The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20110544 Cow4-7 Varra Companies, Inc. Office of Special Projects 1431 East 16" Street Greeley, Colorado 80631 Telephone(970)353-8310 Fax(970)353-4047 Wednesday 23 February 2011 Weld County Clerk to the Board 91510i1' Street,3'd Floor Greeley,Colorado 80632 Subject: Varra Companies, Inc. - Western Sugar Reclamation Land Development Permit- Regular Impact (112)Technical Revision Application - Permit M-2010-049 Materials submitted to the Colorado Division of Reclamation Mining and Safety (CRMS) - Office of Mined Land Reclamation (OMLR): • Correspondence of 23 February 2011 from Varra Companies, Inc. to the Colorado Office of Mined Land Reclamation,with attending maps and attachments. Attachments: 1 C.G.R.S. correspondence of 15 February 2011. 2 Channel Report & Chart. 3 Exhibit C-1 Map. Your signature below acknowledges receipt of the above referenced material,as attached. The material should be added to the above referenced Application, as originally submitted to the Weld County Clerk to the Board,and made accessible for public review. Received On of/ A 3 o l l ,2011 By: f.-A t z ckh cj k Office of the Weld County Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners p u n \\g `•s 91a 2011-0544 Varra Companies, Inc. WESTERN SUGAR RECLAMATION LAND DEVELOPMENT PROJECT I OMLR Permit—M-2010-049 13 December 2010 Varra Companies, Inc. Office of Special Projects 8120 Gage Street Frederick, Colorado 80516 Telephone(970)353-8310 Fax(970)353-4047 Wednesday 23 February 2011 To: Michael Cunningham, EPS Colorado Office of Mined Land Reclamation 1313 Sherman Street, #215 Denver, Colorado 80203 From: Varra Companies, Inc. Bradford Janes, Professional Forester Subject: M-2010-049 Western Sugar Reclamation Land Development Project - Reply to the Colorado Office of Mined Land Reclamation (OMLR) Preliminary Adequacy Review correspondence of 10 January 2011. Dear Michael: For greater continuity and ease of reference, we have iterated your comments necessitating a reply according to its respective item, iterated in a graphical box, with our comments in blue following: 6.4.3 Exhibit C - Pre-Mining and Mining Plan Map(s) of Affected Lands 1. The list of adjoining surface/structure owners provided in Exhibit C of the original Application submittal shows Matrix Energy, DCP Midstream and North Weld County Water Conservancy District own structures or easements within 200 ft. of the affected land. The revised Exhibit C-1: Existing Conditions Map does not identify the structures or easements owned by these entities. Please clarify if these entities own structures, have easements or both on or within 200 feet of the affected area and revise Exhibit C-1 accordingly. Exhibit C-1: Existing Conditions Map previously submitted should have a legend identifying the relevant structures on the upper right. Regardless, a revised Exhibit C-1: Existing Conditions Map is included with the referenced Legend, to be certain. 6.4.4 Exhibit D - Mining Plan Varra Companies, Inc. correspondence of 23 February 2011 to the Colorado Office of Mined Land Reclamation 1 (OMLR)in reply to OMLR correspondence of 4 October 2010—Western Sugar Reclamation Land Development Project—M-2010-049. Varra Companies, Inc. Office of Special Projects 8120 Gage Street Frederick,Colorado 80516 Telephone(970) 353-8310 Fax(970)353-4047 2. Please indicate if fuel will be stored on site. If so, specify the location of fueling tanks and indicate that there is a Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) plan in place and that the SPCC plan will be implemented prior to storage of fuel or soil products. This can be done by submitting a letter to the Division, on company letterhead, affirmatively stating that the plan has been implemented. The Operator does not need to submit a SPCC plan to the Division; however, it must be available for review at the facility or the nearest field office during an inspection conducted during normal business hours. Fuel will not be stored on-site. If circumstances change, the operator will develop an SPCC plan and submit a Technical Revision to the OMLR to assure compliance with this concern. 3. The Applicant has provided the locations of the settling ponds. In addition, please specify the depth of the dewatering ponds and the location and dimensions of dewatering trenches. This information is required to assess the stability of the pit slopes during mining and the possible impacts to man-made structures in the event of a slope failure. These temporary settling basins are empirically determined in the field to minimize the discharge of suspended solids once the settled water is sent into the existing seep ditch. The slope and locations of the basins will be consistent within approved extraction limits and any temporary settling basin slopes will not exceed that determined and agreed to under Exhibit S - Stability Analysis for finished basin slopes. Varra Companies, Inc. correspondence of 23 February 2011 to the Colorado Office of Mined Land Reclamation 2 (OMLR)in reply to OMLR correspondence of 4 October 2010- Western Sugar Reclamation Land Development Project—M-2010-049. Varra Companies, Inc. Office of Special Projects 8120 Gage Street Frederick, Colorado 80516 Telephone(970) 353-8310 Fax(970)353-4047 4. The Division understands the dynamic nature of mine sites makes it difficult to identify stockpile locations and volumes. I Iowever, the Division requires this information in order to calculate the financial warranty estimate which includes factors such as haul distances of topsoil. Please specify the location and volumes of topsoil on the Mining Plan Map. Any changes to the topsoil stockpile locations and volume amounts can be addressed through a Technical Revision at a later date. The use of soil resources does not occur initially; therefore, there are no initial costs for soil movement and placement or the previously affected ground of Tracts A and B, where the onset of activity will occur. Since Tracts A and B comprise areas void of soil resources, resoiling will occur later by over the shoulder methods from Tract C, initially upon the completion of final grading of basin slopes for Tract B. Therefore, since lands void of soil are not required to be resoiled, the option