faicikin the al ' each borings shown in the table below • as measured at tha tpletion o ling. Flue, Lions in groundwater level may occur due to variations m raid!Qm temperature l0 e developmeti, and other factors. ` E , e4-- "k', rektine, rolitidtivater kleXtig ...,£ WWt 'Level T+umber (ft below ground surface) S LFld-F 8.5 LH- P. , 8.7 rt 1 H-3 F aiD 9.6 -I-4-F 7.5 1i -5-F 4 r -6-F 4 8 Ny OINROJECIS\Ilibli06-IXY1 Resource and Reservoir Feasibility Sealy 5R.Records and ConegmndenmAR.II ReportsVDRAFF F Street Report doe 7 IV. RESERVOIR FEASIBILITY 4.01 Mining Feasibility Banks & Gesso evaluated the sand and gravel deposit on the site based on Lyman Henn's subsurface investigations and estimated its worth as a saleable aggregate r serve. Banks and Gesso's report indicates that the deposit is marginally economically tea s an aggregate source. However, Banks & Gesso identifies several potential issues y limit the economic feasibility of the site, such as: unknowns regarding easem through the property; restrictions on the storage configuration possibilities at site resultt{ 'tpt easements and existing site features (oil and gas facilities. ditch, park, etc.); thetkative y five (silty/clayey) nature of the sand and gravel deposit: and the small x olume ,f the deposit There are existing pipelines or suspected pipelines that are assumed to e ust in asements but have not been verified and surveyed. These pipelines limit miumg, Water storage severely pipelines could potentially he moved if negotiated betweent 'fity and the facility owner, butthe.cost associated with relocation is unknown. .,,. '• {�r The Title documentation indicates multiple owners of fs ftt$ill for oil and gas. Further research is required to investigate who rrently holds the ` s and how they must be accommodated. These owners may t ept companies t the companies that already have existing facilities on the site. Th owtteta ytould be nott$t during the Division of Reclamation Mining and Safety (DRMS'i"i rmerly' i ion of min-4.1 and Geology) process, �,. if not sooner, and a resolution between th ty and theeiWners of thehts must be negotiated prior to the issuance ok Permit. sia ,Nye +o4:; a l miry, Based on the resiaiiitiBanks &bie4so's work tI e site has been divided into three mining areas in order to accorodate existing"` features *total available storage volume resulting from the three storage !s is 225.6 a t Approximately 200,000 cubic yards (cy) of fine fraction material Widibg rem '� gxC n5 w�fite from t��nining operanon_ Banks & Gesso's report is included s AppendkA r -r' Water J i Structures Iler has evaluated 11 ` frastni required to develop the F St. site as an operating water s ci w e facility. Muller', ,preparra preliminary plan of facilities and has provided an esti of preliminary Qr:truction costs, with Banks & Gesso's preliminary mine plan as a basis ., t site layout ow infrastructure includes a diversion structure on the Boyd Freeman Ditch, in t s t ectmg ,. . . between the reservoir cells, and a pumping station. Muller's report is included"`,O,,,•eiwiiPh. 4.03 Reservoi ' ining Based on site conditions observed during the geotechnical explorations performed in August and September, 2006, Lyman Henn has determined that construction of an engineered water storage reservoir is technically feasible at the site. Conditions at the site are favorable for conventional methods of creating a sealed water storage reservoir using available materials on site supplemented with borrow material. !.x G:PROJECTSI 060116401 Resourceaad Reservoir Feuribiliy Study\R.Records and CanespnnkRoce'R.I I ReptstsORAF1 F Street Report doc 8 Applicable guidance documents for the construction and performance of low permeability ground water barriers are listed below. • Division of Minerals and Geology's Guide to Specification Preparation for Slurry Walls and Clay Liners as a Component of a Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Permit (September 2000). • State Engineer Guidelines for Lining Criteria for Gravel Pits (Augug#; 99) as set forth in the General Guidelines for Substitute Water Supply Plans for Sad#01Gravel Pits Submitted to the State Engineer Pursuant to SR 89-120 & SB 93 iO. These documents provide design guidance and define allowable J`e≤kage of groundwater into an empty reservoir. The leakage allowance acknowledges sotpc limited leakage otgroundwater through the backfill barrier as well as leakage tip throrrefibefloor of the reserVoifs. `, Lyman Henn considered two methods to hydrau separate ("seal") the reservoir:1OT the surrounding alluvial aquifer: I) compacted clay if - liner or 2) siting walls. Slurry waare generally more costly, but offer the advantage of fact, mg mpe ewatering if installed prior to mining. A hybrid solution involving compacted chi v,_, nected along the site perimeter by short slurry walls can b9 ssidered during esign to reduce the length of engineered compacted clay slopes an ' tally reduce cost-( ` Y Bea n� A. Compacted Clay Slope Liner. ay Be m �",,. Lyman Henn considered 44 ;., se of compact" eta - e (e rns placed around the perimeter of the pit(sr ₹et`t operations °` plete as the reservoir lining. Clay berms. as applied to sealle ter storagj tgravel mt operations provide a low permeability ground water b r consisting o�gineered fi[ donstructed from low permeability soil (clay). For engineered� {storage in payeLpits, the clapberms are founded on and -'keyed" into low permeability beclre10:KeygStiledrciek.implies excavating into the bedrock to minimize Groun dwater flow along Fite., bedrockinterface.: A large volume of suitable clay soil is required forconstruction ofpFay berms. €aiting until after g to line,. e site with clay berms could have adverse impacts, created Jong-term mine de Sting opt• , .,• 4.,.Wons, to surrounding shallow groundwater wells. Potential costs to surrounding M 4 s are bey nd the scope of this study. Clay berms generally offer +# gs over slurry is because the berms serve as the impermeable liner and as the reclam°'r'N+,+ slopes. For .,Xe stability considerations, the clay berms would have to be placed as an en Y d`i,-d fill ,,':. Henn assumed vertical highwalls for this site in order to maximize saleable maa r The site has been of ided into three storage cells in order to accommodate existing site features. Based on the dimensions of these cells, Lyman Henn estimates approximately 10,275 linear ft of clay berms would be necessary, as measured along the top edge of the three reservoir cells. The embankments would need to be approximately 15 to 19 ft high, with an average assumed height of 17 ft based on the depth to bedrock, and have side slopes of 3H:I V (horizontal:vertical). The clay berms would be founded on and keyed into the underlying bedrock. I.: Pi.PROJECTS'I161106-IXXI Resource and Reservoir Fea%LhLILry Study`R Records and Correspondence'R.II RepannVORAFr F Street Report doc 9 Several factors were evaluated for the feasibility of clay berms at the site, including: • the embankment alignment; • the suitability of the overburden soil to be used as embankment till; • the availability of borrow material for supplemental clay soil; and • the presence and excavatability of a relatively impervious stratum within a reasonable depth to act as a key. Description of Construction Clay berms are constructed by placing compacted clay till.of competent bedrock with a key excavated into the bedrock. It is assumed that the'al[as ial deposits will be mined to bedrock at this site. The top of the bedrock is typ duly roughened agdIcarified. Clay is placed in loose lifts, moisture conditioned ana₹^eoThp sited according to- specifications Clay berm construction require �ewatering of the pit below the bottom of the key elevation. 2. Alignment y' A clay berm alignment was aswed based on the rty dimensions and cell configuration developed by R k Gesso. .Appro'it Ately 10,275 linear ft of clay berms, measured around the tali:rehire. iiof each cell'= tuld be needed. Clay Material ,xm' " , tr Sind ` Based on bt!in n, it is esfima -te hat the on-site in-place volume of overburde, tenal is apitimatelyF.X000 cy, assuming that only the reservoir cell areas i; 1e stripped of t burden Thh\op 6 inches of the overburden would he estockpilr use as top nd is not consvidcred as usable clay material Assuming the slopes will be mineit± Ijiekciertipl highwalls and based on preliminary clay berm dimensions tpproxiMately 201,OO&eyo€clayey material would be needed to construct =,clay beans mcltzcl,t[ 2 compaction factor of 15 percent. Two laboratory tests show ttRitV that the p' burdenr�, t contains between 68 percent and 77 percent fines. Lyman Henn recota ' knds thayal used for clay berms have at least 50 percent fines. Additional clay iterial is&killable on site from the residuum overlying the bedrock e ,w-end from the beipqritc itself The bedrock samples exhibited fines content ranging from o 90 percent .vim;e additional volume of clayey material required to construct clay b I rarounda i'-ree reservoir cells could be obtained by excavating an add'tional 18 r ; u '-from the bottom of each cell. 4. ==rock Key Based on the boring information, the bedrock is anticipated to serve as a sufficient bottom seal and key-in material to meet the State Engineer's requirement for maximum seepage for sealed water storage. A 5-ft key into unweathered bedrock is recommended. The material is considered difficult to excavate and will require the use of specialized excavation equipment. i Isa G.WRUJEC'TS IOfi00n-GO Resource and Rexrvoir Feasibility Seely A.Records and Cnnepondence tR.I I ReportsiDRAFT ft Street Repondoc 10 B. Slurry Wall Slurry walls were also evaluated as a means of reservoir sealing. A slurry wall would be installed through the overburden and coarse alluvium and keyed into underlying bedrock Slurry walls, as applied to sealed water storage in gravel mining operations,are groundwater barriers consisting of low permeability backfill extending from the ground.surface into a low permeability media. Several factors were evaluated for the feasibility o walls at the site, including: • the availability of a sufficiently large staging areas for const; operations (including slurry ponds); „. •";1% • the suitability of excavated soil and borrow soil to be, std as slurry wal1'b'a kfill; • the ease of excavation ('excavatability") of the mates` to be penetratedb '�a trench; and • the presence and excavatability of a low permeab`lj stratum within a reasoa l t depth to act as a slurry wall key. ", , 1.. Description of Construction ,F ` ,,: .'.t: ,,,-: ,,,, Slurry walls are constructed by-p�lacing backfill iii: excavated vertical trench. The trench walls are supported d it .. vation by ben slurry. Prior to trenching, an engineered working platform nsfitrAteil at the groin ' ;,' rface. The working a..A platform is designed to insure a ticien 4 , �slurry groundwater, to support the trench excavation equipment a' fi eraII a.. •khoe y 3 ,. Pd to support the backfilling opera . _ r •Yi Soil-ben � ackfill is erally us , r slurry walls. Soil-bentonite backfill can be placed'' a wider trenc . achieve the:, e effect. Backfill consists of excavated soil mii ti ith slurry ' entonite po 'to form a highly plastic, tlowable mixture that has th ignsiste ; ' te. cessary. borrow clay is added to the ��#aixturre. Mixin pelf,, "tally pe e working platform adjacent to the trench le '_`w c_`" n by continual tracking with amid-sized bulldozer or by continual motion of a backhoc et. latform width is limited, backfill mixing must be performed at areas rem . m the 'h and requires trucking of the trench cuttings and mixed backfill. As exca• progresses, backfill is placed into the previously ' u4 excavated porti the tre such that a continual operation is realized, with the ackfill lagging nd the excavation by several tens of ft. Backfill in slurry walls cally has a ulic conductivity of less than lx le centimeters per second. Min 't ' slurry wall should maintain a separation between the mine highwall and th all of approximately 30 ft at this site. The reservoir(s)will need to be reclaime th stable interior side slopes. These slopes are typically 3H:1 V, but can vary based on the quality of material used as reclamation backfill. The reclamations slopes will need to be stable under the rapid drawdown condition. As an alternative to mining to a highwall and placing reclamation slopes, the cells can be mined to 3H:I V slopes so that placement of reclamation fill is not required.Il G:PROJECT9d06006•RD Resaureeand Reservoir Feasibility Stun 42.Records and Cona.pnndence•R.I I RepurtsuDRAF7 F Street Report doe I I 2. Alignment An approximate slurry wall length based on property dimensions and the preliminary mine map prepared by Banks & Gesso (Appendix A) could be up to 6,300 linear ft long and enclose an area of approximately 54 acres. The slurry wall can encompass the entire site even if the site is divided into three storage cells, with the cells operating at one water level. The slurry wall is expected to have an average trench depth of 22 ft and is expected to be offset a minimum of 25 ft off set from the `4erty line. The corners of the slurry wall can be constructed using overlapp 0-aight segments or a curve with various radii, depending on the contractor prefere A rude of thumb is that the minimum curve radius is 1.5 times the excavatsondepth i,(therefore appears that curves are feasible on all corners of the site. Strafglfl, overla`pliing segments require at least 100 ft of working space beyond the end of,the trench. 3. Staging Area ,t-,', a. Sufficient space for a staging area. whtc orts all of the,contractor s operatr s, is available. Operations include equipment aehly, sluts,p1ixing ponds, construction trailers, excess slurry disposal, and backfill mixing A �''a project of this nature, a staging area of 5 to 6 acres is.desirable. The main' mg area can be located anywhere on the site because of the axd 1 ' ce, assuming` , the slurry wall is installed prior to mining. The slurry holdingst ksftl rapine equip alit should he located near the center of the parcel to allow for§Y�ry transpp p the enikbte perimeter. Several smaller staging areas could be usd$where sataliltel rry ponds or tanks could he placed. < , ;3,.a ,�.s;, gyp qR;'� 4. ytca tng Plattorntwt Typically at wo kin tform at leasft wide is required so that soil-bentonite backtill smiting can be . ''"-'1.-a,leunsiciiiiie slurry trench in order to minimize backhlling cost."TF workingplatfdttn' zpically extends a mina um distance equal to `; +thee trench,depth on he side and a distance equal to half the trench depth on the other yside Sst. etent fat' is available around the site perimeter for the working platform. a 53° h --':fir We anticipate tkelevah of the working platform will be at approximately at the current ground o " ce Thef4vorking platform design should include containment ;tiln\•erms to preen )sIa spilling of slurry. My..1;:i, Trenci.e� th In ord .ce the potential for hydraulic fracturing or "blow-out", the trench width for soil-b-t'"onite backfill slurry walls should be equal to one tenth of the maximum hydraulic head expected to occur across the wall. Assuming a maximum operational water head differential of 18 ft, a trench width of 3 ft would be sufficient. 6. Backfill To obtain an effective, low permeability backfill, a minimum of 25 percent of the soil component of the backfill should consist of clayey soil. If this percentage cannot be ,"` obtained from excavated material from the slurry trench, supplemental clay material Irm,x Is: (l`PROJECTS106006-1O1)Re.onmeand Reservoir Feasibility Study%R Records and CorregmdencevR.I I RcporisADRAFT E Street Report doc 12 should be added to the backfill mix. Based on the information obtained from the test borings,Lyman Henn concludes that there is not a sufficient amount of fine material (clay)existing within the column of soil to be excavated for the slurry wall alignment. However, the on-site overburden material can be stripped and used as a clay borrow source. Approximately 1300 cy of clay borrow is required, assuming a minimum fines content in the borrow of 60 percent. 7. Bedrock Key and Trench Depth :;°';'.P> Based on the boring information, the bedrock is anticipat. 'rt�A` rve as a sufficient bottom seal and key-in material to meet the State Engi y '.:,; ement maximum seepage for sealed water storage. A minimum 4- to 5 key int.':u eathered bedrock •,.;.:..,N. is recommended. The material is considered diffic-4,to excavate;itatai)r. .ill require the use of specialized excavation equipment. r 4.04 Other En ineerin Considerations .<.: 'u.. fi g . A. Groundwater Mounding of.. ;F. I The potential for groundwater mound' . exists along the"- a of the lined reservoir: therefore,engineered dewatering ma d along the o of the reservoir. Groundwater mounding refers to the ral ground table caused by the installation of a groundwater barrier. S•a_ r pro ` g the - ange have resulted in flooding of basements and septic systems.. to gro ound 'created by lined reservoirs. An assess groundwa. wa_ '. un tial will need to be performed and nece, Y'-eng. g and co` : ` n may nee `to be performed to mitigate any potential dance.' y • T t B. Constr 1�,,� Water .''y'-xs", rte '. ••Water,wi .,he,require.''r. . thirry wall, clay perms,and reclaimed side �. t'onstructtpit'r " � ' ," slop t)' _'mite than `. 