HomeMy WebLinkAbout20121601 • Epviroomerpa ,Jpc.
,A J. iSSIn FpS
LARRY E.O'BRIAN J 7985VANCE DRIVE,SUITE 205A
FOUNDER 1CI1 JUN 25 p W51DA,COLORADO 80003
STEVAN L. O'BRIAN 303-423-7297
PRESIDENT R r,,E V E D FAX 303-423-7599
June 22, 2012 t✓
Weld County Clerk to the Board
Board of County Commissioners Office
1150 O Street
Greeley, Colorado 80631
Re: Adequacy Response placement
Mined Land Reclamation Permit
Dear Sir/Madam:
We are delivering to you herewith, a copy of the adequacy review letter and our
response for our permit amendment application for the Fort Lupton Sand and Gravel Mine
(permit # M-1999-120) operated by L.G. Everist, Incorporated. Two copies of the amendment
•
application are on file with the Division of Reclamation, Mining & Safety.
This copy of the amendment application is delivered to you pursuant to
34-32.5-112(9)(a), Colorado Revised Statutes 1995, as amended, which states in part:
.... the applicant shall place a copy of such application for public inspection at the office of the
Board and Office of the County Clerk and Recorder of the county in which the affected land is
located.
This packet should be placed with the book for the mine in your possession and must be
kept for public review until the amendment has been approved by the Division. We will
contact you once it is and make arrangements to pickup this copy.
Please acknowledge receipt of the copy of the permit amendment by date stamping
this page and returning one copy of this letter to the person delivering the book. This will be
submitted to the Division of Reclamation, Mining 8c Safety to prove the amendment book was
delivered to your office.
Yours truly,
ENVIRONMENT, INC.
• Stevan L. O'Brian
enclosure
?LOLL QLU C`C, \�Wi\)1✓ 2012-1601
- - 1a
•
EpviroI)n) ei)t, C.
LARRY E. O'BRIAN 7985 VANCE DRIVE,SUITE 205A
FOUNDER ARVADA,COLORADO 80003
STEVAN L.O'BRIAN 303-423-7297
PRESIDENT FAX 303-423-7599
June 20, 2012
Mr. Eric Scott
Division of Reclamation, Mining & Safety
1313 Sherman St., #215
Denver, CO 80215
Dear Eric;
RE: L.G. Everist, Inc.
Fort Lupton Sand and Gravel, Permit# M-1999-120
Adequacy Response#1
•
On behalf of our client L.G. Everist, Inc., I will respond to your May 30, 2012 adequacy
review letter as needed in the order and number format presented in that document.
Exhibit C-Pre-Mining and Mining Plan Maps(Rule 6.4.3)
One or more maps may be necessary to legibly portray the following information:
(b) the name and location of all creeks, roads, buildings, oil and gas wells and lines, and power
and communication lines on the area of affected land and within two hundred (200)feet of all
boundaries of such area; While the overall quality of the maps submitted is very good, they
contain so much information as to be a bit difficult to read- especially in black and white. Please
present the Structure/ROW information on a separate map that correlates with the Structure/Utility
and ROW information included in Exhibit- S.
The third map exhibit in the C-map series is titled MAP EXHIBIT C-2 STRUCTURES. The
Affected Land/Permit boundary line, roads and water features have been left on the map for
reference. I re-scaled the map in the hopes it will be easier to read. Each structure owner was
given an alpha label to save map space and then the alpha label was attached to the structure on
the map where appropriate.
Exhibit E-Reclamation Plan (Rule 6.4.5)
D.R.M.S. has considered the tiered reclamation proposed by the operator regarding the above
statement. DRMS also understands the desire to clarify what state will constitute fully reclaimed
for release of mined cells for the post mining land use of municipal water storage. DRMS will
•
consider the completed cells reclaimed for release as developed water storage when the following
conditions are met:
1 All bank sloping must be completed to the stated 3:1 slopes or flatter.
• ENVIRONMENT, INC. PAGE Z
JUNE 20, 2012
2 All areas that are above the high water line, and are not graveled access roadways, must
have the required depth.of topsoil fully replaced and prepped for seeding.
3 All top-soiled areas will be seeded with the seed mix described in AM-02, and effective weed
control measures must be implemented until the cell is released from the permit area.
However, establishment of full revegetation will not be required for release if"reasonable
assurance"that development for the approved post mining land use will continue(such as a
completed sales contract between the operator and the party that will be taking over the
development of the water storage cells or other similar documentation)can be provided.
This corresponds fairly closely with the second option presented in the AM02 submittal, but a
notarized letter from the final owner tied to their development schedule is not required for release
if the previous conditions have been met.
Your description above is more eloquent then my attempt and describes what we intended in
Option 2. However, Option 1 was proposed to save the cost for topsoiling and seeding the
above-water area if they are just going to be disturbed during reservoir development shortly after
seeding. At $914.95+ per acre this could be a substantial waste of financial resources that would
serve no purpose especially if seeding was completed just prior to development beginning. For
• example, L.G. Everist, Inc. has completed items 1 and 2 on the list above and are waiting for the
planting window to open, but Aurora wants to start reservoir development before that happens.
According to item 3, the seed has to be planted before the Division will release the site. This
will either delay Aurora (not likely to happen) or cause Everist to incur an unnecessary expense
to get the site released that serves no purpose. Therefore, we would like to keep the option
available of not topsoiling and seeding areas if/when Aurora wants to immediately start
development (within 3-6 months).
Topsoiling- specify anticipated minimum depth or range of depths for those areas where topsoil
will be replaced. Although depth of available topsoil was stated as 6-12 inches across the permit
area, and there will certainly be a surplus of this material, it was never specified what the minimum
depth or range of thickness would be replaced on the areas to be revegetated. Given the
previous conditions, DRMS suggests a minimum topsoil replacement of 8 inches or a range of 8-
12 inches.
The term "growth medium" rather then"topsoil" probably better fits the upper 6 to 12 inches of
material across the site. You are correct in that there will be adequate growth medium for the
above-water areas. The practice at the mine is to retain enough material from the stripped areas
to reclaim any area disturbed that remains above the water table. The remaining dirt is sold. For
the record L.G. Everist proposes replacing a minimum of 6 to a maximum of 10 inches,
averaging 8 inches, of growth medium on the areas to be revegetated.
Exhibit G- Water Information (Rule 6.4.7)
DRMS agrees that groundwater issues are often complex interactions between a variety of
• factors; however, deviations from standard DRMS practice (such as the 2-foot trigger levels)must
be based on defensible groundwater monitoring data and not speculation and/or circumstantial
factors. The narrative provided also refers to wells such as"monitoring wells 9 and 10" but Figure
G-2 does not identify any wells with these names. Please provide an updated Figure G-2 that
• ENVIRONMENT, INC. PAGE 3
JUNE 20, 2012
depicts all existing and proposed monitoring well locations for this site with identifiers that
correspond to the data collected from them. Weil construction diagrams and a summary of
historical data should also be provided for existing monitoring wells. When are the new monitoring
wells going to be installed?
Attached is a revised Figure G-2 which shows the location of all the piezometers in use at the
mine and a sketch of the typical construction diagram for the wells as installed. The aerial photo
date for the G-2 map is June 2010.
We agree that groundwater issues are often complex interactions between a variety of factors
especially at this site. One example is with MW09 (narrative called this "monitoring well 9")
that is located .1500 feet north of our closest slurry wall, in which the water level has gone from
-7.35' to -19.42' or a 12.07 foot drop from 5/2004 to 6/2012. This was not caused by the shadow
effect of the slurry wall, but rather from the dewatering done at the mining sites to the west.
(Please note that this change has not impacted our neighbors or our shallow irrigation well north
of the Blue Ribbon Stage.)
In 2005, the Division approved a mitigation plan and trigger point for the existing mine area.