to soil them begins with the opening of Tract C, some years hence. It would appear to be premature to calculate soil expenses so far in advance of the need. The Applicant is comfortable with revisiting the matter of soil expenses prior to the opening of Tract C as a stipulation or condition to the approved permit. The other aspects of general location of soil is to place it as stated, along the perimeters of Tracts C and D, outside of the established floodway, or below the existing ground elevation of the floodway. Excess soil for sale will be parked on or near Tract A. 5. According to the Mining Plan, the operation will consist of four individual tracts. Please commit to delineating the boundaries of each tract as they are disturbed. The Tracts are simply a way of describing areas of extraction and their limits. We can delineate the approximate boundaries of those limits with visual markers in the field where not otherwise defined by readily identifiable physical features Varra Companies, Inc. correspondence of 23 February 2011 to the Colorado Office of Mined Land Reclamation 3 (OMLR)in reply to OMLR correspondence of 4 October 2010—Western Sugar Reclamation Land Development Project—M-2010-049. Varra Companies, Inc. Office of Special Projects 8120 Gage Street Frederick,Colorado 80516 Telephone(970)353-8310 Fax(970) 353-4047 such as roads, or where underground utilities and necessary setbacks or other ambiguities may lie; if that satisfies the concerns of the OMLR. 6.4.7 Exhibit G - Water Information 6. The Applicant has stated a Technical Revision may be submitted to allow for the lining of the pits. The Division considers lined pits to be a developed water resource, which would constitute a significant change from the proposed post-mining land use of industrial/commercial and would require an Amendment rather than a Technical Revision. The creation of basins within a permit boundary will not in general consume the entire permit or above water elements of extraction activities. It is consistent with the Uses allowed by County governments that developed water resources may occur under Agricultural, Industrial, or Commercial spaces. Yet the Regular Impact Permit form only provides for the selection of one Use. It is our understanding that the selection should not restrict the establishment of developing the location in a manner that elevates the land to the highest level of Use attainable under its diverse parts. It would appear logical that if the entire permit area cannot be put into a basin that above ground portions will form an alternative, and hence, multiple, Use. To narrow the range of acceptable uses within the framework of acceptable reason and purpose is unnaturally constrained and at odds with the purposes of reclamation. The current understanding of the OMLR, appears to place the operator in a Catch 22, whereby the above ground portions of the permit will be at odds with the completed basin. If necessary, the applicant will provide a change in the Use requested by the OMLR to that of `Developed Water Resources,' with the understanding that all above water portions of the reclaimed permit area will revert to the existing Industrial/Commercial designations of Weld County, Colorado without impeding the diverse potential Use of the contained waters. Varra Companies, Inc. correspondence of 23 February 2011 to the Colorado Office of Mined Land Reclamation 4 (OMLR) in reply to OMLR correspondence of 4 October 2010—Western Sugar Reclamation Land Development Project—M-2010-049. Varra Companies, Inc. Office of Special Projects 8120 Gage Street Frederick, Colorado 80516 Telephone(970)353-8310 Fax(970)353-4047 7. The Dewatering Evaluation provided by CGRS states that groundwater will be pumped into unlined ponds east of the mine. However, the Mine Plan states water will be pumped into the upland drainage seep and will flow to the Cache La Poudre River. Please clarify this discrepancy. As stated, in #3, above; discharge will utilize the Seep; consistent with the approved discharge plan and permit. At the time C.G.R.S. was assessing the discharge in its report, it was evaluating discharge through an option of entering the discharge waters into the basin to the immediate east of the permit boundary, where the existing Durham operation has an approved discharge point. While C.G.R.S. verified that the Seep would not alter the evaluations made in the report, the option to utilize the adjacent facilities is something the operator would like to retain in the approved permit. 8. The Dewatering Evaluation provided by CGRS was carried out under the assumption only one pit will be dewatered at a time. The Mine Plan provides for simultaneous extraction of the pits by posting of additional warranty. Please clarify if the Operator will only dewater one pit at a time. If the Operator anticipates dewatering the cells concurrently, then the Dewatering Evaluation must be revised to reflect this. We believe this option is properly assessed by CGRS in their correspondence of 15 February 2011, included with this submittal. Please refer also to #10, below. 9. The Division is currently reviewing CGRS's Dewatering Evaluation and additional comments will be forthcoming. Varra Companies, Inc.correspondence of 23 February 2011 to the Colorado Office of Mined Land Reclamation 5 (OMLR)in reply to OMLR correspondence of 4 October 2010—Western Sugar Reclamation Land Development Project— M-2010-049. Varra Companies, Inc. Office of Special Projects 8120 Gage Street Frederick, Colorado 80516 Telephone(970)353-8310 Fax(970)353-4047 Refer to Items A-1 to A-4, below; which identify the `additional comments' received under separate cover as part of this section of the adequacy review; and corresponding to items 1-4 in Kate Pickford's comments from her 14 January 2011 memorandum. 