'ire-ft (I.6 million git loos)of water will be necessary for slurry 5`:R onstn:cttof►,_, ,lie amtttl, , f water required for the construction of clay berms and aimed side slo i ill be`` • ' le, roughly estimated to be 17 ac-ft (5.6 million gallons). 1..,m 4V I tI':5+; IV.• G.WROJEC:T FlO6 .-NIU Resagrceand Reservoir Fe..ibiliry SI..fy A.Rwmdsand Corespondleticelt.I I Repona DRAFT F Street Rcpon doc 13 V. OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COSTS This section presents an opinion of feasibility-level probable cost for the construction of water storage reservoirs utilizing clay berms or slurry walls. Costs are summarized in Table III and are based on feasibility-level information. The costs per acre-ft include the costs associated with creating a storage vessel, including liner construction options discussed earlier in this report. The unit costs for clay berms, reclamation slopes.and slurry walls�,in&tude a 25 percent contingency for construction, a 15 percent addition for final design eq$i ring and construction management. The additional allowance for engineerm . ❑des performing a 90- day liner test, which demonstrates the performance of the lined"gravel�W the State Engineer. An opinion of probably cost per acre-ft for clay berms is prtzided, assuming tfuyt the clay material will be placed in lifts, moisture conditioned and cpliipacted, and the slopesycan be subjected to rapid drawdown conditions. An opine t°tfrobable cost for slurry wal 'r construction is provided, assuming 3-ft wide tren h soil-bentonite backfill consfitked 60 ft offset from the property line and 100 ft offset the river. Coei were developed by Lyman Henn based upon our experience with slurry wall c'g „ction ,earthwo k activities. industry accepted guidelines, and our discussions with 9 contractors. A slurry wall constructed around the site perimeter result in some 1I` . ground storage capacity in the unmined areas. That storage volume` a been included ' available storage estimates. Lyman Henn has assumed that the cel i , ed to 3H:l�":4lo�es so that reclamation slopes are not necessary. `- * , , �Y4 HT S ,/1 '':10:!-- h;!; The cost for hydraulichydraulic.pailiStke based ciENtillet fra4rare.plan detailed in their report (Appendix B) and atatir,Y. ted in the cos 3Pr acre-ft. Costs for any utility relocations, for long term dew tg, and fo act to adjacent to permitted alluvial well owners who may he affected by, Artedwater are n chided Mulhcr's estimates include 15 percent for additional engirt and 25 pe't�nt cunhngeneg:=- As stated to &Banks Oessa""c report, the 10t-ft'Setback from the river is contingent upon hank side*pit aide rip rap or*�on. The permittTis'g costs associated with the rip rap protection areitot included Ip'his surnA but the estimated costs for rip rap revetment are included in .ii uller s estimate. T'he.r t�kik rip racy id not be necessary if the setback from the river is increased: Iii 6,..'ever, the addition tback result in a reducton in storage volume and a reduction in es' =:.lame of saleable d=t gate. The v."t!-t the deposit a !;d in Table Ill is based on Banks & Gesso's analysis (Appendix A.) Estimate. "' -ral cost ass7"•s'elevant permitting are reflected in the royalty estimates, as indicated b o' h s s` so. The cost savings realized by installation of a slurry wall prior to mining is esti i. ff:T .l.E: line item; however, the savings dewatering might be negotiated into a higher royalty on"?^- aggregate sales. The value of the deposit is reduced for slurry walls, assuming that the cells will be mined to 3I-I:1 V side slopes to eliminate the need for placing reclamation fill. The deposit is expected to result in approximately 200,000 cy of waste (not saleable) material. Table III includes an estimated cost associated with hauling the waste material off-site. If the waste were to remain on site in the pit(s), the storage capacity would be reduced by 124 acre-ft. r ,‘d C]PROJECTSI 06066-000 Resource and Reservoir Feasibility Study a,Records and Corre,ponhnce.R.I I RepnrE''DRAFT F Street Report doe 14 VI. FEASIBILITY OF GRAVITY FLOW FROM FST. The City is interested in the feasibility of a gravity outlet from F St. through a series of gravel pits located south of the Cache La Poudre River in the general vicinity of 35`l' Avenue and F St. The City envisions a series of pipeline segments which will connect the various gravel pit reservoirs to the river, as depicted in Figure 3. .5, . Lyman Henn developed a ground surface profile based on mapping pray, d by the City along the conceptual alignment, as indicated by the City. The plan view,of th:' alignment is presented in Figure 3. and the profile is presented in Figure 4. The bottom e)e%ation of existing storage reservoirs shown in the profile are based on available topograpl ir'mappineghe bottom elevations may vary from those shown on the cross secti, - mining has orYW,.continue since the time of the mapping. ti''; 'estimated to be 46 The elevation at the river ou � a outlet pipe alignment has been simplified and shown wit '.g"`epe. According to this , the F St. site, if developed into a reservoir or reservoirs ' e drained by gravity in its eta . The site immediately east of the F St. site also appea ::.f 4. e drain by aA}ty for its fuP vol` For the other reservoirs along the alignment, the amounts' Drag ' lin be drained without pumping is limited to el. 4658. Table IV summarizes ' rage that can flow by gravity from el. 4658 and the depth of dead e for each rese a .r ''''.!:,\. ;,7"—'11;#1... 1 C' ,,,,,,,v, � Dv, ....01,,,. .,..,:%,,. , ;'die-b' ,A. A4s, '.".,:-,-.t•A ,:,,416,i - i. •1111 G:,PROJEC 51106006.000 Resourceand Resmoir Feasibility Study'R.Records and C'otresprnrJcm\R.I I Reports'•DRAFT F Street Report(Inc 15 VII. CONCLUSIONS Lyman Henn has determined that construction of a slurry wall or clay berms to create water storage is technically feasible. Banks & Gesso has determined that the deposit has a marginal commercial value; however, the City may encounter difficulty in finding an operator to mine the resource because of its poor quality and small volume. If the site is [pined, the time required to mine the site and realize the maximum storage volume may** the order of 7 to 10 years. The volume of water storage and saleable material is rel ttive.Fow. Muller has determined an infrastructure plan for conveying water into and out b e reservoirs; however, ll because of the relatively small storage volume, the cost per acc��tforthe;..intrastntcture is high. The costs per acre-ft presented in Section V and Table BI addtCsyMe costf8;complete the water storage cells only, excluding infrastructure, so that the City Fan'compare costs to completed storage vessels from other gravel pit operations. Although not included in the scope of this study �4 �onal challenges to the dcveloriitxYpt of the F St. site as an aggregate mine and reservoirts l require esalitation. These challenges include �' ;, • permitting associated with revetm required to mine' , [thin 100 ft of the river; • permitting through Weld County_ ..�r .,. • DRMS reclamation permit; '3 *'sa: • verifying the existence, location, annershr rnd gs4 sties that may impact a �, mining; � r ,• • costs for relocating;ttit and gas facthh"e o tte, ssarv; • water rights and urt t Water wells tft•It:: thin 600 ft of the pit; and • environmentali ides. .car. M�" g4,'9.. Cli. I f: Q,PROJECTS]06006-ifs Resourcennd Reservoir F.easibiliry Study Records and Correspondence'R.II Repot mORAPF F Street Report doe 16 VIII. LIMITATIONS This report has been prepared for the F St. Reservoir Feasibility Project per the Agreement between Lyman Henn and the City of Greeley. This report is based on our current understanding of project elements and geometry, and in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices common to the local area. In the event that changes in the nature, design or location of the planned construction are m a results contained in this report should not be considered applicable, unless the cha re reviewed by Lyman Henn and the results of this report are modified or verified IA ng. The boring logs and related information depict su ace c'' 9ns only at the specific locations and at the particular time designated. the logs. Soil" 1 itions at other locations may differ from conditions occurring at th g locations. Also, , ,,.assage of time may result in a change in the soil conditions a-... a boring locations. - The stratification lines designating the. rface betwe it types on the Wef borings and on the geologic profile represent approxin bounp The transition between materials may be gradual. :v=" The scope of our service . la' a •nclude envir tip tat assessment or investigation for the presence or absence of haz . r ..'c materials Y. e soil,groundwater,or surface water within or beyond the site stti. .. An j:- 'nts in t •e ' '•port or on the test boring reports regarding staining of soils or . unust,: • ,., ns obseried are strictly for the intiirmation of our clienl� pia. )r=II Ci:'•PROJECTSI 11611116409 Resourceand Retsrn,r Feasihtliry Sedy*.Records and('orrcpondence IR I t Repons\I)RAFT F Street Repon.doe 17 '.5 r a) O) as N. I O ) O w E Hill Ri an O a) 0 K] 01 't O' O o N U W ONi! O O I I I i o o • g E C Q ' • , �I o ,[ n U . in I • I K C d m £ °C' I I o 3 N M! NI NI NI O N D r Q L I a) b F I a) s • a) o j I i s o zI o I m x s y • >, o p co• co; to, r- O). com a I ' a c at v) $ g 3 c i L a C O O: O I co, . . i co '4 ;y a) J Q 2 • In o O • o , o v Z I ,at i ce O a oo N MI an N' M' 01• Mi M 3• Cg I" O I I ? _ 2 O 1 a U } o B W O a, ca a` V D cN I 01 O c0 OO M N L y M I NI .q.• h LO fo m lL C}}n > m co col a0' c0 coI F— w v• er �IetIitIa 6 J !J I O III m aa) § H Q _I H `� o LL ELI O -0 O 4 O U cm N } I >- F— } c u. LL LL I LL U. LL N C wm �IN, QSI +I �; ILP •E tra_ .- m C H W w J JI J: 1I J J: j C uj C I— W H I v CO w o i<- t=/3 Lt_ C7 ce E+ •• —I 6 o I co Q U I I ! I gi• I3. g �. N ca � I FI I i M 4I 2 a) I i I i'3'w l it t i cn zili Z CI 51 =1 >` zl � ca Z Cni UI m! N �I �I al UI 7' O o c� 13 0i }: -0i wl v rn1 >I ≥ N (p C C `m m, (gyp =y1 g1 Q0 a) 1 I i j j M. I 21 O re Y: -I Ix IY. Cnl —I: ce! y! Cl 0 a m m: 0 m. IOI } 0 m: dO } c� .0 o j N' : 0I �i 0 j I 0 I Z E a I I I I i I j p O 01 OI I i• I • C CO (h, d'• I I ! I I I N D S I I I i I a j l . I i I Iz 76 v ap� m. • cn. o, mi aI �• Ln1 al al a re — co .S r j N I N Z N N� Z• Z' Z 1 I I i I I cu a 3° I I• n 3 E e 0)! co 0) MI >, N Z' �' vj Z1 Zi Z `� a I I • I O o •• I13 j <_ S Lo t01 ((OI o 0c ^ ti• I co, aI 01 o I I • ' I I CC I i K I N . • I . G' OI O; o a I I V I 4O•�I 1 v v 6 j I i i -J I I j I N W m y i o j �' o ca a)i 0 1 I ;I I v. vi � i j I I 1 I s I j il�,Iei �j w n (r> Cr I-- (v �i �. ml a �I } 4 N NI 41) rI NI r` N Ili' col O 10 0 D m 2 NI NI GI �I in, 'I d• in OI y l— W co I BUY o Iff CC H I I I > a -8 � o J Q 4 cO b (O =� r r• cV (7 O a) co m O U� UI to NI Vnl 03 VJ v m m: 0' c to" a o J (n iI > a Le �o J Z Z m to oho I • I > ≥j �- Li 0 E _ >- k } I I I I MI � m C � < w W cr.; r (VI MI c? q: 5'• ml m O U w W J J II JI II JI XI ZI --II •IIIa el' O = W CO H W �' I I Q a c O W aD � I I I I 11818 iii al Ea ^ H Cn W I I I � ZO J 0 o 7 0) al a N S' r al N N > O Ta tn. > - 9 69 n o 'A rn a) C N co o � 3 = U a '-C a Ln O a .N R. co M $ 0 69 6 a o a) 2 9 a 3 0 76 (3)',Z, � u) a) r o E CD v syi a CO Y O A 7 C (4 O m C U > C al in m CO (A 'O U- a CO p a) N Co N a- ai CO 69 U 0 0 U 2 co .... O O)O O O O O O 69 O O O O O O O O w fl w p O N O Q CO p COO ) _ O �� U i- co.; co- (,() O O) w U c`) co N CO CO O .- C N co r N co coN O CO > C 2 a! Q) 1") x a 17 C C ca c 00 O T'. C) ^ c- J p T. o. O O O O (6 a; co co vi C ui coO O; a) U o .,- ' N al 0 c Cr a) . f0 0 17 b4 o O LO 0 0 O O '-(3- a) CD O <L 00 O to O O CC d O C O O COE cc OU O O > m a 65 2 (N co ' N co d u co c- 0) '0 >. C a) _ U co C 7 co O U E (A N a U o_ � � _ —o o. o E .0 cca m w c _E 1O ? U �o uu) C a m O c r m U J V) N (9 o a) a Q1 > v C° N N O w O •C C `l Oa 0 } m J a.C) O ~ u) ~ a: 0 T m Q > E C p - ix m Q U co _O N y cn N E a) y ('7 m r o a_ co "' rn _O _ on 0 (n O N Ot (�6 9 O � � E - EL) 0) _ > � CC12 C Ill c"5 � a� m S } 2 's , a Q (ten = 3 (V N E u, co `^S [Cu.'~ O X U 0 (0 N LL vJ I- - Q e ai m 2 - > c> t 2 -o E E C)) m ll.t Q .0 0 CC (a o 2 &) U N ' u) U C w a (fin LL C9 u� - a o - _I a) 2 o >, 0 .5 CL fa m is E a ilUf- (i Q ___ U1CD 4 ______C.) ,___= Z N (h4 (A J TABLE IV SUMMARY OF GRAVITY FLOW F STREET FEASIBILITY STUDY GREELEY, COLORADO Feet of Storage Feet of Dead Reservoir ID Bottom El. available to flow by Storage gravity 1 4668 17 0 2 4662 16 0 3 4650 10 8 4 4630 8 28 5 4630 14 28 6 unknown 10 unknown _ 7 unknown 10 unknown 8 4620 4 38 9 unknown 6 unknown 10 unknown 4 unknown 11 unknown 0 unknown 12 unknown 2 unknown Notes: 1. Refer to Figures 3 and 4 for reservoir ID and profile. 2. Pipe elevation at 4658'(level). 0"` 3. Bottom elevations estimated at F St.(#1)based on boring information,and unknown for others.as indicated,because topo map shows current water level rather than bathymetric contours. •. . . . I 4. I 2: + r APPROXIMA i. TE . ` � PROJECT „ ` • .1i + I i4I%I4J • —• n.� — —�.. _ LeeATION: _. '1'- 11 - • ...§4./. .:..., •r,� ' I 11 ;F ]1. 1 I. yak 3'k, 6.r- ta,_ .e ' g �' r £ +r L' ?, {'.. .T Ir i , I I _ ffYM1 •,, _{ .-- ya CC •ai�k.. �yp� 2. eg �: r l i.• 4 iii ,� S ,5 r. __ • Y •, 1 • 2 ��M;:•,� .sR _ mot} .��4.. '�C' . aF �S+ "*ter- ,. eti ' 1 i - 3 J. • `e I r a 1 , ••••- .---/i I ,4 r' • pL ' .. �.• IY' ]x'93' . 1 1 1 x' s S4� • g -N- F SfREFT FFASI91UTy SNOY ® GREELEY, COLORADO 7 LrM an' E ill Hrxx PROJECT LOCATION U.S.SS. QUADRANGLE: EIRACEVEU, PNOTO�ISED 1980 If t 0 1 SCALE 1 IN = 20D0 FT FEBRUARY 2007 FIGURE 1 �\ , • ,}iii° LL • • hW C..........‹ IIt ..-.....2,1,..„ : *; . ..I .:i 1 Z ''.- lik.g.. I 1 tv--1" I 1,.,---...; re Ni Z 11 °It3UK ,401.144.. N II 1 it I .' .5..., �� / u 111 } -,6Q_I , / 0 N ,,a. 11 c., g I .;; ', :l V t/ � II •uW _.;6IX j XLuXUW !'LI J i K U a¢a / L I r, ' m v • S _ I: .:� i :': _-.- •'' �3- Lu '� �(�77 UUwe el 1 • I :Y 1 I t fi a �`�_ U tti �' '*.:";''. ' . `�r.7f • -. _ - _ 1_ }LU 1 ',�,,*fry ..a •r 8 t 11- ` "°4 1+ � 1 1 1 LL p_Y Jr, K ', } 11 u.c d m a�.a, Y f] I r,y s" ` uj c z in =•. ! p Li a `xJill R ,. .:: K.r 4,4 Z a 40 w 1 .Fr• .. • - - .. ' ' .' t • YI O cc Q Y W W Q 2au "^ .� 1! . `� .i w a O • ► It :{ a X a m z r S. lr,.g i ".'..f;:-...-.;,--.'..:.•.•:. '.; , _fit,,_ •----,.r...�:.. �`«i:�;:...-., ! :.'.. _ - C9 I 5 NI Hen11,l- � lI' 9 1A yk s �* , �t '') . 5 z �! j n y N 11) v 41 K;:i Li �` .x_ — _ y v ^, � _S 3 S �i + 1 •rt 4 r� r'_ w i,� a o gu w g } � � >1 Y L✓ o JZ 7 °ear,,,,..—.__. ..___.,,20,:._, ._' _ _: _. � v �.cy}A • t�A 1 :, 1 '�''m U _,._ " Pr �i S0. i .- yrl l„, ,A n 14, .,,--,°•-•344 ih,,--•... .. ..- .:-• • i tir . 1g,, tea. a a t� 4 ° a ? - • z 44 t�'+ � Tt-LI` � `a It r�i j/1 17. � $.!I� ' 1"� a w 'I f'li p _ '� d a , Y( iJ j: V � �" jri �' ' o > I r � 1 if v cl ,'''",j .J' z nn\- yr El al UJ Od01 3dld b01O3NNO0\SUN\000-900901\.9 | ,. | v»A&m ,amoam | \ik M | � ! or-..j 0 M � � ~ m 4� � 5 § )3 f § k | | � | ` |- i/ c 2| k a i ! ' i \ 2 ( �` ` 3� DWI ' >' fl ` j �� _ H NS it\k ! �I i | r. 2� . 9.1 $§ \ 8! ) � ) & f I � 2q L H m ( if ] § 2 � �! ] | 19 s, � 69q rif| y! (f . h ` . 1 | 11 i [ I / I / ] � | - k�. � / �} ice/ I � o � | t ` • i I '\ ! 41 7 �2 \| | f � � \\ I | 1 j ~V i. t) |� k § / E } j)a 7 » 7� «! � � . � !\ 2 a. -Jet | § i � � } Ili? I $�_ § u §§ F I °�| �I � kR i7 (( uCC x ( «I %k coE CO'u. . H 72 \ 3E � y I flIHi Luk§ (� § {| —81 — �V,m&!m e�>2m § i rill , , , , . i i , , , , , . . , , . , . . , . . . , . . I § $ • I a .- } { } ) } ) 2V § § § § 4 $ § & § § 4 § ., $ § g § $ & § .. 4 § § rim(3V-)N an 3 n3A OVA N wn 3 (1SW»o,.1.A)NOLLVA312 C21A32a mU3 «+o%ad +2amGS' G00- eV0 P APPENDIX w ; Banks & Gesso Rep m ~ . ^ - - »5 . . > : >x > : . , «« . ±-'4%74..Z1 ��. . . � y « ^ January 9, 2007 Lyman Henn, Inc. Attn: Minal Pareck RE: City of Greeley, "F Street Property" Sand and Gravel Analysis — DRAFT REPORT Banks and Gesso, LLC was contracted by Lyman Henn, LLC to evaluate the potential sand and gravel deposit on the subject property and to prepare an estimate of its' worth. Our understanding is that the City of Greeley would like to remove the sand and gravel deposit and have an end use of water storage. Our activities and investigations included: • Review of all ownership documents including title work and easements • Site Visit and information supplied by Lyman Henn and the City • Review of Bore Hole logs prepared by Lyman Henn and laboratory tests prepared by JA Casare and Associates • Review of permitted mines at the Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety (CDRM&S) formerly the Division of Minerals and Geology, for sand and gravel mines in the Greeley market area. This was completed to help determine market supply • Field trip to review the existing mines for current status • Review of population data, building permit data, and other information to help in determining market demand • Interviews with representatives of companies within the market who are actively mining, processing and selling sand and gravel for deposit information, current market conditions, and current royalty rates SUBJECT PROPERTY SITE DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located on "F" Street approximately 12 blocks west of 35th Avenue. The surrounding uses are vacant land to the north, a sand and gravel operation to the east operated by Lafarge, vacant lands to the south and vacant lands to the west. The northwest portion of the property is located adjacent to the Cache La Poudre River. A site location map is included in Attachment "A". A surface inspection of the subject property reveals a dog park in the southwest corner, the Boyd Freeman Ditch running through the lower portion of the property, an open space trail, an access road to a property to the west of the subject, and two active oil and gas facilities. 