The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About801191.tiff I CITY OF GREELEY, COLORADO WASTEWATER FACILITIES PLAN WELD COUNTY, COLORADO SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION DELTA PRETREATMENT/PUMPING FACILITY A Professional Corporation MIXEngineers Architects Planners 2021 Clubhouse Drive Greeley,Colorado 80631 i o • SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION Weld County Department of Planning Services 915 - 10th Street Greeley , Colorado 80631 PHONE : 356-4000 Ext . 404 • FOR PLANNING DEPARTMENT USE ONLY : Permit Fee : CaseNumber : Recording Fee : App . Checked by : Receipt No . :TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT IN ACCORDANCE WITH PROCEDURAL GUIDE REQUIRE- MENTS : Print or type only , except for necessary signatures . I , (we ) the undersigned , hereby request a hearing before the Weld County Planning Commission concerning a proposed Special Use Permit for the r following described unincorporated area of Weld County : LEGAL DESCRIPTION of contiguous property owned upon which Special Use Permit is proposed : Part of the north one half of the southeast one quarter of Section 11 Township 5 North, Range 65 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, Weld County, Colorado, more particularly described as follows: • Beginning at point which bears S 00 13' 23" tI 2657.22 from the northeast corner of Section 11 said point is the northeast corner of the North 1/2 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 11 ; thence S 89° 11 ' 46" W 323.75 to the true point of beginning: thence S 00 14' 10" W 1342.75; thence N 89° 44' 29" W 1837.07 thence N 29° 27' 24" E 567.24; thence along the arc of a curve right whose radius is 425.00 and whose long chord bears N 35° 01' 32" '82.51 ; thence N 400 35' 52" E. 647.19; thence along the arc of a curve LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT AREA: (Same) right whose radius is 200.00 and whose long chord bears N 24° 06' 02" E. 113.59; thence N 7° 36 ' 12" E. 121 .98; thence along the arc of a curve right whose radius is 50.00 and whose long chord bears N 48° 23' 59" E. 65. 16; thence N 89° 11 ' 46" E. 984.07 to point of beginning, • Sald parcel contains 43. 12 acres more or less and is subject to any rights-of-way or other easements as recorded b'y instruments of record or as now existing on said parcel . STREET LOCATION : 18th Street and Holly Street ZONE : Agriculture PROPOSED USE : Regional Wastewater Pretreatment/Pumping Facility FEE OWNERS OF AREA PROPOSED FOR SPECIAL USE : NAME : City of Greeley ADDRESS : Civic Center Complex TEL : 353-6123 NAME : ADDRESS : TEL : NAME : ADDRESS : TEL : • I hereby depose and state under the penalties of perjury that all state- ments , proposals and/or plans submitted with or contained within this application are true and correct to the best of my knowledge . COUNTY OF WELD ) n STATE OF COLORADO ) (1.) (�n ✓�� Signature : Owner or Authorized Agent Subscribed ans sworn to before me this _2Rd day of aUJ 19g0 a/L(,O2 Po_eionzu�9 • S E AL Notary Public -- - My commission expires : Ce.f• n�Y J(d ._ -- • INTRODUCTION This report was prepared in order to supply information required by Welo County for a special use permit application. This submittal is to be con- sidered as an application for an amendment to existing SUP-362:78:14. The proposed use of the site has been changed from a wastewater treatment plant to a wastewater pretreatment and pumping facility. Since the pretreatment and pumping facility is less objectionalbe than the previous proposal and Weld County had previously approved a special use permit for a treatment plant at • the "Delta" site, the Weld County Planning Commission's recoOkendation to submit this application as an amendment was followed. The information contained in this report was compiled from various sources. The Wastewater Facilities Planning Report, for the City of Greeley, Volumes I, II, and III, prepared by ARIX, A Professional Corporation, was used as a source for information pertaining to the construction and operation of the pretreatment and pumping facility. Information submitted in the original special use permit application which pertains to the soils and geological aspects of the site was taken directly from the original document which was prepared by CH 2M Hill , Inc. The results of the soils investigations are just as valid for a pretreatment and pumping facility as for the complete wastewater treatment system. This application was prepared using the Procedural Guide for Special Use Permit Application, Weld County Planning Commission. The information presented is complete, and the original application does not need to be consulted. • - 1 - SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION to the WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION for the City of Greeley's PROPOSED DELTA WASTEWATER PRETREATMENT/PUMPING FACILITY A REGIONAL FACILITY (Submitted as an Amendment to SUP-362:78:14) Prepared by ARIX, A Professional Corporation 2021 Clubhouse Drive Greeley, Colorado-80631 September 1980 ! r TABLE OF CONTENTS Page BACKGROUND 1 PERMIT APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS 5 LEGAL DESCRIPTION 5 SOIL SURVEY 5 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED OPERATION 6 OBJECTIVE 6 STAFF SIZE AND TRAFFIC 7 DISPOSAL OF WASTES 7 WATER SUPPLY 7 ROAD IMPROVEMENTS 7 PROPERTY OWNERSHIP 8, APPENDIX A 9 - r SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION to the WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION • for. the • City of Greeley's PROPOSED DELTA WASTEWATER PRETREATMENT/PUMPING FACILITY BACKGROUND This report has been assembled to include information required by Weld. .County, Colorado, in order to make application for a special use permit. The proposed special use under application is the construction and operation of a wastewater pretreatment/pumping station by the City of Greeley. This facility is to be located on a parcel of land owned by the City of Greeley and known as the "Delta Site" . The pretreatment/pumping facility is a part of a regional plan which has been recommended as a result of the City of Greeley Wastewater Facilities Planning Report. The Facilities Plan is a requirement of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in order for the wastewater facilities design and construction to be eligible for Federal funding. Initial planning for the upgrading and expansion of Greeley' s Wastewater Treatment Facilities was begun in 1972. A Facility plan was prepared which identified alternative long term solutions for the treatment and disposal of Greeley's wastewater. Following the completion and subsequent review of this study in 1975, the Greeley Water Board recommended that the City council proceed with the design and construction of a new "mechanical" treatment plant located at the "Delta Site" east of the City. The plan also called for the rehabilitation of the existing First Avenue Plant which would continue to operate until approximately 1990. At that time, the "Delta" Regional Plant would be expanded to provide treatment for the entire area outlined in the Facility Plan. This "Delta" Regional Plant alternative was subsequently - 1 - r approved by the City, the Larimer-Weld Council of Governments, the State of Colorado, and the EPA. A Special Use Permit Application was prepared and • approved by the Weld County Planning Commission for the "Delta" Wastewater Treatment Plant. A great deal of controversy surrounded the adoption of this plan. Residents and landowners in the east Greeley and "Delta" site areas aggres- sively opposed the plan to construct a wastewater treatment plant at that location. Partially as a result to this opposition, the Environmental Pro- tection Agency required the City of Greeley to undertake an Environmental Impact Assessment of the proposed plant along with a complete Environmental Impact Statement. Ultimately, the locally adopted plan was accepted by the . Colorado Water Quality Control Commission and the Environmental Protection Agency, but certain area residents continued to actively oppose the project. Application for funding assistance for design of the Delta Reyional Plant was submitted to the Water Quality Control Commission and EPA. This application was approved and the City then retained the firm of CH2M Hill , Inc. to complete the design of the project. During preliminary design, new construction cost estimates were prepared which indicated that the total construction cost of the proposed facility would be 23 to 26 million dollars. The adoption of the original plan was based upon estimates in the range of 8 to 9 million dollars. This fact, along with new national emphasis on land treatment and "non-mechanical" treatment systems, caused the City to re-evaluate the proposed plan. As a result, the City decided to study several additional alternatives which had not been considered in the original Facility Plan, and requested grant assistance to undertake the additional studies. Funding assistance was approved, and the City of Greeley retained ARIX, A Professional Corporation, to complete these studies. - 2 - The Wastewater Facilities Planning Report No. 1 was completed in 1979. As a result of this study, the City of Greeley adopted a new plan which included a non-mechanical wastewater treatment and land application facility. The plan still called for collection of the raw sewage from the entire Greeley service area at the Delta site. However, the wastewater would undergo only minor treatment at the "Delta" prior to being pumped to the treatment site. During the initial planning for upgrading and expanding .Greeley's waste- 'water system, the Greeley area was investigated for potential treatment plant sites. The "Delta" region is physically an ideal location for a new facility for several reasons. (1) The "Delta" area is at the extreme low.end of the ultimate Greeley service area, which allows for the collection of wastewater by gravity sewers. (2) The "Delta" region is bordered by natural barriers - the Cache la Poudre and South Platte Rivers, yet is not subject to unreasonable flood hazards. (3) A new collection point in the "Delta" area will aid in the urban renewal and further development of east Greeley. As part of the "Predesign Report, First Avenue and Delta Wastewater Treatment Plants", a "Site Selection Study" was completed wnich evaluated specific sites within the Delta Region. Several specific alternate sites were evaluated based on the following criteria: (1) Location with respect to the 100 year flood boundary. (2) Impact to important historic or archeological artifacts. (3) Mineral resources impact. (4) Location with respect to major roads. (5) Proximity to residential area. (6) Ability to serve the greatest area. - 3 - The "Site Selection Study" concluded that the "Dill-Mathews" properties offered the mot advantages with respect to the selection criteria. AS a result, the City of Greeley purchased the property and the site has since been referred to as the "Delta Site". The "Delta" site was originally selected as the best location for a wastewater treatment plant but now the site is proposed as the location for a pre-treatment and pumping facility under the newly adopted plan. The change in the proposed use does not warrant another site selection study because all of the criteria used in selecting the "Delta" site for a treatment plant can be applied in the selection of a site for the pretreatment and pumping facility. The primary consideration is that regardless of the type of facility being planned, it is advantageous to have a single site which can serve as a collec- tion point for all wastewater from the ultimate Greeley service area. Even if the wastewater is to be pumped to another location, it must first be collected at the pumping site. The "Delta" site will adequately serve this purpose, and no other lands will have to be acquired since the site is adequate in size and the City already owns the property. Using the "Delta" site as a location for a Pretreatment and Pumping Facility rather than a complete wastewater treatment plant has the following advantages: 1. It is a much smaller facility. Only a small portion of the 43 acre site owned by the City of Greeley will be needed for the facility. 