10. The Applicant has stated their stormwater discharge permit allows them to discharge into the seep ditch at an average rate of 7.2± MGD. If water is discharged into a ditch that is unlined, it may be prone to erosion. The Applicant should provide the Division with specifications as to how much water the ditch can carry without experiencing erosion. Whether utilizing one or more pumps, operating in one or more tracts, the combined discharge of waters into the seep segment will not exceed 7.2± MGD of water. As shown in the included Channel Report and Chart, prepared by Brad Jones, P.E.; total discharge in the drainage is minimal, having a total depth of 0.7± feet, traveling over a 0.5± percent gradient at 1.57± ft/sec. Where Q for the total capacity of the channel is measured at 835.18 cfs., Q for the discharge at 15.09 cfs. comprises apx. 1.8± percent of the capacity of the channel. Additionally, the physical condition of the channel does not exhibit any signs of streambed or bank erosion from potentially larger capacities of flows that it is capable of holding. Generally, the values determined from the typical cross- section of the seep, are considered well below thresholds which could combine the necessary detachment and transportation needed for erosive effects. Regardless, a concrete dissipater will be utilized at the point where settled waters meet the seep, to better deflect entering waters from eroding the seep at the point of entry. 11. Much of the site is located within the floodplain of the Cache La Poudre River. Whenever mining will occur within 400 feet of the river channel, a flood analysis and flood control plan must be submitted. The flood analysis should quantify the velocity and volume of flows expected on site from a 100-year event, as well as the elevation of the 100-year base flood event and its relation Van-a Companies, Inc. correspondence of 23 February 2011 to the Colorado Office of Mined Land Reclamation 6 (OMLR) in reply to OM LR correspondence of 4 October 2010—Western Sugar Reclamation Land Development Project— M-2010-049. Varra Companies, Inc. Office of Special Projects 8120 Gage Street Frederick,Colorado 80516 Telephone(970)353-8310 Fax(970)353-4047 to the elevation of any proposed spillways and lake shore embankments. The flood control plan should address mitigation measures including pit side armoring, river site armoring and outflow channels, or other appropriate measures. The potential for berms around gravel pits to be damaged during flooding is discussed in detail in the 1987 Urban Drainage and Flood Control District (UDFCD) Publication "Technical Review Guidelines for Gravel Mining Activities within or Adjacent to 100-year Floodplains." Strips of native ground or constructed fill between the stream and the gravel pit, and generally aligned with the flow direction of the stream are referred to in the UDFCD document as riverside berms. Strips of native ground or constructed fill between the adjacent pits and generally perpendicular to the stream are referred to as lateral berms. The Western Sugar Reclamation Land Development Project is located outside of the political boundaries of the UDFCD, but technical floodplain factors that led to the formulation of the UDFCD guidance document still apply. The Division has concerns about the lateral berms and riverside berms. There is the potential the berms may erode and become unstable during a flood. If the pits are excavated and dewatered, or if the pits are reclaimed but the water levels in the ponds are low, floodwaters spilling into the pits could result in erosion, rapid down-cutting, and potentially failure of the berms with exposure and damage to the gas pipelines which are located within the lateral berms on the site. For this reason, the Division will require further analysis of the proposed riverside and lateral berms and a design mitigation that will ensure stability during a 100 year flood event. Alternatively, the Applicant may mine to the berm crest widths (100 ft.) proposed in their permit application for the riverside berm with installation of any of the numerous mitigation designs included in the UDFCD guidance document. To mine within 100 feet of the river, reinforced berm cores, armored side channel spillways, or bank stabilization methods are required by the standard designs in order to leave a lateral berm of 100 feet crest width. Following the UDFCD guidelines would save the Applicant the time and expense involved with site specific hydrologic investigations and designs. Please provide the Division with a comprehensive flood analysis and flood control plan to justify the proposed setback distance from the river and the widths of the lateral and riverside berms, or revise the Reclamation Plan to incorporate the guidelines in the UDFCD document. Varra Companies, Inc. correspondence of 23 February 2011 to the Colorado Office of Mined Land Reclamation 7 (OMLR)in reply to OMLR correspondence of 4 October 2010—Western Sugar Reclamation Land Development Project-- M-2010-049. Varra Companies, Inc. Office of Special Projects 8120 Gage Street Frederick,Colorado 80516 Telephone(970) 353-8310 Fax(970)353-4047 The Applicant understands the concerns of the OMLR but believes it is attempting to enforce an unwritten guideline or policy as if it were law. We see no written guidelines to suggest that UDFCD guidance documents will be used by the OMLR, and have no historic perspective as to when and under what circumstance the OMLR has utilized them? It is our opinion that there is no compelling need to perfect engineered studies or subsequent placement of engineered structures on an operation of this kind and scale, where the cost of the studies and structures will no doubt exceed the cost of repairing such an eventuality, should it ever occur. While the Applicant is aware of the concerns for intrusion of rivers into active extraction activities, several other factors should be considered by the OMLR. First, the use of UDFCD standards is for unstable stream segments, such as those determined within established districts, and principally determined for those impacted locations along the South Platte River. The OMLR admits this condition is not present at this location. To then add that the conditions apply by assuming the conditions may exist is existential at best. There is no compelling evidence that such circumstances are at play. There is no evidence that the stream segment of the Cache La Poudre River is unstable as it runs its course parallel to this location. There is no evidence of past flood impacts on the attending unaffected segments of the site. There appear to be no rills, gullies, stream placed debris, or other evidences of catastrophic flooding, except