We propose keeping the approved a 2.0 foot trigger point until such time as we have had time to
• analyze the data collected more thoroughly to determine if the 2 foot change is appropriate for
this site. While there have been some level changes above the current 2 foot limit, those events
appear to be a result of seasonal changes rather than indicative of change related to the installa-
tion of the slurry walls.
Since 2004, L.G. Everist, Inc, has installed 46 piezometers (aka Monitoring wells)around the
mine. Piezometers 1 thru 14 started in 2004. Piezometers 15 thru 19 were installed and
monitoring started in April 2006. The most recent were installed in January 2012 so we have 6
months of data on these wells. Eight of the new wells, 35, 36, 38, 39, 40, 41, 43, and 44 were
placed within the slurry wall areas to be used during certification and will not be used to monitor
groundwater levels around the mine. Some of the older piezometers have been removed or
damaged during slurry wall installation and arc no longer used. These wells are not shown on
the map. The monitoring information we have collected has not been analyzed and is in raw
form.
We will provide a summary of historical data as soon as we have completed preparation of a
summary per your request. We propose doing this since the amount of data is too large and
confusing to be useful without some kind of analysis. Yearly review of the data collected to date
has not yielded information that would trigger mitigation and from what we have determined
much of the variations are counter to what the groundwater study indicated should happen. For
example, Monitoring Well #2 (MW02), located on the southwest corner of the Meadows South
Lake, is up gradient of the slurry wall. The groundwater study indicates that groundwater
• mounding would be a problem here, but since 2004 the water table has dropped as low as 16.39
feet below surface to as high as 4.17 feet below. This is range of 0.02' above to 12.20'below the
first depth measured before the slurry wall was installed. Until we can explain these types of
fluctuations we can not predict a fair trigger point for the mine. L.G.. Everist will submit a
• ENVIRONMENT, INC. PAGE 4
JUNE 2O, 201 2
summary of the monitoring data with an appropriate trigger level commitment in the form of a
Technical Revision to the Division by August 15, 2012. The Technical Revision will be needed
since it is likely an adjustment of the trigger point will be necessary.
This site is anticipated to, for all practical purposes; seal off approximately one mile of alluvial
groundwater access to the west bank of the South Platte River. Relying on existing seasonal
surface water diversions to maintain groundwater levels at current elevations is not an acceptable
solution, especially as the depths of these diversions relative to the existing ground surface has
not been provided. The Division will require substantial monitoring of groundwater levels along
the south,west and north borders of the site and a proposal to mitigate any groundwater
mounding/shadowing observed- including detailed corrective measures such as the installation of
control structures such as French drains/sumps. Please provide the Division with a more specific
proposal to monitor and maintain the prevailing hydraulic conditions based on historical data for
the site.
The monitoring and mitigation plans in place at this time will serve the mine since it covers the
surrounding lands around the existing mines. Any changes to the ground water table until
mining enters the new areas will only impact land and wells owned by L.G. Everist. This gives
us time to collect additional data for the areas around the mine and determine if sonic form of
mitigation will be needed to protect off-site properties.
• Attached is a copy of pages 6 and 7' from the adequacy response prepared by Wright Water
Engineers in 2005 and a copy of a 1/25/2005 letter from L.G. Evcrist, Inc.,outlining the existing
mitigation trigger. These pages provide the necessary information regarding the currently
approved plan and if more information is needed the complete Wright Water report is in the
Division's file.
L.G. Everist will continue to collect data as mining progresses, adding to the historical data
collected. We do not expect mining to enter the Blue Ribbon Stage or those stages south of the
Meadows and Vincent Stages for at least 10 years. This will give us time to observe what
impacts the existing slurry walled area is having on the groundwater table on the up gradient side
to the south and the down gradient side on the north. The southern-most slurry wall in the
Meadows phases will be 2700 feet north of the closest adjoining property owner so any
mounding that may occur will be confined to the mine area.
EXHIBIT H- Wildlife Information (Rule 6.4.8):
See comment letter included from Colorado Parks and Wildlife dated April 15, 2012.
We wish to thank Mr. Rogstad for the time the Division took to review and comment on out
proposed amendment. I will comment on some of the items he raised in the order presented.
South Platte River corridor- Review of the maps shows that we propose maintaining a
• minimum 200 foot mining set-back from the river in the existing permit areas and for the new
1
Source Wright Water Engineers, Inc response to D.R.M.S. Adequacy Review January 3, 2005
ENVIRONMENT, INC. PAGE 5
JUNE 2O, 2O12
areas as well. Generally, the mining setback is outside the cottonwood riparian corridor. No
trees will be replaced as part of the reclamation plan.
Little Dry Creek (LDC) corridor et al -The minimum setbacks along these water courses was
established at 25 feet in the existing applications and we are committed to the same distance in
the amendment areas. Design and layout of the reservoirs and mining areas was designed to
protect the LDC vegetation corridor. In many areas agricultural practice by previous owners
pushed the fields closer than 50 feet to LDC'. L.G. Everist, lnc. is committed to not disturb any
wetlands associated with LDC or the South Platte River. We have an agreement with the Lupton
Ditch Company to protect their structure.
Preble's Meadow Mouse comment- In 2004, during the last amendment the US Fish and
Wildlife service determined that this general area was not habitat for the Preble's Meadow
Jumping Mouse`. All of the amendment area where mining will be done has been intensively
farmed for many years leaving little or no native vegetation where the ute ladies tresses orchid
could be.
The seed mix proposed is appropriate for the end uses projected for the site. A weed control
• plan is in place to manage noxious weeds.
Thank you for the tips on cleaning equipment.
Exhibit L -Reclamation Costs (Rule 6.4.12)
The bond calculation is currently under review. Please provide the perimeter distance and
average depths for all cell slurry walls currently installed. You may also provide corresponding
invoices for this work to substantiate actual unit costs, DRMS will also need the depth of topsoil to
be replaced over the expected 132 acres that will require revegetation, and an estimate of the
average push distance for that material. DRMS agrees that a phased bonding approach is
appropriate for this site, however, the operator must commit to notifying DRMS IN ADVANCE of
performing activities that will significantly impact the required bond for the site, such as installation
of slurry walls, exposing more than 1500 feet of unreclaimed mining face, and disturbing any
currently undisturbed areas of the permit. Other relevant information such as SEO approval of
installed slurry walls or clay liners should also be transmitted as appropriate.
Attached is a Reclamation Cost Estimate providing the information you requested. As we
discussed I have shown the distances and depths of the slurry walls that are complete or will be
installed this summer (through October-2012), but do not have water exposed in them at this
time. l have included the surface area disturbed during construction of each one.
Exhibit S-Permanent Man-made Structures (Rule 6.4.19)
DRMS acknowledges that all surrounding structure owners have been notified and provided with a
damage waiver agreement=with the exception of Welco Ventures whose notification appears to
have been returned as undeliverable. As required by Rule 6.4.19, Please provide sufficient
information to demonstrate that the stability of any structures located within two hundred (200)feet
2 Source September 2004 Amendment submittal pages 17 thru 24
• ENVIRONMENT, INC. PAGE 6
JUNE 20, 201 2
of the affected land will not be adversely affected for structures for which signed agreements have
not been received at this time.
Welco Ventures was a ROW holder named on the Blue Ribbon property title deed for a gasline
ROW crossing the property in the same locations as the Duke Energy pipeline is now. We
assume Welco sold their ROW to Duke Energy. Duke Energy signed the damage waiver on
3/2/12.