2. Less manpower and truck traffic will be required for the operation of the Pretreatment/Pumping Facility: 3. It is less susceptible to odor and aesthetic problems than a complete treatment plant since the entire system can be enclosed. - 4 - • - r As was previously mentioned, a Special Use Permit was approved for this site for the Delta Wastewater Treatment Plant. This Special Use Permit Application is intended to update information previously submitted and amend the Special Use Permit which is currently on file. Information regarding mineral resources was compiled for the original application and is still applicable. PERMIT APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS The "Procedural Guide for Special Use Permit Application" was used in preparing this application. A vicinity map and plot plan are enclosed in the back of this document and contain other information as required for a special use permit application. LEGAL DESCRIPTION A legal description of the property owned by the City of Greeley, upon which the Special Use Permit is proposed, is furnished on the permit applica- tion form. The exact limits of the area to be used for the proposed facility will be established during detailed design. A preliminary layout of the proposed facility is shown on the Plot Plan. SOIL SURVEY A soil survey was conducted by the Soil Conservation Service for the Special Use Permit Application for the Delta Wastewater Treatment Plant. • This soil survey is included as Appendix A. Furthermore, a "Geotechnical Investigation for Mineral Resource Evaluation of the Proposed Site for DELTA WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT" was included in the previous Special Use Permit Application and is still applicable. This information is also included in Appendix A. - 5 - • DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED OPERATION The Wastewater Facilities Planning Report No. 1 recommended that sewer outfalls be constructed to deliver the total flow of wastewater from the designated Greeley Region of Weld County to a single pretreatment and pumping facility located at the Delta Site. The ultimate pretreatment and pumping capacity as identified in the report would be 30 million gallons per day (MGD) average daily flow. Initial construction is planned at 12 MGD average daily flow. Detailed design of the facility has not yet begun, and physical size, location, and orientation of the facilities may be changed somewhat from the preliminary layout shown on the plot plan. The design concepts, relative size and general location of the facility should remain essentially the same. Consequently, most of the Delta Site will continue to be used for agricultural purposes. OBJECTIVE The proposed pretreatment/pumping facility will accept raw wastewater from the Greeley region through a large diameter gravity outfall sewer, screen the sewage to remove rags, debris, and other material , remove grit, provide total recorded flow measurement, and pump the wastewater into a force main which will carry the flow to a new remote treatment facility. The facility will be totally enclosed and will be designed to include air scrubbers which will collect and treat odorous gases prior to discharging them to the atmo- sphere. This method is considered to be one of the most positive forms of odor control available. Noise levels outside of the facility will be kept below the recommended maximum of 60 dB's for an average residential area as established by Occupational Safety and Health Standards. Fire protection and operational safety measures will be adequate and conform to applicable codes. - 6 - STAFF SIZE AND TRAFFIC Normal operation of the Delta Pretreatment/Pumping Facility will require a maximum staff of 5 employees. Most of the employees will work during the day, although night operators may be required. Automatic system operation with remote system malfunction alarms will allow for unmanned normal opreation for short periods. Automatic emergency generators insure continuous operation in the event of electrical power failure. Trucks will haul screened material and grit from the pretreatment facility to a sanitary landfill on a regular schedule which is estimated to be 4 to 6 truckloads per week at ultimate design capacity. Approximately 2 loads per week will be hauled after initial start-up. No significant traffic congestion is anticipated. DISPOSAL OF WASTES Sanitary sewage from the facility will be discharged into the facility's headworks. Other waste consists of grit and screenings from the pretreatment process, which will be augered or conveyed into trucks for disposal at a landfill site. Garbage collection trucks are typically used for this purpose. WATER SUPPLY The potable water supply for the facility will be from the North Weld County Water District. A residential tap exists at the existing buildings on the property and this tap will adequately serve the pretreatment/pumping facility. ROAD IMPROVEMENTS It is proposed that the existing roads in the area will be adequate for the insignificant amount of traffic which will be generated by the facility. Small truck traffic can easily be accommdated on the existing roads. - 7 - PROPERTY OWNERSHIP A copy of the property deed for the "Delta" site is being submitted in order to indicate the city of Greeley' s ownership of the site. • - 8 - J BOOK 4"---) r_? 8 B ecorded at o'cloceM. OCT 16 1978 Reception No. 1769%9 MARY. ANN FEUER,'TEIN Recorder 1-1 THEODORE DILL and BERTHA DILL, as husband and wife • 1 ' whose address is 1734 Holly Avenue, Greeley, County of Weld, State c, of Colorado , for the consideration of other valuable consideration c, and Ten and no/100 DOLLARS co in hand paid, hereby sell and convey to - • THE CITY OF GREELEY, COLORADO, a Municipal Corporation, of the State of Colorado - o whose address is Greeley, County of Weld, and State of Colorado , the following real property in the County of WELD, and cz State of Colorado, to-wit: tel N The West 30 acres , more -or less , of the Northeast Quarter (NE%) of rC) the Southeast Quarter (SEx) of Section 11, Township 5 North, Range o • 65 West of the 6th P.M. , County of Weld, State of Colorado, and all that part of the NW% of 'the SE%4 of said Section 11, lying East of the CD following described line, to-wit: Commencing at a point on the center - linendf said Section 11, 1310 feet East of the Northwest corner of r, said NW'/4 of said SE%/4 of said Section 11: thence South 3°25' West , 198 feet; thence South 39°40' West , 775 feet ; thence South 29°20' West, 0 326 feet ; thence West, 23 feet ; thence South 31-' West , 250 feet to -the South line of the said NW'/4 of said SE% of said Section 11, together with three (3) shares of the capital stock of the Delta Irrigation Company, and all other water, water rights , ditches , ditch rights and rights-of-way and easements appurtenant thereto. The above described property is also described by recent survey as ifollows : -- Part of the North Half (Ny2) of the Southeast Quarter (SE%) of Section 11, Township Five (5) North, Range Sixty—five (65) West of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point which bears S 0°13'23" W, 2657.22 feet from the Northeast corner of Section 11, said point is the Northeast corner of the N1 of the SEy4 of Section 11; thence S 89°11'46" West, 323.75 feet ' to the True Point of Beginning; thence S 0°14'10" West 1342.75 feet; thence .North 89°44'29" West, 1837.07 feet ; thence North 29°27'24" East ` 567.24 feet; thence along the arc of a curve right whose radius is 425.00 feet and whose long chord bears N 35°01'32" East 82.51 feet; thence N 40°35'52'!' East 647.19 feet; thence along the arc of a curve right whose radius is 200.00 feet and whose long chord bears N 24°06' 02" East 113.59 feet ; thence N 7°36'12" East, 121.98 feet ; thence along the arc of a curve right whose radius is 50.00 feet and whose long chord bears N 48°23'59" East, 65.16 feet; thence N 89°11'46" East 984.07 feet to point of beginning; said parcel contains 43.12 acres, more or less ; as shoum on plat of Delta Wastewater.: Treatment Plant, recorded in Book R47 at Reception No. 1769353, under File No. 2401, Weld County Records. with all its appurtenances, and warrant the title to the same, subject to conditions, contained in U.S. Patent recorded- in -Book 51, page 287; to reservation contained in deed recorded in Book 12, page 560; right- of-way for irrigation ditch as provided by instrument � ` recorded in Book -- ° 212, page 412; to reservation of 1/2 of all the oil, gas and other - ) mineral rights together with right of ingress and egress to prospect for, mine, drill and remove same as contained in deed recorded in Book 1376, page 439; and to reservation of an undivided 1/4 of the- oil, gas and other minerals contained in deed recorded in Book 1411, page 505 ; to rights-of-way for public highways and to any and all rights-of-way and easements , however evidenced, over and across said premises; and to the 1978 taxes , payable in 1979; Recording information refers to the Weld County Records. • Signed this 7 day of October, 1978. it' e /r� . Th odores ill 111•.1III16INp,, \ e.47�1/1L.4_ ID, �r f STATE;�� . eV�l$QtA'Df� ) Bertha Dill, as husband and wife COUN%. p•' '�]tit ) ss. lI' regrfig instrument was acknowledged before me this 44:- day.%-g. 0 brie ;]Az8, by THEODORE DILL and BERTHA DILL, as husband and wife ' z' ,-� 'J dlf�it}t' s ;irly'�3Iand and Official , eat 1.- "'%� 4 m� .1e/9779on expires:J''% `' 3��s� (.� o�- 'om IIIIIIto Notary Pub3 . � y ' ,1L-O'.1, • • ••'Ill l'1,•„It - - �- --• - - - - . . • • r ) • • 1 r • ' • ) .. , , ,• • •1 1 . . • i . • I l • 1 t 1 t r , .. I • 1• - - i . • • •• • • • r . - ' . f r ., o f • .• — . . •'(' — - f t: • , ! ' 11 f', .- - ` - , f i ♦ I . II — , t r i f i ri 1 • - t t - . ) 1 f _ 1 . II • . . : • • 1 . - _ - • .. _ 1 • { ••••, • 4. .I r , . .3 - I • ; . 1 ' I l , - I - . ., ,• , i - - - •• ) . •' •,- ). ' , • ) < - , . , C • I • f ' ' ' , • I. 1 -_ • ! • - . • • ' , e • •, .. i r :! .. . '. •. r r , • • . . - . ( , 1 ♦ r t. • j [ r s t ! ' ,t, I. .. , . ,. - , . i . ' t ( ':. . • ) . . i - I , _ - I - ) ' . ; • ,. • • • I ) t i t r • .. • r . • • , • ) • . — r ' : )• ' . . t • •' . •t ) ti n_• !n Ose. u f • ►— LLI a r 10 Y 4, ? z \ � Nti. Re )w�It LLI 1 �** U u r \I \ fl; L4' 11 �" ♦f V'Ir', r 0 O LLS J y) i , r hl i.1. 1^1 • / -__'• '\ \VI ,• _ ' u -- y'", C\`. L: . _ . . . I \N. . • . . , r I. S , rt r i ♦ \t\ V • I 4. NAMES OF OWNERS OF PROPERTY WITHIN 500 FEET Please print or type NAME MAILING ADDRESS • 3791 E. 18th Street W.C. & Catherine W. Mathews Greeley, Colorado 80631 Rt. 4 Box 182 Henry & Herta D. Hillmann Greeley, Colorado 80631 3237 E. 18th Street Robert W. & Viola F. Sanderson Greeley, Colorado 80631 Rt. 4 Box 189 Donna Kay Connell Greeley, Colorado 80631 3226 E. 18th Street Douglas G. & Sandra M. Howard Greeley, Colorado 80631 3430 13th Street #220 Dewey R. Marcy Greeley, Colorado 80631 P.O. Box 446 Duane D. & Dorothy Zabka Greeley, Colorado 80631 15 Holly Winifred Middleton, Don & Debra Rodman Greeley, Colorado 80631 Weld County Greeley, Colorado 80631 7 .+ APPENDIX A - - 9 - • r • CITY OF GREELEY, COLORADO PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION FOR SITE SELECTION STUDY DELTA SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT • • • Prepared by • CH2M HILL, INC. 12000 East 47th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80239 January 1978 D10828.DO AF TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION 1 Scope and Purpose 1 Site Description and Location 1 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION 1 LABORATORY TESTING 2 SUBSURFACE PROFILE 2 FOUNDATION CONSIDERATIONS 3 EVALUATION OF ALLUVIUM AS MINERAL RESOURCE 4 Criteria for Evaluation 4 Quality 6 Overburden 6 Quantity 8 CONCLUSIONS 9 Foundation Considerations 9 Evaluation of Alluvium as Mineral Resource 9 LIMITATIONS 10 REFERENCES FIGURES Figure 1 BORING LOCATIONS 2 BORING LOGS 3 GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS: BORING B1 4 GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS: BORING B2 5 GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS: BORING B3 6 GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS: BORING B4 7 GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS: BORING B5 8 GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS: BORING B6 INTRODUCTION Scope and Purpose This report describes our preliminary geotechnical investigation associated with the site selection study for the proposed Delta Sewage Treatment Plant to be located in the Delta area east of the City of Greeley, Colorado. The purpose of the investigation was to examine subsurface conditions in the proposed project area with regard to foundation conditions for future con- struction, and to obtain information by which subsurface deposits could be evaluated as a potential mineral resource. • Our scope of effort for this preliminary investigation encompassed the following: • ■ Review of geologic and other information concerning the project area. ■ Subsurface exploration. ■ Laboratory testing of representative soil samples obtained during subsurface exploration. Site Description and Location The area investigated comprises five privately-owned parcels of property, collectively covering approximately 160 acres. The land is presently used for farming or grazing of livestock. The subject area is situated about 3 miles east of Greeley and lies on the flood plain of the Cache La Poudre and South Platte Rivers, just west of their confluence. It is an area of low relief, lying in the Colorado Piedmont, an undulating plain that extends south to northern New Mexico. SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION Six test borings were advanced in the subject area from 30 November to 3 December 1977, using a truck-mounted CME rotary drill with hollow stem -1- augers. Disturbed soil samples were recovered at depth intervals of 5 to 10 feet, using a 2-inch (O.D.) split-barrel sampler, driven as described by ASTM D-1586 for the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) . All borings were advanced to bedrock. Boring locations are shown on Figure 1 . One boring was drilled on each of the five private parcels of land; a sixth was advanced north of the proposed project area near the Cache La Poudre River, on property owned by Weld County. Edited field logs of all test borings are presented on Figure 2. LABORATORY TESTING Grain size analysis tests were conducted on representative samples obtained • from the test borings to evaluate material gradation. Testing was carried out at the laboratories of Geotek, Inc. , Denver, Colorado. Results of the grain size analyses are presented in graphical form on Figures 3 through 8. Each such figure shows all test results for a single boring. SUBSURFACE PROFILE The subsurface profile in the area investigated generally consists of 45 to 90 feet of alluvium (stream-deposited sediments) overlying claystone bedrock. Sandy, organic topsoil, up to 5 feet in thickness, overlies the alluvium. The alluvium, which represents the flood plain deposits of the Cache La Poudre and South Platte Rivers, consists primarily of gravelly, coarse- to fine-grained quartz feldspar sands, with fines (material passing the No. 200 sieve) . Relative density, based on SPT data, varies from loose to dense, generally being medium dense to dense at depths greater than 5 to 10 feet. The alluvial deposits are roughly stratified into zones of varying gravel content. The gravel is composed of predominantly fine, subrounded, sound igneous and metamorphic rock fragments. -2- A 2- to 5-foot thick layer of brown, medium stiff clay was encountered in Borings 1, 3 and 6 at a depth of 35 to 40 feet. This clay layer is probably lenticular (lens-shaped) in cross section and likely originated from calm water deposition of silt- and clay-sized particles. Such deposition would occur in abandoned river channels (left as a result of meandering) , or where seasonal flooding created a natural levee and associated bayd'u. The clay layer seems to elongate in the north-south direction; however, further exploration would be required to determine its extent. The bedrock in the delta area is a variably soft to well indurated claystone of the Laramie Formation (Upper Cretaceous) . The contact between the claystone and overlying alluvium is erosional, representing the lowest elevation attained by the ancestral Cache La Poudre