1 Limitations to Develop the Property for Sand and Gravel Extraction with and End Use of Water Storage The following criteria were utilized to determine the size of the areas that could be excavated and eventually developed into water storage: • 60 Foot Perimeter Setbacks— Lyman Henn personnel told us that a 60-foot setback around the property perimeter would be needed for installation and maintenance of the slurry wall. • 3:1 Cut Slopes— Lyman Henn reported that given the nature of the material a 3:1 cut slope should be utilized from all setbacks to bedrock. • Oil and Gas Pipeline Easement—Title documents show a pipeline easement recorded that runs mostly north to south through the subject property, we could find no information that a pipeline actually exists within this easement. Logically, there should be a pipeline since there are two oil and gas facilities (one near the south end and one near the north property line) and this assumed pipeline may connect these two facilities. We did contact the company that owns the facilities and they do not have "as-built" drawings and said that we would need to complete a utility locate to determine the exact location of the pipeline(s). We did not do this but relied upon the utility locate completed by Lyman Henn. • Dog Park —We were told to keep the dog park intact. • 60 Foot Right of Way Easement on the East Property Boundary —There is a recorded easement along the entire east property line held by Weld County for a future road right of way. Weld County has no plans to construct a road in this location. It is our experience that these rights of way can be abandoned and we believe that the City can get this abandoned. After discussing this with Lyman Henn the decision was made to ignore this easement in our design of the mine area. • Open Space Trail —The current trail runs north and south roughly along the same alignment as the oil and gas easement but it meanders to the west. After discussing this with Lyman Henn it was decided that the best alternative would be to move this trail to the west side of the property. This allows more material recovery and more water storage. • Setbacks from Oil and Gas Facilities (not including pipelines) —We contacted Nobel Energy and asked about setbacks from the two operating facilities. They require a 150-foot radius of undisturbed area or"pad". This is typical in our experience. During mine permitting through the CDRM&S, the applicant must negotiate with the oil and gas companies concerning setbacks. These "pads" are utilized for maintenance and repair and on occasion they are used to complete additional drilling. • Setback from the Cache La Poudre River—Again, during permitting of a sand and gravel mine through the CDRM&S, one must setback a reasonable distance from rivers. The CDRM&S adopted and utilizes criteria that were developed by the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District. The criteria states that a 200 foot setback must be maintained from the river unless certain measures are taken to assure no impact. One can get as close to the river as 100 feet by providing bank side and pit side protection utilizing rip rap. In some cases both inflow and outflow structures must be included in the design. We utilized the 100-foot setback assuming that the City would want to complete the necessary bank protection in order to maximize water storage. • Sewer Line— Lyman Henn indicated that there is a sewer line running east to west on the south side of the property. Our title investigations showed no sewer 2 line easement and we have no exact location of this line. We did use a 25 foot setback to the north side of the reported location but this line needs to be determined for its' exact location in the field. • Setback from the Boyd Freeman Ditch—We utilized a 20-foot setback from the centerline of the ditch on both the north and south sides (a total of 40 feet). It is important to note that the CDRM&S requires a 200 foot setback from all significant and permanent man-made structures unless the applicant can provide a written agreement between the applicant and the owner of the structure that states that the owner will allow the applicant to get closer than the 200 feet and these agreements always contain the allowable distance. If an applicant cannot reach an agreement with the structure owner there is an alternative for the applicant and it consists of completing an engineered slope stability analysis that shows the impact of mining closer than 200 feet and demonstrates safe slopes with the requested distance. We have applied setbacks on this property of less than 200 feet based upon our past experience in dealing with these issues. If this property is to be developed as anticipated specific slope stability studies will need to be completed to determine final setbacks and these studies will need to be included with an application for a permit to the CDRM&S or agreements will need to be provided. Concerning the 100-foot setback utilized from the Cache la Poudre River, site specific engineering designs for banks side and pit side protection will need to be completed to include in an application to the CDRM&S. All of the above limitations and setbacks were applied to the property map provided to us and are included on the map titled Preliminary Mine Plan Map included in Attachment DRILLING AND TESTING RESULTS/DEPOSIT CHARACTERIZATION AND VOLUME CALCULATIONS: Utilizing the drill logs prepared by Lyman Henn and the laboratory test results supplied by Casare &Associates we applied the information to the property and utilized the above constraints to determine the areas that can be excavated, depth of excavation, volumes of material, sand and gravel quantities and quality, and the approximate volume of water storage. The configurations of the excavations are show on the Preliminary Mine Plan map referred to earlier and resulted in three "cells". • Cell One contains approximately 7.18 mineable surface acres. Total material contained in this cell equals approximately 144,480 cubic yards. The cell contains a seam of sand and gravel of approximately 196,332 tons. With a five- foot freeboard this cell should yield approximately 45.92 acre-feet of water storage. • Cell two contains approximately 23.94 mineable surface acres. Total material contained in this cell equals approximately 567,168 cubic yards. The cell contains a seam of sand and gravel of approximately 753,368 tons. With a five- foot freeboard this cell should yield approximately 142.07 acre-feet of water storage. 3 • Cell three contains approximately 6.21 mineable surface acres. Total material contained in this cell equals approximately 150,812 cubic yards. The cell contains a seam of approximately 199,311 tons. With a five-foot freeboard this cell should yield approximately 37.63 acre-feet of water storage. • Total surface acres for all three cells combined equals approximately 37.33 mineable acres. Total materials to be removed equals approximately 862,400 cubic yards. Total sand and gravel within the seams in all cells equals approximately 1,293,690 tons. With a five-foot freeboard the total water storage would equal approximately 225.62 acre-feet. Please note that these figures are approximate and will vary depending upon engineering and final design to be provided by Lyman Henn. Examination of the seven boring logs indicates topsoil to average two feet across the property. Total depth to bedrock averages between seventeen and eighteen feet. The sand and gravel seam averages approximately thirteen feet. In converting between cubic yards and tons we utilized an average of 1.5 tons per cubic yard that is typical of deposits along the Cache La Poudre. We were not supplied with specific gravity tests that would demonstrate anything different than the norm. We would recommend that specific gravity tests be performed on this deposit. Concerning sand and gravel quality, we examined the four gradation tests that were performed. Note that these tests were inadequate in number to come to an exacting determination of quality however the tests that were performed appear to indicate the results that are common in this area and that were confirmed with other operators. This is a very fine deposit containing little coarse aggregates and it contains mostly sand fractions with silt. The percent of material passing the %sieve averages in the mid to high 80 percent and in one case 94% indicating little larger material tha can be utilized in concrete aggregate. The amount passing the #4 sieve averages approximately 50% and the amount passing the#200 sieve averages approximately 7.5 percent. The sand and gravel was described under the "SP" classification in the drill logs prepared by Lyman Henn as "Poorly graded sand with gravel, mostly medium sand, some fine sand, few coarse sand, some fine to coarse gravel, few silt." The actual volume of usable/saleable sand and gravel will be less than the volumes shown above as those volumes are tons in-place. The deposit has approximately 7.0 to 7.5 percent silt content according to the gradation analysis. In addition there are clays within the deposit as indicated in the bore logs. Washing and processing of the deposit will produce waste and for this deposit one can safely assume that the waste factor will be between 12 and 15 percent. The total in-place tons were calculated to be approximately 1,293,690. The expected waste due to processing will equal between 155,000 tons and 194,054 tons. The actual tons that will be usable or saleable will equal approximately 1,000,000 to 1,100,000 tons as a result. Assuming that the useable and saleable tons can be marketed and sold we are left with total waste that must be disposed of at a total of approximately 200,000 cubic yards or 350,000 tons (cubic yards of unusable material as per the drill logs and processing waste combined.) 4 MARKET SUPPLY AND DEMAND: Supply— Enclosed as Attachment "C" is a map of the Greeley market with the location of all sand and gravel operations permitted through the CDRM&S plus a listing of these permits both active and inactive. We have also included the CDRM&S definition of active versus inactive mines. We conducted phone interviews with several producers and also inspected most of these mines in a drive-by survey. The result of our research indicates that there is a glut of fine aggregates in the Greeley market and a lack of coarse aggregates. All of the deposits along the Cache La Poudre River and also along the South Platte River are very fine in nature and lacking in coarse materials. Some producers of concrete and asphalt indicated that they are importing coarse aggregates from outside of the market area in order to produce their products. Large stockpiles of sand, squeegee and other fine materials can easily be observed at most operating properties. This imbalance of fine versus coarse aggregates results in lower prices for fine material (such as sand and squeegee) and higher prices for coarse aggregate. It also results in less of a need to open new mines that will add to the supply of fine aggregates. The number of inactive mines is also an indication of the excessive fine materials. One operator we spoke with simply paid off their lessor so that they could walk away from a deposit similar to the subject property. The mining operations in and around Greeley tend to selectively mine their deposits, in other words they process all of the materials to get to the coarse aggregates and either stockpile or waste all of the excess sands. The mines in and around Greeley also serve communities to the east where sand and gravel deposits are sparse thus creating more of a need for these materials. The City of Greeley may be facing a real problem in trying to lease the subject property because of the fine nature of the deposit on site. The City may want to develop the water storage reservoir much faster than a producer can mine and sell the material. Also, income from a lease will be negatively impacted because producers are not paying high royalty rates for fine deposits that are abundant in the market place. Both timing of the reservoir construction and costs versus income can be impacted. Given this potential problem we did speak with several operators about the local supplies and the problems with excessive sand and other fine materials. It is our opinion that larger operators such as Lafarge and Aggregate Industries would not be interested in this small deposit. Smaller operators may be interested in leasing the property however they would only produce and sell between 100,000 to 150,000 tons per years from this site. This would mean that it could take between seven and ten years to produce and sell the deposit and we are not sure that the City would want to wait that long to get to the water storage end-use. If Lafarge wanted to add it to their 35`" Street operation then the time-frame could be shortened but this seems the only viable way to expedite extraction. ,.. We must mention the cost of permitting deposits as this has become a major issue for operators. The cost of permitting, engineering, and fulfilling all requirements to the point that an operator can open a new mine and start to produce and sell has risen 5 dramatically over the past five to ten years. Since costs for these activities are so high, operators prefer much larger deposits in order to spread the up-front costs over more tons. A one million ton deposit such as this deposit will not generate enough revenue to cover start-up costs, operational costs and also generate adequate profit. We have been involved with many water storage end-uses through our zoning and permitting work and through our expert witness work in condemnation cases. We have calculated, with the property constraints that this parcel has, that the potential water storage will be approximately 225 acre-feet. We question whether or not this is an economically viable project given that amount of water storage. Water and sanitation districts and other municipalities we have worked with have said that with today's costs associated with permitting and construction that they will not consider projects with less than 2,000 acre-feet of potential storage. Demand — Enclosed as Attachment"D" is data concerning population growth history and projections along with the same type of data for building permits as these two data sets are a good indicator of potential aggregate usage in any given market. Also included is a report from the Colorado Division of property taxation showing reported production for all of Weld County. In addition to this data we again discussed local market conditions with producers. Finally we obtained data from CDOT on scheduled and potential projects that may impact demand. Our findings indicate that the market area for this property is the immediate Greeley area and small communities to the east. The remaining communities in Weld County are served by other gravel operations in close proximity to them and the operations in Greeley are not a factor in those areas. According to population data collected, Weld County grew at an average annual rate of 3.73% between 1995 and 2006. Greeley grew at a much slower rate of 2.73% during that same time frame. The adopted forecasts for annual growth place Weld County at 3% and Greeley at 2%. Building permit data was only available for Weld County as a whole. This data shows relatively flat growth in terms of the numbers of permits issued however the total value of construction increased. This indicates an emphasis on commercial construction during the time frame examined especially over the past five years. Production data for sand and gravel produced in Weld County showed a dramatic increase from 1993 to 2006. The 1993 figure was approximately 3 million tons and the 2006 figure was 19.5 million tons. This increase is due to several factors. The first is that various Weld County communities are growing quickly and are investing in infrastructure to accommodate that growth. Many areas adjacent or near the incorporated areas are growing rapidly as well. The second, and most important reason, is that much of the aggregates produced in Weld County is being exported to feed the needs of the greater Denver metro area including Denver, Arapahoe, Adams, Douglas, Jefferson, and Boulder Counties. The sand and gravel mines along the South Platte River in Adams County are near depletion and the operating companies have moved north into Weld County from Brighton to north of Ft. Lupton along highway 85. With smaller local mines serving localized areas and the larger mines in south Weld County feeding the Denver market, the market for mines in the Greeley area is limited. 