A slope stability analysis was prepared by Tetra Tech on 8/31/04 based on mining the slope from
1.3:1 to 1.5:1 and the Division suggested there could be communication problems between the
pen-nit and the actual practices by the mine personal. To avoid this we changed the mining
method so the mining face slope will be mined at a rate of near vertical to %z:1 slope and changed
the fixed setback from the property line or structure to allow for installation of slurry walls. The
setback from the permit/affected lands line to the outer edge of the sluny wall is a minimum of
20 feet; the slurry wall is 3 feet wide and the mining setback is 25 feet from the center of the
slurry wall to the dig line. This will leave a 46.5 foot setback from the property line to the dig
line. Please review the attached sketch plat which shows the related slopes and depths discussed
in this text.
• In Mr. Sorenson's adequacy response letter dated 12/31/2004, he responded to the Tetra Tech
letter and suggested using a friction angle of 35° (1.43:1) was more appropriate for calculating
the safety factor. In lieu of redoing the report L.G. Everist choose to obtain structure agreements
from the structure owners around the 2004 amendment area. In the new area we have structures
where waivers have not been obtained yet. So in lieu of that we have prepared a slope stability
analysis using Mr. Sorenson's suggested friction angle factor. This analysis uses a worst case
scenario so that if the setback is adequate to protect the structure in that case, then it will be
adequate for structures farther away. In this case the closest structure is the fence along the
north side of the Vincent West Stage and the Sandstead property on the west side of the mine.
The deepest point from surface to shale is 38 feet is used in the calculations. Please review the
attached Geotechnical Stability Exhibit for details.
In conclusion, the analysis shows that the 46 foot setback is more than adequate to protect any
structures not owned by L.G. Everist within 200 feet of the permit line having a safety factor of
L22. This safety factor along with the plan to begin backfilling against the mining face as
mining progresses will eliminate the likelihood that a slope failure would occur that might
impact any structure.
Any letters from other commenting agencies/entities received by the Division to date have been included
with this correspondence for you to review.
Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation - We will follow their suggestions if human
. remains are found.
Office of the State Engineer- L.G. Everist, Inc. understands the requirement for dust control
water.
• ENVIRONMENT, INC. PAGE 7
JUNE 20, 2012
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS TO THIS RESPONSE:
Exhibit C2-Structures Map Monitoring well map(G-2)
Typical Construction diagram Geotechnical Stability Exhibit
Copy trigger letter(2005) Copy mitigation plan(2005)
I hope these responses have addressed the adequacy questions you had. I will place a copy
of this packet with the Weld County Clerks' office as required. If you have any questions please
call me.
•
Sincerely,
Environment, Inc
Stevan L. O'Brian
President
• cc L.G. Everist, Inc.
Weld County Clerk
file
enclosures
•
L.G. EVERIST, INC.
• MOUNTAIN DIVISION OFFICE
7321 E.86TH AVENUE•SUITE 200
HENOERSON,COLORADO 80640
Rock Solid Since 1876 I� 303 28�cos
FAX 303-289-1348
• dba Andesite Rock Company CORPORATE OFFICE
300 S.PHILLIPS AVE.•SUITE 200
P.O.SOX 5829
SIOUX FALLS,SD 57117-5829
PHONE 605-334-5000
January 25, 2005 FAX sos 33a-3656
Ms. Kate Pickford
Environmental Protection Specialist
Division of Minerals and Geology
1313 Sherman St., Room 215
Denver, Colorado 80203
Via Mail and Facsimile (303-832-8106)
RE: L. G. Everist, Inc. (LGE), Fort Lupton Sand and Gravel Mine, DMG #M-1999-120;
Third Adequacy Review Response Letter
Dear Ms. Pickford:
We have received the Third Adequacy Review, dated January 24, 2005. Thank you for getting
back to us so quickly. We accept the Division's requirement and commit as follows:
Exhibit G -Water Information
• Commit to measures to be taken if trigger point is reached
If any one of the following trigger criteria are reached, then the trigger point has been met:
groundwater level drops 2 feet below the 3 month average for groundwater; a compliant is
received; or vegetation is stressed. If any one or combination of these conditions occurs,
LGE commits to starting the assessment/investigation of the situation immediately to identify
the cause(s), and also commits to immediate implementation of appropriate temporary or
permanent mitigation measures as required.
We hope with this additional commitment, that LGE has addressed all of the Division's
concerns, and that the Division can now recommend approval.
Thank you for all your work and guidance. Feel free to contact me at 303-286-2247 (office), or
303-514-2778 (cell) with any questions.
Sincerel ,
n Maye
Reg ulato Manager
cc: Dennis Fields, L. G. Everist, Inc.
Jim Sittner, L. G. Everist, Inc.
Maureen Jacoby, Banks and Gesso
• Dave Mehan,Wright Water Engineers
Kim Ogle,Weld County Planning
Weld County Clerk to the Board
Ross Bachofer
LM/FL-Resp3rdAdegRev-dmgKP-012505.doc 1
i a d
c
op
III—III— \•\ e
I1=1I_I—II \\\
IIIIIIIIIIIII • • • • • \\ w -~
- 111-7=17-17 I \\\\
—III—III— . • \\
III-111=11 • • • • • • \
=III=111= . \\\\ I�
IIIIIIIIII�II � • � • • • • • \\\ II _ "
=111=1II- •
� b \\\\\
IIII �1111E • liU g • \
-TILT=
•
. . .
^max • 1. S ,.
II —
T_=II(—ll
111=1_LI= •a U \\
29i 11=111-11 p o, • • �\
-111_1 I E- E \\.
1=►I11=�I a, U : • • • • • \\\
=111=1 I— • . \\\\
111111111TH •1 � • � •� •� •� •� • � • \\\
T 111111 • • • • ,\\
-111-111- . • • • • • � � \ \
I-111-ll \\\
. • • • • • � � \\
I�1=Ti-�1 •� •: •� •: •� •: •� •: • • • • • \
-111-Ill- \\\
�I11�TI \\
-111-111- \ \'
EIIIITIIIII � • • • • • * • • \� \\\\
I I-111-11 � . .\ \ ��
,f_ • ...,-"- -
31
r( . ,e • I*'rte ,..,,�'l k \ ♦:'
_ ifaj
it s eiCLVH, ., , . . , -.
1 �. >a.. ♦ _ --'f -,ice _i11,009141113 10 erar
as qr�� ._ ., '. _ ' _ 4 �, "11 ,J alp ,
J• t. 4r I + fed
7 - ♦ .
_ ailteklue ,f• 4 14 ill •••
ens ! e__ _. •
.. .. ,- ,- ' ...
,. `
• i
1 N , i
1•
MW 46 NI
....... lif\i"? 0
der..- lett sty
N.
:Ai,. = -1/40,..fr,i...--.--T:
All
MW 8 �r -, "-- - "r` =ti mot.;# ' t' . ''�►+1"
it
•
MW 7 �� .� PAW 1.
.4iii � �- • J A l `
ets
IMW 40 lifde-.....1 , ' a N."--- '
MW 24 � _ w" ♦
... ,f/ IIMW 39 MW 43 • �,
di •Ii
MW 41 II WIW 44 # ' y - - '� -
II, ille. h14 I� . : - a M 5 I'
MW 42 , lli _ ,
i
I I ..., ,IPP • . 13. •-•
See .. bi
MW 23 ! • '
.1 .. p MW 13
MW 6 ,� Ili t_ A _ _r —
ID
ti.or is t . 3
,MW`'4 - MW 16 ►:
int
MW 22 II _ ��' :se.,
,i ?'s
/r1 II r .
IIMW20I MW5 ,,._ �'._ �' J a-Fr ,, -3
YI� f T Jill
` yare. .�, y: .- Tr ti;Li'• Ir•�
lib Ati \lik
" tit, alms' 1 w iliac
el 1
I sr
/ irtf e.
MW 38 / ..,,, • _ „wee . _ r ea ..'
of
_ _ . . .,
MW 37
4) mw _ ''` `
�f r iktilrbi��
II MW 36 r - " '
-i•
I sit.
mow Ns VII
ti t e
V S all• 4m A
S.