and South Platte Rivers. This contact dips approximately 14 to 15 feet per mile to the north-northwest • across the area of investigation. FOUNDATION CONSIDERATIONS Information obtained during this preliminary investigation indicates that subsurface conditions throughout the area investigated are generally satis- factory from the standpoint of foundation design. The alluvial deposits appear to be sufficiently dense below depths of 10 feet that their load-car- rying capacity should not be of particular concern. Likewise, these sands and gravels are not expected to pose significant settlement problems. However, the clay layer encountered in Borings 1, 3 and 6 could be troublesome. Based on data obtained during the field exploration, and on the manner in which we believe the clay layer was deposited, this layer may consolidate under imposed loading, and structures built above it--even if founded at ground surface--may incur settlement as a result. Furthermore, such settle- ment would probably not be uniform, due to the variable thickness and possible discontinuity of the clay unit. Additional field exploration and laboratory testing would be required to evaluate the behavior of the clay .L layer. Should such investigation confirm the likelihood of settlement problems, measures would have to be taken to alter the behavior of this layer or to accommodate the expected settlement. A third alternative, of -3- course, would be to selectively locate structures so as to avoid loading Ithe layer at all. Ground water measurements taken in Borings 1 and 2 indicate that the ground water level is within 3 to 6 feet of ground surface. Should such conditions prevail during construction, extensive dewatering will be required to maintain dry excavations and to avoid loosening the foundation soils. This is not an unusual situation, however, and should pose no significant problems; if the contractor gives proper attention to design of his dewatering system. EVALUATION OF ALLUVIUM AS MINERAL RESOURCE Criteria for Evaluation The area investigated lies within the "Resource Conservation Areas" delin- eated in the July, 1975 Weld County Mineral Resource Extraction Plan (hereinafter referred to as Plan) , since sand and gravel are classified as mineral deposits by the State of Colorado. (1) The mineral resource policies of the Plan state that "sand and gravel extraction shall be accommodated in non-irrigated agricultural areas and encouraged in resource conservation areas." These policies further stipulate that: • "In accordance with Colorado Statute, no Weld County governmental authority which has control over zoning shall, by zoning, rezoning, granting a variance, or other official action or inaction, permit the use of any area known to contain a commercial mineral deposit in a manner which would interfere with the present or future extraction of such deposit by an extractor." A key point here is what constitutes a "commercial mineral deposit." Colorado State Statutes define this term as follows: "Commercial mineral deposit means a natural deposit of limestone used for construction purposes, coal, sand, gravel and quarry aggregate, for which extraction by an extractor is or will be commercially feasible -4- • . - r and regarding which it can be demonstrated by geological, mineralogic, or other scientific data that such deposit has significant economic or strategic value to the area, state, or nation." This definition, however, does not stipulate criteria for determining what is "commercially feasible" or what has "significant economic or strategic value." The Plan points out that "in the actual determination of the commercial feasibility of a given deposit, a variety of factors are involved. These include quality, quantity, overburden, location and demand. " Of these, the Plan presents criteria only for the overburden factor: "Local producers (of sand and gravel) have indicated that a 9: 1 deposit to overburden ratio is a good rule of thumb when trying to determine the commercial feasibility of extracting sand and gravel resources in today's market. " Criteria for evaluating other factors were not addressed. Additional guidelines, used by the Colorado Geological Survey (CGS) for identifying commercial sand and gravel deposits, were discovered during our research of geologic information for the project area. These guidelines are presented in Special Publication 5-A: Sand, Gravel and Quarry Aggregate Resources, Colorado Front Range Counties, and include the following: (2) ■ Five-acre tracts with at least 15 feet of gravel can be considered to be economic. ■ Large tracts of high-quality aggregate without overburden may be as little as 2 feet thick and still constitute a commercial deposit. ■ Commercial gravel deposits should contain a minimum of 30 percent gravel-size material by weight. These guidelines were established with the help and suggestions of many people and organizations, including sand and gravel companies from all Front Range Counties, personnel from all Front Range Counties and Regional Councils of Governments, and several planning organizations, including the Weld County Planning Commission. • -5- - A complete evaluation of the alluvial deposits in the project area as a commercial sand and gravel resource is beyond the scope of this report. However, based on the criteria outlined above, and on the preliminary information obtained during our field and laboratory investigations, we can address, at least generally, the quality, overburden and quantity factors. Qua I i ty The gravel encountered in the test borings is composed of predominantly • • fine, hard, durable, subrounded fragments of quartz, quartzite, pegmatite, granite and other siliceous rocks. The sand consists of coarse to fine subangular grains of quartz and feldspar. Material gradation parameters are summarized on Table I . Whether such materials are considered "good" or . "poor," or given some other designation, will depend on the intended use. In general, the gravel appears to be sufficiently sound and durable for use as concrete aggregate; the sand is moderately well graded and should be suitable for site fill . Overburden Overburden ratios (ratio of deposit thickness to overburden thickness) exceed the 9: 1 "rule of thumb" at all boring locations except Boring 2, for the sands and gravels above the clay layer. For those borings in which the clay layer was found, overburden ratios below this unit ranged from 5: 1 to 111: 1 . Complete overburden data is given on Table 2. -6- • • o C In^ co - men N O en to Y) ID to ID O as 4 N O N 4- co .- aD '- C a en 4- -4' en N M .- N min 4- tom d- to t1) N01 4- en In .....• In O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O N O a) v O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O CI O _N (1) ^ Cr. E co • • t1') I� O �- N0n •-•• tD 11'ft0 � CO E Mc0 CI) Op0 Ln00Mtn 01 .-' tn .-- M NtnM N1� 4 M *amE • 0 0 .-- .- 0 0 000 O .- '- i .-' t-" v' .- 0 N '- a 0 .-' CI O •E \ In O tO up h• al to en tD co 0 en Cl I� in I.. \ to ot010co (0en 0O to CO CO NCO NfneC' C) enN M 4- to In O In 4-• A N -• N N -- .- '- I- .- •- •--- N .•- N .- lD r.. A A A A A A CI C II) O U • - --- In ato to a)- op•� In a 01 01 O 0) '.000 .- n to 1-- 4' In CO as en N N 4- n p- 0 L L M N N I- .- .- r .- LL .- op in C CO to co as \ aaN .- � MN N C en cocoN o .- LIC) COOC .-- tn4* O c0 0 V) 4- 4- to to in OoOoIpO tDtoCD tDtDNN NNtoN tDIstD V) tD do in d a) op • > co to r•1 moo O M Cl N to to to co CO 4' M C401111 to to 4' (N M > N cp .— Nenenc .— NNN NN .— N N .-- MN NNN CO L N Ci U V ow cn y, a) a) a) a) a) a) .J • O) O) O) O1 a) O) • +' ^ In o en in L CO 000 L" CD Li') L' 0 U) 0 L'tti 000 LCD to Otn L' Q d(j •-- N II 4' ; •— N �' CU N4- ; NN4- I— NM � N > to W C] M Q Q Q Q Q Q O) C N 'L V) Z w to a) M4' to0) N4' OO 4' 0) Y LEI co N4aa NIn O' O Jill I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I c0 C cn C7 CO Z V) VI V) V) IN!) (Nn (I) LL/) N U) V) V) VV) V) N V) V) L.. U. V) 0 O a) CC col L F� V=) 0 Z ml ml ml 03 m) ml —7— - 1 • ' Table 2 OVERBURDEN RATIOS • Boring Ratio Above Ratio Below No. Clay Layer Clay Layer 1 11 .7: 1 6.8: 1 2 8.9: 1 N/A 3 12.7: 1 5.0: 1 4 23.0: 1 N/A 5 13.5: 1 N/A 6 >40.0: 1 14.0: 1 The data on Table 2 indicate that the sand and gravel deposits lying above the subsurface clay layer satisfy the overburden criteria outlined in the . Plan for commercial deposits at five of the six boring locations. Boring 2 shows a ratio only slightly less than 9: 1, but considerably less than the ratios for other borings. Consequently, with respect to the other locations investigated, the deposits at Boring 2 might be considered marginal . With respect to those deposits underlying the clay layer, only Boring 6 (Weld County property) shows an "acceptable" overburden ratio. Quantity Thickness of the sand and gravel deposits in the subject area, as-determined from the Boring Logs (Figure 2) , ranges from 45 to 90 feet. This exceeds, in all cases, the minimum 15 feet suggested by the CGS for commercial gravel deposits having overburden. The question remains, however, as to whether the alluvial soils encountered in the borings are gravel deposits. • Referring to the laboratory test data summarized on Table 1, of the six locations investigated, only Borings 1 and 5 yielded samples having gravel contents meeting or exceeding the CGS guideline of 30 percent, and none of the borings showed an average gravel content meeting the 30 percent guide- • -8- - ,- line. Boring 2 was particularly deficient in gravel, having an average content of only 7 percent. This data indicates that, with respect to quantity considerations, the commercial attractiveness of the alluvial deposits encountered in Borings 1 through 6 as a gravel resource is question- able. Material from Boring 1 comes closest to satisfying CGS's guideline for gravel content; that from Boring 2 does not even approach it. The information on Table 2 does indicate that these deposits contain poten- tially large quantities of sand, but we could not locate criteria concerning the commercial feasibility of sand resources. However, based on several conversations we had with local sand and gravel companies, the supply of sand in the Greeley area far exceeds demand, and those companies with which we talked did not consider the mining of sand to be commercially attractive. • CONCLUSIONS Foundation Considerations Based on information obtained at the six boring locations, subsurface conditions in the area investigated should not, in general, present for- midable problems with respect to foundation design for treatment plant structures. The clay layer encountered in Borings 1, 3 and 6 is potentially troublesome, but further investigation would be required to analyze and predict its behavior. Most problems associated with this layer could be avoided, however, by locating structures in areas not underlain by this unit, such as in the vicinity of Borings 2, 4 or 5. Evaluation of Alluvium as Mineral Resource The field and laboratory information gathered during this preliminary in- vestigation indicates that the alluvial deposits in the subject area are questionable as a commercial gravel resource. The material quality and overburden characteristics seem satisfactory with respect to published guidelines, but the quantity of gravel available is less than that considered by the CGS as constituting a commercial gravel deposit. Deposit thickness is more than adequate, but gravel content is low. -9- Of the six locations explored, Boring 1, with an average gravel content of 28 percent, most nearly satisfies CGS's recommended guideline of 30 percent. Boring 2 is the most marginal; samples from this hole contained only 3 to 10 percent gravel, with an average of 7 percent. Furthermore, the over- burden ratio at this latter location, though it closely approaches the minimum criteria presented in the Plan, was much lower than at the other five borings. Therefore, if any commercially feasible gravel resources exist in the subject area, the data presented herein indicates they are most likely to be found in the vicinity of Boring 1, and not likely to be found near Boring 2. LIMITATIONS The information and conclusions presented in this report are based on data obtained from the six test borings, and do not reflect any variations in subsurface conditions which may exist between boring locations. If such variations become evident during construction, or as the result of further investigation, the conclusions presented herein should be reevaluated. This report has been prepared for the City of Greeley, Colorado, in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices, with specific application to the site selection study for the proposed Delta Sewage Treatment Plant. No other warranty, either expressed or implied, is made. • -10- • REFERENCES . (1) Board of County Commissioners, Weld County, Colorado. July 1975. Mineral resource extraction plan. Vol. II . (2) Schwochow, S.D., Shroba, R.R., and Wicklein, P.C. 1974. Sand, gravel, and quarry aggregate resources, Colorado Front Range Counties. Prepared by Colorado Geological Survey. Colorado Department of Natural Resources Special Publication 5-A. • • • • _ - r- ,., RrVER i m P0U, _ ,_. _:, ,..._______ r (1) ........)(,, ... . •, i, • %, „ 17„\\\ 11 `mil I ��i h \N , • i i \�• �` i \ , 6 O / I S ® B-5 a B-2 c I // u E tom h S 1 t JC2-31 h I C5 ( W.I C) . s - 0 TEST BORING LOCATION PROPERTY " OWNER O1 BRANCH, BILL & LLOYD { 42 DILL, THEODORE & BERTHA • O3 MIDDLETON, WINIFRED AND RODMAN, DON L. 4O MCARTHUR, EDWARD GALE & RUTH S. , OS _ • MARCY, DEWEY ® WELD. COUNTY FIGURE 1 . DELTA WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT CH2M • SOIL BORING LOCATIONS II HILL I DI0828.DO r . . 5 1 e o 0 o O N O a 0 f N N 0 .0 N on O N ' 4 f f II O< e ■■l is U F 02 JJ _. O= I. _ �r afo N ! ♦ N W O O 1 I 4 N Iii JI-N I N N I sO .�• CC LijO W W •-•• Is.JO In a9 i 0 n P O N n _ 0 In DUI n N PI N n N 7•F — J U0 n N A I 1 1 n P O P A N I I I N P 0 N N n __ ..4" W !t a C /�•.• .1 .•• r•r * I • ' •• . a n d O O N O 10 J N IC cc h N on a n n N N cc r I Z n 2 a N < ' r0 A A CO N W V 0 .O ` J O Y • N P 0 o W Z > O N N •• y = N> C 0 3I lal CO O N .p 0 — n 0 + 00 _•7 1• Il ill N '� .p N 11 J N n 1:6 7 I Wki 1111111; 1 t 0 A 1 1 A P Q N J 1 1 1 J I 0 in yI N N O I. >O 0 • .• N V N 0. m' N P P CO N N V', . \ 7 1 .. s S n g 1 .. 