what one would expect based upon geologic time. Further, any instability determined either up or downstream of the property entails diverse influences historically precedent to and beyond the control of the present landowner. Adjacent uses have and are altering stream side elevations making any mathematical models of stream behavior transitory at best. Looking at the adjacent lands, diverse activities have occurred over the past half century and are on—going so as to make study of the potential impacts of flooding on the property mythical at best. A summary of adjacent activities from past to current includes: Van-a Companies, Inc. correspondence of 23 February 2011 to the Colorado Office of Mined Land Reclamation 8 (OMLR)in reply to OMLR correspondence of 4 October 2010—Western Sugar Reclamation Land Development Project—M-2010-049. Varra Companies, Inc. Office of Special Projects 8120 Gage Street Frederick, Colorado 80516 Telephone(970)353-8310 Fax(970) 353-4047 1. Fill activities occupy lands north of the Cache La Poudre River, including the establishment of significant berms on lands occupied by Greeley Urban Renewal Authority, behind which lie active truck washout facilities and basins, and an active mining operation. 2. Further east lie Anderson Salvage, which occupy a portion of the floodway/floodplain with stockpiles of salvage metals and related operational equipment and structures. 3. Still further to the east but within one mile of the location, lies Bliss Produce active fill operations and warehouse facilities; and prior stream bed extraction for fill material in the Cache La Poudre River. 4. West of the location, and adjacent to the Cache La Poudre River, old beat processing stockpiles are being removed and the edge of banks of the River modified by extraction. 5. Prior extraction lowering the original elevations for the creation of basins, or topographic leveling of lands for a pivot irrigation system, as well as placement of fill, has occurred by prior owners within the existing location of the proposed permit boundary. Additionally, ditches, urban structures owned by the City of Greeley such as a storm sewer and sanitary sewer, along with unknown cuts and modifications in the embankments has occurred at this location, along with diverse oil and gas facilities and lines, all to our knowledge without prior protections for flooding. The past uses on the proposed permit area, including the development of oil and gas structures over a known mineral resource in contradiction with Title 34, were likely placed without consideration for damage from potential flooding or protections from the same. Either the threat of flooding was not considered or it was not considered to be a significant threat. This is not to say that flooding cannot or will not occur over this location, but we believe the impacts of such an event will be localized and essentially beneficial to the surrounding owners since the basins at this point in time, will provide additional detention to waters, dissipating both velocities and lowering of peak flows that would occur in the unaltered state of the location prior to extraction. Further, operations will not encounter lands within 400 feet of the River until many years hence when Tracts C and I) are opened. Varra Companies, Inc.correspondence of 23 February 2011 to the Colorado Office of Mined Land Reclamation 9 (OMLR) in reply to OMLR correspondence of 4 October 2010—Western Sugar Reclamation Land Development Project—M-2010-049. Varra Companies, Inc. Office of Special Projects 8120 Gage Street Frederick,Colorado 80516 Telephone(970)353-8310 Fax(970)353-4047 Should flood waters encounter an active face or unfinished basin slope, some erosion may initially occur during a flood event; but will be dependent in part on the extent and duration of the flood waters face to wall contact. Since the waters will largely be sheet flows, back-cutting of the basin wall will be of comparatively short duration and minimal reach. Where the point of entry is more channelized, back-cutting will be more pronounced, but the reach will be of comparatively narrow extent, making repair of back cut areas less problematic. If hack cutting reaches an existing oil and gas line or structure, we trust the attending owner will have made the necessary protection to their facilities. If floodwaters enter an active cut on the basin wall or advancing wall, it is generally not a smooth drop, and the staggered cuts made during active extraction will act to dissipate velocities of the initial waters, thereby reducing potentials for erosion into the active basin, or back-cutting into the walls, as the initial flood waters front is replaced by sheet waters overflowing the feature until the basin is quickly filled by increasing sheet flows, whose velocities are minimal and predominantly depositional. The previously well understood use of a 100 foot buffer between extraction and active tributaries was determined in the early 1980's forward, based upon forestry practices. When operations during this period were actively operating to within 25± feet of active tributaries, a 100 foot buffer was proposed and supported by the Mined Land Reclamation Board, to maintain a filter strip of vegetation, preserve streamside vegetation, stream temperatures and consistency of riparian habitat; and somewhat mistakenly, to minimize risks of intrusion. It was later determined that elevation of streamside berms, and stream bed cutting during flooding, not buffer distances, were the major influences of intrusion. Braided streams meander and sediment load can influence flood and flood impacts dramatically and may vary significantly depending upon the storm event and upstream conditions. When sediment load is low in flood flows, the waters will attempt to balance their energy by cutting the stream bed and subsequently undercutting adjacent streamside banks or berms. When culverts, pipes, other cavities are present forming a weakness in the streamside berm, or where elevations facilitate the flow of flood waters, floodwaters will pursue the path of least resistance. Regardless, all structures placed within a floodplain without any attending protection are placed there at their own risk, and one owner should not be called upon