11
li
via
•
^ Y I h' ►• Iii
-
�.. I / I t IMW 32 * l.
MW 34 MW 33 MW 2 F .
i j
6 IIPP
'.! a11. . •y • 4
t I.Yw .# r !
X 4f j:VO ikk•
�:h I - MW 30 m MW 31 a '" . - . ' 41teas
MW 29 r : w II • - I . + ,, . ; i,
.4, . . i) is
! `IL. r r' .tf ki t fr
-0
4 4 -
ll
401 . .
. •
MW 26 j 1
I MW 28 I MW 27 a , _
. i FIGURE G-2 (REVISED)
ii
�' : t MONITERING WELL LOCATIONS
,,ter „lir
PHOTO DATE 11/2010 L.G. EVERIST, INC - FORT LUPTON S&G
L.G. Everist, Inc. Permit # M-1999-120
Fort Lupton Sand and Gravel
• GEOTECHNICAL STABILITY EXHIBIT
This information is presented to address the plan to mine
within 200 feet of the structures listed in Exhibit S . The mine
depth closest to any structure where no waiver agreement has been
obtained is 38 feet . As mining will occur within the slurry wall
lined areas the areas will be dewatered first and then mined dry.
The closest structure for which there is no damage agreement is
the fence line along the north side of the Vincent West Stage and
the Sandstead property. In this area the setback from the
permit/affected lands line to the outer edge of the slurry wall
is 20 feet; the slurry wall is 3 feet wide and the mining setback
is 25 feet from the center of the slurry wall to the dig line .
This will leave a 46 . 5 foot setback from the property line to the
dig line . The following information is presented using these
distances to determine the safety factors that show there would
be no impacts to structures within 46 feet of the areas to be
mined. See attached sketch plat .
As mining approaches the perimeter of a Stage a 25 foot
mining setback will be staked from the center of the slurry wall
• to establish the mining limit . This will leave an undisturbed
section of gravel at least 46 . 5 feet wide along the reservoir
boundaries . The mine face will progress to this line and expand
along it until backfilling begins by placing compacted fill
material against the mined face . The limited length of the face,
the lack of water pressure and the backfilling plan assure the
14: 1 face will remain stable until backfill material can be placed
against it .
In 2004 , Mr. Alan Sorenson reviewed a Slope Stability Report
prepared for the mine by Tetra Tech. He suggested that a more
appropriate friction angle of 35 degrees should be used, when
non-site-specific information was available than the angle Tetra
Tech used. So for this analysis the 35° angle is used to calcu-
late the safety factor. The suggested number falls into the
parameters listed in Rock Slopes: Design, Excavation and Stabilization,
Publication No. FHWA-TS-89-045, Table 1 - Typical Soil and Rock Properties
for Sand and Gravel, uniform grain size .
The material in the mine wall will be in-place sand and
gravel and assumed to be cohesionless and having an assumed
• friction angle (DA) of 35° ( 1 .43 : l) . Using this information we
have calculated the factors shown in the following table using
the formula FS = Tani _ Tan9, where 0 is the slope angle from the
toe of the cut to the closest structure (permit line) .
GEOTECHNICAL STABILITY EXHIBIT(CONY)
•
Slope Evaluated I Calculated �, Factor of Safety
slope angle for 3-35°
Proposed slope (36:1) ', 62.84° 0.36
Slope from toe to '.I I
29.94°' 1.22
closest structure I
n!
29.5 angle ie calculaLed front 38 feet slope :e ytt and 66 Beet no_z z,,n.a_
fx,ft thetoe of face to the perfUt line
As shown above, the safety factor for the closest structure is
1.22, so by reason as you move away from the mine face the
greater the safety factor would be. Instead of risking a failure
and for safety reasons, L.G. Everist, Inc. has chosen to use the
method of slope stabilization described in the reclamation plan.
The Tetra Tech report shows that the reconstructed reservoir
slopes will be stable at the proposed 3:1 sloping rate.
•
•
L. 6 EVER/ST, INC. Permit # M-1999-120
Fort Lupton Sand and Gravel
0 Geotechnical Stability Exhibit
Voice
C`Ce 0 t (-0‘
ett� \�tr� �,�e e o{
66 . 00 '
1 . 50 '
20 . 00 ' — 25 . 00 ' 4 19 . 50 '
• A .
_ N / . D° p
•
D - ° - •
°. •1O -b D : . . D D .
D ° ° • D / . , ° .
•
° D - D A
p D D ° D • ° l 7
• D / D co
A : D D / D • • /SN •
"n
D ° •
D 38 , 00/ ° ~%,�e • o
D o D °D • N / 4j. • D co
° 62 . 8 ° •
:9 •
• S D D - D D ° • / ' ' D • -• ��..• •
° • D D - ' • • - • 9,•93° 'D : •
D • u ° D •D • • . o ° . p
D • D • ° / 4N . - j •° • • . . . • • 1 g ° D
TYPICAL SEC77ON
•
JUN 14, 2012 - 12: 26: 25
L.G. Everist, Inc - Fort
Lupton Sand and Gravel
Ms. Lynn Mayer excerpt from Wright Water
January 3,2005 Engineers report of 2005
Page 6
•
L.G. Everist, Inc. TABLE 1
Water Its North of LGE Ft. Lupton Pit in Potential Groundwater"Shadow"'
Predicted%
Permit z Yield Depth SWL Reduction in
No. Owner Use (soil (ft) (It) Saturated Thickness
LGE Only All Pits
6639 B ibbon 1 1,200 28 6 11 16
Nursery
6638 Her I 1,100 30 6 6 8
6637 Hein t 1,200 29 10 7 11
185928 Bearson D 15 53 15 5 7
181568 Hein D 15 42 4 3 5
See Drawings 4 and 5 for locations.
2 I=Irrigation; D=Domestic:
Recommendations
1. Continue monitoring. It is recommended that WE continue to measure groundwater
. in the existing monitoring wells (Drawing 1) throughout the life of the existing mine.
Groundwater should also be monitored throughout the life of the expansion area, as
discussed later in more detail.
The data should be evaluated prior to any mining in the expansion area to determine the
following:
• Average growing season (May 15 through October 1) and non-growing season
groundwater levels.
• The range of growing versus non-growing season levels.
Waiting until just prior to commencement of mining of the expansion area will allow for
more data to be collected. Pre-mining data are appropriate since they represent
"baseline" conditions without the expansion, during which there have been no reported
effects. Precipitation and irrigation should be considered when analyzing the baseline
groundwater data.
2. "Trigger development" It is recommended that a"trigger" be developed to determine
impacts to groundwater from the WE expansion. The trigger should be based on the
data and consider natural groundwater fluctuations. The trigger should also require
documentation of a complaint since implementation of mitigation measures, as
subsequently discussed, is relatively expensive.
•
L.G. Everist, Inc - Fort
Ms. Lynn Mayer Lupton Sand and Gravel
Y excerpt from Wright Water
January 3,2005 Engineers report of 2005
Page 7
•
3. Mitigation. If the trigger is reached based on post-mining data, the following actions
should be undertaken:
• An evaluation of the data to confirm that LGE is responsible for the change should
be completed.
• Implementation of mitigation measures.
Mitigation measures that could be implemented (not necessarily in the order listed)
include:
• Construction of a pipe/drain to equalize groundwater levels. Preliminary
modeling and calculations indicate that it would be possible to construct a gravity
drain or pipeline to equalize groundwater levels to mitigate impacts from the
proposed expansion. Such a drain or pipe could be constructed along County Road
18, or between lined cells in the proposed amendment area, where it would convey
water from the upgradient side of the operation to the downgradient side.
• Release of water in ditches/laterals. Water could be released in ditches/laterals to
provide irrigation, increase recharge,and/or raise groundwater levels.