'p I in q o. i z � P .0 .. an ZI JO 04 T O 1 CO CO IA • O A ••• 0 N, i 4 N O s LL N. a n n ; SI J . > I in W J — > Z W 3 C W < >O W JZ .N rN CO O z u • II IN 1 O W Z 'L LL,w 2 a CO i P 2 ID i s.- ♦ f 10 < M4:010. I 1 I O Sul GpIRO eg Z OP. LL/OE/LS,} m N I n 2< Q JO CEZ 0 A a -1. -'. •........' O .• ‘,... • . K.- ..!..\.4: \ii ,. .i, b ..\\. • . 4' as o o ea o sn' — 0 '0 A A o N A N o o N n N L L/Z Z/9,IM o In N N N N PI Ir1 n n N N N. 0 O I •• m T N ■ -. on H M No I- 0 N 0 W a usi;-.Z su O 1 Z1 I Z 0' O f-.N 0 a 2 l 11 p� rZ •••Os- O< 1 I 1 O O 0 a<ILLM a4 aI N N O 0 < I\a <tc .- 0 rp A O f N a N AZ1t1 0 2 w a • 4 • f 4 . 210 <Z ON T h4�t Na mJ 0 133d NI NOI1VA313 N 0 O a • $910NE1ER ANALYSIS i SIEVE ANALYSIS 1s STAIIAI0 SEIZES I CLEAT SIYAIE 1►EIIIGS n itiss -in 100:— I -=' -=. :-= _ ir'Tt: ; 1_— — 1' � I I-71- rte'_ - - 1{ I 10 -..., �- ' 1 * } _'' . -_�' :_ - - . ,- I a 1 1.1► • I 1 _ -- y • \ • .t_......_____.7.4__ :-:3_-__I-_-.--- : ' �- -� ' - - - �� I • i TO - - ' ' -— ._— _ ___.__. _ .__ —___,..._ --1--- - -4- - + 30 `Sp -- _ - __- -.. --. _ --____ -_-- - } . I - . . -- -- -.—- - —Tr - I • '- -;' T --- v _ - - • -SO:1 li W ' . - - _i-.1 _A t _. ; • i _. . ..•.__T____--__-_-.,.22__-.--a '-- __-2 `� -.� - - - i - - -- ----...1 .. - E_.. :. �. . -_- . — ^'--'_-.7:_-. — - --_ —1-- 1-----.-i -t----. ---- - I.I.-_...:.-._ _ - �,- _ _._; ` _ �. :' : . =fi 1,� - > ; (00 p T • M n t el -0^�� Htit n P. 01yp0 O pm np i �Q f ial Q Q R Q 8 I I I I I I I I O, O O 0 "04000 O S N Ei - N O DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS SAND GRAVEL COBBLES Olt CLAY (PLASTIC) TO SILTIMON-PLASTIC) FIRE I MEDIUM I COARSE FINE I COARSE E SS-3, 15-16.5 FT. FIGURE 3• alL CITY OF GREELEY, COLORADO o O 55-4 , 20-21 . 5 FT. DELTA SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT CI SS-6 + SS-7, 30-36.5 FT. SITE STUDY I sr Q SS-9 , 45-46.5 FT. a GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS =H2M BORING B-1 SHILL -. D 10828.00 FORM 71 I SIEVE AMAlT51� I IIVII/MEIEI *BIALYS'S I A 11411 141 RIMSI Cl[At SIISeE OttplIGS 2111 ID., s il 110 �■■■�iwr - moo■■■ •• _ _ -- - io ■■ice■■ - E-_-_ -__ ==__ $_: r -_ ��s - + :: _ ■ ss • - 20 - - I -30 w __ _ _ ■ - - -- _ f1 _ - - - f Tom.+ • . i_- -. _ ... _ ____ :-_ -_ _--_ ___ t fat_- - -r---T- - - ,r •- -- - -t -- - _ - - -- _ ■ __ ■ _ _- -,--- - ----- 0: I 0 30..---- --'_`-r-- — '.L -- tai/•- -- * _ _ BO 10- �._'1 ---r- - --e_- - _ _-- _ • - _ -�— = __........&_,... - — _ +- 140 a —_- -*-t•' __�—^+—r - ■ �� __ F w �n •wa�0 O O o R 000 F 1 e h 4.�a•C Lrg . a ig ��g� >: aaoa I I I i I I I I I 1 gli A ^ ^ P Oin ie O r & H t PAMPER OF PARIICLE II MILLIMETERS CIAVEL SAND MIXES I ► FIRECOARSE CLAY IPLASTIC) TO SILT MI-PLASTIC) fI1E MEDIUM COARSE FIGURE 4 F I CITY OF GREELEY. COLORADO 4D IS55-2 ♦ SS-3. 1O-16.S FT. OD O SS-4 . 20-21 .5 FT. DELTA SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT l 0 SS-0. 40-41 .5 F7. SITE STUDY - + GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS OHM a. BORING 8-2 I. • 010828.D0 FORM 71 $ I - Mr0A0MEiEt ANALYSIS SIEVE ANALYSIS ` y 1 s Sit11tID SERIES I CLEAR MOM 11(Ii1Ci Q 100;— �. •�=� _ _ - — — 1T. ] • _.i. • -I • • '.--7:177.--r---------7--- _ - — _ j— ; 1 4 10 L , . „ ____ _ _____ . _ . ... _ --. .:, -. i . ._ . i . _ i i • I , .. _ _ __- • • _ . , . . { - -- • . - - -i 1 __•_ . , _ ---- — 20 • • +-- •- - -- , i • ee . ! E l -_- - __.7 :- - • • f- - ' I - ,• ; e 30 __ .4:_____-_ ••. --•-�---..- — — �� : 1_- I i f 1 . ' -1 = _:.t. _�� - _- - . • cs — - { 1.- _--- —40•. : __._. - - •-__ _ _•--. • • _ == -- I 1 = ---- -- - i —som - ` �--.� ___ - -- • -/ •- ; •; - . f 30 • -- j _- _-• --� - - 1 . 20- , .- — — — _ •• _ _ 1 I __--' i I• • •-• ' — , I • • loo I• -7 =-.-- , ,—_ — 1 - . R a ego "s g 48H - E 4 q aq � o I I I I I o g� I I I f P 0. O P ! h O. W O DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS SAND GRAVEL COBBLES CLAY (PLASTIC) TO SILTcror-PLAsntl FINE 1 MEDIUM I COARSE FINE I COARSE FIGURE 5 SS-4 , 20-21 . 5 FT. CITY OF GREELEY , COLORADO 0 SS-9 , 45-46 . 5 FT. DELTA SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT SITE STUDY a GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS :: ILL BORING B-3 D1O828.DO FORM 71 • - F I SIEVE ANALYSIS NYONONEIEN ANALYSIS 1 S ST►STAID SERIES I CLEAR MARE IrEAIICS %ito - 82 2 000 .0 O 0 .0 O • N 0•-+- _ - - - i 1 • • i-.1 A • - - _ - t-- _ I {•_ -• —_ ---:--1-_---------. .._- :;-- :y- - - :;: i ► y-- • . 4 -\. i - y - ;.-...-__._�_ _- .. - 4 I I 1 ,_.--.._-�•�_ _ .. .. ._-^- -. _ -- _ •- — - "�•�• __. -_- --_T- - • �, -• O I . .. __._- _�~ - .--..- . - -.- - - -- - A I _.; _• { ! W - .. - r -- _ .- -r-._-. _ _-_ - I { i • -.. -.--_. -- _ - 11 I + _ i - • -; - - - - •- -.0s _ cs r -- 1 W ✓ -. 4) ----_� d OC .. .. - .--�- --_ __ I ! _LAJ +---_-- _ - .. _ - f► �� _ - i - f i • i , • . _--.--,-_= :� . .� - - I { •_ .. . . t % - 100•.r n a .�f 4^gyp P. n �+::121.:T8 o• 8 ns EERito0 0 o 0O0 I I I I I I I I ! I 0- 0 0 el r` h a CS. N R N P DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS GRAVEL SAND COBBLES o CRAY (PLASTIC) TO SILTENOR-�lASilt) FIRE MEDIUM COARSE EINE COARSE FIGURE 6 CITY OF GREELEY . COLORADO . a Q SS-2. 10-11 .5 FT. DELTA SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT O SS-4, 20-21 .5 FT. SITE STUDY . D SS-5, 25-26.5 FT. o• Q SS-8, 40-41 .5 FT. GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS CHiM BORING B-4 • DI0ET2E) DO FORM 71 . r I SIEVE ANALYSIS - NYOIOMETEt ANALYSIS _ - - _ - _ S fTAt1►t0 SftiE5 I mil SHARE /1E-i1CS • at-^ - - m $$ ,Q r ° N ^ i 0 �. - _ -- - --- • -• _i _.. _14 t_____ _ - . • . I:' ... -r.--.:.._,.._+____. _.�- -- _ - - _- -_1- i E . . ! oIC CC -------• _ - _ -_-- — _ . . - .--1 •_---4 -. --- 60: r.," It _ W - -.-----__ - . , _ • 20 !- - 101 :: :_ - _ — _ _ __ w _ _ i . : I - �--- ---• • u - I . :J:' -- f t . - -100 g ., - g.0$sgo a 4 a 4 g I I I I s s4 I I I I I I I .f O• n O P OD n h 0 c I, = N 1 N f p. O DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS GRAVEL SAND ,COBBLES ► CLAY (PLASTIC) TO SILT (NOM-�LASTIC) FINE I MEDIUM I COARSE FINE I COARSE FIGURE 7 6 SS-2 , 10-11 . 5 FT. IMi CITY OF GREELEY, COLORADO o 0 SS-4, 20-21 . 5 FT. 0 DELTA SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT SS-6 , 30-31 . 5 FT. SITE STUDY aar GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS 1 . CHH2IM BORING B-S D10828 DO FORM 71 i • r SIEVE ANALYSIS I MY010METEN ANALYSIS I _ - - _ S• mom sows I GSM SUM( OPENINGS-44::p 8$ Hf O O 717 r 7 in " IN in loo-- - � — --• R . �, �_- - — j o _1—--t--_—..*.r- .-"_!•_ --"- • __ ,.. _. '"�_ �' } ' 1 ill' __ --- __—:. i - • t _ 30 • j±._.._ __ ..-:` — —_ --- _ — •— : - -- -- -- I } —40 60 41.._ _.:1 _.• ..._ti i ...., . d i —- 1-- ,• �- - - - •--- ---Y---- — - -- ' • 4 iI It - i _..: . - • az 40------•---_-____ - _ t4 1 t I R1 i _ OC 0. . I —---1---1--Hi ---... • -- ---------r—---_-=- --- ------ -----_ --- - - ri y . • ----- - 4 .. __- -- - - — _ p Io0 ' ....- _-- ij- . h r1 44 n Q^,•0 N n 44 of 0..MO h fw R O N60 " � ' g�$`gg� Q q as8• i= I I I I I I I I I E so I O DIAMETER OF PARTICLE II MILLIMETERS GRAVEL SAND COBBLES CLAY (PLASTIC) TO SILT (MON-PLASTIC! FINE MEDIUM COARSE FINE COARSE FIGURE 8 SS-2 . 10-11 .5 FT. CITY OF GREELEY. COLORADO o 0 SS-5. 25-26.5 FT. DELTA SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT SITE STUDY GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS =Hi2Ml BORING B-6 e D 10828 DO FORM 71 APPENDIX B • GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION FOR MINERAL RESOURCE EVALUATION PROPOSED SITE FOR DELTA WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT I . r CONTENTS • Page LIST OF TABLES I LIST OF FIGURES II INTRODUCTION 1 Scope and Purpose 1 Site Location and Description 1 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION 1-2 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 2 LABORATORY TESTING 3 LIMITATIONS 3 EVALUATION OF ALLUVIUM AS MINERAL RESOURCE General Criteria for Evaluation 33 Quality Overburden 4 Quantity 4-5 Economic Considerations 5-8 Appraisal of Data 8 SITE REHABILITATION - 9 Rehabi I itation Options 9 TOTAL COST SUMMARY 11 Increased Foundation Costs 11 Comparison of Total Costs 11 CONCLUSIONS 12 ATTACHMENT A: LETTERS FROM LOCAL GRAVEL PROCESSING . COMPANIES TABLES Table 1 SUMMARY OF GRAIN SIZE ANALYSES 2 MATERIAL QUANTITIES AT SITE 3 APPROXIMATE GROSS RETAIL VALUE OF ALLUVIAL DEPOSITS 4 APPROXIMATE OPERATING COSTS FOR MATERIAL PROCESSING 5 APPROXIMATE NET VALUE OF ALLUVIAL DEPOSITS 6 SITE REHABILITATION COSTS: OPTION A 7 SITE REHABILITATION COSTS: OPTION B 8 SITE REHABILITATION COSTS: OPTION C 9 ESTIMATED PILING COSTS 10 TOTAL COST SUMMARY • Rir FIGURES Figure 1 SITE PLAN AND APPROXIMATE BORING LOCATIONS 2 BORING LOGS • 3 GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS: BORING B-2 4 GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS: BORING B-7 5 GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS: BORING B-8 6 GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS: BORING B-9 7 GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS: BORING B-10 8 GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS: BORING B-11 9 GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS: BORING B-12 10 GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS: BORING B-13 11 GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS: BORING B-14 II r, • INTRODUCTION SCOPE AND PURPOSE . This report presents the results of our geotechnical investigation for a mineral resource evaluation at the proposed site for the 6-mgd Delta Wastewater • Treatment Plant in the delta area east of the City of Greeley, Colorado. The site, presently owned by Theodore and Bertha Dill of Greeley, was chosen by the City of Greeley from among five such sites investigated by CH2M HILL in December 1977. This most recent exploration at the Dill property was conducted to obtain subsurface information pertinent to future plant foundation requirements and to mineral resource evaluation for deposits • underlying the site. This report expands upon our January 1978 Preliminary Geotechnical Investiga- tion for Site Selection Study, Delta Wastewater Treatment Plant (hereinafter referred to as Preliminary Report) , which is included as Appendix A of the Special Use Permit Application. The scope of work associated with information presented herein is as follows: • ■ Engineering and geologic reconnaisance of the site ■ Subsurface exploration using soil borings ■ Laboratory testing of samples obtained from the soil borings ■ Assessment of subsurface deposits at the site in terms of economic value ■ Evaluation of site rehabilitation alternatives, assuming subsurface deposits are mined SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION The proposed plant site comprises 43. 12 acres located approximately 3 miles east of Greeley, in the flood plain of the Cache La Poudre and South Platte Rivers, just west of their confluence. The southwest portion of the property is taken up by the Dill residence and farm buildings. Remaining acreage is used for farming and grazing of livestock. It is an area of low relief, lying in the Colorado Piedmont, an undulating plain that extends south to New Mexico. Vegetation at the site consists of moderately thick grasses and weeds. At the time of exploration, ground surface was dry. SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION Eight soil borings were made at the site between 18 January and 25 January 1978. All borings were vertically advanced using a truck-mounted CME rotary drill with 7-inch, outside diameter, hollow-stem augers. Representative, disturbed samples were obtained at depth intervals of 2 to 10 feet with the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) split-barrel sampler (ASTM D-1586) and with • -1- • 2-inch, outside diameter, lined California Samplers. Blow counts (N) , were the number of blows required for a 140-pound hammer, falling 30 inches, to drive a 2-inch, outside diameter, SPT sampler 1 foot, were recorded for each sample. All samples were visually classified in the field by a CH2M HILL engineering geologist. Approximate boring locations, including that for boring B-2, which was drilled on the Dill property during our preliminary investigation, are presented on Figure 1 . Logs of these borings are shown on Figure 2. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS • • Information obtained from the soil borings indicates that the subsurface profile at the site consists of up to 5 feet of loose, organic, sandy clayey silt (topsoil) overlying 40 to 80 feet of alluvium (stream-deposited sediments) . The alluvium, which represents the flood plain deposits of the Cache La Poudre and South Platte Rivers, consists primarily of gravelly, coarse- to fine-grained quartz feldspar sands, with fines (material passing the No. 200 sieve) . Relative density, based on SPT data, varies from loose. to dense, generally being medium dense to dense at depths greater than 5 to 10 feet. The gravelly sands are interbedded with lenses of silty clay and clayey sand, as shown on the Boring Logs (Figure 2) , and are roughly stratified into zones of varying gravel content. A silty sand stratum with practically no gravel content (less than 3 percent) was encountered in the lower 30 to 40 feet of borings B-7 and B-8, roughly at the elevation bedrock was reached in other borings. Referring to Figure 2, then, the thickness of gravel-bearing sands is approximately 41 to 50 feet, for the 9 borings made at the site. The alluvial deposits, to the maximum depth penetrated by the borings, are underlain by claystone bedrock, probably of the Laramie Formation. The contact between-the claystone and overlying alluvium dips approximately 14 to 15 feet per mile to the north-northwest across the general area. Within the project site the bedrock contact varies from elevation 4530 to 4565. The bedrock contact is significantly deeper (approximately 20 feet) at Borings B-7 and B-8 than at other borings. This, together with the information that finer materials were encountered in the lower reaches of these two borings, suggest that the southeast portion of the site was formerly a stream channel. A 3- to 15-foot thick layer of clay, silt and sand was encountered in borings B-8, B-9, B-10, and B-11 at depths of 5 to 7 feet. The lateral extent of this layer is erratic and difficult to determine without further exploration. The stratum likely originated from calm water deposition of suspended silt- and clay-sized particles. Such deposition could occur in abandoned river channels (as a result of meandering) , or where seasonal flooding created a natural levee and associated bayou. Ground water elevations were measured in borings B-2, B-7, B-8, B-10, B-11, B-12, and B-13; depths ranged from 3.5 to 5 feet below ground surface. This information is shown on Figure 2. -2- , • • LABORATORY TESTING Representative soil samples obtained from the borings were tested in the laboratories of Geotek, Inc. , Denver, Colorado to determine their grain size distribution. Tests were conducted in accordance with ASTM D422, . which defines gravel-size particles as those retained on the No. 4 sieve (approximately 3/16-inch) . The locations of samples tested for gradation are indicated on the Boring Logs (Figure 2) by an asterisk (1 . Results of all gradation tests are presented on Figures 3 through 1 and summarized on Table 1 . LIMITATIONS This report has been prepared to aid in evaluation of subsurface conditions at the described site. The information and conclusions presented herein are based on data obtained from the borings. Passage of time may result in changes in subsurface conditions from those existing at the time of exploration. EVALUATION OF ALLUVIUM AS MINERAL RESOURCE GENERAL CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION The proposed project site lies within the "Resource Conservation Areas" designated in the July 1975 Weld County Mineral Resources Plan (hereinafter referred to as Plan) , so that the underlying sand and gravel deposits constitute a potential "commercial mineral deposit." Colorado State Statutes define this term as "a natural deposit of limestone used for construction purposes, coal, sand, gravel and quarry aggregate, for which extraction by an extractor is or will be commercially feasible and regarding which it can be demonstrated by geological, mineralogic, or other scientific data that such deposit has significant economic or strategic value to the area, state, or nation." Criteria for establishing the commercial feasibility of a potential mineral resource, particularly-a sand and gravel resource, are not well defined. Certain general guidelines are presented in the Plan and in Special Publication SA: Sand, Gravel and Quarry Aggregate Resources, Colorado Front Range Counties, but the information is not so specific as to permit quantitative evaluation. Our Preliminary Report discusses these guidelines and points out the difficulty in applying them for evaluation purposes. As presented in the Plan, a variety of factors, including quality, quantity, overburden, location and demand, are involved in determining whether a particular deposit is commercially feasible to mine. We addressed quality, overburden and quantity, as they related to the alluvial deposits in the general delta area, in our Preliminary Report. Location and demand were not considered therein, since criteria for these factors were not established. Quality, overburden and quantity are again addressed in this report--- specifically for the proposed plant site. Location is not addressed (criteria still not clear); demand is covered under economic considerations. -3- i • QUALITY . The discussion concerning quality in our Preliminary Report applies for this report as well: gravel contained in the deposits at the Dill property appears to be sufficiently sound and durable for use as concrete aggregate, for example, and the sand should be suitable for granular fill material. OVERBURDEN In general, overburden ratios (ratio of deposit thickness to overburden thickness) exceed the 9: 1 "rule of thumb" (refer Preliminary Report) at all boring locations on the proposed project site. The ratio at boring B-2 is slightly less than 9 (8.9) , and those at borings B-8 and B-9 are approximately 7 and 5, respectively, for the sands and gravels below the clay-sil:-sand layer, but the site as a whole generally satisfies the overburden criteria for commercial deposits. QUANTITY The Colorado Geological Survey (CGS) offers the following guidelines for quantity: . • Commercial gravel deposits should contain a minimum of 30 percent gravel-size material by weight. ■ Five-acre tracts with at least 15 feet of gravel can be considered to be economic. ■ Large tracts of high-quality aggregate without overburden may be as little as 2 feet thick and still constitute a commercial deposit. The alluvial deposits at the site are more than 15 feet thick and cover an area in plan much greater than 5 acres. However, based on laboratory data for samples recovered from borings at the site, and in accordance with CGS's definition (above) , these deposits do not constitute a commercial gravel deposit. Table 1 summarizes material gradation parameters for 30 samples taken from the deposits underlying the Dill property. Not all samples recovered from the borings were tested for gradation. Our geologists visually examined all samples from each boring and selected representative samples for testing. Those samples not tested have been retained for future reference. Referring to Table 1 , samples containing 30 percent gravel or more are few. The average gravel content for all samples tested, excluding B-7, SS-12 and B-8, SS-10, is 16.4 percent, substantially less than CGS's 30 percent guideline. As indicated on Table 1 , data from these latter two samples were not considered when computing average gravel contents. These samples were recovered from a stratum our borings show to consist almost entirely of silty sand with negligible gravel content and are not representative of the gravel-bearing deposits. Including gradation data for these samples would reduce the average gravel content for all samples tested to 15.4 percent. -4- • • Table 1 Summary of Grain Size Analyses Uniformity Boring Sample Depth Gravel Sand Fines Coeff. Median Size (D50) No. No. (Ft.) Percentage Percentage Percentage (D60/Dj0) (mm) (in) SS-2,SS-3 10,15 9 82 9 10.2 .50 .020 B-2 SS-4 20 3 81 16 >11.4 .62 .024 SS-8 40 10 82 8 4.0 .37 .015 Average 7.3 81.7 11 >8.5 .50 .020 SS-2 10 25 73 2 8 1.6 0.06 B-7 SS-3,SS-4 15,20 35 60 5 15.5 2.1 0.08 SS-7 35 33 61 6 12.5 1.0 0.04 SS-12 70 (1) 3 85 12 9.0 0.4 0.016 Average 31 64.5 4.5 12.0 1.6 0.06 SS-1 5 16 81 3 6.5 1.6 0.06 B-8 SS-5 30 17 60 23 10.5 1.2 0.05 SS-10 55 (1) 2 78 20 11.5 0.2 0.008 Average 16.5 70.5 13 8.5 1.4 .055 SS-1 5 21 74 5 13.0 1.75 0.07 B-9 SS-3 20 15 • 77 8 14.5 0.81 0.03 SS-5 30 23 70 7 10.5 0.7 0.03 SS-8 45 16 75 9 22.0 1.0 0.04 Average 18.75 74 7.25 15.0 1.1 0.04 SS-3 15 5 75 20 16.5 0.3 0.01 B-10 SS-5 25 2 93 5 3.0 0.32 0.01 SS-7 35 27 65 8 17.5 2.2 0.08 Average 11.25 76.75 12 12.3 0.94 0.04 SS-1 5 5 80 15 30.0 0.45 0.02 B-11 SS-3 15 5 93 2 2.5 0.57 0.02 SS-5 25 7 84 9 12.0 0.62 0.02 Average 5.5 85.5 9 14.8 0.55 0.02 SS-3 15 18 77 5 7.5 1.75 0.07 B-12 SS-5 25 28 67 5 13.5 1.2 0.04 SS-7 35 26 67 7 10.5 0.95 0.04 SS-9 45 3 88 9 4.5 0.27 0.01 Average 18.75 74.75 6.5 9 1.04 0.04 SS-2 10 8 90 2 5.0 1.5 0.06 B-13 SS-4 20 32 60 8 30.0 1.8 0.07 SS-6 30 19 73 8 11.0 0.65 0.025 Average 19.5 74.5 6 15.3 1.3 0.05 SS-1 5 21 76 3 10.0 1.5 0.06 B-14 SS-3 15 20 78 2 6.0 1.6 0.06 SS-5,SS-6 25,30 9 71 20 30.0 0.6 0.02 Average 16.5 75 8.5 15.3 1.2 0.05 Average for all borings 16.4 75.5- 8.2 12.43 1.05 0.041 (1) Average gradation for borings B-7 and B-8 do not include samples SS-12 and SS-10, respectively. These samples were recovered from the lower depths of the alluvium, where gravel content is negligible. • . - 1 • We believe the information on Table 1 represents the gravel-bearing alluvial deposits underlying the Dill property. It may be argued that,.in in order to have representative data for these deposits, every sample recovered should be tested, that more borings should be made and/or that samples should be taken at shorter intervals. To carry such arguments to an extreme, the gradation of material at the site can be accurately established only by excavating the entire site to bedrock, placing all such excavated material in containers of equal volume and conducting grain size analyses on the contents of each container. Even after carrying out such an exercise, there would likely be disagreement concerning the 30 percent CGS guideline, or what percentage of gravel sizes should be used as a guideline for commercial feasibility. ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS The only practical way to assess the commercial feasibility of mining the deposits at the Delta Plant site is in monetary terms. Based on information secured from earthwork contractors and from sand and gravel companies operating along the Front Range, we have assembled cost data relating to excavation, material processing and market price for various processed materials. Our conversations with Flatiron Paving Company, Bestway Paving and Mountain Aggregates, Inc. indicate that the range of materials obtained from a gravel mining operation can be generally represented by the following three: • Pit Run Material. This includes all particle sizes from gravel (retained on No. 4 sieve) to fines (passing No. 200 sieve) , so graded that less than 15 to 20 percent are fines. Such material is suitable for granular site fill and, in some cases, for a granular pad on which to pour concrete. • Base Course. This represents material meeting the State of Colorado Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction for Classes 4 and 5 aggregate base course. An average gradation satisfying the requirements of both these classes consists of 60 percent gravel sizes, 30 percent sand sizes (passing No. 4 sieve but retained on No. 200) and 10 percent fines. • Coarse Concrete Aggregate. This comprises material only of gravel size, having use as aggregate for concrete mix. Material Quantities • Based on the information on Table 1 , and on Figures 3 to 11 , we have calculated total volumes and weights for each constituent of the deposits (gravel, sand and fines) underlying the project site. This data is summarized on Table 2. The calculations assume complete excavation of materials over the 43.12-acre area (vertical cuts at property lines) to an average depth of 46 feet (as discussed under "Subsurface Conditions," our borings indicate that gravel-bearing sands extend no deeper than 41 to 50 feet) , and are based on in-place dry unit weights (material would be sold dry) of 122 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) for gravel, 110 pcf for sand and 115 pcf for fines. -5- • Table 2 • MATERIAL QUANTITIES AT SITE Material Percent Volume Weight Type of Total (cy x 105) (tons x 10 5) Gravel 16.4 4.83 7.96 • Sand 75.4 24.65 36.60 • Fines 8.2 2.56 3.98 Total 100.00 32.04 48.54 Processing Alternatives Using the data on Table 2, we estimated total quantities for the three potentially marketable materials (pit run, base course, coarse aggregate) described previously. We considered three processing alternatives, each of which would conceivably use all material available at the site: 1. Entire material supply at site excavated and sold as pit run. 2. Maximum possible quantity of base course processed; remaining material sold as pit run. 3. Maximum possible quantity of coarse concrete aggregate processed; remainder sold as pit run. Our computation's overestimate, to some extent, the amount of pit run material actually available for each alternative; pockets and layers of silt and/or clay encountered during excavation would have to be wasted. The quantity of such waste material cannot be determined prior to excavating, so we have assumed all material would be usable. The amount of base course material (Alternative 2) obtainable is limited by - the gravel quantity at the site. The base course gradation requires gravel-to-sand and gravel-to-fine material ratios of 2: 1 and 6: 1 respectively. Consequently, less than 30 percent of the total deposit is usable as base course. Market Values and Operating Costs We obtained current unit market prices for the three commercial material types from local (Greeley, Platteville, Fort Collins) sand and gravel companies. This information, along with that from Table 2, permitted us to estimate the potential gross market value for each alternative described above. This data is presented on Table 3. Table 3 indicates that Alternative 3 is the most attractive, with a potential retail value of $7.0 to $7.7 million. However, in order to assess the -6- - 1 OA CO P ,— co I w— en N N.• fr1 4' I M 1\ 1 1 I I I I I I in Ill on col n • Q 7 N f` .. Q m Ni O IA • 0 • U N O N C^ in In N in O N 4 M N. � O r+7 . n To macc' 1 I I I N E tT Q1• co D. it•ii Lei)M CO I w. lam N � 4I M N O O E Q M N Lc; N v Gl LO V t0 O co r in • N > in in co co . M I i M I I 4' Q • I I I I f i t0 to • Q 4. M O 0 in IT r. Q�' O I I• Ll1X in O' 0 in 0 I n N ,-. eq o�N n N. V 4. XN N N ++ O C r-• N • I Z > C - trf M i co a t0 lA m N ¢ M a) w 3Q en ,— N C 0 W co t0 J °J O a0 Q .Q , i L > Iin. I G. 4. ^ .Q C Q ¢ • a Q Q I I 10 . C LL I- p .C O NEa w - C J 4, c_:). O O Ce Cv I• o Q CO 4/} N M ta7 O 0 to ...... •"� N 0- > ix .-.. r- N en LI. IA c .NI J Z r N C".4 O O O IN" 8 . O I-. .� .•.., • i v r0 l— p > 414 N M V Q. N M C >' .+ *+ Lt) to O O C C O on .— Ln 7.7,7.7, O V • • • !A Z DU ONM L. C N CO O O 1- •J rci L J O CO Q' U U.1 a) w W Q x N 2 H L C co W N C `e' O i 3 U N g H � rn za CU _ Q .0 4• '.n o et 0 10 c U a) c m co O. N I— < F. CO U [e a O L. 0•. r. Le) to iro— < 2 amU vv - r• economic feasibility of any alternative, retail value must be compared with operating costs, which include mining (excavation and processing) , site preparation (stripping and dewatering) and royalties. Estimated operating costs are shown on Table 4. Unit cost information was obtained from and is based on the experience of local suppliers. Alternative 3, which had the greatest potential retail value, also has the highest operating cost ($6.7 to $7.1 million) . The low end of the operating cost range ($0.95/ton) represents the approximate minimum unit cost for preparing the site, excavating the material (no processing) and stockpiling for use as pit run. The high value ($3.75/ton) would be associated with coarse aggregate processed from material having ' roughly 20 percent or less gravel sizes. Net Value Table 5 presents the approximate net value of the plant site deposits for each processing alternative. These data indicate that net profits from mining these deposits might be as high as $1 .2 million. The fallacy of such an observation is that the gross retail value associated with each alternative is based on selling all material at the site. Table 5 APPROXIMATE NET VALUE OF ALLUVIAL DEPOSITS Gross Value Total Operating Net Value Alternative ($ million) Cost ($ million) ($ million) 1 • 5.3 to 5.8 4.6 to 4.85 0.45 to 1 .2 2 6.8 to 7.3 6.2 to 6.75 0.05 to 1 . 