or forced to carry the cost of the protection of Varra Companies, Inc.correspondence of 23 February 2011 to the Colorado Office of Mined Land Reclamation 10 (OMLR)in reply to OMLR correspondence of 4 October 2010—western Sugar Reclamation Land Development Project- M-2010-049. Varra Companies, Inc. Office of Special Projects 8120 Gage Street Frederick, Colorado 80516 Telephone(970)353-8310 Fax(970)353-4047 the others. If this operation is to be responsible for securing the protection of the others, the costs and burdens of such protection should be compensated for accordingly. The unfortunate use and dumping of concrete rubble along the streamside banks of active rivers in the mistaken understanding that it protects and stabilizes riparian property from the course altering work of flood waters should be discouraged. Often, when streamside banks fail it's because the floodwaters cut the stream bed and in the process undermined the stability of the adjacent banks; or streamside elevations were low enough to aid entry and are a natural part of the braided stream as typified by meanders and older meander scars reflecting the natural tendency of such rivers to change course. The concrete riprap simply acts to thwart a more stable, diverse and beneficial presence of native vegetation that would better function to improve the streamside habitat. Speaking generally, we find the exaggerated use of engineered structures, reflects a tendency to utilize engineering to circumvent controversy from a misinformed public or other public authority, or as a substitute for personal judgment and responsibility. Without enumerating the source or their fears, often it fails to hold up in the face of sound environmental or fiscal reason. Correspondingly, we find ourselves adverse to believe the OMLR would indulge in such expediencies. While we respect the burdens and fears that the staff of OMLR must suffer for its diverse responsibilities, we cannot in any reasoned appraisal of factors in play at this location and surrounding lands, find merit in the application of UDFCD guidelines in this instance. The attending burdens such measures would pose upon the location do not have an apparent correlated enumerable or coequal benefit. Upon subsequent reflection, with what we trust has been a clearer presentation on our part of the causal elements at play, we are confident the OMLR will substantially concur with our perspectives. If a stretch of a natural river is to be engineered so as not to meander, then a plan should already be in place for the entire stream segment, from which any modifications must comply with the engineered aspects of the segment. This condition does not exist along this segment of the Cache La Poudre River beyond the defined determinations of a floodplain/floodway, which planned operations could only serve to benefit. In all other aspects, the guidelines proposed will serve to place an unusual burden on the applicant and force the development of civil structures beyond that of other landowners within the stream segment; in effect for the protection of civil structures that were placed Varra Companies, Inc. correspondence of 23 February 2011 to the Colorado Office of Mined Land Reclamation 11 (OMLR)in reply to OMLR correspondence of 4 October 2010—Western Sugar Reclamation Land Development Project M-2010-049. Varra Companies, Inc. Office of Special Projects 8120 Gage Street Frederick, Colorado 80516 Telephone(970)353-8310 Fax(970)353-4047 over a developable mineral resource in violation of Title 34, and otherwise lacking any understood prior protections, while clearly within the intent of their own risk. For additional perspective on this consideration and matters pertaining to Kate Pickford's concerns, below; please refer to the complete CGRS correspondence of 15 February 2011, included with this submittal. ADDITIONAL Questions under Exhibit G - from Kate Pickford: A-1. It is apparent from the models submitted in the preliminary adequacy responses, that the cone of depression resulting from dewatering of the pits will include areas with domestic and commercial wells. The applicant should include a list of wells, located within the estimated cone of depression; supply the Division with a report indicating the potential impacts to these wells; supply a plan to monitor the cone of depression to determine when impacts to those wells might occur; and a plan to preemptively mitigate the possible impacts to these wells. Please refer to A-4, below. A-2. The applicant must have a mitigation plan for protection of wells and vegetation in place prior to approval for the permit. The applicant is unaware of any circumstances which would cause significant impact to surrounding lands and vegetation. This is supported by the October 2010 C.G.R.S. groundwater discharge report, and as supplemented in the C.G.R.S. correspondence of 15 February 2011, as included with this submittal. In the absence of any reasoned examination of the evidence to the contrary, significant impact will not occur to surrounding wells and vegetations, and a plan of mitigation for the same appears unwarranted. An expanded discussion of this concern continues in A-3, following. Varra Companies, Inc. correspondence of 23 February 2011 to the Colorado Office of Mined Land Reclamation 12 (OMLR) in reply to OMLR correspondence of 4 October 2010—Western Sugar Reclamation Land Development Project— M-2010-049. Varra Companies, Inc. Office of Special Projects 8120 Gage Street Frederick,Colorado 80516 Telephone(970) 353-8310 Fax(970) 353-4047 A-3. The submitted information also indicates that there are other potential impacts to depression of the groundwater elevation, specifically with regard to vegetation in the area. It appears there may be cottonwoods located adjacent to the river which would be impacted by the drawdown from dewatering the pits. In that these trees are likely critical winter roosting habitat for raptors, the applicant should submit information to the Division committing to measures to protect these trees from the impacts of dewatering. Additionally, the applicant should submit information to the Division regarding other areas that may be negatively impacted by drawdown of groundwater, for example, any sub- irrigated pasture in the