• • Well improvements. Affected water wells could be deepened or modified to
increase yield. Alternatively, new alluvial well(s)could be constructed to provide a
new water supply.
WE should provide temporary replacement, if needed, while studies to determine
fault are being conducted, or while mitigation measures are in the process of being
implemented.
The exact mitigation measure or combination of measures would be determined based
on additional investigations and consultations with the affected party. Costs for
implementation and maintenance of mitigation measures needed from WE
operations should be borne by LGE.
#9 Effects on stability of wells,wetlands,and cottonwood trees.
As described in the previous response and shown on Drawing 5, the cumulative impact
study completed shows that the amendment area reduces groundwater levels by a maximum
of 5 feet north of the pit. Potential impacts from this drawdown were addressed in #8. The
following addresses potential impacts from mounding.
The impact study shows a rise in groundwater,or mounding,of 3 feet on the west side of the
operation due to the proposed amendment.
•
EXHIBIT L RECLAMATION COSTS (6/19/12)
L.G. Everist, Inc. - Fort Lupton Sand and Gravel M-1999-120
• This reclamation cost estimate in based on the assumption
that no more then 155 . 00 acres will need some form of reclamation
at any one time. Of this, 136 . 06 acres will need revegetation
and resoiling and 18 . 05 acres is road area. The 79 . 0 acres Plant
Site covers parts of 3 stages, the scale area and G&S Solutions
plant areas are listed under the Stage where they are located.
The table below contains all the data, for each area disturbed,
used to calculate volumes and areas described in this estimate.
The disturbed areas include, the plant site; slurry wall con-
struction pads and staging areas; the above water areas around
active mining areas, roads, stripped, partially mined or par-
tially reclaimed areas . Between the two mines there are 2
certified slurry walls; 3 installed walls which are not certified
and have exposed water; a 2 that will be installed by October
2012 but will not have exposed water. The slurry wall depths to
bottom of keyway and as built lengths are shown in the table.
The total potential water surface area in the 3 uncertified
reservoirs areas is estimated to be 89 .74 acres . In this esti-
mate we would have to complete bank backfilling on 16, 650 linear
feet at 41 .68 cyd/linear ft . The slurry wall platforms would
only need grading and seeding as they were/are built using growth
medium and fines from the mine area. The volume of concrete
contained in the foundations of the scale and the processing
plant is 125 yards .
A 627C Cat motor scraper or similar equipment will be used
•
to resoil the area and a 140G Cat motor grader or similar equip-
ment will be used to shape the seed bed, the resoiled areas and
rip the plant site. A D8N Cat dozer or similar equipment will be
used to reconstruct the compacted liner on the perimeter of the
reservoirs.
We have included a factor of 20% for the Division to do
remedial work on the completed liners if SEO certification is not
accomplished. We also rounded the pumping time to the next day
and used 72, 300 gal/day as a transmissivity number to figure
inflow from the aquifer. These figures are then used in the
calculations for the bond amount. The tables below outlines the
various areas of disturbance at that the time described above.
DATA
EXPLANATION QUANTITY UNITS
Soil depth 8.00 Inches
Lake bank sloping construction 41.68 cloth
Slurry wall installation cost $3.00 sq-ft
Slurry wall bond factor 20%
Bank slope construction time 267 days
Weed control costs 5.000.00 Per year
•
EXHIBIT L RECLAMATION COSTS(cont)
• LG.Everist, Inc. - Fort Lupton Sand and Gravel M-1999-120
DEWATERING DATA
Description AMOUNT UNITS
Area 100% of take depth 80.77 acres
maximum depth 25 feet
length of Y2:1 slopes 16,650 feet
Unit volume of water on 1/2:1 slopes 156.25 cft/Lft
Gallon conversion factor 7.48 gal/cft
Transmissivity# 72,300 gaUday
Pump rate minimum 6,000 gpm
CALCULATED VOLUMES AND TIMES
Slope water volumes
'/::1 slope capacity 19,459,688 gal
100%depth 658,040,985 gal
• Total pumping volume 677,500,673 gal
Pumping time
Dewater lake 78.41 Days
Slope construction time 267.09 Days
Recharge factor for inflow during slop- 2.89 Days
ing time and Dewatering
TOTAL PUMPING TIME* 348.00 Days
*NOTE:pumping time rounded to next full day
•
2
. 'a• V' O O _ U) In
•
O O (— (n N. N O
(D tD (D M T co
M M CO (D O TI
o r r T
F
a O O Oa. La ori
T T
c! .111 :
a, r N N
c
o T r ..--
5 T T
W a, � a o CD
W c t (O co M
a } T T
w�",• 0 Q' U))
C N p
o � �,
ua) . o
c o0 0' (n
O u 3 z r)
`n `
U ()
Z
O o (0 ( .I
a i _ 3 � v �I
gi � o
Q
ill (D CO In 0 co. ••
• - ti t- (0 O (n 0 Nto 0)
_ p co O N O (�) (,) T M
co c N N T
a ro
a
— LO co 0 0 0) 0 0
••
(n In N 0 T 0 �n
N
3 CO In CO T
m co co 0) CD e•- U) Q O
> O (n '' CO U') O O
m o6 N N T r: C) M c
L d Z T T (0 T O)
O 1—
CU
a i ,-P%c
Cl)cc
) Z n
m
O T
2W F- J
' 0 ¢ D r O
J -
Q I F =
r a) U) F- O F-
Z
la i O CO °° v Z W W O
i t-- U) W 03 O _J a
< U _I _I W
C X F` S W Q Q w
(7 < CC p 0:
W J W I- O) J
C9 � X
m �! (O > , Y J D ce Z
• ! W WW _I _I O •
K (yl 2' Q' a _I U) Cr) 0 Id.
W J.
EXHIBIT L RECLAMATION COSTS(cont)
• LG.Everist, Inc. - Fort Lupton Sand and Gravel M-1999-120
ESTIMATED UNIT COSTS FOR RECLAMATION ITEMS:
Unit Cost
1 . Revegetation includes grass seed mix and labor
to drill $250 . 00/AC.
2 . Re-spreading soil and/or growth media with
627-E Motor Scraper, Haul distance less than 900 . . . 55 .2c/YD3
3 . Rip seed bed in plant site, 140G motor grader . . $60 .63/ac.
4 . Grade and shape seed beds, 140G motor grader . $59 .54/ac
5 . Pumping costs includes, full service rental of
self contained pump, fuel, maintenance and
servicing daily $166 . 67/day**
6 . Backfill side slopes, D8N Dozer push distance less
than 250 feet 63 . 7 /YD3
7 . Slurry wall construction $3 . 00 SQ-FT
8 . Slurry wall bonding factor 20%
9 . Demolition & on-site disposal $7 . 00/Yd.
10 . Secondary Revegetation seeding only $250 . 00/ac
RECLAMATION COSTS
• 1 . Revegetation, 136 . 06 ac @ $250 .00/ac $34, 014 . 33
2 . Resoiling, 146,337 yd3 x 1.12 @ 55.2 '/yd' 90, 471 . 89
3 . Rip plant site 79.00 ac @ $60.63/ac. 4, 789 .83
4 . Grading and shaping 136.06 ac. @ $59.54/ac 8, 100 . 30
5 . Dewatering, 348 days @ $166.67/day 58, 000 . 00
6 . Backfill and compact slopes, 693, 972 yd3 x 1.15 @
63 .7C/yd3 508, 712 . 13
7 . Slurry contingency fee. 836,323 .5 sq-ft @
($3 .00x20%) 501, 794 . 10
8 . Demolition & on-site disposal 125 yds@ $7.00/Yd. 875 . 00
9 . Secondary revegetation 136.06 x 25% x $500.00/ac 8, 503 . 58
10 . Weed control costs 5, 000 .00
Net Total $1, 228, 764 . 75
11 . Indirect costs
Mobilization 3, 574 .14
Insurance, Bond, & Profit 166, 128 . 99
Administration costs 69, 744 . 69
TOTAL ESTIMATE $1, 468, 212 .59
RECOMMEND BOND BE SET AT $1,468,200.00
Equipment listed in this estimate is used for the calculations and similar types may be used in the
actual reclamation activities at the mine.