1 • 3 7.0 to 7.7 6.7 to 7.1 -0. 10(1) to 1 .0 (1) Negative indicates net loss. There is very little market for the pit run material available at the plant site. The supply of this material (which is used primarily for site fill) far exceeds demand in the area. Sand and gravel companies along the Front Range already have large surpluses of such material, and none that we visited was even remotely interested in adding to their stockpiles. Con- sequently, it is unlikely that any significant amount of pit run material excavated from the site could be sold. At the current retail price for site fill material (approximately $1 .10 to $1.20 per ton) , the following average percentages of the total pit run supply would have to be sold for an operation to just reach the break-even point for the respective alternative: -7- • . Processing Percent of Available Pit Run Supply Alternative to be Sold for Break-even Operation 1 85 2 84 3 91 Since supply of pit run site fill already exceeds demand, it is not likely that the quantities associated with these percentages could be sold. Furthermore, these are "break-even" criteria; even more material would have to be sold for an operation to be profitable. The average percentages shown also assume, for Alternatives 2 and 3, respectively, that all base course material and coarse aggregate would be sold. These materials are generally in demand. However, with respect to Alternative 3, the coarse aggregate market is primarily for 3/4- or 1-1/2-inch size. Gravel at the site ranges from No. 4 sieve size to 1-1/2-inch, so the smaller gravel would likely be processed out as pit run or some other _ less marketable material. We have not examined the quantities of 3/4- and . 1-1/2-inch gravel available from the plant site deposits, but it suffices . to observe that not all gravel processed under Alternative 3 could be marketed for $3.20 to $3.50 per ton, thus requiring the sale of even more pit run material to avoid a financial loss. APPRAISAL OF DATA It appears that the alluvial deposits underlying the proposed plant site do not constitute a commercial mir• al resource. The information presented herein indicates that a sand anu .:rave( operation would suffer a net economic loss in attempting to process these materials for commercial purposes. Our conclusions regarding this site are shared by several local sand and gravel companies. Letters from two such companies are included herewith as Attachment A. Flatiron Paving Company's letter points out that, with • respect to the "sand and gravel deposits at the proposed Delta Treatment Plant site east of Greeley, there is not enough coarse aggregate in relation to fine aggregate for either Portland Cement Concrete or Asphaltic Concrete" and that "A commercial preparation would have to reject too much fine aggregate in order to obtain material meeting specifications for such an operation to be economically feasible at this time. " A key point addressed in the letter from Mountain Aggregates, Inc. is that "all the big Gravel producers are west of Greeley on the Poudre River: Mountain Aggregates, Inc. , Flatiron, Cowan Concrete, Greeley Sand and Gravel and Loloff Company. They have all explored the Gravel sources east of Greeley. " Gravel producers are in business to make a profit, and are constantly searching for areas where processing costs would be small compared to market value for the potential products. If any portion of the delta area was commercially feasible for gravel processing, it is unlikely that such a spot would have escaped their notice. It is the opinion of Curtis Strong, president of Mountain Aggregates, Inc. "that this area is to (sic) expensive to operate and should be left alone. " -8- • - r • It is conceivable that future demand and rising market prices could change so drastically that deposits such as those at the project site would be commercially feasible to process. However, history does not indicate such a turn of events. As discussed in the Mountain Aggregates, Inc. letter, the H&S Gravel Company operated the Walker Pit on East 16th Street in Greeley from 1959 to 1963. This pit is located in the delta area, "where the Platte River and the Poudre River, at one time joined," not far from the proposed Delta Wastewater Treatment Plant site. In the words of Curtis Strong (the "S" in. H&S Gravel Co.) , "In 1963 we gave it (the Walker Pit) up, as we ran into lots pf (sic) problems and very little gravel. We went in there with new, modern equipment and experienced people, but we were unable to make it pay." He goes on to say that "Although the price of gravel was not as good at that time, the cost of production was also much less. There was still not enough difference to make it pay. I'm sure the problem will be the same today as it was then. " The data presented herein indicates the problem is the same as it was in 1963--the cost of processing sand and gravel in the delta area exceeds the market price. The situation has changed very little in the last 15 to 20 years, and there is no reason to assume that market values for sand and gravel will increase more substantially than associated processing costs so as to make deposits in the delta area commercially attractive for gravel mining. SITE REHABILITATION In assessing the economic feasibility of developing the Delta Plant site as a mineral resource, attention has heretofore been directed only at comparison of market value with operating cost. Another factor must be considered. Mining the deposits at the project site, for any reason, would necessitate rehabilitation of the site subsequent to mining and prior to construction of the plant. Such rehabilitation would be substantial. The treatment plant cannot be constructed in a pit or on loose waste material (sand, fines) so an abandoned gravel mining operation would require extensive backfill and compaction operations and/or special foundation design to make the site suitable for construction. Therefore, for the deposits at the project site to constitute a commercial mineral resource, the processed materials must bring an aggregate market price which exceeds the combined total costs related to processing oper- ations plus site rehabilitation. REHABILITATION OPTIONS We have investigated three possible options by which the project site could be sufficiently rehabilitated, after mining the underlying deposits, to safely support future construction. These options are described as follows: ■ Option A--Mined-out site filled with loose-dumped granular fill with compaction of upper portion only (future structures founded on piling) . -9- ■ Option B--Site filled to grade with loose-dumped granular fill; compaction of fill in-place by vibroflotation. • Option C--Site filled to grade with granular fill placed and compacted in lifts. Each option will require imported granular fill material in quantity roughly equal to that of the material removed during processing operations (compaction will result in some net shrinkage, thus requiring fill slightly in excess of removed material) . To reduce postconstruction settlement, imported fill would be restricted to granular pit run material consisting of approximately 90 percent sand and 10 percent fines. Therefore, developing the site solely as a pit run source would result in having to obtain the same type and roughly the same quantity of material for fi l l as that removed. Construction costs would thus be increased by at least the charges for hauling and placing the imported fi l l. Option A--Loose Fill with Surface Compaction Rehabilitation would comprise dumping imported fill at the mined-out site (no compaction) until the backfill was at least 1 foot above ground water level. The site would then be brought to grade with imported fill material placed in layers and compacted to provide suitable support for paved areas and lightly loaded structures founded at grade. We anticipate that the compacted zone would extend approximately 5 feet below grade. Heavily loaded structures and those founded below grade would be pile-supported. Table 6 summarizes the rehabilitation costs for Option A. Option B--Loose Fill with Compaction by Vibroflotation Under this option, the site would be brought to grade with imported granular fill dumped in place. Compaction would be achieved by vibroflotation (in-place densification with a large probe which simultaneously vibrates and saturates the soil) over roughly 80 percent of the site (approximate area to be covered by structures and facilities) to a depth of about 30 feet. Costs for this option are shown on Table 7. The unit costs shown on Table 7 were secured from Vibroflotation Foundation Company (VFC) , Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. They are average costs based on densification to 75 percent relative density (roughly 95 to 105 percent of Standard Proctor maximum density) in materials similar to those underlying the plant site. Mobilization costs are negligible. Should vibroflotation be used, test sections would be conducted on site to optimize the compaction pattern. VFC estimates that eight compaction rigs could complete the work in 70 working days. Option C--Placement and Compaction of Fill in Layers Option C would consist of bringing the site to grade by mechanically compacting imported granular fill in 8- to 12-inch lifts. Compacted depth would be approximately 30 feet over 80 percent of the site, as for Option B. -10- - f O C C C C C .+ — — « E ° E o E c E o o • ID E E e 0 � oars o rn 0 co O I 1 t— r.• 0 n 0 O 0 tT in ? M - 0 N m O 4 . N N co C « C O O 'no r Gs N >'>• L p >' L O a « C4 • N 7 J 7 « U UU C ON a) O 0 0 .- N . . N .. L .- •- N L .- . 8 {4} NF N 8 4A• VI. •0 .0.0 .+ to >. >.>. • C w >. ...•o U 0 U « . �+ O C C C D 7 ID t0 Cu .O-. U 7 .' O 0 0 0 7 u 4.0 a to 0 X X X X 0 0 X 0 o '?4 .CO—N > CO at n > 0 r., CO • tD a 0 0 Cu •0 Cu C C3 C L ✓ Cu M to to C Q C t{r co C O O « to O 0 d ai m E c c E Cu 8 H E c E an 0 rn E E 4. O. o `° as co 0) d co crt L. co N m ri 0 t en co N 0 • yr 0 M O 0 to to It) L to W VF _• V► • O U U C C co to « « o>' 2 to 8 0 0 >.>' L. > •to O '' L > U 0 N 7 N -' C 7 O •- 0 . .- u u tuu 0 U U 0 « as to c o o 0 to to IA N C •— to cocy til a (V o IA �_ L •N .0 L w M W —. co) 0 7 Z u u u V Z 0 ' 7 E u O >. tD 0 �•. « 7 U L L o O 0 o w a C oto O 0 w 0. O (13 X X X X ... C tto 0 7 o x rX .c C I 00 en r. 010 to 4'4. 0 012 to ^ao toN 0.1 '... a•cn ^ 61N F... �v 00 3� N O 3 tD in L... U >- U L. Z _ •D•0 z — c « C 0 Cu O C CO C < Cu _ 7i Q to 7N i¢- o '0 c a1 . F c �' • c �'_ rn c o ,� '- co co - L " L fT L E� tai v 1 = rn 7 « 01 v ¢ O1_ c o m t0 W d a) I y J n C LL. u 0 -J fW. $ E `�U co O o H g E E J aa) O o Cu 1n a o 1— Z F- v1 E o H Z C O C O in C E o o E in m O In 9 • — o o E 1 In j In I ID • 0 - o 4'• o ti.; C ♦, .°j co ,I \ J. VI a L. N O w. U ,+ I Q C O.- IOn d Ni Ill LO. VI.3L U N >` 0 C w O U U CIo O O ID 3 X— a r 4 OD Cr' X �, > O • n d i+ v es .- w C v N L p O •O+R. • C L d C 0 C .d, o O 1p C = — 3 o o) TA" E c E E v ea fm .,in 0 0 0 _ d L 0 N — • N ° L d E 1 Io " 6' ID CZ J 12 r� n In CO r� O e .7 o a 4L CJ • a •o i.e.,Ii.e, y c 44 a>• u a) c a v c Yu C -0 i O W c.rt CO V) = ••' U cn E U iw CO e • o o aX rU v In O R a 41 L n d i? k Y a , L ML L T W lc 1``6. N U «_c o z c � >` IA-6 a �� u O w « 7 F' M ID U U L"O O d a. C aIo 2 — a 1p O .o U O' N 7 a �+ IA I o X T 3 C C U) am X C C '2 UU)i " • N 0 o d an • 3 Io U � � �,.. zE 'Lov O = C o c Hin ., U to Q L L C Of F- CO 0 L In Ei = c o 3 c = N C4— O c C >a WI— Q CO .., JL. g.c 'U L N f0 �<. Ili to F05-- F_�- a EE E Q o 0,6 v z • Mechanical placement and compaction would demand that the site be dewatered prior to commencing fill placement and that the water table be held at all times not less than 2 to 3 feet below the most recently-placed layer of material. Table 8 summarizes costs for these operations. TOTAL COST SUMMARY Tables 6, 7 and 8 show that rehabilitation of the project site, after mining the underlying deposits, would add $1 .6 to $6.2 million to plant construction costs. Additionally, the pile foundation costs associated with rehabilitation Option A must be accounted for. This option would necessitate founding most structures on piles, whereas such foundation support would not be required if the site was left undisturbed. • INCREASED FOUNDATION COSTS We have estimated the approximate number of piles needed to support plant structures if Option A was used. Our estimates assume H-piles driven into bedrock, and are based solely on preliminary information concerning • structural loads. Piling costs are presented on Table 9. Unit costs were obtained from local piling contractors. Table 9 ESTIMATED PILING COSTS Item Quantity Unit Cost Total Cost Material (W16x50) 1,000,000 lbs. $0.20/lb. $0.2 million Pile Driving 20,000 feet $5.00/foot $0. 1 million - I Mobilization & Indirect Costs 20,000 feet $3.00/foot $0. 