6 The average annual consumption of sand, gravel, and quarry aggregates across the United State is between 10.5 and 11.0 tons per person per year. It can be much higher than this in localized markets where high growth rates are experienced of in tourist areas such as the ski resorts. In looking at demand for aggregates in this market, with the slow growth rates being projected but with many infrastructure needs we would tend to use the national averages. Using the Greeley population data and the average annual consumption data we find that this market consumes approximately 900,000 to 950,000 tons per year. If we add some additional demand from the small communities lying east of Greeley, the market is in the 1,100,000 to 1,200,000 ton range per year. VALUATION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY: The method used here to value the subject property values the sand and gravel mineral rights only. No other property rights are included such as water rights, surface rights, etc. The method is a discounted cash flow model that derives a net present value of the deposit. This method is utilized within the sand and gravel industry and is utilized in courts of law to determine value of sand and graver mineral rights holdings. Parameters Utilized: 1. Market Absorption — We will utilize 100,000 tons per year sold from this site. We believe this to be generous as the operator would have to capture between 9% and 10% of the local market to reach this production and sales level. 2. Royalty Rate—The local royalties range from $0.45 per ton to $0.55 per ton with the higher figure reserved for properties containing higher percentages of coarse aggregate. There was evidence of some royalty rates as low as $.35 per ton but we were unable to confirm these. For the subject property we have utilized the $0.45 per ton figure. 3. Royalty Rate Increases—There is clear data that demonstrates royalty rates increase uniformly across the state at 2% annually on a historical basis. We will utilize this percentage. 4. Discount Rate—Discount rates are utilized to bring the cash flows to a net present value and they are constructed based upon several factors. One accepted method is to utilize the current prime rate and add 2% for the cost of borrowing money plus a risk factor. Discount rates can fluctuate in any given market by the amount of risk associated with any given operation. The risk associated with this operation is fairly high because the deposit is of poor quality, it is a relatively small deposit, the market is saturated with this type of material, permitting costs will be high, and operational costs will be high. We would generally utilize a discount rate between 8%and 12% however with all of the factors cited it is our opinion that a discount rate of 14% is most appropriate for this property. 7 Cash Flow: Year Tons Sold Royalty Rate Cash Flow 1 100,000 $0.450 $45,000 2 100,000 $0.459 $45,000 3 100,000 $0.468 $46,800 4 100,000 $0.478 $47,800 5 100,000 $0.487 $48,700 6 100,000 $0.497 $49,700 7 100,000 $0.507 $50,700 8 100,000 $0.517 $51,700 9 100,000 $0.527 $52,700 10 100,000 $0.538 $53,800 Conclusion of Value: After applying all of the data we find the value of the sand and gravel contained on the subject property to have a net present value of approximately $286,963 (Two Hundred Eighty Six Thousand Nine Hundred and Sixty Three Dollars). If there are any questions about this report or the report conclusions, please contact me at (303) 274-4277. Respectfully submitted, Paul G. Gesso 8 I. �La Grange I • ' School o Lak r.a; I -• i a • ai i i ate-- _... . i•1) .4:. • I i : ; . i • 28 - L1i'.i - _ . _ 27 - :r1.-4.,/,' \6 26 . - u:l;n•• •• • ,' �� a -r;t 1 •.F� . •` ' i:49• •-,-•• .`�. ,.-1 457•{ `-.?�I ,f Subject Site/ - 4,4 I I ".....0...1;7'/ :'� c., 'j 4F i!•iti.,tip•.. l; i Q { + r...�t `1 1L •'..- sari+.:- � •14,.: r.^ !/• .• �,., s•2 - ..+ • :67!.1 .1 41•'�l• • •w'• qt�,,,: - `1 , .•-:. x;>.ilii 5t• �,•,• ...v%- '-y..�._, • A . )if..., : . _., .., ,,,,.,. . .. .. ...IN-Je --......., , • . ''‘N I c '.• 1.4 ..4 t. i •17 - I .SSs • S'' • ,%. I. ` •' ~ '• : i a,.: :1 7./?lir..• ! 1 Ire •r i',;•.,,,, .. • i i • ,,i1/-4754--„:. y..:: •': t.:', r• _ �: .Y�•� /' 11`' ..,• i I•, 1 •; 'k r'r• %�=.' ':,•;s'•( 3.' •••nv:c r�1Z :'• L :4• •`1 .• - ;�►' •• .� �,�o+o.�� SII�1�C[slbilOCN�d b1}� II �—`_. .N�- .0►•,rodn-` + �"'`;-�!'�;_ •.t�etl�118I,iM�MI_�BSeho, r `• M '.�i.'' .. `/ ' `S.'.• w' ` ]Yroill�n-+ •.,ayl. r . 1NKIk��1..s Bi•MR . . •� t iii / 1•� Y r'"�"1 `�?�� Bth'E�• • Dss; 1jM-• 74. . . r �•.e. �/N C��ty.CaMraO��.{ ■■ Banks & Gesso, LLC Location Map mili 720 Kipling, Suite 117 Lyman Ilene,Inc. Lakewood, CO 80215 City of Greeley banksandgesso.com F-Street 1/8/07 06014 • — I i t• :,:I I 1 ..I . I1 I . WI AMA% 1. . I y r- .://. ..--.'--...4.-".......... ---..._.-.-'s,..... • • i • I• ' I I ; A.IMW M.NWF cuY -I i I i � ; (i , • mm4r■ArA I A% J' jj j1s+� i T!M••plaRTAI I / I • %�A l / II I •wAls•rr WarelttearDILINV IIJ�f raAY••AAmaMAMA tlf IF AVM /if (f / 1. sYAals • . t I Ialierrf.: I NI Oa... I I' r eArwu II / l'"..1—m�ON I IIIrIµ,I F"yyy'''///r.1Mt. :J 1 I H I I i i i I h • 1 • ;I I IOtlVYr>Y }(�_ VI■•wIY I IW"A'A� • IJ AMA•■ra•Ir, • omraaYl••rFa I • VfM••Y VAAMI j • • . . VI I I I' Ij I • :rt II ' I It I • i i' I. 1 I .,re.a ..a w ..�- � .. IIbn..a•aIJ \tocturtpot � ■ax am.n, I i Amwmvw•.• . most sower -- — _.. :Jti lI L_I y or_rte — II // �- N if-r ..�..._1 ODD PAK TO `f r '/ I� t tiara 20 w R.tl Ir.AJrsJM (WAIN mAlra•r•rYO•p vanes •aII41Aa•rAa 11 • r.20amo — I I I • ■uranuen • w nreirim 11.20■,.A• >•a20•gm ,■.• a A n.a IsnaW —..._..._...—...—YA/r•Aa20 a A%not.mien•treto•caul ails ■IAIA WWII • 101••••1%0A1 PRELIMINARY MINE PLAN MAP IJmlw••IAY■a•■• ® I.uo.mYsl PREPARED SY: CLIENT: roomer: ®Aria "s.l..Ittnalb M was*m IEI■o.ti I. Jc. LYMAN •ABC. Y STRIA,PROMPT" • Aa1••Ir.fYIIFY µp • '"aCrinuert a■ RTY Of MOTLEY k.l-._. rra 1 r r I Mort, I ar•p■ I 0+20,4 Iar'seri 1.• r k.•„y• J,_' . ''• 1,' p•- -I �"-•-'�:A-': • - j--�"`'.�.l rx--t-•:+- "• .c.- + .'t ,ate ,;' ... �' • • • '. ' `•i- • _ _ .� ' ;!( T —+. rte" .. 'ti•' '.•r _�}L; �-=•-y-.._�r`..d,. y :• et:• O. ,;t': .Y�ef j • ,--,=. l' II'� +• a �. .,� };,ay 4;' ...ri•.. : =� —,:•• E.Y.ap� ,_i i i i�." I F ® r 1. IY6Fr SITE ^ti.,: ! • J •. };Jr • 45 l • ,=. .Y.+ i j • !c `.•� 1I� ..i..._.q; _r .t.r �. „r • �, _ 'j'°-' rq+ 'I:•y;,j 1 2-•• -7• ;„ j i• s ': 'f . ,�1.•: ti, e.: J' /Y.T.'JI FF ,i .t 4O W .. r r' _•ti l A�°.ter • • : y. 1 r' • �t'av • C i ji I ,•- > , • - ° " yr.. .r f ( k• • F.1,01.41T NYMAN LION •• .rti SIM.IN.weer max 4101.2 MILE IMO NIT RIMS OEMTOA !Apls STATUS:• MINA. gr[OFri NM. :MAR AM= .'n or •AM Crtl.A f01..I�mm�P.I111 YP'YR,.A ' ,� ay,.a..., w . S U r,A10[ (O( or NMI _ a �Nm ME- • m i �/ YRNr•VIWMIWOOMR =v I MOW, .rrq AO,.i rrlYrbN1 t rprq , Iv "MAMEW.AWTbPM.riN. f '' Vr42r,r.. �— =� ec '-.---$ MI or'ti'.°r,o..w'aweiarrn.a.,va. .exist_- n. '"" CORMS PERMITTED MD S,AArrrw,mre....n 1wry 'nm m. --- r.s.Ymr,.s.¢<.oNcrrMne for MIBA4M�Y_ r {:_ ._ ryOJTCI: r uwsar,.RNOM +o.a. " -1. _Tal ... Y II SANS YID GESSO,LC.: LYMAN.ML INC. F sTgft7 NORM I AaNarrwarwa . .-MAW men �� r ana«Na r J .."1.14 .r l ---. — j �_.�'i _ 04...01.- .004-I (v 0) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 ea O) N 10 0 0 N O) N c) 0 0 0 0 t r V co co r r CO• CO Cn C co on CJ ' O N N (V O V N Ir-: •O co• N N C(O N N r CO N V r N r M qi r-- cit.. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 06 c c) r o on 0) N- 0 (0 V N- V 00 MN ti co O V C) CD r CO T- CO N CO O) CO CO 0 C) (0 O V CO cr CO N- (D (n Cn V O (O I— a) CO O (D V O) CO O) (1) r Cb r r y > A N- N O 00 0 N CO CO M CO V CO O CO Lk C p r r N N CO- CO- V V V' CO O 3 ~ N 0 EA EA CA CA E9 fR 49 EA CA (A EA V3 H) CA N U N O CD 3 tic O• r CO O N V CO co n C) W O �, C5 0 C CCDD CD 7 an J co m CO coN M co.. V r N (n U 0 w O r V (O r CO o CO N-- O CO O r C CD ,y 0 co N cn on co co^ a) 0 N N '71" Co j N 7 V u5 4) n r O) N01 C 3k a ° () a) 'E O a o' L E i a J 6. C) a+ 0 C o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ( a s R O S i r. 0 V N 0 O t0 r 00 . . m O T -C \ (`� n r (P N 7 CY, p M r• IN t d Ell O W a o 6. 6.1 a a U to To L. o 0 J O U) I.. 7 CO N O) CO 7 (D N- N- r r p r O C) Q.(0 (0 N- N- N- Cr) 0) CO CO CO r I. LO C I.0 CO C 0 co E I- 0 N (n 3 # ao 0 O Cu O N Z c -0 O 4 O N N C O O) O X C N O N r E _0 H N n U cC O N C X C y D N C) 7 Cn (O N- on O) O N on 7 up (D C] _O N Q C O C CKp d 0 O) O) O) on O) m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0. U) `n -0 C O) O O) O) O) m O) 0 0 0 0 0 0 co O O o O T >" N N N N N N N N O a D C aO r O 0 o o 2-3 CD- >. o .0 N .a) O `O O .� 0 0 0 73 U a Z m '≥ > e v) o o 5 Q0 3 0 0 ro ._ co N ≥ co ° ❑ a o > o Z O Co N N APPENDIX Muller Engineering Rep o © �! ^ ��! :. , �m\ �: > �» x �� > * / W y 77 . �� ; •'1"a © + ° MULLER February 7, 2007 Muller Engineering Company,Inc. Consulting Engineers Irongate 4,Suite 100 Ms. Minal L. Parekh, P.E. 777 Souttt Wadsworth Boulevard Lyman Henn Inc. Lakewood,Colorado 80226-4331 110 16`h Street, Suite 900 EL (303)988-4539 FAX 303)988.4969 Denver, CO 80202 :vwv+muilereng.com Re: "F" Street Reservoir Site Greeley, Colorado MEC Project 06-040 Dear Ms. Parekh: Muller Engineering Company (Muller) has provided sub-consulting services to Lyman Henn, LLC to evaluate the infrastructure which would be required to develop a proposed sand and gravel mine known as the "F" Street Reservoir site into an operating water storage reservoir. General The proposed site is being considered by the City of Greeley to be developed first as a sand and gravel mine, and then to be completed and reclaimed to operate as a lined water storage facility. The site evaluation has been performed by a team of consultants in the following general steps: • Test holes were drilled at the site under the direction of Lyman Henn. These holes provided information regarding the potential sand and gravel resource which could be developed, in addition to the depth to bedrock and, therefore, the volume of water storage which could result from the mining excavation, • Banks & Gesso, LLC developed a conceptual layout of the mine site and prepared an evaluation of the quantity and quality of the aggregate resource. As part of this step, Banks and Gesso made a detailed evaluation of the site, existing utilities, and other property constraints, which led to the preparation of a conceptual mining plan. This mining plan has been used as the conceptual reservoir layout. • Lyman Henn prepared a preliminary plan for lining the reservoir, to restrict leakage of groundwater into the excavated reservoir, in accordance with criteria established by the Colorado State Engineer's Office. The lining will also serve to minimize leakage of stored water out of the reservoir. • Muller has prepared a preliminary plan of facilities which would be required so that the excavated pit would function as a water storage reservoir. This letter presents Muller's infrastructure plan and a preliminary estimate of the costs of construction. Ms. Mina! L Parekh February 7, 2007 Page 2 Site Plan The "F" Street Reservoir site is located northwest of the City of Greeley, north of"F" Street and adjacent to the southerly bank of the Cache la Poudre River. The property is bisected by the Boyd Freeman Ditch, which diverts water from the river. The site would appear to be well suited geographically for service as a water storage reservoir, since water could be delivered into the reservoir either directly from the river or from the Boyd Freeman Ditch, stored for a period of time, and then returned to the Cache la Poudre River. Sand and gravel exists at the site, and could be excavated and sold over a period of time, thereby creating the volume for the storage of water. Development of the site for either aggregate mining or water storage is constrained by several factors, which are well documented in the Banks & Gesso evaluation. The proposed mine would have three separate cells, divided from each other by an oil/gas easement and/or pipeline running in the north-south direction, and by the Boyd Freeman Ditch in the east-west direction. The mining plan proposed by Banks and Gesso would leave the pipeline and the ditch in their existing locations, resulting in the creation of three relatively small and separate reservoir cells. For the initial evaluation, it is assumed in this report that the proposed mining plan developed by Banks & Gesso represents the optimal configuration, and it will be used for the proposed reservoir configuration. The reservoir cells are planned to meet the definition of"below ground" storage, meaning that no jurisdictional dams or embankments are contemplated as part of the facility. The highest elevation to which water could be stored on the site under this definition is elevation 4678. Banks & Gesso has established completed storage volumes for each of the three cells, as follows: Cell 1 (Northwest) 46 Acre-feet Cell 2 (Northeast) 142 Acre-feet Cell 3 (Southeast) 38 Acre-feet Total Storage Volume 226 Acre-feet The storage volumes listed assume that a five-foot freeboard would be allowed below the low elevation of the ground surface prior to the mining. Infrastructure Planning It is assumed that the proposed reservoir will be used for exchange purposes, from a water rights perspective. In this type of operation, water would be conveyed into the reservoir during periods in which the water would be available in the Cache la Poudre River, stored for a period of time, and then returned to the river at a time that water could be withdrawn from other points. Based upon discussions with representatives of the City, the facilities have been planned to convey 20 cubic feet per second (cfs)from the river to the reservoir, and from the reservoir to the river. The following facilities are planned for the site: • A diversion structure on the Boyd Freeman Ditch, with the capacity to divert 20 cfs from the ditch into the reservoir. Included would be a headgate on the ditch, a pipe beneath the ditch road, a flume for measuring flow, and a rip-rap rundown Ms. Minal L Parekh February 7, 2007 Page 3 from the reservoir bank to the bottom (to prevent erosion of the sideslope). It is planned that all filling of the reservoir would be performed by gravity • Two Interconnecting 30-inch pipes between the three cells, each with a 20 cfs capacity. It is assumed that the three reservoir cells would have the same normal high water level, so that the pipes would not have control gates on them. The water levels would rise and fall in each reservoir simultaneously. It is also assumed that the pipes would be constructed by boring through the banks, so that the pipeline and the ditch would not have to be removed or supported. • A pumping station located in the northwest corner of the northeast cell, with a maximum capacity to return 20 cfs to the river. The pumping station would withdraw water from a single inlet located at the bottom of the reservoir, and would pump into a 30-inch pipe which would flow as an open channel to the Cache la Poudre River. The upper four feet of the reservoir could be delivered to the river by gravity, and provisions would be made in the outlet facilities to make optimum use of gravity. The lower portions of the reservoir would be below the level of the river, and would require pumping. The outlet facilities are envisioned to be a concrete wetwell, with an operating floor and pumps set above the 100- year water surface level of the river. A building is not anticipated. A measuring flume is included to allow measurement of flow returned to the river, both by gravity and by pumping. • Erosion protection along the bank between the reservoir and the river. Since the Banks &Gesso mining plan assumes that the bank between the river and the excavated pit would be 100 feet, both the river side and the reservoir side would have to be protected from scour damage during flood events, which could cause a failure of the bank and deposition of river-borne sediment in the reservoir. This erosion protection might not be technically considered to be infrastructure, but its cost is included because the storage volume is based on the river separation. It should be noted that almost all reservoirs used for water rights exchanges would require two common elements of infrastructure—an inlet facility and a pumping station. These two facilities could serve reservoirs of significantly different sizes, with relatively small differences in the costs of the facilities. A reservoir owner will find that the cost of infrastructure is higher per acre-foot of storage in small reservoirs. In addition, the requirement that various cells must be interconnected through intermediate embankments adds to the infrastructure costs. For these reasons the proposed three- cell "F"Street reservoir should be expected to have relatively high unit costs for its infrastructure. Estimated Construction Costs Table 1 presents the estimated costs for the planning, design, and construction of the described infrastructure, and shows a cost of$1,319,600. This cost translates into a cost of over$5800 per acre-foot of storage volume, which, in the author's opinion, is exceptionally high for a river-side gravel-pit reservoir. However, infrastructure costs Ms. Minal L Parekh February 7, 2007 Page 4 themselves do not necessarily indicate a site's relative effectiveness, since many other factors must be considered. Additional Considerations Several alternatives may merit consideration for improving the economic feasibility of development of a reservoir at the"F" Street site. This could be accomplished by either increasing the storage volume or by decreasing the cost of the construction. These possibilities are described briefly below: • It is possible that the