Source of figured using, Cat Handbook #38 and rental costs from Means for 83% efficiency, for eastern
Colorado
• ** Estimate for services from Rain for Rent, Pt. Lupton, CO (970) 535-4963
4
STATE OF COLORADO
DIVISION OF RECLAMATION, MINING AND SAFETY
Department of Natural Resources
COLORADO
• 1313 Sherman St.,Room 215 DIVISION Of
Denver,Colorado 80203 RECEIVED RECLAMATION
Phone:(303)866-3567 p MINING
FAX:(303)832-8106 MAY 3 V{� 2012 SAFETY
ENVIRONMENT INC. John W.Hickenlooper
Governor
May 29, 2012
Mike King
Executive Director
Steve O'Brian Director
Environment Inc. Loretta Pirieda
Director
7985 Vance Drive#205A
Arvada CO 80003
Re: Preliminary Review of a 112 Construction Materials Reclamation Permit Amendment Application
Package AM-02,Ft Lupton Sand and Gravel,Permit M-1999-120
Dear Mr. O'Brian:
The Division of Reclamation, Mining, and Safety has completed its preliminary adequacy review of your 112
construction materials reclamation permit amendment application. The application was called complete for review on
March 28, 2012. All comment and review periods began on March 28,2012. The decision date for this application is
June 26, 2012 Please be advised that if you are unable to satisfactorily address any concerns identified in this
review before the decision date,it will be your responsibility to request an extension of the review period. If there
are outstanding issues that have not been adequately addressed prior to the end of the review period, and no
• extension has been requested,the Division will deny this application. In order to allow the Division adequate time
to review your responses to any adequacy issues, please submit your adequacy responses to the Division no later
than one week prior to the decision date(June 19,2012).
Please note that any changes or additions to the application on file in our office must also be reflected in the
public review copy,which has been placed with the Weld County Clerk and Recorder.
The review consisted of comparing the application content with specific requirements of Rule 6.1, 6.2, 6.4 and 6.5 of
the Minerals Rules and Regulations of the Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Board for the Extraction of Construction
Materials. In general the application was substantially adequate; however, as with most applications there are a few
items that will require clarification of the existing information. Any inadequacies are identified under the respective
exhibit heading.
APPLICATION FORM: Adequate as submitted
EXHIBIT A-Legal Description(Rule 6.4.1): Adequate as submitted
EXHIBIT B -Index Map(Rule 6.4.2): Adequate as submitted
EXHIBIT C -Pre-mining and Mining Plan Map(s) of Affected Lands (Rule 6.4.3): One or more maps may
be necessary to legibly portray the following information:
(b) the name and location of all creeks, roads, buildings, oil and gas wells and lines, and power
• and communication lines on the area of affected land and within two hundred(200)feet of all
boundaries of such area; While the overall quality of the maps submitted is very good, they
contain so much information as to be a bit difficult to read- especially in black and white.
Please present the Structure/ROW information on a separate map that correlates with the
Office of Office of
Mined Land Reclamation Denver•Grand Junction•Durango Active and Inactive Mines
.r_
Page 2 of 4
•
Structure/Utility and ROW information included in Exhibit-S.
EXHIBIT D-Mining Plan(Rule 6.4.4): Adequate as submitted
EXHIBIT E-Reclamation Plan(Rule 6.4.5):
in those instances where the post-mining land use is for industrial, residential, or
commercial purposes and such use is not reasonably assured, a plan for revegetation shall
be submitted. Appropriate evidence supporting such reasonable assurance shall be
submitted.
DRMS has considered the tiered reclamation proposed by the operator with regard to the
above statement. DRMS also understands the desire to clarify what state will constitute
fully reclaimed for release of mined cells for the post mining land use of municipal water
storage. DRMS will consider the completed cells reclaimed for release as developed water
storage when the following conditions are met:
1- The lined cell to be released has passed the SEO tightness testing requirements
and SEO has approved the clay liner or slurry wall.
2- All bank sloping must be completed to the stated 3:1 slopes or flatter.
3- All areas that are above the high water line, and are not graveled access
roadways, must have the required depth of topsoil fully replaced and prepped
for seeding.
4- All top-soiled areas will be seeded with the seed mix described in AM-02, and
• effective weed control measures must be implemented until the cell is released
from the permit area. However, establishment of full revegetation will not be
required for release if "reasonable assurance" that development for the
approved post mining land use will continue (such as a completed sales
contract between the operator and the party that will be taking over the
development of the water storage cells or other similar documentation) can be
provided.
This corresponds fairly closely with the second option presented in the AM02
submittal, but a notarized letter from the final owner tied to their development
schedule is not required for release if the previous conditions have been met.
Topsoiling - specify anticipated minimum depth or range of depths for those areas where
topsoil will be replaced. Although depth of available topsoil was stated as 6-12 inches
across the permit area, and there will certainly be a surplus of this material, it was never
specified what the minimum depth or range of thickness would be replaced on the areas to
be revegetated. Given the previous conditions, DRMS suggests a minimum topsoil
replacement of 8 inches or a range of 8-12 inches.
DRMS acknowledges that the entire permitted area within AM02 will be considered
affected area.
EXHIBIT F-Reclamation Plan Map(Rule 6.4.6): Adequate as submitted
•
Page 3 of 4
• EXHIBIT G-Water Information (Rule 6.4.7): DRMS agrees that groundwater issues are often complex
interactions between a variety of factors; however, deviations from standard DRMS practice (such as the 2-
foot trigger levels) must be based on defensible groundwater monitoring data and not speculation and/or
circumstantial factors. The narrative provided also refers to wells such as "monitoring wells 9 and 10" but
Figure G-2 does not identify any wells with these names. Please provide an updated Figure G-2 that depicts
all existing and proposed monitoring well locations for this site with identifiers that correspond to the data
collected from them. Well construction diagrams and a summary of historical data should also be provided
for existing monitoring wells. When are the new monitoring wells going to be installed?
This site is anticipated to, for all practical purposes; seal off approximately one mile of alluvial groundwater
access to the west bank of the South Platte River. Relying on existing seasonal surface water diversions to
maintain groundwater levels at current elevations is not an acceptable solution, especially as the depths of
these diversions relative to the existing ground surface has not been provided. The Division will require
substantial monitoring of groundwater levels along the south, west and north borders of the site and a
proposal to mitigate any groundwater mounding/shadowing observed - including detailed corrective
measures such as the installation of control structures such as French drains/sumps. Please provide the
Division with a more specific proposal to monitor and maintain the prevailing hydraulic conditions based on
historical data for the site.
EXHIBIT H - Wildlife Information (Rule 6.4.8): See comment letter included from Colorado Parks and
Wildlife dated April 15, 2012.
EXHIBIT I-Soils Information(Rule 6.4.9): Adequate as submitted
EXHIBIT J-Vegetation Information(Rule 6.4.10): Adequate as submitted
• EXHIBIT K-Climate(Rule 6.4.11): Adequate as submitted
EXHIBIT L - Reclamation Costs (Rule 6.4.12): The bond calculation is currently under review. Please
provide the perimeter distance and average depths for all cell slurry walls currently installed. You may also
provide corresponding invoices for this work to substantiate actual unit costs. DRMS will also need the
depth of topsoil to be replaced over the expected 132 acres that will require revegetation, and an estimate of
the average push distance for that material. DRMS agrees that a phased bonding approach is appropriate for
this site, however, the operator must commit to notifying DRMS IN ADVANCE of performing activities
that will significantly impact the required bond for the site, such as installation of slurry walls, exposing
more than 1500 feet of unreclaimed mining face, and disturbing any currently undisturbed areas of the
permit. Other relevant information such as SEO approval of installed slurry walls or clay liners should also
be transmitted as appropriate.