3 million TOTAL $0.6 million Accounting for these costs under Option A increases the minimum total rehabilitation costs from $1 .6 to $2.2 million. Proper implementation of Option B or C should not increase foundation costs (except for actual rehabilitation expenses) over those associated with the site as it now exists. We anticipate that spread footings or mat foundations would be adequate for most plant structures for the existing soil conditions or for those resulting from Options B or C. COMPARISON OF TOTAL COSTS Extensive site rehabilitation would be necessary only if the underlying deposits were developed as a mineral resource. Therefore, it seems appropriate -11- • r • to compare the gross retail value of these deposits to the sum of operating • costs plus rehabilitation costs. A reasonable observation might be that the sands and gravels at the Delta Plant site could not constitute a commercial mineral resource unless potential income from sales of processed materials would not only recover operating expenses, but more than offset any construction costs attributable to the mining operations. Table 10 makes such a comparison. Processing Alternative 1 is excluded from this evaluation, since there is no rehabilitation option for that alternative (refer previous discussion regarding removal of pit run material and replacement with same) . Table 10 shows that when rehabilitation costs are considered, any attempt to develop the project site as a mineral resource under either Alternatives 2 or 3 could result in a net economic loss in excess of $6 million, the actual figure being dependent on the demand for pit and run. CONCLUSIONS We believe that sufficient information is presented herein to show that mining the alluvial deposits underlying the Delta Wastewater Treatment Plant site would not be economically feasible. We have based portions of • our analyses on estimates and average values, but we have also included • several points of conservatism to allow an optimistic appraisal of the deposits at the site: ■ Assumption that all material within the property lines of the 43.12-acre site, to a depth of 46 feet, would be usable. Actually, some minimum side slope would be required for excavation stability, and areas would have to be set aside within the property for the processing plant and material stockpiles. ■ Computed gravel quantities were based on material retained on the No. 4 sieve, whereas local aggregate suppliers typically define gravel as those particle sizes greater than 3/8-inch. Therefore, • gravel pit operators might consider that there is even less gravel than we have estimated. ■ No reduction in available resource quantities due to stripping or handling losses was considered. ■ All gravel sizes were assumed usable for coarse concrete aggregate, whereas anything smaller than 3/4-inch would likely not be suitable. The collective data indicates that unless the demand for pit run site fill material increases phenomenonally, the processing costs for a sand and gravel operation at the plant site would far outstrip the income. When costs are considered for returning the site to a buildable condition after it has been "mined out," total projected losses could exceed $6 million. If all excavated pit run material could be sold at the current market price ($1 .10 to 1 .2/ton) , a net profit of up to $1 .2 million might be realized from mining all available material at the site. However, the site would -12 N •-• 1••• n v O t/Y 7- I 1 - O N • . 1 z N 1 5 O O C- O O LL E o 0 per «" in N to to y o O LU u C o c a O N tO E co o to to 0.1 o N -. —U rn 0.1E C O :.= N 4)• E a O VT O O o o r n to d r, 2 C M n 62>= n n } a E ce Q L N� °° O U to n 2 cn 0 71 0 o U C« < 41 E N F- g to o �= F- F- a • then not be suitable for new construction. To just recover processing costs and increased construction costs resulting from mining the site, base course material and coarse aggregate would have to reach market values of approximately $7.00 and $11 .20/ton, respectively, while processing costs did not increase at all. Such a situation is not likely to develop; history indicates that processing costs and market values increase hand-in-hand. Those who are most familiar with the gravel supplies in Weld County--the gravel company owners--feel that the delta area "should be left alone," as far as gravel mining is concerned. The data presented in this report sub- stantiates that position. 1 • • • • -13- 4. SlialiEjsulEgiliallailli ' ura •OWI / 0.-. 4.-t3 0.-t: / • •II-10 4111-11 09-i4 0.-. 09-1 / 1 / , / -- SITE PLAN , ‘."*. 4 -'ck T1. '.) \li ( _ T / i \ �,,. 16th ST // �;1ti PROJECT SITE c rn 18th ST , ) ,mm. . LOCATION MAP FIGURE 1 CITY OF GREELEY . COLORADO DELTA WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT • MINERAL RESOURCE EVALUATION Q12M SITE PLAN AND CHILL APPROXIMATE BORING LOCATIONS T I 0 0 0 i- O o 0 n n v LIZ .;• '° n• • • 4 I I I I I I z 4 J Z O a O 0 - •C . , • • ''.'•- —III 0 Z < .. I I N O W J I C.) Y y J i J 0 .. p n a 0 P n .r U O I- <.. N In A 4 N 0 .0 0 Z V< > V• .. h T. C 4 N W W D < O V •C J on J W C W > - W V 0 0 C W V I _ D Jail L5 II II Il u WW7 Z 1 \ 11161 333? LL BL •rut r C 2 pi:... . la ,- w LL I- w ¢ .....-• 0 •I m A .m, 0 O A 0. — — 11 F 3 C I P — ,O A n In a • 'O n I.L. w •• < 2 vi- - N. Z. J Z LL W O se W N to •N•^ i2�' • • • • U OD • ♦ • A LLI J Z / O< O • , • \ • • • J •I�I�I� 2 Z Z 2 W m al O ,� « < C O J m O N O O < O S S \ ). N w n W Z 3 S .. I-. -. RI en < a n v JO J i — Z win .. J Z J p I.- n N Z < —,r Z f > Z > O 7 > W n J < H < Z O W I- u'— C — C < C J < Z>� aL -...•,- [2 94 . • N4.1 i V n II: W O <a k..1 m V ♦ 1 p is, m ,O m 1 O E 9. • +� 1' d �m n N N N in S P ry P :0— I A u ` ti in 1 ' N f. I .. W� F < J is ,,' - •pil • • Y \` •• a • .:, ., .I- - w I Z Z I I CO i 00 N S n n N ,p I C J 67 ^ N i Z•I Ill H Z Z -- J O a O a a V W U < O J C •Ii '�•. O 3 Z 3 G C CO . .�]� tJ J a ^+ ... m — N 1 S A 0 1 N P N A el .m CO in m n N N 0 PI NI A .1 N N _. \ N 0 N I r W N J • I Z < \t •N•r, 614 • • N O n 2 07 . N...,,,,,, ..N: \\.. # # ••• .. # .• .—7 -. n ;4- ; 4 n O 1JtlPm ... N Al I." S C N N m,y in ul V n •- O p<j n 0 I ^' ..•in 0 W < W LL 20„,<< C MI IS .Z 0 Q 0 a [r 0- n" WW O Z CC < I 0 C z ZO F y J O 0 �L r C •L •N•' •l4 • • • 0 Z — 2 £O w V LL I ' ' \ \\ < \\\ �' I O W a O mCZ O ® •` • —C - • ,) 4 C 3 J Y r • .• ..,•••••.„ .,•••is • i{•;. 0�. •,i • (��T K-• '\ ''I. II v O < n LL 2>•O C O C. A N •-NI O m J Z , w an W r0 - O n O N .. a N N n ..0 m m N n n N. 1 < W O Z W f n �'? '� -. N N n \ > JC —p 3 > < awn < C ,o I•I 04 0 0 < r W XL:Z V O N Z V< m F— 0 < . w < O- I- Z J I ` W Tin J<< D LL� —W p � .J.0>kJ Z ^ Z LL •A0N OC • • • • N LL 4. 0— O W O • `- • 0 O N C . '- N �f►� • ••.-•• .. Z O p>< Z \ _ • • • ow m W<n W • — c o Z r-7nZ n co ........ C m .. .� n .• n n m J Z• U Z a Z IX W W r N I a I r > 1- ..T T[r 1 J W J O O W n O r- ` 1J Z Z > Z Z Z u.C N W oO O O O O 0 O m A O N • M • b 40 in P in in n n In n • • a • 4 4 • 4 • • 4 .. CV 1334 'N011VA313 N w I- 0 z fa Q1poio • HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIEVE ANALYSIS + I IS S141DIIlD SEIIES I CLEAT SOME SPERMS 8$ pj O O O .2 O � � � � � _- �- N D ~ '•,�1• -,7. .. .4.: � ...... i ~t• -; 1_ 0 " _._ - 4. • -,7 1t• -I_-��•1 �-±1;� -,..4 `-, ,"fir• : .:.. . • i -.� ' .1•�r 1 �d T •4:4-1--.:�:_.�- IJ'1 _'�1�..1._.. ..t... _._-� t '.�� ' _ . ., ., - t ,-.11 i3;1 =--- -r1 _• :�I`.L:.� _ ... T _�y { , i� _• -' _ 1. __ -�- -T 20 - •--._ r-i •-_.-_• .....1-1-'• ___,_F i Y_.a :-.• r --_- IT,. 1•- y•,-�•r {= rr ._--'-_,-i-_--1.1- � E --4,--:- -1 • J`i-•-•_• - -- '_'1 .O^-.L«.t�--.—•-.- 'ter --i-� ' -4. . _ - • t I .. I . �. '... .a,1 12.460114'x{''}--� I-: '- I_T -1 ' 1 -FT:- -_ _: - -7—, --I.. .J-.---7 - --- -1:1-1-17-11-71-1—f'4---t—i, .---I-17-1H-'..._,J___-T-'1-H---1-1"-------i::::27-LF—T-1.;-41: '-:-__,---;—:__::—.- 1 2:_ :._ _--__- , .—.-__ .i_.___ _,— 0- ---I- ...--4-....., f--,--- -L-4-----'---r-1-}�-1 - ---_ ---t _1�J__..-{. I •--- { --_• _-_-_ -_ _. _.—�-_-1- = 1 '..-I-;_1 :-1-•Tt-�-;---- - --- -r---_ _ _ y .:- _ 4 _:?_ ..--• I 4--_-_T--217_774722.-1 T-i-_-.-- .1--21-: - - ----• . - -1--•- •"-"• -_1_-_,_1•_2_'-^_--_-___::__-60,;.- _r_____ ,1. --�•-- --T_T T� i-i . _-. - - 1-- II-'___• _ — W u..1 --+ -I-to- -1- - •4 --1 v--i- _-7_i7....-: - V , . . •_ - _� .: ••- -- c-- - _ o -4---174:1-:--i- - r' -_--n-- ! -, j-;-' 77,:1-4- • -• ' - I -- :-t,... - -1_ --- - -_ -: - - _ -- 30_:= .—� -`-i=4_--_1�.- J:'=..12 _T {__ _= _, ;_ -- - _— -. . - - '_._- 17.1-rr ._ - •{::..-.{—-----•--:__ _• - = -_- - _ . _--- — • 20 �,-�-.4-- a---.---=_+-_,-4-4,--r1-1- i--I t i ; T - . .- _ .. . - -_ 1_,-----,F-•:1:•__:---"--"_'---1----1_,.--_- .i 1- r.]- • --I-_,-:_. _ ,rw --- I:r' - - - - --7-.-- -- -`_ - ._ ---•--• -- (=;.--=-_,-ITIi,.1.1._'-.f.-2,_-11.1.1-.4_;-•_-1' _tt 1211- .21 ____ - __ - - - _ (-.- TTn + H ----+--_ -1-� Tom,- _ -1-,- ^ 1 ,-- ._.- -- -t: ;_ _ _ - . .- _ { y -t-r-----1--,- r - _ J -• . 7� ,- ;-_- . .:-:_. 100 _ j- - , -I_•_..-'-1 -"?" i Ty'-- -1.._j.--_-"l -fi l- -i ,--n .1 Q•• Q • • n v -, on moo 0 0 0 0 0 0000 D h onsa0 �„ 0 . a ono 0 ^� ^ a on�oo I 0 $ Qgaao� o c gqR -I I I I I I I I I N n . I,. a o.o. - el N. P P CO C7 n p • (`! N Q DIAMETER OF. PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS SAND GRAVEL COBBLES s- CLAY (PLASTIC) TO SILT COBBLES.. FINE l MEDIUM I COARSE FINE I COARSE ,I; FIGURE 3 + 10-16. 5 SS-2 SS-3, FT. 0 , O SS-4 , 20-21 . 5 FT. CITY OF GREELEY , COLORADO - Q SS-8 , 40-41 . 5 FT. DELTA WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT MINERAL RESOURCE EVALUATION GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS CH2M„BILL de BORING B-2 DI0828.D0 FORM 71 • t NYDIONETER ANALYSIS I MIMICS ANALYSIS - I u S STANDARD SERIES I CLEAR Stull CS O o 0 0 .p O -- la cs, - I . it iq • R 8$ � . g m # o _,_ 1-. _ i- t ;�— - —10 E..... ..,t _ __--_-- I I - • 1 J..- _�.. -_ t • / i 1r I 10 •—.«--t }- _ai---- — _.- --- _ -,— • - t{ ' -L . -� —20 , • . - - —• 1_ A i /, I - 60 __ _. __._.--- • - t t If 4 i1 i. T - O•5 - -___ - _-.- _ ; 1 - t 1 I r - sic _. J LW -30 _ :: I �i 1 t __ _ t =.•J I i 90 •4. - . _ •_- . . - - " _ -1-- T I r • - '' _ _L� -- - ' 1 �_ - -� ! - 100 1 - .....4.0 pppp ��- , H A \ h QA,�O H A .R - M F4 r 0 6.O S. 8 8 0 ��$8�� s q aQB� I I I I I I I I I I IN DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS DLL: 1SAND GRAVEL COBBLES CLAY (PLASTIC) TO SILTINOM-PLASTIC! FINE I MEDIUM 1 COARSE FINE 1 COARSE 6 SS-2 , 10-11 . 5 FEETaj FIGURE 4 a 0 SS-3 + SS-4 . 15-20 .5 FEET 0 ss-7 , 35-36 .5 FEET CITY OF GREELEY . COLORADO DELTA WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT 0 SS-12 . 7O-71 .5 FEET MINERAL RESOURCE EVALUATION GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS CH2M BORING B-7 UHILL FORM 71 - - r I NYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIEVE ANALYSIS + I - 1 S MIMI) SHIM I ClEA1 SCUM IrEIiICS o O O 00 : O \ - ^^ N 1 -- - _ ..__...•�.- R-. g$ Q -. 0--1,-N _ __ - -- . _0 IOD •.� •• - I r--- ! t t r - -. ._----- - -. - - L- - + 4 i - - 10•601' : `- - ` ' - . ' - I -- - - - 1 f i -- - t t -•20 • N50 _ -.. ._. . - _ - -- ._-_ j _ j- - , _ • it - _ - -- - -- - H --1-760 ..._...: :- + : -- i- --- i -; 1 ! _ `-x--60 20 - ----- - -- - i I ' --• • ` t ; I ; - 'j I i - 1 I $ - I ": � • - _ I- , - I i 4 (- i +- : - I i: - � 1._ i_ __L_ -1 100 • • --_ __ _ _.._ �Q H n f +f fir.MO F.„' O O �OOO�O fV n rf KO N n t h i'�� O ti G AI I 0 8 $ '08rgi1.2 0 4 0 O $A.- I r O O• 10 h p. D O % , DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS - SAND GRAVEL {COBBLES IIII CLAY (PLASTIC) TO SILT (NON PLASTIC) FINE 1 MEDIUM 1 COARSE I FINE I COARSE l W 6 SS-1 . 5-6 .5 FEET FIGURE 5 . r 0 0 SS-5 . 3O-3O .5 FEET CITY OF GREELEY , COLORADO 0 SS-1O , 55-56 .5 FEET DELTA WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT MINERAL RESOURCE EVALUATION I i 4. GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS CH2M BORING B-8OD RgHILL I 1 FORM 71 ' • E HYDROMETER ANALYSIS I SIEVE ANALYSIS - u S SlltDltD sowsI CLEAR Steal( OPE 7. NINGS I loo ___ .— —,-- --,-------.:......----____ _JR.". 78.1.-2 l'ii).--(9) -Pit!-- 7 -7 7 7 7- :11 71 :7:11 7 :km 7. :11:77----e: -lit j 1 ; n It 0 ill _ ---- - ? - '- _ _� -----50,.. in 50 --- - _ _ - —- - - -� - / j , { - i ca I . __ ___ -- •--. - i : 1 i l X40-- - — ..----- --- — -: { • , ► , - ° v - - 1 ; 1 y d C • a - V 111 to ---- .. .i . • 1 i ) i CS zo — _ 1 ....•••- I •-- _ t 1 4 - 'i - 90 # i , : $ I i -1-rte - - --- - :I1 i• i : 11t I { —�- 4�•; II - , l _ I - -- 100 ! --- - _-I- _ CpCp n n . .n •n Ko C g : g OripO nC . E$Gg2. o 2, as8 I I I I 8 g o 8 84Soo I I I I I I . I I f O P O. M n w9 a 0 DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS SAND GRAVEL COBBLES ~. CLAY (PLASTIC) TO SILT (MOM PLASTIC) FINE MEDIUM COARSE FINE COARSE O SS-1 , 5-6 .5 FEET FIGURE 6 e 0 55-3 , 20-21 .5 FEET C1 SS-5 , 30-31 .5 FEET CITY OF GREELEY , COLORADO DELTA WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT Q SS-8 , 45-46 .5 FEET MINERAL RESOURCE EVALUATION ♦ GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS CH2M IN BORING B-9 LgHILL FORM 71 r NYDIONE1ER ANALYSIS i n S S1 SIEVE ANALYSIS u0�)0 SERIES CIEli Malt IPERALS o R 8$ O O O .p O m . ,r, 4 -7.:.0 a � eh c� ) - 100 - • •.• - --_�•- _.--_ .7.77.7—:T -: V:_ j `i- - , ; : 7 I 1 ` - . . . . . - .__ ..__ __ __ _�_.__ .. t - 1 _, ':' : ' —: __-- � . __ ... ' . -- 1 — — - i `l 1 1� co - - --- - ---- - —.it I , 4 I r --- - -- - ^ -. a 3 X50 — — — _ 7.:—.. ..- —.— - — _i I I 1 i _ o� -- 1 Is ' ! , i 1 • i i - �40 — — -� - —r. I I II _1 �• W ' ! • I :. .L _ _ ._ , 100 _ _ _ 1 1+- - -- - r-_.« ••q 1 _ ...-_ - �___-_-- N Pf t •/1 Q��00 H 11 .. .1f •n MO H !9 1):-).":Y8 O- .. ^ t 8 i5 EE o a o a 8 Sao. I I I I o. 8 8 0 I I ,p n P Q 2 M P 0' co f� P N % c4 DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS SAND GRAVEL {COOSLES CLAY (PLASTIC) TO SILT (NON-PLASTIC) l FINE 1 MEDIUM COARSE i FINE COARSE jj S5-3 . 15-16 .5 FEET FIGURE 7 W o▪ O 55-5 , 25-26 .5 FEET CITY OF GREELEY . COLORADO SS-7 . 35-36 .5 FEET DELTA WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT MINERAL RESOURCE EVALUATION ♦ GRAIN SIZE ANALYSISC�H22H1M1 BORING B-1O '' FORM 71 NYOAOWETEA ANALYSIS I SIEVE ANALYSIS - tl S Si►ID►ID SERIES I MU SIu►IE IIEpIiS Qg O �� MO _ ��Yy,-LJ1-2.---..t -:=- ::_i __.:..1� - _E: _.1 , p z. T �.-. . 7..+.7. ; ..Ty : . ' 10 i f r . T20 1 . ' 1 t X50 :.- ___ - u : I I d • � - --- t - . - 1 i _ . + tl i - - + 10 _: i _. A __I -• t T '1 :::__ IL 411:-: --=-.--.. i•-.E90 . - i i E - J 1 ii ' Or p pp 8�$8g� 4 a a �o 0. O R D OD Z. $" I I IID .O N ,I V P Op. P h O•cr• r) {� OC•4 en DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS GRAVEL SAND C0BBLESCLAY (PLASTIC) TO SILT (NON-PLASTIC) FINE MEDIUM COARSE FINE COARSE A SS-1 . 5-6 .5 FEET FIGURE 8 W 0 SS-3 . 15-16 .5 FEET CITY OF GREELEY . COLORADO Q SS-5 . 25-26 .5 FEET •DELTA WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT MINERAL RESOURCE EVALUATION GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS CH2M BORING B-11 EC HILL I de ID FORM 71 I SIEVE ANALYSIS NYCNOMEIER ANALYSIS Y S S1►10►ID SERIES I CLEAR SIY►RE IIERi1CS io - 7-' 100 -::: - _ :�� -.�_ ; -�- • 1 --. . • •y 1 = :--- _ -• -- .` _i- _I_ : l _ 1• ► f'•• •• ♦.. .-1._.—� 111- • _ _• • --u -E • • . _ _ w�• f1 _{- — --2D :. . . -- • • - - - • _ _ . _,. I. .. —1 _i 1 .i: .: . - - - . . _ . --- • 114 -- I -lo i - -- - .1.7, . ___ _.. 11- : j ' --1 . •, ____ .. . ..... _ t— 1 11 1 ., 1. I tic, cc •y - - — - � , II I r : . .. . _____ _ _ . . , • . , . , . ill- to. ---- ----=-- _: -• -•- —_=- = -�:; i - i --• • _ - i I . ._ . -� �_ * • i j 9 I �-- , _ . I I L • __ -1 N n f rl A M•O N n f O 1��•8• .