Boyd Freeman Ditch could be relocated around the southerly edge of the site. This would eliminate one of the interconnecting pipes between the reservoir cells, and would increase the volume of mining as well as the volume of storage. These benefits would be partially offset by the cost of the ditch relocation, but the alternative could improve the cost-effectiveness of the site. • Sizing the infrastructure for inflow and outflow rates of 20 cfs may be excessive, since these rates would allow the 226 acre-foot volume to be filled and emptied in about six days. A more typical time interval would be approximately thirty days for filling and emptying, which would translate to a 4 cfs flow rate. While this adjustment would reduce the estimated cost of the infrastructure to a degree, the savings would not be directionally proportional because some of the costs are relatively independent of the designed flow rate. • Since the parcel to the east of the "F" Street site is currently being mined, it seems that the possibility would exist to combine that site with the 'F" Street site. This would provide more storage volume with relatively little increase in infrastructure costs. • The cost of erosion protection of the river-side and reservoir-side of the bank along the Cache la Poudre River is substantial, and may not be justified by the increase in volume of mined material and water storage. Consideration could be given to increasing the separation to 400 feet, which would eliminate the need for bank protection. This could lead to the decision to eliminate Cell 1, reducing the storage volume to approximately 180 acre-feet. • The estimated storage volume in the three cells assume that a five foot freeboard would be allowed above the normal high water level. It is possible that this freeboard allowance could be reduced in the final design, resulting in additional usable storage volume. There is no jurisdictional requirement regarding freeboard in a below-ground reservoir. Conclusion It is the author's opinion that the "F" Street site can be developed into a water storage reservoir. The site's small size and the fact that it would likely contain multiple storage cells makes the cost per acre-foot of infrastructure relatively high. Several "additional ^ considerations" are presented which could improve the economic viability of the site, but Ms. Minal L Parekh February 7, 2007 Page 5 they will probably still result in high costs per acre-foot, and probably still will not make the site favorable from an economic standpoint. Very truly yours, MULLER ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC. John M. Hamilton, P.E. Project Manager encl. Table 1 Opinion of Probable Project Cost "F" Street Reservoir Preliminary Cost Estimate February 2, 2007 Item Estimated Unit No. Description Quantity Price Cost 1 Mobilization 1 LS $20,000 $20,000 2 Clearing and Grubbing 1 LS $5,000 $5,000 3 Dewatering 1 LS $15,000 $15,000 4 Excavation 3700 CY $2 $7,400 5 Embankment Fill 3700 CY $6 $22,200 6 Riprap Bank Protection adjacent to river 6600 CY $60 $396,000 7 Inlet Structure 1 LS $50,000 $50,000 8 Measuring Flume 2 LS $15,000 $30,000 9 Riprap Rundown 200 CY $60 $12,000 10 Outlet Tower--Structural Concrete 105 CY $500 $52,500 11 Mixed-Flow Pump(20 cfs @ 30'TDH) 2 Ea. $20,000 $40,000 12 Metals (Handrails, Grating, Fish Screens, etc) 1 LS $15,000 $15,000 13 Sluice Gates 2 Ea $15,000 $30,000 ,0.- 14 30-inch RCP Intake Pipe 60 LF $200 $12,000 15 30-inch RCP Inlet Pipe 60 LF $450 $27,000 16 30-inch Discharge Pipe 300 LF $125 $37,500 17 Energy Dissipator 1 LS $20,000 $20,000 18 Interconnecting pipes through embankments (30") 250 LF $400 $100,000 19 Electrical & Controls 1 LS $30,000 $30,000 Subtotal $921,600 Engineering (15%) $138,000 Contingencies (25%) $230.000 Extension of Elect. Power to site 1 LS $30,000 $30,000 Total Opinion of Probable Project Cost $1,319,600 6 APPENDIXr . . � , � �k Lyman Henn , wm� . %TIE syEr'',„ �! ., ."�` ,te& �d \ I »\« A s fo I$¢s ° 0 aa v 1.• i; 2i r n v o $ . 8. E.: _ ma •8n$°P u � 2. . a `s•,$qQ m ,I a m m i• Y 'o 5, .7; •`o s b c 3 sc 3 E £ € t' "• nom s o k h 82 45" b m' m 8 d .a • 50$ `8 0 d c$c5 Ci i F « - I Ic^mN 5 °o • 5-�.s s o bs B ° E E ° 5 vdas agi ° ".i`il a gi F yy n JFl V b N O G S D „ ► 0 Es �g7m 5 2. 5. Is Q , E 5 em° o " :7L3 o .4. T -r 5 a°u `L Q o It'.. f. a d A i o I ` Q b�'S t L ` m o o e o Z 6 E $ $ '2 ; 03 am Q 5 e �, - g e q W$e. s °_g. z i 3 �1 -i.,�' q€ E s S 5 aE `a 0 5 �grya.42 as w i,E5,40 of g �D S D'till E g 0 4 l 1. 0 g -,5 ° 5 0m...0 N Cb 1 56.11 b 61 b1E:,712 6 5 5 g �_ L T _ E 8 ,„ b a -51 5 u 0a« $ 51 -4g`oe sY — n i $ A o $ 5soY 5 • S. 6b 6 g h- Y - °g„-g° 'a L5 8 55 . 9.. .2 1E f 1 m Yd I' a,2.5 58 CO it - ° 5' 1—O • Si .. 57 ° En a -' b ^° n- p =m5� x 8 48 ` ° 55 ° $ S ° 31 5 3 0 - C $ '° a ° °15 .5 S •'.:...:i a i u° ` - �o '0 8 hit, 000 880`oE .�5 0 `� �5 - s 533a ;2 ._ gays u 8 0 I S� I - b 1",a a S o o g 3 7 ° 53 m: f ° { $° 11 8c 8m '` 15.vo ' € r z. qqE .5 ° � s • • 1! *" ^o f S• V6 s'gl _. k:,. ai 3 °° §o Fe aY rnS u5 co_a o c 5-I E to d\o\E n• L a°1 m E E Y c•gEa $9 m°am no o e _ s 5 b 5 '; '' 5 o `zz1. 1<'°-4.. .. ca 5 co ° > « m Eby, - m � a� < 5� tT b `v 5 m a rJ• c.m o i �� i S� � � �o�F .F .5 �b.E a g �m _ e -:5'g' 15 3 U 2 82 8s 81 2 Fes'= z a Z <> 8 S SS 7..a g i c3 chi z m`<�5 ¢ o° _!" a °Z,12 a s. 5s , � mi 1 1 1 1 i a t �a GO ° • b r F'F 5 e xg ss 9 4°<a 3 pi? �^ 0 !1 d , > z . > ,.„i . . . . i . . .., rc �'. s u a 4 y a•$ $ c a n z x92x> Y i'oq kKmS. g ray§ < m ems.- 2 � Y U u, am o tr. �°E5 V A2 & 0 om�mc S �mEi e - Q ` o B Eo>X J t "q, ; �^ g�?�g 1 o:g1Z �$ o_ 1c2,7,2- e . o m 5 b 8g0$ < Gb $ w ° E`8 °b —2 • I- LVi 5 ^,i,� :1.,% ° �b 5 S 52I• a. ii. aahvimi°o az i Nz E o 5cft Y — 5 og go a o4 p` °o ;43 g $ 5 5- 5`0 E z ! 9 �oi $ as hN ! bs yznt ra oc X ` y _ - a i b a o E d 4i4I Si" (Sol >Y9zm�>"i §o_ g a :1'',- b S .t _a. _ a °�-s 5 a a:5 s - a m a g - n` :4411 5$a u ER Y`. rb-R2g = - 5 �_ L c E 8siya 85.4Y8 m pa, n o _ '•v IIj1 ° °E .g 56 eSa Y a o� ��E 1, 5 bSogE Lo- 08 o. _ ',aa }=5�Si14•1 : 5I, ' b.5 0 o a " s ►oyca � C o ° tlie= c-` ` d>e 'a°$g•5e c5 oan5as! 1 � -0 ' V E c o �b°�o °a -VI a; °h"bo55bo sos1l� < ^ E b o° $ 5�0 o ma lm Sa -4 le. .. y:8fi o.E Yo�� ` 5 mot E°SS€`o5a°F�obob�b° r.$ F 5v m c 55-"$ «5 8f7. o..•no ill . g,,3 .°.3sc9p g-si gpk o°- 411 $I 5 liZlii 5g� 5go d so S4 `iL3l saJ1� i S b V ' o aib.Sn 823 c c778.:7 °.7,>, , , ,77';',i E S33S5 ,y9 8 1 i ° m •II E R 21s t-j'o P R ° a5,5a�` s_ 7 r « 1hdIfLdJ b±y4. iSc i yy . E? 3.$1Yb.0 0 $J�a> Nm� oa3 mm �.i.�x m �p L 1•FA•i WWII...AMCChOM TEST BORING REPORT Boring No. LH-1-F Sheet No. 1 of 2 - i.t i1`A N File No. 106006-000 ^ Resource and Reservoir Feasibility Study i LAN Project: Start: 14 June 2006 (NC Client: City of Greeley Finish: 14 June 2006 Contractor: Drilling Engineers Driller Andy Casing Sampler Barrel Drilling Equipment and Procedures LH Rep.: SPH Elevation: 4683.20 Type -- S.C -- Rig Make&Model: CME-75 Datum: na Inside Diameter(in.) -- 1 3/8.2 -- Drill Method: 4"Hollow Stem Auger Hammer Weight(lb.) 140 -- -- Bit Type: Cutting Head Casing: None Location: See Boring Plan__ Hammer Fall(in.) 30 -- __ Hoist/Hammer: Cat-Head Safety Hammer __ Water Level Data Sample Identification Notes Date Time Elapsed Bottom Bottom Depth to Time of casing of Hole Water CS Continuous C California Barrel -- 6/14/06 Drill none - 27 5 6 5 Sampler R Core -- -- S Split Spoon B Bulk -- . -- G Geoprobe T Thin Wall Tube °' › �ab9ratQry Results g a �, o a Visual-Manual Identification and Description E O.its c4 3 C z ` m m 2 V a) a o m o -;- a) Gr, m n c �� (Density/consistency.color.GROUP NAME,max.particle size. V _ v V II E structure,odor,moisture,optional descriptions,geologic interpretation] O > n7 w o 0 to N 0 c/1 I J d D In c e 4 S-1 rry Stiff, Brown.sandy lean CLAY(CL). mostly clay, few fine sand,few silt, no odor. 5 18" - h moist 1 8 -OVERBURDEN- q .. 4 S-2 S!' Medium Dense,Brown, light brown, poorly graded SAND with CLAY(SP-SC), 5 18" . Mostly fine sand,some clay,few coarse sand, little coarse gravel, little silt, no 8 . .. odor, moist, MPS= 1" -COARSE ALLUVIUM- gp. Cuttings indicate poorly graded SAND with GRAVEL(SP).MPS =4 5" . Water level during drilling •• -tU -10 r-----• • 10 S-3 Sp•" Medium Dense,Red, brown, poorly graded SAND with GRAVEL(SP),mostly 10 18" medium sand,some fine sand,few coarse sand,some fine to coarse gravel,few 20 ' silt,no odor,wet, MPS= 1.5". -15 15 50/12 S-4 gp. Same as above,except very dense. 12" 50/12 S-5 Yellow, highly weathered, poorly cemented,SANDSTONE(BR),oxidation ........ 12" staining,moist. • -25--70 - Maxiumum particle size is determined by direct observation within the limitations of the sampler NOTE: Soil identification based on visual-manual methods of the USCS as practiced by Lyman Henn,Inc. Boring No. LH-1-F TEST BORING REPORT Boring No. LH-1-F Sheet No.2 of 2 E'v'i File No. 106006-000 f IE `i Project: Resource and Reservoir Feasibility Study Start. 14 June 2006 INC Client: City of Greeley Finish: 14 June 2006 Contractor: Drilling Engineers Driller: Andy Casing Sampler Barrel Drilling Equipment and Procedures LH Rep.: SPH Elevation: 4683.20 Type -- S,C -- Rig Make&Model:CME-75 Datum: na Inside Diameter(in.) -- 1 3/8.2 -- Drill Method: 4"Hollow Stem Auger Location: See Boring Plan Hammer Weight(lb.) 140 -- -- Bit Type: Cutting Head Casing: None __ Hammer Fall(in.) 30 -- -- Hoist/Hammer: Cat-Head Safety Hammer r Q1 °° ,, Labgratory fjest.lts c 3 ` m Visual Manual Identification and Description E — a m cn o ; U -,-.- , p N' C-15 a �� (Density/consistency,color GROUP NAME.max.particle size. re ,_ o ,9_ w W m structure,odor.moisture,optional descnptions.geologic interpretation) m �, o o — m •o 2 O to I - a DV) q50/6 C-6 Gray,moderately weathered, thinly interbedded SILTSTONE.oxidized to yellow.. 52 34 8 6" orange,slightly moist. • -251-25 ill — Same as above except sandstone is light gray, slightly weathered. 50/6 0 7 t End of exploration 27.5 feet. i -30+-30 i I -t -35--35 .40---40 ,rte Maxiumum particle size is determined by direct observation within the limitations of the sampler Boring No. LH-1-F NOTE: Soil identification based on visual-manual methods of the USCS as practiced by Lyman Henn,Inc. TEST BORING REPORT Boring No. LH-2-F Sheet No. 1 of 2 L'l '1:\N File No. 106006-000 1 I f'\N Project: Resource and Reservoir Feasibility Study Start: 14 June 2006 I\,i Client: City of Greeley Finish: 14 June 2006 Contractor: Drilling Engineers Driller: Andy Casing Sampler Barrel Drilling Equipment and Procedures LH Rep.: SPH Elevation: 4681.85 Type -- S,C -- Rig Make&Model: CME-75 Datum: na Inside Diameter(in.) -- 1 3/8.2 -- Drill Method: 4"Hollow Stem Auger Hammer Weight(lb.) 140 -- -- Bit Type: Cutting Head Casing: None Location: See Boring Plan__ Hammer Fall(in.) 30 -- __ Hoist/Hammer: Cat-Head Safety Hammer __ Water Level Data Sample Identification Notes - Date Time Elapsed Bottom Bottom Depth to Time of Casing of Hole Water CS Continuous C California Barrel -- 6;14;06 Drill none -- 30.5 8.7 Sampler R Core -- -- S Split Spoon B Bulk -- G Geoprobe T Thin Wall Tube °' >. Labgratory Results o o _. o Visual Manual Identification and Description E — O 0 41 m tD a `i "ft(n (Density/consistency,color.GROUP NAME,max.particle size, �_ ' Y t11 E structure,odor,moisture.ootion:tl descriptions.geologic interpretation) C N > ,7 0 oe o CO CO O o ` roc 0 0 10 2 S-1 i 1 Soft,Brown,lean CLAY(CL), mostly clay,some silt,no odor,slightly moist. 2 18., rlt 2 -OVERBURDEN- 1 -T 3 S•2 5p: Medium dense, Red,brown, poorly graded SAND(SP),mostly fine sand. some 4 1Y • medium sand.few coarse sand.few silt. no odor,moist 4 • -COARSE ALLUVIUM- Z ,' Water level during drilling 8.7 ft. -10 -10 6 S-3 5p: Very dense, Red,brown, poorly graded SAND with GRAVEL(SP), mostly fine 25 12' •, sand,some medium sand,some fine to coarse gravel,few coarse sand, no odor. 35 wet,MPS=1.5". Bulk sample collected,MPS=4". -1s -15 8 S-4 gp: Dense, Red, brown, poorly graded SAND with GRAVEL(SP),mostly fine sand, 20 1B some medium sand, some fine to coarse gravel,few coarse sand,few silt,no 22 . odor, wet,MPS= 1.5". 'IL Olive,SILT(ML),trace fine gravel,trace fine sand,no odor,moist. _ -RESIDUUM- ^ Driller indicated change in lithoiogy based on drilling action. ' Maxiumum particle size is determined by direct observation within the limitations of the sampler NOTE: Soil identification based on visual-manual methods of the USCS as practiced by Lyman Henn,Inc, Boring No. LH-2-F TEST BORING REPORT Boring No. LH-2-F Sheet No.2 of 2 I X\1`l File No. 106006-000 1 IENN Project: Resource and Reservoir Feasibility Study Start: 14 June 2006 [tic Client: City of Greeley Finish: 14 June 2006 Contractor: Drilling Engineers Driller: Andy Casing Sampler Barrel Drilling Equipment LH Rep.: SPH _ P q pment and Procedures Elevation: 4681.85 Type -- ' S,C -- Rig Make&Model:CME-75 Datum: na Inside Diameter(in.) -- 1 3/8,2 -- Drill Method: 4"Hollow Stem Auger Location. See Boring Plan Hammer Weight(lb.) 140 -- -- Bit Type: Cutting Head Casing: None Hammer Fall(in.) 30 -- __ Hoist/Hammer: Cat-Head Safety Hammer -_ a) al Laboratory Rest-Its .1'1,7'3 o a zd s a Visual-Manual Identification and Description 3 . Q v E6 E m cA a .c a ci au) cc o ., m' m E (Density/consistency,color,GROUP NAME,max c m - o o a particle size, cu v Y it Cu m structure,odor,moisture,optional descriptions,geologic interpretation) a ? :5 �. — N 2 U` (n LL J f1 (n I F50+5 5-5 Gray, brown highly weathered. sandy CLAYSTONE(SRI,oxidation staining, 50/1 0-6 moist. 6 SAME AS ABOVE. i 21 ; 67 36 16 48C I , I . II I -25 -25 50/5 S-7 Blue,gray.sandy CLAYSTONE (BR). moist. 7' 4 i ( -301-30 P50/5 C-8 Same as above. 7 End of exploration at 30.5 feet. 1 1 • -35k-:t`: 1 .40---40 Maxiumum particle size is determined by direct observation within the limitations of the sampler NOTE: Soil identification based on visual-manual methods of the USCS as practiced by Lyman Henn,Inc. Boring No. LH-2-F TEST BORING REPORT Boring No. LH-3-F Sheet No. 1 of 2 Project: Resource and Reservoir Feasibility Study File No. 106006-000 Start: 14 June 2006 Client: City of Greeley Finish: 14 June 2006 Contractor: Drilling Engineers Driller. Andy Casing Sampler, Barrel Drilling Equipment and Procedures LH Rep.: SPH Elevation: 4682.04 Type -- S,C -- Rig Make&Model: CME-75 Datum: na Inside Diameter(in.) -- _ 1 3/8.2 -- Drill Method: 4"Hollow Stem Auger Hammer Weight(lb.) 140 -- -- Bit Type: Cutting Head Casing: None Location: See Boring Plan Hammer FaH(in.) 30 -- __ Hoist/Hammer: Cat-Head Safety Hammer __ Water Level Data _ Sample Identification Notes Date Time Elapsed Bottom Bottom Depth to Time of Casing orHola Water CS Continuous C California Barrel -- 6/14/06 Drill none 25 9.6 Sampler R Core -- -- -- S Split Spoon B Bulk __ .. _. .. G Geoprobe T Thin Wall Tube °t n lab7ratgry ResL its t C a o -- a� Visual-Manual Identification and Description E a to c c� to CL al co0 y m co d ow (Density/consistency.color GROUP NAME.max.particle size, m ° e W' - t` structure.odor,moisture,optional descriptions,geologic interpretation) ❑ a > c 0 o o cn a) m ° 1 S-1 Soft,Brown.sandy lean CLAY(CL),mostly clay,few fine to coarse sand,trace 2 18" organics, no odor moist. 2 �ti>-OVERBURDEN- 1c 68 39 23 4f. I �+ - I 1510 S-2 ' Medium Dense.Red, brown,poorly p y graded SAND with GRAVEL(SP),mostly 12 18" line sand,some medium sand,few coarse sand,some fine to coarse gravel,few 16 • silt. no odor.wet,MPS=4". ..•.•.] -COARSE ALLUVIUM- - i Bulk sample.red,brown,poorly graded SAND with GRAVEL(SP), MPS ='1" to t° •' Water level during drilling 9.6 It. 12 3-3 sp. Same as above, 42 0/ 1a., • except very dense. 50/2 -15 -15 20 S-5 '6'13, Same , ry . 90 39 20 16 1y Gray,highlyasabove weatheredexcppt,thveinlydense interbedded SANDSTONE and CLAYSTONE 40 (BR),moist,yellow oxidation staining. -DENVER FORMATION- -2f l l Maxiumum particle size is determined by direct observation within the limitations of the sampler NOTE: Soil identification based on visual-manual methods of the USCS as practiced by Lyman Henn,Inc. Boring No. LH-3-F TEST BORING REPORT Boring No. LH-3-F Sheet No.2 of 2 .4-4, i.F)1AN File No. 106006-000 I IENN Project: Resource and Reservoir Feasibility Study Start: 14 June 2006 INC_ Client: City of Greeley Finish: 14 June 2006 Contractor: Drilling Engineers Driller: Andy Casing Sampler Barrel Drilling Equipment and Procedures LH Rep.: SPH Elevation: 4682.04 Type S,C -- Rig Make&Model:CME-75 Datum: na Inside Diameter(in.) -- 1 3/8 2 -- Drill Method: 4"Hollow Stem Auger Location: See Boring Plan Hammer Weight(lb.) 140 -- -- Bit Type: Cutting Head Casing: None Hammer Fall(in.) 30 -- __ Hoist/Hammer: Cat-Head Safety Hammer -- to `d _ >, Laboratory Re5Llts s.s E N z = a Visual-Manual Identification and Description m E m>(4 o c 1.0 1. mU m o o m, ¢ CO E m (Density/consistency,color,GROUP NAME,max particle size, A o o g3 s o W m structure,odor.moisture,optional(lescnotions,geologic Interpreteeam a C3 -u o — n N N N m 2 `- c c ow 3 50/5 C-g Same as above except no oxidation. I I I - -25-�--?5 50/0 Ca BR No recovery. Cuttings indicate same as above. - End of exploration at 25 feet. 4 I -30 I 7-30 f -35--35 A0--40 Maziumum panicle size is determined by direct observation within the limitations of the sampler Boring No. LH-3-F NOTE: Soil identification based on visual.manual methods of the USCS as practiced by Lyman Henn,Inc. TEST BORING REPORT Boring No. LH-4-F I ; 1 i Sheet No. 1 of 2 - Project: Resource and eservoir Feasibility File No. 106006-000 I 1 I':\`v Reservoir Study Start: 6 June 2006 ' i N{ Client: City of Greeley Finish: 6 June 2006 Contractor: Drilling Engineers Driller. Ken Casing Sampler Barrel Drilling Equipment and Procedures LH Rep.: 5PH Type — Elevation: 4684.75 -- S,C NX Rig Make&Model: Simco 2600 Datum: na Inside Diameter(in.) -- 1 3/8.2 2 1/8 Drill Method: 4"Hollow Stem Auger Location: See Boring Plan Hammer Weight(lb.) 140 -- Bit Type: Cutting Head Casing: None Hammer Fall(in.) 30 -- -- Hoist/Hammer: Cat-Head Safety Hammer _ Water Level Data Sample Identification Notes Date Time Elapsefl d Bottom Bottom Depth to Time of Casino of Hole Water CS Continuous C California Barrel -- 7/6r06 Drill none -- 31 7.5 Sampler R Core __ __ '- -- -' S Split Spoon B Bulk -- _ G Geoprobe T Thin Wall Tube \ I T labgratpry Rest Its r,o 0 o o Visual-Manual Identification and Description a®u) a c z EV o p> CO 'O j (Density/consistency,color,GROUP NAME,max.particle size, ta'v '� s �\ W' _ structure,odor,moisture.optional descriptions,geologic interpretation} O m 0 a� o fn 6t rn d 'o m to `� U 3 .e CD co k —1 o_ D rn 0 i0 5 S•1 elgir Medium stiff,Brown,sandy lean CLAY(CL),mostly clay,some fine sand,few 3 18" silt,no odor,dry organics. 