EXHIBIT M- Other Permits and Licenses(Rule 6.4.13): Adequate as submitted
EXHIBIT N-Source of Legal Right to Enter(Rule 6.4.14): Adequate as submitted
EXHIBIT O - Owner(s) of Record of Affected Land (Surface Area) and Owners of Substance to be
Mined(Rule 6.4.15): Adequate as submitted
EXHIBIT P-Municipalities Within Two Miles(Rule 6.4.16): Adequate as submitted
EXHIBIT O - Proof of Mailing of Notices to County Commissioners and Soil Conservation District
• (Rule 6.4.17): Adequate as submitted
EXHIBIT R-Proof of Filing with County Clerk and Recorder(Rule 6.4.18): Adequate as submitted
Page 4 of 4
• EXHIBIT S - Permanent Man-Made Structures (Rule 6.4.19): Please note that roadways and above-
ground or underground utilities (if present) within 200 feet of the proposed affected area are considered
permanent man-made structures. In accordance with Rule 6.4.19, when mining operations will adversely
affect the stability of any significant, valuable and permanent man-made structure located within 200 feet of
the affected area,the applicant may either:
a.)Provide a notarized agreement between the applicant and the person(s) having an interest in the structure,
that the applicant is to provide compensation for any damage to the structure; or
b.) Where such an agreement cannot be reached, the applicant shall provide an appropriate engineering
evaluation that demonstrates that such structure shall not be damaged by activities occurring at the mining
operation.
Please provide evidence (certified letter to structure owners) that a notarized agreement between the
structure owners and the applicant was pursued. If an agreement is unable to be reached a geotechnical
assessment may be provided to demonstrate that the structures shall not be damaged. You must provide
information sufficient to demonstrate that the stability of any structures located within two hundred (200)
feet of the operation or affected land will not be adversely affected.
DRMS acknowledges that all surrounding structure owners have been notified and provided with a damage
waiver agreement—with the exception of Welco Ventures whose notification appears to have been returned
as undeliverable. As required by Rule 6.4.19, Please provide sufficient information to demonstrate that the
stability of any structures located within two hundred (200) feet of the affected land will not be adversely
affected for structures for which signed agreements have not been received at this time.
• Additional Information: You will also need to provide the Division with proof of notice publication.
Adequate as submitted
Any letters from other commenting agencies/entities received by the Division to date have been included
with this correspondence for you to review.
This concludes the Division's preliminary adequacy review of this application. This letter shall not be
construed to mean that there are no other technical deficiencies in your application. Other issues may arise
as additional information is supplied. Please remember that the decision date for this amendment
application is June 26, 2012. As previously mentioned, if you are unable to provide satisfactory responses
to any inadequacies prior to this date, it will be your responsibility to request an extension of time to allow
for continued review of this application. If there are still unresolved issues when the decision date arrives
and no extension has been requested, the application will be denied. If you have any questions, please
contact me at(303) 866-3567 x8140.
Sincerely,
E44;
Eric Scott—Environmental Protection Specialist
• CC:
Enclosures-Comment letters from: CO Parks and Wildlife,COE,CO SHPO,SEO Division of Water Resources
\(1•R.gr� COLORADO PARKS & WILDLIFE 44 �L
t,
p'� t/ 4207 West County Road 16E
rC♦ • Loveland, Colorado 80537 C 4/4/tiat
• 111k> Phone: 970-472-4462 • FAX: 970-472-4468
wddlite.state.co.us•parks.state.co.us
April 15th,2012 RECEIVED
vI6r. Eric Scott
PR 2 3 /VI?
Department of Natural Resources
Division of Reclamation, Mining,& Safety to DI vJsi:;n(n-
1313 Sherman St., Room 214 t.".runcj c.,,:,I
Denver,CO 80203
Re: L.G. Everest Inc., Fort Lupton Sand and Gravel Mine, Permit No. M-1999-120
Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) received your request for comments regarding the
amendment to this mining application and appreciates the opportunity to comment on this
project The Fort Lupton Sand and Gravel mine lies in the South Platte River valley
located north of the city of Fort Lupton between County Road 14 '/2 and just north of
County Road 18 on the west side of the S. Platte River.
While much of the project site is composed of disturbed mining areas and agricultural
pastures,there are also valuable wetlands and riparian habitat that are of high value to
• wildlife. The South Platte River and the cottonwood riparian corridor adjacent to the
river is high quality habitat for many species of wildlife that use the riparian corridor for
migration,shelter, nesting,and food resources. For these reasons CPW requests that the
riparian corridor be left undisturbed to the extent possible. Buffer zones or setbacks from
the bank of the river should be set back approximately 300 feet to ensure that riparian and
wetland habitats remain intact,to preserve wildlife habitat,to minimize additional
siltation in the river and to insure proper stream bank stability. CPW also recommends
that any cottonwood trees that need to be removed be replaced on a one to one basis
during site reclamation.
The Little Dry Creek and the Fort Lupton Bottoms Ditch, East and West Branch, also lie
within the project area. These wetland waterways provide wetland vegetation that serves
as habitat for many species of wildlife as well. CPW recommends that a 50 foot setback
from the banks of these wetland areas to preserve the vegetation along these waterways,
to minimize siltation,bank stabilization and wildlife habitat.
In areas where mining will take place CPW recommends that the developer consult with
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding the presence/absence of Preble's meadow
jumping mouse and the Ute ladies tress orchid which are federally endangered species.
The wetland habitats found on the project site are potentially suitable habitat for both of
these species. Consultation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service will help determine
whether survey work is warranted prior to onset of mining.
• STATE CF COLORADO
John W.►idcSo Wer.Common 1.90 Krq.Executive Dinkier.Depw tmeS of Natural ReeCUrtes
Rck D.Cabo,manor,Colorado Pats and Val is
Pats ad Willa Contrast David R e orphan•Gay aullano h,Vm.Clak•Chris Can
Doroarea Fa*•Tim Glenn,Char•Man Janes•MKa+s•Gaper Peron •Jan Prbl4•John Strawy
•
We would encourage that reclamation efforts incorporate the use of grasses and wetland
forbs native to the South Platte River valley to ensure proper plant suitability for this
location. This should also facilitate higher sue sc of reclamation and re-vegetation
work. We also recommend that a weed management plan be implemented during
construction and after the completion of the project to prevent establicbment and spread
of noxious weeds.Noxious weeds can destroy native wildlife habitats and impact area
landowners as well.
If heavy equipment to be used for the project has previously been used in another stream,
river,lake,reservoir,pond,or wetland,one of the following disinfection practices is
necessary prior to construction to prevent the spread of New Zealand mud snails,zebra
mussels,quagga mussels,whirling diceace,and any other aquatic invasive species into
this drainage. These practices are also nrrpcsnry after project completion,prior to this
equipment being used in another stream,river,lake,reservoir,pond,or wetland:
• Remove all mud,plants,and debris from equipment(tracks,turrets,buckets,
drags,teeth,etc.)and spray/soak equipment a 1:15 solution of Sparquat
institutional cleaner and water. It is our understanding that Sparquat may no
longer be available. We are exploring other potential options. Please contact
us if you wish us to let you know of other alternatives as they become
available. Keep equipment moist for at least 10 minutes OR
• . Remove all mud,plants and debris from equipment(tracks,turrets,buckets,
drags,teeth,etc.)and spray/soak equipment with water greater than 140
degrees F for at least 10 minutes.
Clean hand tools,boots,and any other equipment that will be used in the water with one
of the above options as well. Do not move water from one water body to another.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on project If you have any questions
regarding these comments,please contact District Wildlife Manager Chris Mettenbrink at
303-906-1979.