__ ! : _i . _ - 1 i L 11 1-- -_ 1 •.y.. _ - ry n \ h C•.��G o_ . . nf � � Mo I I I I I O. 8 $ o $$g� 0 4 0 0 ^l- I I I N O I e n h �• c n 3. N �j N < P • O DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IM MILLIMETERS GRAVEL SAND COBBLES CLAY (PLASTIC) TO SILT (NON-PLASTIC)• FINE MEDIUM COARSE TIME COARSE ieN SS-3 . 15-16 .5 FEETiz FIGURE 9 0 SS- . 25-26 .5 FEET v 5 CITY OF GREELEY . COLORADO 0 SS-7 . 35-36 .5 FEET DELTA WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT Q SS-9 . 45-46 .5 FEET MINERAL RESOURCE EVALUATION ♦me GRAIN SIZE ANALYSISCH12IM BORING B-12 GIP FORM 71 - r NYDmoNEIER ANALYSIS I SIEVE ANALYSIS u S MIDAIR SERIES I CLEAT SOULS( IPEIIICS N O 2 2 •t th N m _ 40 ---.1 ' ,»= — _ it I e� _ ` -- '. . ._- - - 1 _ T 1 —30 1 - ----* •----- -- - - - - 4 I - 1 - - t - -' i i ' X50 . .. .__ ----- - -- I i I ' • ._.' + f ( - I . : --�-- 1- 60: 1 • ac _ ..._. - - _ i .— r1 1 - J t -._� ` - f 1 I' - - -�---- • =:::_ - - - i - 1 - • . i a- -f ---90 - --tf- 1- Aj , 1 i I 1 { t} _}-, 1 — • _- _ —_ — - , _ - i — - 1 1 _ _L L-- 100 — 1 1 ... a n o....o � c g CO 2:I8 0` n n a n d��W a .v ^ a 8§8Eg. a a o 2Boo 2 8 84 8oA I I I I I I I I I I d p, 1%. O P m • n wl o. s 0 3 N55 N ' P DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS i SAND GRAVEL (COBBLES CLAY (PLASTIC) TO SILT (NOM PIASTICI I m FINE I MEDIUM I COARSE FINE COARSE FIGURE 10 W II SS-2 . 10-11 .5 FEET O SS-4 . 20-21 . 5 FEET CITY OF GREELEY . COLORADO DELTA WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT 0 SS-6 , 30-31 .5 FEET MINERAL RESOURCE EVALUATION GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS CH2M fir B-13 H2M .. FORM 71 F HYDROMETER ANALYSIS I • $ SIEVE ANALYSIS S1 u01e0 SERIE S I CIE AI SHARE or(!Itcs R 8$ 9i N Oo __ � �� A�� N �. 0 100 - - r - -_ _ I 11 r.. .. .I....* 4-..---_:--_. -J-----__,:: _ _. ... __ . , •, �_ 10 '• i (1 - I. �_ .j - . : , - ;.: Ili:::-11'....-Ili :._.' :-140 H -_ _ - - -_-___-___ 1 1 p� _ 1 1 1 ft DSO .. _. _ _ ij u I ` ► 1 1 E -1 - i t w s40--•- --v-----_- - - ------- -- T t I , 1 T- 4-1 ` CC WI d 20 :-_ _. • . i j i s ' I - 1 I • t: -:•-• -.----1-_----_-_-.--. .:-- .- ---- - :. + r - — '--90 - -I 1 I , . -1 ---.I.-. I - _ a - A• -- _. I I �j I ' 1 i ` I . .. • ;�-- _ —=^ _ - -L — • = 1 ! f I _ '-- -_t - - p100 -' ~ T-' - n \ n Q A44.O N n men •n Np n nti. O vPO Oo 8 Ecgg$ag� o aaoa^Io I I I I I I O I N."' o• er, �, in P fo'� lep N N Q DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS SAND GRAVEL 1COBdLE5 FINE I MEDIUM I COA ~ CLAY (PLASTIC) TO SILT (ION-PLASTIC) RSE FINE I COARSE W SS-1 . 5-65 FEET FIGURE 11 ac ac ICI 0 SS-3 , 15-16 . 5 FEET CITY OF GREELEY , COLORADO O SS-5 + SS-6 , 25-31 .5 FEET DELTA WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT MINERAL RESOURCE EVALUATION t. a GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS CH2M BORING B-14 ✓CHILLI FORM 71 - 1 ATTACHMENT A LETTERS FROM LOCAL GRAVEL PROCESSING COMPANIES [ EINE Ar OLf\) PAVING COMPANY P. O. BOX 859 • FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80521 • PHONE : (303) 484-3257 February 1, 1978 Mr. Thomas J. Huntsinger CH2M Hill P.O. Box 39048 Denver, Colorado 80239 Dear Mr . Huntsinger: We received the sieve analysis reports for the sand and gravel deposits at the proposed Delta Treatment Plant site east of Greeley. After reviewing this data, along with the overburden to gravel ratio, it is apparent to us that this is not currently a deposit that would be economical to mine . There is not enough coarse aggregate in relation to fine aggregate for either Portland Cement Concrete or Asphaltic Concrete . A commerical preparation would have to reject too much fine aggregate in order to obtain material meeting specifications for such an operation to be economically feasible at this time . If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to call . Flatiron Paving Company James H. Short JHS/dab PLATTEMOUNTAIN AGGREGATES, INC. TELEPHONE 785-225555 AREA CODE 303 P. O. BOX 10 utak • PLATTEVILLE, COLORADO - 80651 EMPIRE `70 P. O. BOX H TELEPHONE 569.2824 C AREA CODE 303 EMPIRE, COLORADO . 80438 o' RT. 2 - P. O. BOX 139 GREELEY TELEPHONE 352-6886 GREELEY, COLORADO - 80631 AREA CODE 303 March 21, 1978 To Whom It May Concern: I have been asked to evaluate the Gravel Pit on east 16th Street, that we called the Walker Pit. The H & S Gravel Co. operated this Gravel Pit from 1959 to 1963. In 1963 we gave it up, as we ran into lots pf problems and very little gravel. We went in there with new, modern equipment and experienced people, but we were unable to make it pay. The location is where the Platte River and the Poudre River, at one time joined. During the time we were there, we worked out the Poudre River gravel, that was on the north side of the pit. On the south side, we ran into numerous clay deposits and a lot of sand. In our entire pit operation, we only had 12' that was retained on a 3/8" screen. Although the price of gravel was not as good at that time, the cost of prod- uction was also much less. There was still not enough difference to make it pay. I'm sure the problem will be the same today as it was then. If you will notice all of the big Gravel producers are west of Greeley on the Poudre River: Mountain Aggregates, Inc., Flatiron, Cowan Concrete, Greeley Sand & Gravel and Loloff Co. They have all explored the Gravel sources east of Greeley. It is my opinion that this area is to expensive to operate and should be left alone. • Sincerely yours, /) Curtis Strong, resident CS/lf APPENDIX C SOIL SURVEY BY U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE T UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE 4302 W. 9th St. Road, Greeley, Co. 80631 March 1, 1978 Rfr1:itv EL169781 • Dennis A. Sandretto CI-4M CH2M Hill Consulting Engineers to r, Colo. 12000 E. 47th Avenue, Suite 400 � Denver, Colorado 80239 �� The following is in answer to your request for Soil Survey and Interpre- tation information for the construction of a Regional Wastewater treat- • ment plant to be located in the NZ of the SE' of Section 11, Twp. 5N, Range 65W and a portion of the SW4 of Section 12, Twp. 5N, Range 65W. The entire area is comprised of one soil type, Aquolls and Aquents, gravelly substratum. These are deep, poorly drained, nearly level soils on bottom lands and flood plains. Typically, they have mottled, mildly to moderately alkaline, loamy or clayey surface layers and are underlain by sand or sand and gravel within 48 inches. A water table is usually found at or near the surface early in the' spring and recedes to as deep as 48 inches by late fall in some years. This soil exhibits very severe limitations for building purposes due to the gravel substratum and the presence of an underground water table. However, with proper design based on soil engineeringgadequate structures can be constructed. You stated in your request that the plant could be constructed above the 100 year flood plain for the South Platte River. Another document you may wish to consult is "Flood Plain Information-Cache La Poudre River- Colorado-Volume II Greeley Weld County". It was prepared for the Larimer- Weld Regional Council of Government by Department of the Army, Omaha District, Corps of Engineers 68102, March, 1974. This document indicates the building site is within the Standard Project Flood zone of the Cache La Poudre River. I am including a copy of the soils description providing general information. An on site investigation was made by a competent soil scientist to affirm this soil type. Our soil information is based for agricultural use and can only indicate possible design needs for structure construction. An on site investigation should be made by competent soils engineers to determine pro- per structural design requirements. If we can be of any further assistance, please feel free to contact our office. onald D. Mill r District Conservationist cc: Weld County Planning Commission • • as- a - 40 3 - Aquolls anigje'lts , gravelly substratum t :U `wl These nearly level soils are on bottom lands and flood plains of all the major streams in the survey area. The Aquolls , which have dark colored surface layers, make up about 65 percent of the mapping unit. cc The Aquents , which have lighter colored surface layers , make up about 25 percent. About 10 percent is Aquolls and Aquepts , flooded , and Bankard sandy loam. "181MM" These are deep, poorly drained soils. They formed in recent alluvium. Typically they have mottled , mildly to moderately alkaline , loamy or clayey surface layers and underlying material, and are underlain by - sand or sand and gravel within 48 inches. They may or may not have a 4�+0� gleyed layer in the underlying material. _ -- r • 4*v- Most of these soils are subject to flooding. A watertable is at or near the surface early in the spring and recedes to as deep as 48 inches by late fall in some years . 11,0200 These soils are used for rangeland• and wildlife habitat. Some small areas have been reclaimed by major drainage and leveling operations and is farmed to irrigated crops. The potential native vegetation on these soils is dominated by alkali sacaton, switchgrass and western wheatgrass. Saltgrass , sedge , rush and alkali bluegrass are also prominent. Potential production ranges from 3000 pounds per acre in favorable years to 2000 pounds per acre in unfavorable years . When range condition deteriorates , switchgrass , ••:: . I a,w.aa«l+... ... ... '1.l i .J'•� • t . ►«..- ..-W . .. .. - . . . .K).,. d!•a b. r • alkali sacaton astern wheatgrass decrease and saltgrass , sedge and rush increase . Management of vegetation on this soil should be based on taking half and leaving half of the total annual production. Seeding on this site is difficult and costly since numerous tillage practices are • required to eliminate the saltgrass sod. Switchgrass , western wheatgrass , alkali sacaton, tall wheatgrass and tall fescue are suitable for seeding. For successful seeding a clean, firm seedbed -- usually requires more than one year to eliminate the saltgrass sod -- and a grass drill should be used. Early spring seeding has proven most successful. Wetland wildlife , especially waterfowl, utilize these areas. The availability of moisture due to the wetness of this soil allows pro— .: . duction of wetland plants that provide nesting and protective cover, as / v well as some food for waterfowl. The Juxtaposition of this soil to v' irrigated cropland areas where wildlife obtain much of their food , along with the cover provided , make this soil valuable to both wetland and openland wildlife. Openland wildlife , especially pheasants , use these areas for cover and nesting, while they also provide excellent cover for deer when found in areas inhabited by deer. Management for wildlife would include prevention of overgrazing by I livestock, protection from unplanned fire, and prevention of drainage. Where livestock are present , these valuable wildlife areas should be fenced to prevent unwanted encroachment and overuse by livestock. . . . _ . .�.. �..�..--•......�. --,._•,•,,.._,....�.........,�._ .r.,.x•.i�.r.., J.77..Z:. 1-7. .,171.,"', e L. .,, 4 ..•E; .7�C.-4::�1��.,=•IM•wr�ia l5.h�.-. <�.y,.;,�i�VWt-fir. i �.a O SSA••-, D,;7/ �' r. 1""'' �• : These soils have a good potential as a source of sand and gravel. Capability subclass VIw Oftwrims Salt meadow range site • • t . • Lamm* .. U.S.DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SCS-CONS-16 SOIL.CONSERVATION SERVICE OCTOBER 1974 SOIL MAP *+-•.•. , • NI FOR lNG EN6RS. Operator O �C/laM �/L1. CoivSvf/ p , County WFL b State ete2WP4Go Its'-< 7 Approximate scale's - J,i /e ;-`, '„ 1 Soil survey sheet(s) or code nos. P3-bb1�- Z23 PP ' " I Prepared by U. S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service cooperating �,..-. ,• • with WEST GREELE7 SnIL Conservation District ' '•.-.—Ts� s.'-r 4'T`-•".-----..,"---•1 % .y 1..* ., 4 1, , ,♦• ,,•• r•e S,47_� .y‘•t •' ''',/.', ; •. 1 ';r'•` ':: f �kI . : / A;'94 Vilt I d•i 1 -•• �', (�t. 1) •- t. !I'�\ lb' /�e„,„-e-:..-:,, }.'_a• s. , '•• . • .T I - t Y ij ,� 4.d�]) ""vir j(� !m � -, • � /• y�,s,• › ▪ ),�, yid,. �f" � ,t T4 1. , ,.,?•f p: •'Zir )'r '''t. ;..1 r.'v,I•y�yA�•,.f•Y ,_s,, -,-/,• I.'.i ../„1-^•_. �,;,_j-�` ' �F• i /.L`� , 4 t ! r. • r ' -a. , ,. ' , ��...- 1-1• .k ¢.r !' '-• --',;r'/r,•;'• :.:�,it•F•(• Y ,+i • ,.er,. Y /f" -�-:F� li ...'.'W„ 'i �4 •;t- _ ^ F Y !. i', --•f,-•'rely- `4.¢,,. •'yam -,,+j•- �.r-. -, ,,, r 1�'_,.. _.„7......4,,•-,..,,... ,•�f�+d� 1~ '�'' I• 3 �/ ►�� k,. J- .•.'"y'. r. , -: �s Kam" : ' ''F: ."'4c1134f 4 ',1 A ft., .-4-,, v r. , -.•; • I- :::irt,i •• .1.1 '../.1.1:1'YC''''''.ZA gm -, • - ....27._;_„, .....,-;., - .---,--.;,--..„....:2„."1.44:..,, F, � �� `t(( 1 - ,r. .� c,� tP`='' •.r`;i; � ", ,rar �Ir.rh 'IL':� � � /. �. / ..4 ; , _ • sue '):NA ••.� -'� /F f✓� 1 •..'.)! • �''"? ,'� . .rte . } /` , lit_ •.r�:• i•,�'L nyt4'..� 333�vv' r r �. ''�A I - Fyn_ '�,-y s �,l• I -• I 1,' J - • , M t` ....e• •T f a/ " • ' 'a "W ./ tr.'.' ?z,1_,_,,1-1, ®_ , � i • -r I ,, 1c_ • . ,a— ""`l -.- t, '--,ter, - ;+.+q q :t, �k ,fyi-e-1.::, ,};} 1r �.''It JA' Li ..,.•r '.��' r • • _ , ,..r_� •••.::,w:3• ; 1 - 3t/i i.�4�nr, 1. . .4t `v',,, - - ' Fr 1 A � p . . ,•• r. • .. •f• `.. - - 7 , F t,.•. '-e K':r';' '"i ..: ; `►•,,is I. ' .,_(� �S, i" .1, •a 6 .. •• l_ _ . „,•,..."':72-i."•"-+S•- s r i• `` •Ir`./.41.:"1. �., ,1 ...r,` .J ( • "f 7� , , ,'17.'r //�( ss-W,▪ �'-i.s»C-.rr•--�R, .,'r. 'r—.3 ILAC i-'^�t"• ,4 r - t- t �; 1 r �/ �`'� '�'tP: •� " Lr ° YJ` `` ',-1,..*:1 rte ''-.... ...4. C}^1 ''',.:77:• •••• -i )"...P7 tal, - , . ---- -..77.: s- , , r,.,z•,-�`r'0..Y1•,.• g•:, • 'I • - y� �' I�� ,�y `-o�YJ' !r i r�v'.• -y� T -fy�, 21• �\ I�r0. rrf' �• / 1 '1 -',� ! 7 eft{6�'�' 11�'�J� • / e�D� f l tY • w ,..,-;,t,,,•t. r' r �L % ys ,` S 4.1- •7 i '''r 11, !, ' ^ f. ,:t — /...4\ , , „ i lAtr -{ /M f i '4M ••_+„-rte/^ vi PA/41, • cwt` �� r't. ','.`7 •t ', ('i• Z,. SO A 17..!..,''� .+ r/L' • 7_ •. '"9 ,sl t•f,} 1, I t `l1.t-r py, i (,e .4:14....:".:._?&A-.1. _13 I; . '.. -., .•S . ,j ' ,• .i..Y• om` S {�\ .1 �. 2/ r,'-r'R.�yt^- .. ..,...:,,J,-.4--. �q•.� •.�• _ ,� fir.;is,t.- / �/ , ,,, �K s �rt, t `- ',,� % • • w - ._.��°t•+1 ' - ' ..•• ` � ' i.a,.....:1-. �ti'. 4 .-a _Y a 6:� r`, -,'o!. ::-%:-.0. :i/ G. 4 . '',.-••15-,-,'"11 EI ''',40-,S•4r�i,7,..,.:17-;;;.7" i''[-��1�«" r :. '_ '',F"`-7• ,Y.,i Hello