2 r -OVERBURDEN- Driller indcated change. do-' 2 S-2 se. Loose.Brown.poorly-graded SAND.mostly fine sand,some medium sand,no 3 18" .' odor,moist. -5 -5 2 .' COARSE ALLUVIUM Z 10 S-3 s • Medium dense,Brown,poorly-graded SAND,mostly medium sand,some fine ' 10 18' .' sand,few coarse sand,trace coarse gravel,no odor.wet.maximum particle size iu -10 12 • . griller noted 3"to 5"cobbles at 10 feet. .— Driller indicated change. I50/15 S-4 Hard,olive gray,sandy SILT,mostly silt,few fine sand,no odor,moist,thinly 18" — laminated,oxidation staining. ... -RESIDUUM- ts as 50/8 C-5 No recovery Soft,Blue-gray,slightly weathered,uncemented sandy SILTSTONE,wet. 50/9 S-6 25 56 33 8 Driller indicated change. 1 50/7 S-7 Soft,blue-gray,slightly weathered, uncemented SANDSTONE,thin layers of clayey SILTSTONE,wet. Max,umum particle size is determined by direct observation within the limitations of the sampler NOTE: Soil identification based on visual-manual methods of the USCS as practiced by Lyman Henn,Inc. Boring No. LH-4-F TEST BORING REPORT Boring No. LH-4-F Sheet No.2 of 2 File No. 106006-000 i(._�. Project: Resource and Reservoir Feasibility Study Start: 6 June 2006 1‘..(- Client: City of Greeley Finish: 6 June 2006 Contractor: Drilling Engineers Driller. Ken Casing Sampler Barrel Drilling Equipment and Procedures LH Rep.: SPH Elevation: 4684.75 Type -- S,C NX Rig Make&Model:Simco 2800 Datum: na Inside Diameter(in.) -- 1 3/8.2 2 1/8 Drill Method:4"Hollow Stem Auger Location: See Boring Plan Hammer Weight(lb.) 140 -- -- Bit Type: Cutting Head Casing:None Hammer Fail(in.) 30 -- -- Hoist/Hammer Cat-Head Safety Hammer -- a) vd Laboratory Results Y o E �, z a.= a Visual-Manual Identification and Description E y>rA o c a0 qt.)) V e ^ p N' m co E (Density/consistency,color,GROUP NAME,max.particle size. to = o v h o LL cn structure,odor,moisture.optional descriptions,geologic interpretation) Q . m ., , — CD as '5 - @ c `\-- U 3 M 0 cn tL -u a m(i) Begin coring at 20 feet. Soft,gray,slightly weathered to unweathered.poorly cemented.silty SANDSTONE,very fine-grained,horizontal joints close to very close,partly open to open,slightly rough,irregular. R-B 'Sample R-8: 60 inch run length,22.5 inch(38%)recovery and 0 inch(0%) ROD. 15 -25 SAME AS ABOVE R-9 'Sample R-9: 72 inch run length,56.5 inch(78%)recover and 10 inch(14%) RQD. 37 ;0 End of Exploration at 31 feet. -35-•--J5 • -40--40 Maxiumum particle size is determined by direct observation within the limitations of the sampler Boring No. LH-4-F practiced by Lyman Henn,Inc.Soil identification based on visual-manual methods of the USCS as a)CO 000000000 C r O N O) 00)) CO N. N N L 1 CO N N CO N 0 0 0 0 0 0 C O co O N r I� co 7 N r O O N r O CO 0 N M 0 CO O M r 0 00 0 LL a O co O O (O O R R R N 0) (f) J C0) T N o 0 O 0 a 0 O o a O O O o) 0) o m 0 0) 0 0) 7 0 O 15 C u7 O N LO 0 7 0 r N 7 ac a) n i CD O I- O 7 CT> 0N 471- 0 (7 U CO O O >,_ 7 C OOOM CO 070 M7 70) O E, O in co_ O N. CO, O 0 r 0 I� 0 0 ' O N• ` r r r r r M cr. Lc U7 N6. U O a 0 M C 0 LL C 4) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CO N 0 C 0) N N- O r O (0 N CO r N I C U) C Cr) 0 I- N CO O r CO CO N O C CO r 00O7OOM N 4) N a) y N E 0 O CU o d V J Cl_ �^ O .- I- I` O V) N N M 0) L N r C N O) C.) O N CO CO 0 CO CO CO 0) 0 r O r- 0 C 10 1-0 O O CO 0 r- r •- M a 00 O O m a U N N N N N M M M M Cr; O N ci-o U N O 2 pr O N N CO 4) 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 - Ci O Q N CD 0) O O 7 7 O CO 7 O o w r N o ON O C CO CO V V O r N Oc‘i N C- CO ! v V' 7 10 CO CC) Cp O M Co CO rn N w r 0 O 'C.-9- 0 N (~/) Co N co CD CO U o O CO O 0 O N C7 CO U O CO C)CC o N O M N d -O O▪ r 7 N O O m CO COO .- M C) r. O in Cn L O R 0 o 0 0 N co- O I� O N O O OD v N C: 0) O) N N N N N N LL 0) LL (0 m O O N o W 0 0 0 0 0 a o 0 0 0 0 W M Q) t` U OO) 0e- M Mf- 0OOOMO (p OO 0 00) 4) N c 0) r co 0 O O) CO 7 CO 0 O O O 0 7 (n + CL U N M M N N O M 7 M V) N O Cr)cy L Ea° a° N w 0 N CO MO 7 IO CO CO 7 C) T t� CO N CO <I' 0 )l.) L ?`. f` O 7 O) co M r-- 0 7 0 N O on O N O N E C r co co M N 0) LIDN. co N. n O O O O N C d 7 R r O N R O 05 O c n N 7 N M N O O O 3 0 0 C CO f` f` CO NNNNN N N CO N O N O Y -0 l0 0 (0 O 7 N 3 u7 O I"- O m 0 N CO 7 0 O 0 V O U) O 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N - 0 OM 0) O0) 0 o 0000 U aO N N N N N N N p) N O 4) CO C C W 00 O O co N po;ewps3 m .to 0 C4 L 0 ` 0 U N 4) O 0 O 0 } c. } d C/) ooaaoeoaa cr, Q O NV] W N I� M O C C Q r N- LON Q I- O CO L Q' M Q a) CO O) CO r 0 U r r r ^ 0 Le CO CO CO 0) n Q Q f- O) INC N Q W O) N .(12 (O (O IC O) O Q fe. O .p r r `"' r r N N N M C0. 0 L y 0 J (p N o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 d a) N CO In N N Q O) co N C O) O) CO CO LO O Lt) O) L r N N CO N r N r U 0 CO r M CT N- 0 CO r O) N- T Q Q LC) N CO CO 0 0 r CO y Q N r CO 0 O) CO 0 (t) CO r W O N LIP CO O N Q Ln y (O (CD N- N- N- N- CO CO CO CO y 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0) co L. CO N N- Q m M CO C O) (O O) O) 0 N m 0 N O CO CO IC) CO r (n U Q N Y N N- Ln CO W n N- r U) O Lf) CO CO CD N N O r M V ((0 R 0) r r N N N N M ct L uO 0 LL 0) CO 0) 0) CO 0 0 0 CO 0 0 0 0) O) O) 0 O) 0 000000 N N N N N N N pa;ewgs3 Weld County Building Permit Data from 1996 Year Units % Change Total Valuation % Change 1996 1812 ---- $ 57,220.233.62 ---- 1997 2159 19.15% $ 85,882,620.48 50.09% 1998 2287 5.93% $ 121,208,799.52 41.13% 1999 2331 1.92% $ 273,359,663.81 125.53% 2000 2881 23.60% $ 148,009.630.08 -45.86% 2001 2141 -25.69% $ 144,314,471.51 -2.50% 2002 2175 1.59% $ 235,569,019.24 63.23% 2003 1944 -10.62% $ 288,170,585.09 22.33% *2004 2012 3.50% 2005 2082 3.48% $ 104,224.812.00 *2006 1724 -17.20% $ 382,911,587.00 267.39% * Note: There is no data availble for total valuation in 2004 2006 is a partial year with data from January to Ocotber Source: Weld County Planning Department Building Information 11/27/2006 City of Brighton WWTP- Dawson Condemnation Project#06023 TEST BORING REPORT Boring No. LH-5-F Sheet No. 1 of 2 ,..... I x N1 A N File No. 106006-000 i IL,\N Project: Resource and Reservoir Feasibility Study Start: 7 June 2006 INN• Client: City of Greeley Finish: 7 June 2006 Contractor: Drilling Engineers Driller: Ken LH Rep.: SPH Casing Sampler Barrel Drilling Equipment and Procedures Elevation: 4686.84 Type -- S,C -- Rig Make&Model: Simco 2800 Datum: na Inside Diameter(in.) -- 1 3/8.2 -- Drill Method: 4"Hollow Stem Auger Location: See Boring Plan Hammer Weight(lb.) 140 -- -- Bit Type: Cutting Head Casing: None -- Hammer Fall(in.) 30 -- -- Hoist/Hammer: Cat-Head Safety Hammer -- Water Level Data Sample Identification Notes Date Time Elapsed Bottom Bottom Depth to Time of casing of Hole Water CS Continuous C California Barrel -- m106 Doll none 34 1 4 Sampler R Core -- S Split Spoon B Bulk -- G Geoprobe T Thin Wall Tube a1 jabgratory Results o E -N ' Visual-Manual Identification and Description E o ^ o c co� Ca Q ipu) o c Z `. '-U m d ' 1 c w --o - u)>' CO u7 m ti '�� iDensdy/consrslency,color.GROUP NAME,max.particle size, LL m m structure,odor-moisture,optional descriptions,geologic interpretation) O m > -a to o; o_ v c CC _ _ c at u-) to U) 0 co ii ' `L- D to c 10 14 S-1 Stiff, Brown, dark brown, lean CLAY(CL),mostly clay, few fine sand,calcium 8 18" carbonate, no odor,slightly moist,organics. 6 -OVERBURDEN- •-• Z 2 2 S-2 sp: Loose.brown.poorly-graded SAND.mostly fine sand,few medium sand, no- i18" • •, odor,wet -5 3 • Driller indicated gravel. 3 S-3 sP: Very loose.brown,poorly-graded SAND(SP),Mostlry fine sand.some coarse 1 18" • -, sand.few medium sand,few silt,few clays,trace gravel.maximum particle size 10 -to 7 • 1".no odor,wet. 1 50/6 S-4 sp: Very dense,brown,poorly graded SAND(SP)with gravel,mostly medium sand, c? . some fine sand,few coarse sand,few fine gravel,few coarse gravel,no odor, -15--fs wet. maximum particle size 1". Driller indicated change. 1 59/8 S-5 Soft,gray,moderatley weathered, uncemented SANDSTONE(SS), fine grained, 8" wet,interbedded CLAYSTONE. ;4�-2n Maxtumum particle size is determined by direct observation within the limitations of the sampler NOTE: Soil identification based on visual-manual methods of the USCS as practiced by Lyman Henn,Inc. Boring No. LH-5-F TEST BORING REPORT Boring No. LH-5-F • Sheet No.2 of 2 I•tipMA,N File No. 106006-000 . I iEN:v Project: Resource and Reservoir Feasibility Study Start: 7 June 2006 INC t Client: City of Greeley Finish: 7 June 2006 Contractor: Drilling Engineers Driller: Ken - Casing Sampler Barrel Drilling Equipment and Procedures LH Rep.: SPH Elevation: 4686.84 Type -- S,C -- Rig Make&Model:Simco 2800 Datum: na Inside Diameter(in.) -- 1 3/8.2 -- Drill Method: 4"Hollow Stem Auger Location: See Boring Plan Hammer Weight(lb.) 140 -- -- Bit Type: Cutting Head Casing: None -- Hammer Fall(in.) 30 _- __ Hoist/Hammer: Cat-Head Safety Hammer __ tb oe3 _ Laboratory Results _ c a Visual-Manual identification and Description r.0E z° a aE co 3 Co �- m w m o QN in E N Mtn (Density/consistency.color.GROUP NAME.max,particle size. �_ e. o Y o �, Eli' m structure,odor,moisture.optional descriptions,geologic,interpretatoni 0 a c o w co tT) a> 5 ca 'cis a - O 2 C7 to iZ --i Du) 1 I 1 I i . i sni3 C-s No recovery. LS '5 Q" _ 50/7 Soft-gray.slightly to moderatley weathered, poorly to uncemented SANDSTONE (SS)with thinly interbedded SILTSTONE and CLAYSTONE,wet-fine-grained. -.iO+Jo S-7 7 I 1 1 f Soft,gray, slightly weathered,fine grained.well cemented SANDSTONE,wet, very thinly bedded. bU/1 --a BR End of Exploration 34.1 feet. t„ -35 -35 i Y a -0C—-CC r� i Maxwmum particle size is determined by direct observation within the I mdations of the sampler Boring No. LH-5-F NOTE: Soil identification based on visual-manual methods of the USCS as practiced by Lyman Henn,Inc. TEST BORING REPORT Boring No. LH-6-F Sheet No. 1 of 2 LYMAN File No. 106006-000 I IENN Project: Resource and Reservoir Feasibility Study Start: 7 June 2006 • INC Client: City of Greeley Finish: 7 June 2006 Contractor: Drilling Engineers Driller: Ken Casing Sampler Barrel Drilling Equipment and Procedures LH Rep.: SPH Elevation: 4687.26 Type -- S,C -- Rig Make&Model: Simco 2800 Datum: na Inside Diameter(in.) -- 1 3/8.2 -- Drill Method: 4"Hollow Stem Auger Location: See Bonng Plan Hammer Weight(lb.) 140 -- -- Bit Type: Cutting Head Casing: None __ Hammer Fall(in.) 30 -- -- Hoist/Hammer: Cat-Head Safety Hammer -- Water Level Data Sample Identification Notes Date Time Elapsed Bottom Bottom Depth to Time of Casii,g of Hole Water CS Continuous C California Barrel -- 7/7/06 Drill none -- 29 5 4 Sampler R Core -- -- _ -- S Split Spoon B Bulk -- G Geoprobe T Thin Wall Tube ` w T Labpratgry{Zesu)ts C a N a Visual-Manual Identification and Description E o cn o nio� o c Z .E �U a> o it o ^ .;--- 4) y, .G a ci �(n {Density/consistency,color.GROUP NAME.max.particle size. m v W E _�— structure,odor,moisture.optional descriptions.geologic interpretation) O ;n > ' a a . m co co 0 iL if) m co -j O (I)CO a c f,J B S-1 sp. Loose, Drown, poorly graded SAND(SP)with gravel,mostly tine sand.same & t8" "• medium sand, few coarse sand,some coarse gravel, few fine gravel,no odor. 5 .' dry, maximum particle size 1.5". ▪ At 2 feet, maximum particle size 2". 6 S-2 sp; Loose,brown, poorly graded SAND(SP), mostly medium sand,some fine sanc I 7 4 ▪". few coarse sand,no odor,wet I • -5 -5 3 6 S-3 sp. Medium dense.brown. poorly graded SAND (SP)with gravel,mostly medium 4 1g,. . sand,some coarse sand, some fine sand,few coarse gravel,trace silt.no odor, .'o -to 10 wet, maximum particle size 2". GF BULK SAMPLE 12-14 feet. Brown, poorly graded gravel (GW) with sand, mostly • •m fine gravel,few coarse gravel,some coarse sand,some fine sand.few medium • ®.• sand,trace silt,no odor,wet,maximum particle size 2". '"K K.' 5C;7 s.4 ':' Same as Bulk,except very dense and yellow oxidation staining at 15 feet. 1T` '■.' -15 -15 K':'■ Cuttings at 15 feet indicate maximum particle size=-3.5". K.' I. �:pl Blended bulk sample 5 feet to 18 feet. R:. Q a indicate well-graded GRAVEL(GW),maximum particle size=4". . 50/11 S-5 Driller indicated change. 11" Soft,gray,slightly weathered,fine grained,uncemented SANDSTONE(SS)with ,_ .7 0 interhedded CI AYSTQF(CS) net Maxiumum particle size is determined by direct observation within the limitations of the sam1ler Boring No. LH-6-F NOTE: Soil identification based on visual-manual methods of the USCS as practiced by Lyman Henn,Inc. • TEST BORING REPORT Boring No. LH-6-F Sheet No.2 of 2 LYMAN File No. 106006-000 I IE\N Project: Resource and Reservoir Feasibility Study Start: 7 June 2006 Client: City of Greeley Finish: 7 June 2006 Contractor: Drilling Engineers Driller: Ken LH Rep.: SPH Casing Sampler Barrel Drilling Equipment and Procedures Elevation: 4687.26 Type -- S,C -- Rig Make&Model:Simco 2800 Datum: na Inside Diameter(in.) -- 1 318.2 -- Drill Method:4"Hollow Stem Auger Location: See Boring Plan Hammer Weight(lb.) 140 — -- Bit Type: Cutting Head Casing: None -- Hammer Fall(in.) 30 -- Hoist/Hammer. Cat-Head Safety Hammer -- a� Laboratory Results c c o" - Visual-Manual Identification and Description B Y.2 E in z v � E aN(n d c m �U o 0 y m £ j (Density/consistency,color.GROUP NAME,max.particle size ' Y a �, ro structure,odor.moisture.optional descriptions.geologic interpretation} O N y y c o m C 0 Begin coring at 20 feet. Soft.slightly weathered to fresh,fine to very fine grained,poorly cemented SANDSTONE(SS), very close horizontal joints,slightly rough,planar to irregular, partly open. R-6 *Sample R-6: 60 inch run length,approximately 3min/ft drill rate. 12 inch(20%) recovery and 0 inch(0%)ROD. Water loss during drilling. � R-7 *Sample R-7: 54 inch run length,approximately 6min/ft drill rate and 0 inch(0%) , recovery. I•I End of exploration at 29.5 feet. -35--35 -40-+-110 Maxiumum particle size is determined by direct observation within the limitations of the sampler Boring No. LH-6-F NOTE: Soil identification based on visual-manual methods of the USCS as practiced by Lyman Henn,Inc. TEST BORING REPORT Boring No. LH-7-F Sheet No. 1 of 2 r,_, l,Y\IAN File No. 106006-000 I IENN Project: Resource and Reservoir Feasibility Study Start: 14 June 2006 INC Client: City of Greeley Finish: 14 June 2006 Contractor: Drilling Engineers Driller: Andy Casing Sampler Barrel Dnlling Equipment and Procedures LH Rep.: SPH Elevation: 4685.16 Type -- S,C -- Rig Make&Model: CME-75 Datum: na Inside Diameter(in.) -- 1 3/8.2 -- DnII Method: 4"Hollow Stem Auger Hammer Weight(lb.) 140 -- -- Bit Type: Cutting Head Casing: None Location: See Boring Plan Hammer Fall(in.) 30 -- -- Hoist/Hammer. Cat-Head Safety Hammer __ Water Level Data Sample Identification Notes Date Time Elapsed Boum, Bother Depth to Time rc Casing orHot9 Waist CS Continuous C California Barrel -- 6/14106 Drill none .. 30.5 8.0 Sampler R Core -- .- .. -- -- S Split Spoon B Bulk -- G Geoprobe T Thin Wall Tube m _Laporatgry Results o E N C Visual-Manual Identification and Description C o L m 3 • d m� ra amVy o .c z (..) co a) '�. o m o y rp ea a ti •�� (Density/consistency,color,GROUP NAME,max.particle size. tti I E iY co structure,odor.moisture.optional descriptions.geologic interpretation) n- j 'o ai o _ o � CD W LL J a CO j to 0 io 1 S-1 Medium stiff. brown,lean CLAY with sand(CL).. mostly clay,few medium sand. 3 18", "5 no odor,moist. 4 './5 -OVERBURDEN- 15 77 44 27 • ' 2 S-2 g• p' Loose,red, brown. poorly graded SAND(SP), mostly fine sand, few medium 5 18" ', sand,few coarse sand, few gravel few silt,no odor,wet. MPS= 1.5". 3 -COARSE ALLUVIUM- '. Cuttings indicate gravel,MPS=3" ▪• Water level during drilling 8.0 feet. a1-to 50/12 = 8-3 'P.▪ Very dense,red, brown, poorly graded SAND with GRAVEL(SP),mostly 12" '.', medium sand, some fine sand, some fine to coarse gravel, few coarse sand, few ▪ silt, MPS 1.5",wet. • t5� is 50/14' S-4 . .' Sj3 Same as above except MPS=2". t2' Driller indicated change in lithology based on drilling action. Maxiumum particle size is determined by direct observation within the limitations of the sampler Boring No. LH-7-F NOTE: Soil identification based on visual-manual methods of the USCS as practiced by Lyman Henn,Inc. • TEST BORING REPORT Boring No. LH-7-F Sheet No.2 of 2 .. i.l v1 \N File No. 106006-000 t IENN Project: Resource and Reservoir Feasibility Study Start: 14 June 2006 IM' Client: City of Greeley Finish: 14 June 2006 Contractor: Drilling Engineers Driller: Andy Casing Sampler Barrel Drilling Equipment and Procedures LH Rep.: SPH Elevation; 4685.16 Type -- S,C -- Rig Make&Model;CME-75 Datum: na Inside Diameter(in.) -- 1 3/8.2 -- Drill Method: 4"Hollow Stem Auger Location: See Boring Plan Hammer Weight(lb.) 140 -- -- Bit Type: Cutting Head Casing: None -- Hammer Fall(in.) 30 -- -- Hoist/Hammer: Cat-Head Safety Hammer __ m ot3 > Laboratory Res Its _c o N i v a Visual-Manual Identification and Description E m 3 5) ma) m �; m aa) .