Sincedy,
Larry gated
Area Wildlife Manager
CC:S. Yamashita,K.Green, L. Rogstad,C. Mettenbrink
• STATE OF COLORADO
Jon W.Kdrertooper,Governor•Mice tong.EXeautive Director.Department of Mi ral Resources
radc D.Cables,Director.Cdorado Parlor and Wile
Parks and WkIlle Commission:David R.Brougham•Gary Butlenvort,vloe-Chalr•Chris Castilian
Metes Farris•Tin Glenn Che• Nan Jones•ea Kane•t,apaPsalm* •An Ptby!•Jon Eer4etery
wane 3neh Cansr•u•Art .t r,M.enrar•r area%NEM%•Clean UUfrrAM4i
IA
CoMeIsa0E--
___ „r�TT I•
• ,. ',;"_ : ��. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
�` � CORPS OF ENGINEERS,OMAHA DISTRICT
DENVER REGULATORY OFFICE,9307 SOUTH WADSWORTH BOULEVARD
LLTILETON,COLORADO 80128.6901
'rA11.ti p' April 3,2012 Ah. er.
IUIr. Eric Scott
APR 05 `O12
Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety pi okiii.li of RNA 4'zz40hn
Department of Natural Resources Ming '.;sirti:e
1313 Sherman St., Room 215
Denver,CO 80203
RE: L.G. Everist,Inc., Fort Lupton Sand and Gravel Mine,Permit No.M-1999-120
Corps File No.200480231
Dear Mr. Scott:
Reference is made to the above-mentioned project located in Section 30, T2N, R66W, Weld
County,Colorado.
If any work associated with the above-reference project requires the discharge of dredged or fill
material, and any excavation associated with a dredged or fill project,either temporary or permanent in
an aquatic site,which may include ephemeral and perennial streams, wetlands, lakes,ponds,drainage
• ditches and irrigation ditches,this office should be notified by a proponent of the project for Department
of the Army permits,changes in permit requirements or jurisdictional determinations pursuant to Section
404 of the Clean Water Act.
Work in an aquatic site should be identified by the proponent of the project and be shown on a
map identifying the Quarter Section,Township, Range and County or Latitude and Longitude, Decimal
Degrees(datum NAD 83)and the dimensions of work in each aquatic site. Any loss of an aquatic site
may require mitigation. Mitigation requirements will be determined during the Department of the Army
permitting review.
If there are any questions call Mr.Terry McKee at 303-979-4120 and reference Corps File No.
200480231.
Sincerely,
Timothy T. C.*�y
Chief, IX ' • :ulato Office
tm
•
.. � u �Km_: � :��.��r a�. . . . . .,�.. ��,. ..,x.. .:�:- .
I1I5�i�C) Rl"�i (<. �`
• �.< _
:Ar,id G, ;i41? -
i`:tic C-�cott
13nv�rorim.ennil 1''ro�ecuon Spece�Lst
�):vision o[ HedamauUn, Ainn'iti su�l $stet��
l>c�aru�ient oE Narutnl Kcso��irccs
1 513 Shc mun Stecc[, Room 217
!�)em-cr, Colot-ido 30307
Re ,G L+vcus�, lnc, f�t Lu�xon Ssnd and Gr,;ccl blinc, Permit tiq, i�l-I)99-130-� Rcvi�c�d (Ch 1S #G1570)
llesir D'(r. Srou�.
.1"hank y�ou for poue foilo�v-up correspondence d�ted [�fardi 28, 2012 (received b� our u[fice or��larch 30, ?U12)
re�nrding d'ic subjec[project.
A search of tl-ie Colorado Q:Itt�eal Rc;ouxc� Inven�ory database inclica[es d�at several cultur,il resource
� mrcnt�rie; ha�e been conduc�ed w�id�in or nenc [he pi�opos�d pcxnut ates and a number oF culRiral �xo��ert�es
hac� b�en recoc�led in�ludin�a, rhe Lupton llottomv Dit�h (sitc 5\�7?GS?) wh�c6 w;�s derernuned eligible foe thr
Nauonal Rc�is�er oF I lis[ocic Plnccs (I�R}�-IPj.
\�'e recommen[I rh�L the opecntor nvoid tlus s�te or that addiriunal inventory be conductec� to deterrrune the
eFfect oE rhe proposed proiect on �his resouree If site avoidance is no[possib(e,we recommend f�ix[her
cunsul�n�on �vith ou� oEEice in ordcc ro idenuf opuons to a��oid, nu�umize,or rrtiugare the adve�se eE(ect to [he
s�tes
Should human �emains F'�e discovered during rruning 2ctivides the eequi�erz�ents under Stare l��v CRS 24-SO par[
13 apply and must be (ollowed.
�f'han4: you Cvr the oppo�runity [o curnmenc If we may be uC hird�ex a≤;is�ance, plesse contaci �1erk Tobias,
Secuon 106 Coinpliance Ma��gei�,a[ (303) 866-d674 oe madc.tobias(u�sratr.co.us.
Sincerel}',
����l��h---_-
�Edward C. Nichols
Staie f-fictone Presecv�tion Officee
1�:CN/b�L�,1.
•
HISTORY COI_ORADO CENTER 17_00 BROADW�Y DENVER COLORADO H02'
/sw o DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Lid/
DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES
•
John W.l iickcnlooper
�87h% Governor
Mike King
Executive Director
Dick Wolie,P.E.
Director/State Rnl;ineer
Response o Reclamation Permit Amendment Application Consideration
DATE: April 11, 2012
TO: /Eric C. Scott, Environmental Protection Specialist
CC: Division 1 Office, District 2 Water Commissioner
FROM: Sarah Brucker, P.E. ,513
RE: Ft. Lupton Sand and Gravel Mine, File No. M`-'1999-120
Operator: L.G. Everist, Incorporated, (303)287-4656
Sec. 19, 30 & 31, Twp. 2 North, Rng. 66 West and Sec. 25 & 36, Twp. 2 North, Rng. 67
West, 6th P.M., Weld County
COMMENTS: The applicant has requested to add 698.90 acres to the existing 256.0 permitted acres, for a total
of 954.90 permitted acres. This amendment will combine the Fort Lupton Sand and Gravel Mine with the
• Lupton Meadows Reservoir (M-2002-104) and add seven (7) additional parcels. The mining method, final
reclamation plan, and reclamation methods will not change as a result of this amendment. All of the mined
areas are proposed to be developed into a series of 22 lined reservoirs ranging in size from approximately 10
acres to 52.5 acres. The Fort Lupton Pit (M-1999-120) and the Lupton Meadows Pit (M-2002-104) are both
included in the L.G. Everist Combined Substitute Water Supply Plan, which covers depletions caused by gravel
mining operations at the sites through December 31, 2013. As noted in the SWSP approval dated February 3,
2012, a new gravel pit well permit must be obtained for the current use and exposed surface area at the Lupton
Meadows site in accordance with §37-90-137(2) and (11), C.R.S. An application for a new gravel pit well permit
for Lupton Meadows is currently pending under receipt no. 3654645A. So long as the amended Ft. Lupton
Sand and Gravel Mine (including the Lupton Meadows Pit) is operated in accordance with an approved SWSP
or approved plan for augmentation, this office has no objection to the request
RECEIVER
R111U ;.
Division of Reci3-.
• Mining& Sal,
Office ofrtKe Stateingineer
1313 Sherman Street,Suite 818 • Denver, CO 80203 • Phone:303-866-3581 •Fax:303-866-3589
www.water.state.co.us
LARGE MAPS AVAILABLE
FOR VIEWING
AT
THE CLERK TO THE
BOARD'S OFFICE,
IN THE
PUBLIC REVIEW FILE .
Hello