proposed cone of depression, and measures it will take to mitigate these effects. Please refer to A-2, above and CGRS correspondence of 15 February 2011, as included with this submittal. Further, there are no mature cottonwood trees or species of consequence of any age within the parcel or lower elevations surrounding the parcel, including the streamside of the Cache La Poudre River. They appear to be predominantly and approximately 30-40 year old weed species of Chinese elm. Ample roosting habitat surrounds the parcel where mature and dead cottonwoods exist. Many of the dead cottonwood occurs on adjacent lands where extraction activities are not occurring and appear to be the preferred condition for bald eagles and other birds of prey. Mortality of what are essentially over-mature cottonwood groves will accelerate over adjacent lands with time, since the development of state, federal, and municipal dams and reservoirs have ended the natural scouring of live rivers within Colorado, essential for the succession and renewal of cottonwood stands. Most of the dead cottonwoods are also likely the result the recent seven year drought, or land fill activity over their root systems which is occurring over the opposing lands, where these unprotected species were not removed by the current uses. Regardless, there are no cottonwoods or other mature species of trees whose root zones are within reach of the underlying ground or surface waters. Varna Companies, Inc.correspondence of 23 February 2011 to the Colorado Office of Mined Land Reclamation 13 (OMLR)in reply to OMLR correspondence of 4 October 2010—Western Sugar Reclamation Land Development Project—M-2010-049. Varra Companies, Inc. Office of Special Projects 8120 Gage Street Frederick,Colorado 80516 Telephone(970)353-8310 Fax(970) 353-4047 Again, the Poudre River borders the north and feeds the shoreline vegetation, including the even stand of trees, which also includes willows and ash. Industrial lands lie to the west and mineral extraction to the east, and are essentially absent of trees or potential impacts not more readily influenced by their own localized uses. The essentially neglected oversized back yards to the south are above and beyond the influence of the ground and surface waters of the location. The historically blighted lands which occupy the planned activity will benefit from the planned reclamation to a predominantly native grass. Bald Eagles and other birds of prey do roost in the winter on the mature cottonwood trees in a proximity east of the proposed permit, and near other active extraction operations. When it comes to pastures, cottonwood trees, our neighbors, Bald Eagles, other birds of prey, we like them too; and often if you want to see some of them, you have to leave the nearby residential areas where wildlife has been forced out, and go to a sand and gravel mine. Conservation of the Mineral Resource is vital to the economic health and wealth of all of Colorado and its citizens. It is the one singular human activity that actually cleans up after itself, often resulting in enhanced habitat for wildlife, improvements to the local ecology, and a long term beneficial and commonly diverse end uses that improves not only the prior on-site potentials, but which also serves to better complement the surrounding lands; all of which this application will accomplish. The OMLR is our partner in the reclamation of these lands, and we appreciate the Division's concerns and responsibilities, which we share. There are in this instance, no significant wildlife, groundwater or surface water concerns for which this operation does not serve to benefit as proposed, especially when compared to the present state of the property, or to those surrounding lands. What are those surrounding lands: two other resource recovery operations; a truck wash out facility for emptying livestock waste into basins; a scrap process storage and salvage yard; a land fill operation for commercial and agricultural storage; a cheese factory; pallet storage facility; animal hide processor; and numerous residential homes along sixteenth street whose back yards extend on average over 400± feet from their foundations and whose lots, being too small to be productive and too large to manage, have gone to weed or storage. Varra Companies, Inc. correspondence of 23 February 2011 to the Colorado Office of Mined Land Reclamation 14 (OMLR)in reply to OMLR correspondence of 4 October 2010—Western Sugar Reclamation Land Development Project—M-2010-049. Varra Companies, Inc. Office of Special Projects 8120 Gape Street Frederick, Colorado 80516 Telephone(970) 353-8310 Fax(970)353-4047 Our planned reclamation will create viable water storage and management basins, without cost to the taxpayer, into a blighted field whose above ground vegetation will be returned to predominantly native grasses; grasses which vary in form, height, color and function for maximum effect. Since the resulting basin detention will exceed any temporary or permanent diversions, the site acts as latent potential to diminish the impacts of occasional floodwaters which it does by lowering peak flows. Since floodwaters at this location are generally understood to be depositional, the retreating waters may leave cottonwood seeds carried in from upstream locations, providing a pathway for regeneration of the desired tree over a span of time. A-4. The application indicates that the resulting ponds may be lined. If so, the applicant must submit data regarding the resulting mounding and shadow effects around the lined ponds, and the mitigation measures that it will take to correct these effects if it will result in impacts to surrounding land, vegetation, and structures. There is nothing in the rules and regulations compelling such a study `must' be done, absent of merit. Again, minimizing disturbance to the prevailing hydrologic balance does not mean eliminate disturbance to the prevailing hydrologic balance. The intent is that significant impact not occur, and any proposed studies should be justified based upon an empirical understanding of the diverse elements at play, and some judgment as to what rises to a proper level of concern where such study is necessary to complete what cannot otherwise be readily discerned. Where