—CO (Density/consistency color,GROUP NAME,max.particle size. _ ? Y tJJ @ structure,odor,moisture,optional descriptions,geologic interpretation) 0 w m o o 0 y CD rn LL -I IT 5015 S 5 Gray, moderately weathered. sandy CLAYSTONE(BRI, moist tc wet. I 4, ?5 5 50/6 C-6 Same as above. 16 70 40 25 0" I - -3r:-! nl s° 50/5 C 7 Same as above. S' 1 End of exploration at 30.5 feet, -35--35 -40-a•-40 r� Maxiumum particle size is determined by direct observation within the limitations of the sampler Boring No. LH-7-F NOTE; Soil identification based on visual-manual methods of the USCS as practiced by Lyman Henn,Inc. APPENDIX D lYzcin Laboratory TestR Results , \ « y «® NA, IN: J.A.Cesare&Associates,Inc./Construction Technical Services Wit :::: C 7108 South Alton Way,Bldg. B z-:?.'-',-:..: +"�• -;;:::2;.., SAKE • S Centennial,Colorado 80112 `" AND ASNXIATES, INC. " Lap Phone: (303)783-9965;Fax: (303)783-9964 Unconfined Compressive Strenith of Cohesive Soil (ASTM D 2166) Project No.: D06.230.Lyman Henn,Inc.(106006-000) _Hole: LH-1,C(i Project Name: F Street Greeley Depth: 22'to 22.5' Date: 17-Aug-06 Lab Tech: tnjb Sample Description: (ML)Sandy silt Lab ID: 621234 Checked By: WS Caires hard,dark olive brown;A-4(2) Sample Data: Diameter: 1.95 in. Length: 3.99 in. Diameter: 1.94 in. Length: 3.99 in. Diameter: 1.94 in. Length: 3.99 in. Avg. Dia. 1.94 in. Avg. L. 3.99 in. Aspect Ratio(L/Dia): 2.05 Axial Strain Rate: 0.05 in.iper min. IL/Dia. Ratio Criteria:between 2:1 &2.5:1 Specimen Conforms?: Yes ~ —I Test Results: Note:record actual time at dial reading and associated axial load. Dial& Time Dial& Time Axial Strain Axial Load ,Axial Stress Axial Strain .axial Load Reading (in) ,,,IJ o Reading (inl „, Axial Stress(psll & (sec) (• (I6} (14 old (lb) & (sec) 0.000 0.0 1 48.5 0.300 0.010 0.3 8 387.3 0.350 — 0.025 0.6 22 1,061.0 0.400 0.050 1.3 41 1,964.9 0.450 _ 0.075 1.9 62 2,952.4 0.500 0.100 2.5 76 3.596.0 0.550 0.125 3.1 _ 82 3.854.9 10.600 0.150 3.8 58 2,709.0 0.650 --—� 0.175 4,4 ^—_9 417.6 0.700 ---_.___-- 0.200 5.0 2 92.2 0.750 —� 0.225 0.800 —_ 0.250 0.850 0.275 0.900 Unconfined Compressive Strength (q_u): 3,900.0 psi Shear Strength (S_u): 1,950.0 psi _ L. Moisture Content & Density _J Sample Sketch: dish ID d dish mass(g) 224.8 wet soil+dish(g) 397.1 dry soil+dish(g) 368.4 A 10 moisture content: 20.0% '%.23O sample mass(g) 381.3 a 6,2,251/ ,,,,.^ sample moisture content% 20.0% p0 5T-7 dry sample mass(g) 317.8 wet density(pcf) 122.8 I, s "`� _--__--- in-situ dry density (pct) 102.3 Rev,4/5/05 D06.230 Unconfined 621234 .I.A.Cesare&Associates,Inc.I Construction Technical Services =_-:8; C Y.' 7108 South Alton Way,Bldg.B Centennial,Colorado 80112 "'="- -�^'+ SARE AND ASS�JCOATES. INC. '�C L>V w I.ai+r•rM.!•ww..-r• Phone:(303)783-9965;Fax: (303)783-9964 •''""-" •----•• Unconfined Compressive Strength of Cohesive Soil(ASTM D 2166) Project No.: D06.230. Lyman Henn, Inc.(106006-000) Hole: LH-1,CO Project Name: F Street Greeley Depth: 22'to 22.5' Date: 17-Aug-06 Lab Tech: mjb Sample Description: (ML)Sandy silt Lab ID: 621234 Checked By: WS Caires hard,dark olive brown:A-4(2) Unconfined Compressive Strength (q_u): 3,900.0 psf Shear Strength (S_u): 1,950.0 psf Axial Strain Axial Stress (%) (psf) Stress-Strain Curve 0.0 48.5 E 0.3 387.3 4000 i 0.6 1061.0 3800 -;.. --- •r - 3600 . _.. 1.3 1964.9 1 i 1.9 2952.4 34(}() ... ._..- ---------.�.---- 2.5 3596.0 3200 -. .._... . . . . . - 3.1 3854.9 3000 2800 -- • 3.8 2709.0 2600 - • 4.4 417.6 2400 5.0 92.2 n. 2200 i 2000 - 1800 • A 1600 -. 1400 .- 1200 1000 7 800 -- .. . 600 - ... -. 400 - .... . . . ..... . . .. 200 - • •• • • 0 . I —_. -- 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 - Strain, Rcv.4/5/05 D06230 Unconfined 621234 J.A.Cesare&Associates,Inc./Construction Technical Services - 7108 South Alton Way,Bldg.B . - Y4.�� :- 'i+' Centennial,Colorado 80112 A:llEiLai SA RE S Al...,ASS.XIATES. INC ,tc Lav Phone: (303)783-9965;Fax: (303)783-9964 'r""""'"" ' ".."" . �-�, ..� �- Unconfined Compressive Strength of Cohesive Soil(ASTM D 2166) Project No.: D06.230,Lyman Henn. Inc.(106006-000) Hole: LI.1-2,C6 Project Name: F Street Greeley Depth: 25'to 25.5' Date: 28-Jul-06 Lab Tech: mjb Sample Description: (CL)Sandy lean Lab ID: 621124 Checked By: srp/WSC _clay,olive brown;A-6(10) —___ii Sample Data: Diameter: 1.04 in. _Length: 3.56 in. Diameter: 1.94 in. Length: 3.55 in. Diameter: 1.94 in. Length: 3.56 in. Avg. Dia. 1.94 in. Avg. L. 3.56 in. Aspect Ratio(L/Dia): 1.83 Axial Strain Rate: 0.05 in_i.er min. IL/Dia. Ratio Criteria:between 2:1 &2.5:1 Specimen Con/arms?: No Test Results: Note:record actual time at dial reading and associated axial load. Dial& Time Dial& Time .4xia1 Strain Axial Load Axial Stress Axial Strain .4xia1 Load Reading (in) „� Reading (in) Axial Stress(pall & (sec) &(see)(%) (IN 010 (.,,;) (11)) -' 0.000 0.0 1 48.7 0.300 0.010 0.3 8 388.5 0.350 -- 0.025 0.7 16 773.7 0.400• — 0.050 1.4 27 1.296.4 0.450 A . 0.075 2.1 3l 1.477.8 0.500 0.100 2.8 31 __ 1.467.2 0.550 0.125 3.5 Y 30 1.409.6 0.600 — — 0.1511 4.2 25 1.166.1 0.650 0.175 4.9 25 1,157.6 0.700 0.200 0.750 -------- ---- 0.225 0.800 — --^ 0.250 0.850 0.275 - 0.900 Unconfined Compressive Strength (q_u): 1,480.0 psf Shear Strength (S_u): 740.0 psf Moisture Content & Density Sample Sketch: dish ID w dish mass(g) 228.4 379.0 '154 4.� a; wet soil+dish(g) CG-2.11,e) dry soil+dish(g) 353.2 moisture content: 20.7% �tI1L� sample mass(g) 346.5 �� c r - sample moisture content% 20.7% _ dry sample mass(g) 287.1 -" r< wet density(pcf) 125.5 in-situ dry density (pct} 104.0 Rev.46/05 DI,t,2+q I,cuntin.vi o_'.I i?3-62!i'_4 J.A.Cesare&Associates,Inc./Construction Technical Services C • 7108 South Alton Way,Bldg.B Y SAKE Centennial,Colorado 80112 ANO ASSUCIATES INC '1,4e�b Phone:(303)783-9965; Fax:(303)783-9964 "'" """ -.•.�..W«..n. "- Unconfined Compressive Strength of Cohesive Soil(ASTM D 2166) Project No.: D06.230,Lyman Flenn, Inc. (106006-000) Hole: LH-2.C6 Project Name: F Street Greeley Depth: 25'to 25.5' Date: 28-Jul-06 Lab Tech: mjb Sample Description: (CI.)Sandy lean Lab ID: 621124 Checked By: srp/WSC clay,olive brown:A-6(10) Unconfined Compressive Strength (q_u): 1,480.0 psf Shear Strength (S_u): 740.0 psf Axial Strain Axial Stress (%) (ps) Stress-Strain Curve 0.0 48.7 • 0.3 388.5 2000 0.7 773.7 1.4 1296.4 1800 r-•. 2.1 1477.8 • 2.8 1467.2 • 1600 • 3.5 1409.6 1400 ; • 4.2 1166.1 4.9 1157.6 1200 w • 101 l0 v 7) 800 -- 1 600 - ! • • 400 200 7 I •• ••••_ 01--- I -1---- I —... 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Strain, % D06.230 Unconfined 621123-621124 J.A. Cesare& Associates, Inc./ Construction Technical Services .. • : C 7108 South Alton Way,Bldg.B Centennial,Colorado 80112 T ' SARE S ARC,ASSCK1AT6i.INC i-Fve l.ob Phone:(303)783-9965;Fax: (303)783-9964 • -•_,. ..�_.•„. „ ,, GRADATION - SOIL & AGGREGATE Project Number: D06.230. Lyman Henn,Inc.(106006-000) Date: 26-Jul-06 Project Name: F Street Greeley Technician: wing Lab ID Number: 621122 - Reviewer: srp/WS Caires Sample Location: LH-6. Bulk(ii. 12'to 14' Description: Sand,with gravel, brown AASHTO M 145 Classification: A-1-a Group Index: n/a Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM D 2487): (SW-SM) Well-graded sand with silt and gravel Sieve Analysis (ASTM C 136 & AASHTO T 27) 1 -#200 Wash (D 1140,C 117 & T 11) sieve size 1 accum. mass, el °%%%retained J %passing I Criteria dish ID S 3" I _ dish mass,g 473.3 — 2 ^ wet soil bef. wash 1-dish.g 1,262.0 I" 0.0 100 dry soil bef.wash±dish.g 1,197.6 �' 3;4" 41-h 5,7 94 dry soil aft.wash + dish.g 1,157.8 1/2" 97.1 13.4 87 -#200, % 5.5 — - 3/8" 165.4 22.8 77 Moisture Content #4 318.5 44.0 56 _ dish ID w — mass.of dish.g 162.4 V t1() 453.1 62.6 37 wet sod +dish.g 822.1 #16 519.7 71.8 28 — — dry soil r dish,g 768.2 #30 r y_ __________ Moisture Content("/o) 8.9 #40 618.5 85.4 I5 __ Atterberg Limits (D 4318 & T 89/T90) #50 641.5 88.6 11 Liquid Limit(LL) NV #100 666.3 92.0 8 Plastic Limit(PL) NP #200 671.9 92.8 7.2 Plasticity Index(PI) NP Total 724.3 grams Pan 685.4 Criteria: I LL i 1 PI Split Gradation Sample Mass Remarks: wet dry r "/o Total Mass,g +/#4 Mass.g -#4 Mass,g In-Situ Density (Unit Weight) diameter,in. height(in.) sample mass,$ diameter,in. height(in.) sample moisture content,% 8.9 diameter,in. height(in.) dry sample mass,g diameter,in. height(in.) wet density(unit weight),pcf avg.diameter avg.height _ in-situ dry density(unit weight),pcf Rev. ti3ii04 DV,?;ainadalioo b_'I:" J.A. Cesare & Associates, Inc. / Construction Technical Services C 7108 South Alton Way,Bldg.B Centennial,Colorado 80112 `" ARE AND A]SOClATE5. INC '•11e u�•• Phone:(303)783-9965; Fax: (303)783-9964 GRADATION PLOT - SOIL & AGGREGATE Project Number: D06.230, Lyman Henn. Inc. (106006-4)00) Date: 26-Jul-06 Project Name: F Street Greeley Technician: wing Lab ID Number: 621122 Reviewer: srp/WS Caires Sample Location: LH-6, Bulk(u... 12'to 14'Description: Sand.with gravel,brown AASHTO M 145 Classification: A-1-a Group Index: n/a Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM D 2487): (SW-SM) Well-graded sand with silt and gra%el 01 Z N O C O O O 0 ✓� N K .•c.�-. — V1 ..— ' Z. M. C`I — H•, r_-.' N z1 Z L z .2 z .L 7 ` 100 • • . ! 1 , _... ..__._�_..I...._... ,. .,._�. .. ... .__... , , _.__ ,. i --. , �ak I • I t I • • . I , , • „ tIJ:j• i ' I ' I • 1" 100 go . 34 I ' 94 1 . i 87 -..j..i ...__..___ 3/8" 7� • : r..l...., • IU 37 •i i. . '• I , #16 28 9 .. • . . I. . ; • • . • • .. . . ...-T ._ --...----- #30 15 v '__ -- ------ fgs _ _ _ f • •;o • 7.2 ,14! • • I . . • I •... .. � .. Moisture(M) ._ Density(D) .- - • l. :_ • I M.4%: 8.9 . h .a _ ,' ' • . . D,pc:f:,. . { , . 1 ,. . .. •1 ,, . • : , . ., , -- - PI NP .�. • I D60 5.30 ' t - D30 1.30 7, g "• -. ? ti 8 �c Z ., = �- - -. D10 0.22 r: _ c s �. _- 0 o .; c a c Cu 24.09 — SIEVE SIZE,mm c Cc 1.45 Rev.1/31/06 D06.230 Gradation 621122 J.A. Cesare & Associates,Inc. /Construction Technical Services - C ""'" 7108 South Alton Way, Bldg. B •''''• ARE " S Centennial,Colorado 80112 ,,HD os�cv.Es. INC '1.4.L Phone:(303)783-9965;Fax:(303)783-9964 -----y"� "•,��-� GRADATION PLOT-SOIL & AGGREGATE Project Number: D06.230,Lyman Henn, Inc.(106006-000) Date: 26-Jul-06 Project Name: F Street Greeley Technician: wmg Lab ID Number: 621119 Reviewer: srp/WS Caires Sample Location: Bulk.B-1 'ii:5'to 18' Description: GRAVEL wisand.silty,brown AASHTO M 145 Classification: A-1-a Group Index: n/a Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM D 2487): (GW-GM) Well-graded gravel with silt and sand N C .y '.G G p O — E• V1 4 JO M t} Vi (-1 Q a _ r c:i &o o O O 6 O e O 7 e a F. .+t — e Z Z Z ,G Z Z Z Z Z = o 100 y J o . __. .. .. ...�........._ ..._..._I_ -:.----.1 ..i__..._. ._ cam..!__ ...... ._.._.-... ... 7n . . I . . • • . I , . I • ! : 1 •:I i 1 1172n ' .._. ... _i_�._. _- _-_' _ I i1 T ... 1,1 92 1 3/4" 86 �- -' - -- I.... _ .-.--•- --• ..._ T— _._... ._ _ . .:I. 112„ 78 ;.... 1 -•--- - ..• 3,8.1 70 I ..... .. t '- f . __..._._. . ...... ..... _ ... 51 . • i i N}j - 1 .1 #10 40 .(•,i) 1 1 • • • ' • :, { ;1 ; #l6 32 --� ' . . • 1 ycf, _�_+_ _ �_�i� • ,-- - #100 11 a .. j • ' . �T r:. : •, I•--------I---••I #200 7.8 i t - - -TT -- 'l —___, _-- _.. ____ Moisture(M)& u: . . • 1 1 It•—'- ':: i : : — — Densi 6.7 •.�• �_�...__.i__' _..—.. — D.pcf. 'c —• • --�--� 1.1. NV . . r _ -. l 1 ._— I - 1 i • _ .._ • Hi1 — PI. NP ' t P1 NP .' 1 . : _ I . �.. I f . ... . _ ! . . .. D�,,t 6.50 . •-�-' '• i • t f - __I___ D30 1.00 0 _ • _ - ' 1 - • - • • _ - , c - o g �c • = Din 0.12— 8 V a Q Y fY.i -- J O O 7 O 7 Cu 56.52 SIEVE SIZE,mm Cc 1.34 Rev.1/31106 D06.230 Gradation 621119 J.A. Cesare &Associates, Inc. / Construction Technical Services C ,. 7108 South Alton Way,Bldg. B o :. Centennial,Colorado 80112 SARE S Phone:(303)783-9965;Fax:(303)783-9964 - • ••' ,,._, GRADATION PLOT- SOIL & AGGREGATE Project Number: D06.230,Lyman Henn. Inc.(106006-.000) Date: 26-Jul-Of) Project Name: F Street Greeley Technician: wing Lab ID Number: 621120 Reviewer: srp/WS Caires Sample Location: Bulk,B-2(ii,,0'to 5' Description: SAND with gravel,silty, brown AASHTO M 145 Classification: A-1-a Group Index: n/a Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM D 2487): (SP-SM) Poorly graded sand with silt and gravel 61 CUG _ N A `7 'JC C 'C C ,8. Z u M .t ZZ Z O C 7Z Z Z O OZ a- 100 t I ,:•,) 2. , l • i -� • 1 Its.. i 1 I rt • • , .1----. 1-- 'r _'_----.__.._..__. 10{11 SO : I : I I I 1 1 f 9 3 . : . . i I 3'4,1 89 .1 ,4__.t I 3.. .. _ 80 •I . . I - l._. . •• 3'8" 73 • •1 1 6 ,.... T- .. .— +— — .. —.. #4_ 0 } a6u #8 I : I . . .� I #10 49 . . . LI i #16 42 31#30 I #50 21 I — _ —_. • ' _�.._ ..---- 14 -- i :I • 1:6.40--....-__"—. l .• I #zoo 10.2 ;. : I ; Moisture• Density :I I Dens M. l.9 .- r... _._. _,_.__ _... _.___ ..i. i : _ _, i. LL NV • : i i NP �.._ • J :'• 1 � 1 D60 4.75 `� r. a I-• M$ a o v. N G Dln 0.08 - w r G a o c a C Cu 63.33 SIEVE SIZE,mm Cc 0.91 Rev.1/31/06 D06.230 Gradation 621 120 11111111111111111111111 iliil l ll llllllll 11111111 IL 1111 2663870 07/06/2001 04:17P JA Suki isukamoto r 1 01 6 R 30.00 D 0.00.,Weld County CO NORTHVIEW MINI STORAGE PUD FINAL APPROVAL DOCUMENT MARCH 27, 2001 This Approval Document is prepared pursuant to Section 18.26. of the City of Greeley Development Code of 1998 and represents approval by the City of Greeley, Colorado, of a planned unit development(PUD)presented to the Planning Commission by RBNV Investments, LLC on March 27, 2001. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Greeley, Colorado, has zoned the aforementioned property "PUD" and Planning Commission subsequently reviewed and approved the final PUD plan and directed the preparation of this Approval Document; and WHEREAS, the boundary of the Northview Mini Storage PUD is more fully described on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, in accordance with the Greeley Development Code of 1998, RBNV Inveswtments, LLC has presented a final PUD plan for certain real property situated within the City of Greeley, County of Weld, State of Colorado; and WHEREAS, after evaluating the final PUD plan, Planning Commission has found that the PUD plan will serve the public interest and that it will provide the safeguards to the public and to the persons owning and occupying the land area of the PUD which would be approximately equivalent to the safeguards provided by the regulations in the Greeley Development Code of 1998. NOW, THEREFORE, final PUD approval is given to the Northview Mini Storage PUD plan, which includes the following provisions: A. Land Use The land uses allowed within this development shall be no more than 367 storage units, an on-site manager's office, and an office for the management of the Northview Mini Storage units. Open storage of recreation vehicles shall be allowed on unpaved areas which have an approved all-weather surface. Hours of operation shall be between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. There shall be no business operations located in the storage units. r EXHIBIT 1 11111111111 11111111111 1111110 11111 1III11111IIII IIII 2863870 07/0612001 04:17P JA Suki Tsukamoto of 6 R 30.00 D 0.00 Weld County CO The specific site data are as follows: Total PUD Area 14.3 Acres • Proposed # of Units 367 Units Developed Area Total Building Area 1.7 Acres (30.5%) Total Landscaping 1.6 Acres (30.3%) Total Parking, etc. 2.3 Acres (39.2%) B. Site Design The site shall be designed as shown in Attachments B and C. The setbacks shall be 25 feet from both "B" and "C" Streets. The east side setback for building structures shall be 61.6 feet, and the west side setback shall be 50.6 feet. The storage doors shall not be visible from adjacent properties or the public right-of- way. C. Circulation Access, circulation, and parking shall be provided in compliance with Attachments B and C. An access point from both "B" and "C" Street shall be provided. Access to the site and storage units/areas shall demonstrate good engineering practices and be generally consistent with the previously approved preliminary PUD traffic plan. All driveways shall be paved, and open storage areas for recreational vehicles may be unpaved as long as it meets City of Greeley requirements for an all-weather surface. The property lines shall be as shown as on the PUD filing plat. All internal driveways shall be privately owned. The Weld County right-of-way on the western edge of the site will be used as a openspace/landscape buffer area, although it will not count toward the fulfillment of any openspace or landscape requirement. D. Building Design and Location The buildings shall be located in accordance with Attachments B and C. The exterior design and materials shall also be in accordance with Attachments C and D. The intent of the design of the end of the units on the C Street side is to provide a residential design appearance. 