circumstances warrant such studies to prevent significant impact, it would be understandable. Empirically, the location and elevation of the lands to be permitted relative to the surrounding lands, features and uses, suggests that impacts to those surrounding lands is minimal and further study to affirm the obvious is not warranted. For example, the developed lands to the north are separated from the operation by the Cache La Poudre River. To the east, an existing mining operation will create lands that cannot be developed in the floodplain and to an extent that mounding or shadowing effects will not extend. The remaining lands surrounding the planned basins are at elevations of 10± to 20± feet above the Varra Companies, Inc. correspondence of 23 February 2011 to the Colorado Office of Mined Land Reclamation 15 (OMLR)in reply to OMLR correspondence of 4 October 2010—Western Sugar Reclamation Land Development Project—M-2010-049. Varra Companies, Inc. Office of Special Projects 8120 Gage Street Frederick,Colorado 80516 Telephone(970) 353-8310 Fax(970)353-4047 existing ground level. The basins when filled will be nearly an additional five feet below that. Therefore, when filled, the basin effects on shadowing and mounding will only occur on lands at or below that level. Since there are no lands affected at or below that level, the need for monitoring potentials for shadowing and mounding do not appear to have a beneficial purpose and should not be necessary for the planned basins at this location. 6.4.12 Exhibit L — Reclamation Costs 12. The Applicant has stated approval will be obtained from the Division of Water Resources that acknowledges compliance with the SEO's requirements pursuant to C.R.S. 37-90-137(11). Please commit to providing the Division with the appropriate documentation from the Division of Water Resources prior to exposing groundwater. The Applicant commits to providing the Division with the appropriate documentation from the Division of Water Resources prior to exposing groundwater. 6.4.13 Exhibit M - Other Permits and Licenses • 13. Please indicate if the Applicant will apply for a Weld County Flood Ilazard Development Permit. Since empirically, the extraction and reclamation plans result in greater detention than diversion of overland flows, especially those flows in a flood event, there are no anticipated adverse impacts to either the floodplain or floodway. Existing elevations are already below their norm due to prior excavation of the location by the previous sugar plant owners. There appears little compelling need to support the expense, both in time and dollars, to perfect Varra Companies, Inc. correspondence of 23 February 2011 to the Colorado Office of Mined Land Reclamation 16 (OMLR)in reply to OMLR correspondence of 4 October 2010—Western Sugar Reclamation Land Development Project—M-2010-049. Varra Companies, Inc. Office of Special Projects 8120 Gage Street Frederick,Colorado 80516 Telephone(970)353-8310 Fax(970)353-4047 such a study. Please refer to correspondence of 15 February 2011, from C.G.R.S. 6.4.19 Exhibit S - Other Permits and Licenses 14. The Applicant has provided the Division with four signed damage waiver agreements. However, the structures relating to each agreement could not be identified from Exhibit C-1. Please clarify which structure corresponds to each of the agreements. All flow lines shown are DCP Midstream; or otherwise as associated with the called out facilities. The oil and gas wells and related facilities are owned by Merit Energy and Patina Oil and Gas as shown in the Revised Exhibit C-1: Existing Conditions Map. City of Greeley structures are identified on the previous maps. The other entities referenced are not within 200 feet of the permit area and merely included in the notifications as a precaution. Any agreement from an adjacent landowner is for a shared fence or any permanent man-made object, well, or structure visible in the aerial image. To our knowledge, all wells within 200 feet of the location are identified, as are any attending shared fences, or other relevant structures or objects. Exhibit C-1: Existing Conditions Map previously submitted should have a legend identifying the relevant structures on the upper right. Regardless, a revised Exhibit C-1: Existing Conditions Map is included with the referenced Legend, to be certain. Attachments: 1 Proof of Placement of this material with the Weld County Clerk to the Board. 2 C.G.R.S. correspondence of 15 February 2011. 3 Channel Report & Chart. 4 Exhibit C-1 Map. Varra Companies, Inc.correspondence of 23 February 2011 to the Colorado Office of Mined Land Reclamation 17 (OMLR) in reply to OMLR correspondence of 4 October 2010—Western Sugar Reclamation Land Development Project— M-2010-049. Channel Report Hydraflow Express Extension for AutoCAD®Civil 3D®2010 by Autodesk,Inc. Monday,Feb 21 2011 <Name> Trapezoidal Highlighted Bottom Width (ft) = 13.00 Depth (ft) = 0.70 Side Slopes (z:1) = 1.21, 1.21 O (cfs) = 15.09 Total Depth (ft) = 7.00 Area (sqft) = 9.69 Invert Elev (ft) = 4616.00 Velocity (ft/s) = 1.56 Slope (%) = 0.50 Wetted Perim (ft) = 15.20 N-Value = 0.050 Crit Depth, Yc (ft) = 0.01 Top Width (ft) = 14.69 Calculations EGL (ft) = 0.74 Compute by: O vs Depth No. Increments = 10 Elev (ft) Section Depth (1 4624.00 8.00 4623.00 7.00 4622.00 6.00 4621.00 5.00 4620.00 4.00 4619.00 3.00 4618.00 2.00 4617.00 v 1.00 4616.00 0.00 4615.00 -1.00 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Reach (ft) CGr., ENVIRONMENTAL gPRW!©E S February 15,2011 Varra Companies 8120 Gage Street Frederick,Colorado 80516 Attn: Mr. Brad Janes RE: Varra Great Western Sugar Project Response to Division Letter DRMS File No. M-2010-049 CGRS No. 1-135-12539aa Dear Mr.Janes: As requested we have addressed specific items to the Division's Adequacy Review Comments as provided below. Item 8—To address multiple pit dewatering, CGRS ran additional simulations with dewatering occurring within the two largest pits(north and south pits)with a combined pumping rate of 7.2 million gallons per day. The results of the simulations indicate that an additional drawdown of approximately 0.2 feet could occur under the multiple pit pumping scenario. The model boundary map is provided as Figure 1-1.The steady state head distribution map is presented as Figure 2-2. For comparison, water levels presented on Figure 3-3 should be compared to Figure 11 of our initial report. Our model results are presented as Attachment A. Item 11—It is our understanding that Varra Companies will not construct any features between its mining operations and the Poudre River. The lateral storage areas of floodways generally have very low velocity components and the critical velocity required for scour probably will not occur. The sand and gravel operations downstream of the facility have occurred over the past 40 years and aerial photographs document the lack of stream modifications even though flood events have occurred during the period.These data far outweigh any river analysis. In addition,we have not reviewed any data that indicates the river channel is unstable, which is one of the implied criteria for implementing protective measures as identified in the UDFCD Technical Guidance for Gravel Mining. The creation of substantial lateral storage can only result in beneficial effects to any flood event. To advocate the use of over engineered structures,or to further require the use of engineering studies to in effect affirm a well understood correlation,is simply inappropriate. Item A-1—Attachment B presents a map depicting registered wells in the vicinity of the mine. With the exception of wells directly adjacent to mine face none of the wells recorded by the Division of Water Resources are constructed so that the predicted drawdown will prevent any of the wells from the ability to "lift". Up to four wells are located immediately next to the mine face and may require water augmentation if they are currently in use. P.O. Box 1489 Fort Collins,CO 80522 T 800-288-2657 F 970-493-7986 www.cgrs.com Mr.Brad Janes Western Sugar Project Page 2 of 2 Item A-2 —The static depth to water (7-20 feet below ground surface) is substantially greater than the root zone of indigenous vegetation. As such dewatering operations will not affect vegetation with a root zone of less than 5 feet—which is substantially all vegetation within the area of interest. Item A-3—As the Poudre River boundary creates an infinite water source the drawdown next to the river is not sufficient to endanger any mature trees. A-4—As presented to the Division on other projects the lining of a pond has little effect on the local hydrology and water level changes that do occur are on the order of a foot or less. Unless continuous monitoring is implemented water level changes at any distance from the pond face are,for all practical purposes, undetectable. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact me at 970-493-7780. Sincerely, CGRS, Inc. KT:\ Joby L.Adams, P.G. Principal/Hydrogeologist pa I/Hyd rogeo logist Reviewed by: 2 Paul Sorensen, P.E. Senior Engineer ATTACHMENT A DEWATERING ANALYSIS-TWO PIT SIMULATIONS LEGEND I♦ Constant Head Boundary Observation Well (Model Created) `,:„. ^fin 4 Irnr T t` £ vs µ, , i * M4. .f�f 'i C•,o }i fi ! Y i^v r ,,. 5 ate(' etlre 1 .' 107 k t a. Alf '1. "t,: "4,14 •- 14tk _ ) yr ✓f # 1naE• *i xs'4XYC l : �*z 4p Irma 0 Di I YSA' A . L� ..) ) � 'r � ` N w C'X + m ! • t40"-A'06.61- S, i-4 —.4 a3¢Y., 11[,'16 } i' �}„ e 40-A'08.eTN 104_400332 W elev A933!! 0� *: ens's- 0 1000 ]000 3000 1000 s000 6000 7000 7750 a` FIGURE 1-1 GREAT WESTERN SUGAR PROPERTY MODEL BOUNDARY MAP VARRA COMPANIES CONSTANT HEAD-TWO PIT SIMULATION PROJECT NO. PREPARED BY ENVIRONMENTAL CG CONSTRUCTION GREELEY,COLORADO 12539AA KJW Cr' COMPIIRNOE SEE SCALE ABOVE DATE REVIEWED BY 2/1/2011 JLA LEGEND Head Contour -$- Observation Well(Model Created) • Dry Cell g , s1 " we i F k. tiis . n ax: h ,r,; a v"- y� my Y N - 3 MSn " t ,� , L ' s s f ,,r,:!'5 r, it,� F0 d Y^ ,/ ! 1N �y i1 41 d i s ,,1 <`,,, s 4x;istra � .�� . - P. 4 P - 9 s. '�� s' xr-� ' ,� A. »s _ we. ileos 3.. - � e .,-. X143 kti k o :Al --a mfr.;''4 Ai'?" �` a t,.,. "�"- ,,�,' iiii < trI; 40'20116 61^N ;104 a as 32°W' alev•aas�at x ,. . rg slal a,t O E000 2000 2000 1000 5000 6000 2000 775Q N FIGURE 2-2 GREAT WESTERN SUGAR PROPERTY GROUNDWATER HEAD DISTRIBUTION MAP VARRA COMPANIES TWO PIT DEWATERING PROJECT NO. PREPARED BY ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRUCTION GREELEY,COLORADO 12539AA KJW C COMPLIANCE SEE SCALE ABOVE DATE REVIEWED BY 2/1/2011 JLA CalculatedOW-5 Observed Head : Steady state , - Observed=4626.00 Calculated=4625.73 I I OW-1 Observed=4624.00 Calculated=4622.96 I ' i -- _. I I g v OW-7 i = c Observed=4621.00 OW-8 $ — i Observed=4619.00 1�3 " Calculated=4621.00 u Calculated=4616.67 of _ _- �!. - _. -_. _.._. OW-3 u I ■ I j Observed—4620.00 - OW-6 Calculated=4615.44 Observed=4615.50 Calculated=4614.78 II OW-4 Observed=4618.00 c I I Calculated—4613.41 I b' I I I I 4610 4620 4630 Observed Head(ft) Num.of Data Points:8 Max.Residual:-4.594(ft)at ONV-4/A OW-2 Standard Error of the Estimate:0.64(1t) Mm.Residual: 0(ft)at OW-7/A Observed=4616.00 Root Mean Squared: 2.572(ft) Residual Mean:-1.936(ft) Calculated=4615.39 Normalized RMS:24.497(%) Abs.Residual Mean: 1.936(ft) Correlation Coefficient: 0.93 FIGURE 3-3 GREAT WESTERN SUGAR PROPERTY OBSERVATION WELLS VARRA COMPANIES TWO PIT DEWATERING PROJECT NO. PREPARED BY ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRUCTION GREELEY,COLORADO 12539M KJW COMPLIANCE DATE REVIEWED BY 2/1/2011 JLA ATTACHMENT B REGISTERED WATER WELL LOCATIONS 2 ® ;N J a _ o ss�� a c >( IL OAFNLD 2Q �i i° u u N 03 o co = ' c j a U N I“ d c, NmN 0 C_ K a f9 _ O 6 st4bom M o w 0 n 2 ► CO • a> '. LE ® ❑ ® ® z rn � `� w Z O S ' m._ c O °PP c.:•m o >- d n E r to Q UU773�15cg J , it- Z N D c r. a O e N O ¢ Q La ] m m 9 ] Q 0 Z N ` Z Q u° Ja K r u OM , a K m rC 'L' 0 i Orz rnx E x c w ' 3 A o m y F u m O a p ► a 6 � o Y 2 49 Cr- m a o c 1 of _ ® N O F 1100919 • ao 0 CO N + f T C , Y-' I I ,o0 i o" co O I t i m i d @ 0 Q CA fin ₹ _. ._ �..,: ��- 0N 3.y aiAI I 1. N f t Q5Cn t i I . 2-a �.. y�.,w....,. ., ..�._.-. ..._�_1 rn 3''- It r C L 9 I t O Q�w� f t Z52U NCDu 5 ≥ RI ti im iii = ,. r 1 i z CL a d . .. _...__i _. ._.. _..�. _.. COO I 9 Ls it;_O tIHv � C. a o i ' { ' m V � .. . ii rent_ 9 -, Igime Am v ._... e Oa .gyp (! • I ,.• 9 1 co i Ens1' i 0 LARGE MAPS AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CLERK TO THE BOARD 'S OFFICE , IN THE PUBLIC REVIEW FILE . Hello