1111111 11111 111111 11111111131 11111111II111111 IIIIIIII 2863870 07/06/2001 04:17P JA Suki Tsukamoto 3 o1 6 R 30.00 D 0.00 Weld County CO The palette of materials is generally to be masonry with wood or metal trim and metal doors as shown in Attachment D. . The height of the buildings shall be limited to 10 feet, as measured by the Greeley Development Code, except for the false front facing C Street . All mechanical equipment shall be screened from view from the streets and adjacent properties. E. Landscaping and Open Space Landscaping and open space shall be provided in accordance with Attachments B and C. Landscaping and the sprinkler system on-site and in the right-of-way shall be installed by the developer and maintained by the property owner. The landscaping shall meet the objectives of the Greeley Development Code standards, complement the residential nature of the adjacent development, and provide a buffer to the adjacent uses. All landscaping shall be installed in Phase 1. The fencing shall he located adjacent to the interior roadway, rather than on the perimeter, on the east, west, and south sides. As a result of the reduced landscaped strip on the B Street side, the developer shall landscape and maintain a 10-foot landscaped strip on the north edge of the regional detention pond as shown on Attachment E. The Weld County right-of-way on the western edge of the site will be used as a openspace/landscape buffer area, although it will not count toward the fulfillment of any openspace or landscape requirement. F. Signage No specific signage is proposed at this time. If signage is desired, it shall conform to the Greeley Sign Code in effect at the time of the sign permit request and shall be constructed of material consistent with and complementary to the residential nature of the area and the residential look of the north side of the development. G. Lighting No lighting is proposed at this time. Lighting shall meet Greeley Development Code requirements for residential areas. The light pole height shall be no more than 10 feet tall, and the footcandle of lights will be at security levels not to exceed 0.5 footcandle. Onsite lighting shall not cause glare on adjacent properties. 3 111101 11111 HIM IIII DIM 111011111 III 11111 Iii l 1111 2863870 07/06/2001 04:17P JA Suki Tsukamoto 4 of 6 R 30.00 D 0.00 Weld County CO H. Public Improvements Public improvements shall he installed by the owner, as required by the City, and shall be in accordance with specifications approved by the City of Greeley Public Works Department. Public improvements for this project include, but are not limited to, the developer's share of B Street and the landscaping on the north edge of the regional detention pond. The private improvements, such as the natural area/open space and landscaping, is also the responsibility of the developer or his assigns. All common area landscaping shall be installed prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy or use of any unit or open storage. I. Phasing The project will consist of two phases. All landscaping is to be installed with Phase 1. J. Vesting The developer shall undertake and complete all work within the public right-of-way of an approved Final Plan or plat within three (3)years from the date of final approval, or for phased developments, within three (3)years of the completion of • each phase. For the purposes of this document, a Fianl Plan or plat is considered complete once all public improvements (water, sewer, streets, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, street light, fire hydrants, landscaping, and storm drainage improvements) are installed and completed in accordance with City regulations. In the event that construction or development is intended to occur over a period of time in phases, each phase shall provide the necessary level of improvements as determined and required by the City to support the particular phase and the determination of whether a development is "complete" for the sole purpose of devining this time limit shall be based solely on those improvements required with that particular phase. Any time limit extensions will be as per 18.32.150 B of the 1998 Greeley Development Code. K. Amendments to the Approved Final PUD Minor changes to this final PUD may be authorized administratively by the Community Development Director. Such changes may be authorized without additional public hearings and shall be reviewed on the basis of conformance with the City's Comprehensive Plan, Development Code, and the approved final plan. 4 1111111IIIII III 1111111111111111II III 11111 /III /III 2863870 07/06/2001 04:17P JA Suki Tsukamoto 5 of 5 R 30.00 D 0.00 Weld County CO In the event of a conflict between the final PUD Approval Document and the Greeley Development Code, the stricter or higher standard shall prevail. The • Community Development Director may refer the decision regarding proposed changes to an approved final plan to the Planning Commission and, if so referred, the decision by the Planning Commission shall constitute a final decision which may be appealed to the City Council as provided in Chapter 18.24 of the Greeley Development Code. Major changes as defined by the Greeley Development Code will be handled as per the Greeley Development Code. L. Exhibits Exhibit A - Legal Description Exhibit B - Site Plan Exhibit C - Landscape Plan Exhibit D - Building Elevations Exhibit E - Filing Plat It is understood by all parties that the PUD plan approved by virtue of this document is an integral part of the zoning of the above-described tract of land and that pursuant to Section 18.32 of the Greeley Development Code of 1998, all successors, heirs, or assigns are obligated to comply with the requirements and limitations of this Approval Document as though such successors, heirs, or assigns have been landowners at the time this approval document was issued. Any amendments to this Approval Document will be in accord with Chapter 18.32. Any disputes, disagreements, or matters not covered by this Approval Document shall be resolved by referring to the Greeley Development Code of 1998 as applicable at the time such disagreements or matters should arise. It is also understood that any failure to comply with the requirements and limitations of the Approval Document will subject the landowner, its successors, heirs, or assigns to penalties as provided by virtue of Chapter 18.14 of the Development Code of 1998 and Chapter 1.32 of the Greeley Municipal Code, as well as all civil remedies available to the City of Greeley to prevent or remedy any Zoning Code violations. Prepared By: Greg Fl be, Sr. Planner, June 29, 2001 S:kd'ApprovalDocumenls\NoNrvinvMiuiSloragctU I)dee 11101 11111 111111 1111111111 11 1111111111111111 110 lilt 2863870 07/06/2001 04:17P JA Suki Tsukamoto 6 of 6 B 30.00 D 0.00 Weld County CO Exhibit. A DEDICATION STATEMENT KNOW BY ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS THAT RB NV INVESTMENTS LLC, BEING THE SOLE OWNER(S), MORTGAGE OR LIEN HOLDER OF CERTAIN LAND IN THE CITY OF GREELEY, WELD COUNTY, COLORADO, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: A PARCEL OF LAND IN THE W1/2 OF THE E1/2 OF THE E1/2 OF THE NW1/4 OF SECTION 1, T5N, R66'W, 6TH P.M. CITY OF GREELEY, COUNTY OF WELD, STATE OF COLORADO, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE N1/4 CORNER OF SAID SECTION 1, THENCE 589'40'15"W, 331.39 FEET ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE E1/2 OF THE E1/2 OF THE NW1/4 OF SAID SECTION 1 TO NE EAST LINE OF THE W1/2 OF THE E1/2 OF THE E1/2 OF THE NW1/4 OF SAID SECTION 1; THENCE SOO'04'O9"W, 30.00 FEET ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE W1/2 OF THE E1/2 OF THE E1/2 OF THE NW1/4 OF SAID SECTION 1 TO THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF C STREET AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNINQ THENCE CONTINUING S00-04'09"W, 1892.25 FEET ALONG SAID LINE TO THE NORTH LINE OF GREELEY NO. 3 CANAL; THE FOLLOWING SIX (6) COURSES AND DISTANCES ARE ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID GREELEY NO. 3 CANAL; THENCE N5815'48"W, 18.37 FEET; THENCE N70'36'42"W, 31.92 FEET; THENCE NB614'i0"W, 61.78 FEET; . THENCE 589'51'31"W, 60.95 FEET; THENCE S85'08'46"W, 121.54 FEET; THENCE S8916.00"W, 44.35 FEET TO THE WEST LINE OF THE E1/2 OF THE E1/2 OF THE NW1/4 GI SAID 5EC11ON 1; THENCE N00'08'30"E, 1877.03 IEET ALONG THE SAID WEST LINE TO THE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY OF "C" STREET; THENCE N89'40'15"E, 331.44 FEET ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY TO THE TRUE POINT OF RFGINNING, AREA 14.298 ACRES, MORE OR LESS WELD COUNTY, COLORADO, SHOWN ON THE ATTACHED MAP AS EMBRACED WITHIN THE HEAVY EXTERIOR LINES THEREON, HAS SUBDIVIDED THE SAME INTO LOTS AND OUTLOTS AS SHOWN ON 'DIE ATTACHED MAP AND DOES HEREBY SET ASIDE SAID PORTION OR TRACT L'F LAND AND DESIGNATE THE SAME NORTHVIEW MINI STORAGE, IN THE CITY OF GREELEY, COUNTY OF WELD, STATE OF COLORADO AND DOES DEDICATE 10 THE PUBLIC THE STREETS, AND OUTLOTS A AND B, AND ALL EASEMENTS OVER AND ACROSS SAID LOTS AND OUTLOTS AT LOCATIONS SHOWN ON SAID MAP AND DOES FURTHER CERTIFY THAT THE WIDTH OF SAID STREETS, THE DIMENSIONS OF THE LOTS , AND THE NAMES AND NUMBERS THEREOF ARE CORRECTLY DESIGNATED UPON SAID MAP. SIGNED THIS / J__ DAY OF M Ay ,2001. OWNER: RBNV INVESTMENTS,NT (LLC. / t" l BY: — da�,Sa,._ _9 A'("7° t < C Street�w TO BE DEDICATED THIS PLAT - - •.i- ;[ '�. k' � - ►,• Attachment B ,---. 31 ,k ;ilk L Ft ;1 , Remodeled•'` .',. . , : \ m a, I O}flMe) ty H p p N Residence t I:: _• - s. - ;Igo �' I > ..... - - ii , : P L. -• .:2. ;a.......: -7.\ ----•--466. �Eb�_. ,� _ N f� •/, Y- r _ _ --�__ 466- �+ J r.,,..4::,,,--# ' — 413"• $ 2d'Access Drive I/r I 'on , il 1 c-4,...„1- 4r.---- -,-......--, -,, ,--- -----m‘eFatie4,1*—., f•-_-.........-.-..t \ : ti 4.ii I i ,' -- -- i _ 1"' .: 611), 1 - - ; , p 4D . - I ; II .; ti,) I�1 < I- I lll__ • � I If I'I r te _ , • _ J -� - i, L^ _I , ?V^_ _ 18 _ .. �.I ;t ,: x r .�I...__._.-_ ._• -- --- �< . ICI • P•i . „ r --- I' C - J I, • 1i ! .�T �I i ! w. ti I -) I �E i R:_ , I �. '' -rte---_ _d_� J{• f I!ZI —R-c - 424 Access Drive /I I v/ II i .7_5.7-_ App1 i r-—1 E:• — - . ..-- a 4,S "B" Stree i ':, sidewalk -:- �„� _-_ _-. -• . ---- R-O-W TO BE DEDICATED THIS PLAT I'' • `, __ REGIONAL DETENTION POND_ :____: I N i % ;' .. _ . 8.22 ACRES !;I Northview Mini Storage a 'final PUD "- ______.•,•„]- , _�.-__:= Attachment C jttf+tt Street .` ..� i C 3rUr.sou tgtrciaaa ae au M .4.•iv ...7 •••P•ro.4-r.,..4.4•••••ia ragrortumaYmen•r.,,,dxrdnslo fad, ary,r•tri.......lb..r.rchnart•-•,,,,..........rl 1 of 3 J ;p d' y' t , i - pusppoM ..c..-7.4.,C•" o �' lily PeitP�ea •. i. 6.4:_ , T, -'z i it _rye-i A II i p ,., : •, li 14 it , o ,., k., 0 r i ilk .' . ' — - A mit 'k,,t.\ 0 ► ,Y. . ,� �u a ._•t.._ ._ F •� ■ 11 1 g it `in l a �1 ae - � 1----—\ • 2t'Amstar Clive \g _ 5T6 % oHilagira74) 11 t•k. .?e. a t ►1��4~C'�1 `'r ►fir,a1 , : I .0 1 , tea. 'Y 1 ') I §. Di Ir#,,. "MM 1' �Cilt k 4� rii�\ i®sinwrg, ®_ `C. i , O I 1 J a I i Q ila! 'I_ • ii i rat, m ami "' i .— ii —_ ! li '''fm '+ y i .- : ' o • 'N�b iR E:_ i�� t I..0.4 ,_ m .., , .,:t. pm_ O AR 5 a' ill ! _-i ► v I LL o -_1' ' ice 'a a s 111 • RiiMINIM w II 14 EMI ''ii' a NINON �r- • Ail ,;Iwo minim i ice. ®' m _- _ r`A lel iili; i�. Enid I i i ;; civ. a I!I - O 0. mow _i , tea•, iM '! e� i;l`' ! II I MIDI •• i; , —s.. MEi !:g 'c•..i,.;ia ► 1 i; ; C-far : I mat; M_ 1 ,O"' r" F, .ii; , �; =� t. } �; i 4, i;i .IN' ii i; z 1 i -Alkkli, ROHM Ell -r ®M '1 0p,� T Ti - iw i id ►3 R'I 'r i �. : H R �� U , , C n. ''i 'ig'c, menu N. i i J qi I f i_ i , - ,ii 1 Gmo �ei i ; ., I 1, MIN i• � Mel I 0 • iMI :MEN r IIMM 14.! o m t 1 i! MIMI •is ill...'1N * -rY _i Jib' ~ .41 I.!Ir R, !I_'' lin.. 24'Access DrNe Tip. j j�l�*� - ..... .oznenvmmeessmaa.sesheseer.szeeresissila E-. 10'Landscape Strip With Trees To Be Installed and Maintained by Devekt er , s no, 5 g12 I,. j �n i i 7. ]OJ.V.=IIIr '— -2 _YtafI29Rie1 eRd0QegeM1 1 •{" SAW :- VFW:"1' -- S� - - Q3 rrn - 1 Vvaav1.4 Voisin r...,. / _ vvooc _P' nce -� Security Fence ) 1 2of 3 . .PLANT NOTES 1. AI plant material shall meet specifications of the American Association of Nurserymen (AAN)far number one grade. Al trees shall be baled and bulapped or egtt ent. 2. Landscaping shall be Installed or secured with a letter of aecit,escrow,a performance bond for 125%of the value of the landscaping prior to the Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 3. Landscaping within public right-of-rays and common open space areas shal be Installed by the developer and mdntahed by a Home Owners Association. 4. Developer shall ensure that the landscape pion Is coordinated with he piers done by other constants so that the proposed gracing,storm flogs,or other construction does not conflict nor preclude instable('and maintenance of ladscape elements on this plan. 5. AI landsocpe areas vain the site shall be litigated wtih an automatic underground irrigation system. An Irrigation plan we be required prior to Issuance of a bulking permit. 6. Al turf except flats seed areas to be irrigated with an automatic pop-up ligation system. Al shrub beds and trees h native seed areas are to be Irrigated with on automatic dip(Melds)ligation system. or acceptable alterative. The Irrigation system Is to be adjusted to meet the water requirements of the Individual plant u ncdr" 7. Avoid cutting surface roots of existing trees wherever possttle. Sldewaks and paving levels should be contoured suHlcientlyto avoid such cuttings. 8. Root cub from excavation should be done rapidly. &nail n tkrsh cuts should be made. Backil before the roots have a chance to dry out and water the tree imeddiately. 9. Eidsthg trees mated for protection and preservation shot not be removed. 10. Heavy equipment should not be allowed to compact over the soli over the root zone of rotting trees. 11. Prior to construction,all protected trees shall have orange protection banter fenclg erected,which oommi as a rnh*num are supported by lax 1'or similar sturdy stock,for shlelcing of protected lees,no closer thaw sic(6)feet from the trunk Cr one and one half f1-1/2)of the dip line,which ever Is greater. Wllhin this protection zone there dial be no movement of equipment a storage of equipment materials,debris,fil or cut unless approved by the City Forester 12. Al shit beds to be mulched with rock mulch,no more than 25%all be o*)osed at matulty. 13. Edghg between grass and shrub beds shal be 1/8'x 4'steel set level with fop of sod. 14. Irigated tut to be sodded or seeded with Kentucky Bluegrass. 15. Topsoil. To the mna tun extent teasble,topsoil that Is removed during construction activity shal be conserved for later use on areas requiring revegetalon and landscaping. j 16. Sol Amendments. Pia to hstalalbn of plant materials,areas that have been compacted or disturbed by construction activity that be thoroughly loosened. organic amendments such as compost,peat,or aged manure shall be thoroughly Incorporated(S ante rate of at least three(3)cubic yards of amendment per 1.000 square feet of landscape aeo. 17. Total litigated landscaped area: 74,114 S.F. 18. Tree and shrub planting pHs shall be backfiled with the fclowkg mbc a. 80%on-site topsoil by volrne. h 20%peat moss by volume. c. Fite(5)pounds bone meal per ckbic'ford of bo kflt ) ) 3of3 MMY V zit 0) co vso f- h co MMa4 N ill ill illsil i ] zrzz bomb Nvq h mbtot ro b till 1 H COIhI' I a r e lb aa3 i Ilia I Z i HILlAll ii E5 1111 11 JUl t`° CL 0 ill W @ = m - O H l Z ; 1 A A W as M kg N 5 g i W1 N HIji4 $ ggs � ill* g 111 s`�a R ?' i A0 Y = A __ �► s ag ,'ICI; l I� 1 of 4 tsd it' `"per sN I� a6 ; 1 ■ I t7iiiiiiC-: Illfilliiii:iiiiiii pl b i I!: :.7 w . �I ■ IIj� ,, mir �- a Q s.; w iiillluii _ 1 II IIII l IIII II' �i CCU I ti�ul � I §1 Z_ Ili ' III 1L A �V �I ni ii • rl ..- (I) Y.� 4 p lil40 �lu ,mnnn0,ai \ Illllllliiltip 3�� Ct CD c_12.' • if _ . . .. �1iIlllillt��'lll'I -1„.•) -0 O- " 1 •1_11;;IiiiiilifillItl !1,11 6�g' w A. IIII IIII : I > N b Ill �'�-1 tt� T o' � �,Y r" �..a. _ : ,ld�llllil � hill. g J _► ict LuIF `eau }— t F o Ii -' - � . 74 P E :0 L O iEctaee (Y It_ ii Ow k • ,.d zN a 2of 4 o°�toa 9NI-IHOIVH 1 „ ,Till W 10 I(f 1 AIlIlili;;14I ,jilbSiallkilill:ii Iiiiiiiiiiiill ii 191:lit I,li,l I it ! „ iili I ftirr �';'!I II'114,i Uii 1�/`�I!•• ` ,�IIiII„ Ili,,„LTiii ,�i- iI11I II A ' I'lx,� II Ill'.'Y!� I�.� LdJ ` ;/ 'IIIfIIIIIII�IIIIIII ,o/ Ji/ .�II � 6LSa /� .III ,[R it II is I,' •n,.,' alibi' i,l w r N ≥ I� 0 Pitriiiiill. I. I�i�: I t, illililiall4k,aamm.. F IL IIIIII Pill 11 ilit l'1"111 i cs ►,�/i! s y i• 1) 3 of 4 A— h, , . / ,,, Pc 1 ly ,. c Wfr Ill CC ..is aN CO o3 tr) z L Lu a 0 E•C aMs 0 i� o W tit W Q E 1 Q $ � . { I„ ii. JZ , 5g3 F a N r Q $al W N ° $'Iti U.J m8� E 2 La-L- ..._.. 3 EU . 0 I!IIIIIIPI;'� +- N O 6- I I s,� ,I � ..�� L� Oo Ci ! IIQ �'� N ggl r Z t. II UI z ≥$ i pY w< ll III III la�!i J ( I, ll �' I v� 1, I I II �, r' I CD Z N ,I1! d,... Alf _ w w p \ Ilil I'I!i " ' w 11! H Hi I z , ��!!P�o III�III' !ICI , ' w i- �I !III III l'll a N I� 'I r u o P �� Ili�illl ill!,,, U �@ �' ;. II' ' O W 1 ;I;Iilp Ilpl� a _ .`:diIild :aIII I 0 III!!iil I lu!! -' u l OIL I © U Lill 3 W J D- J > � j (f) _-ail I ; �� i , 1.,, tkil v . � azo 8 6 ao< � 3 % 40f4 •.r K,.‘, ' wN xuE „ w o &i 3 Ill • i A t. 8 t. W O g, _ ... ,.,, zQ , .. ca 4 w ., . // - i . ...e 4 c. w N y 11 -.,..:::::::::::_:" U Q ii _ H O I--- Q < H O J U W H H H w „ - 4 O cm 0 l7 0 w Ur J J J V' m • ., H D v W Li._ J glY 3 0 F4— Q O i--- E V O w2 0 0 la_ ID aN 11111 Hello