The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20022183.tiff E. Banks and Gesso, LLC 720 Kipling St.,Suite117 ME Lakewood, Colorado 80215 (303) 274-4277 Fax (303) 274-8329 www.banksandgesso.com June 17, 2002 Weld County Planning Department GREELEY 0" Ir` Weld County Department of Planning Services Attn: Chris Gathman JUN 2 1 2002 1555 North 17th Avenue Greeley, CO 80631 R� °+I RE: Owens Brothers Concrete Company, Nix Sand and Gravel Mine; USR-1343 Mr. Gathman: Per your request, via fax, of June 6, 2002, please find three copies of an updated USR application (referencing wet mining as the method for extraction), two additional revised reclamation plan maps, and one additional copy of the Well/Wetland Impact Report prepared by Wright Water Engineers. A letter from the Public Works Department regarding the adequacy of the updated traffic study should be forthcoming directly from that department. Lastly, a discussion of the change from dry-mining to wet-mining can be found in the paragraphs below. As you know, Owens Brothers Concrete had originally planned to dry-mine the Nix operation, utilizing de-watering to maximize material recovery. However, very real concerns raised by the neighbors surrounding the property related to groundwater issues and possible adverse impacts to surrounding wells and wetlands were brought to Owens' and your attention. Subsequently, both the County Planning Staff and Planning Commission found it necessary to place a stipulation on the Owens' ability to gain a Board of County Commissioner's hearing that mandated that the Owens' either reach agreements with the neighbors stating their concerns had been addressed, or demonstrate that adequate attempt to do so had been made. As a result of that stipulation and the ensuing meetings with the neighborhood group, the Owens' agreed to undertake a study to assess the impacts that dry-mining the site might have on the local hydrology of the area. After the initial study indicated that dry-mining could cause some adverse impacts to the local hydrology, Owens Brothers took it upon themselves to abandon the dry-mining scenario and adopt a wet-mining approach to excavating materials from the site. Please note that while Owens Brothers had the means through water rights they hold to adequately mitigate groundwater impacts that may have been caused by dry-mining, the decision to switch to wet-mining was made because it was the "right thing to do" in terms of working with and maintaining a good relationship with the neighbors surrounding the property. Once the decision to wet-mine was made, potential impacts to the surrounding wells virtually disappeared. However, there were still some concerns to be addressed regarding Ms. Parker's wetland, particularly with regard to how the minimal lake-leveling affect might impact the northern edge of the wetland. It was then decided that reconfiguring the shape of the mining cells and resultant ponds could minimize the lake- = EXHIBIT 2002-2183 U5t? #130 leveling affect. Further, altering the mining sequence could also help to minimize any impacts to the wetland. These changes bring us up to the revised mine and reclamation plans that were forwarded to you last month. These changes have been presented to the neighbors and have been informally approved by them. We are currently working very closely with the neighbors to reach agreements as requested by the County, and we anticipate having those signed by all appropriate parties in the next couple of weeks. The changes to the mining operation can be summarized as follows: 1) Instead of dewatering the property for dry-mining, the Owens' will wet-mine the property using either a dredge or dragline. If a dragline is used, there will be no de-watering at the site at all. If a dredge is used, there may be a short period of time where dewatering will need to take place for placement of the dredge's barge. As indicated in the draft agreements with the neighbors, dewatering for barge placement will be limited to non-irrigation months and a depth of approximately 6 feet below existing groundwater. Dewatering will need to occur each time mining progresses from mine cell to mine cell, for a total of six times during the course of the operation. Materials will be transported to stockpile areas via conveyors that will run from the dredge to storage areas. Materials will then be windrowed for a short period of time to allow water to drain before the materials are transported to the plant for crushing and screening. Transfer from windrows to the processing area will most likely occur by using front end loaders and dump trucks, but may involve use of additional conveyors if possible. Stockpile placement for windrows will be as indicated in the previously submitted Revised Mine Plan Map. 2) Mining will now begin in the southeastern comer of the site, as indicated on the revised Mine Plan Map submitted to you last week. The smaller, reconfigured pond will create a surface water elevation that is higher than Ms. Parker's wetland. If needed in order to maintain water levels in Ms. Parker's wetland, water will be transferred from this pond to the wetland via a gravity-fed pipe, or, if necessary, a pump system. If mining in this area causes the water level in Ms. Parker's wetland to drop, Owens Brothers has agreed to construct a lateral from the Side Hill Ditch to the southern (upgradient) end of the wetland and deliver their shares of Last Chance Ditch water to the wetland to help maintain the wetland. 3) The second area to be mined is the area previously referred to as Mine Area 3 in the original submittal. Lake leveling in the resultant pond will create a surface water elevation that is lower than the Ms. Parker's wetland. This will create a basin that can collect any overflow water from Ms. Parker's wetland that may occur from transferring water from Mine Area One to the wetland. 4) In order to minimize lake-leveling, pond configurations in what was previously referred to as Mine Area One and Mine Area Two will be altered so that the shores of the ponds will follow, to the greatest degree possible, the existing groundwater contours. This will help reduce distances between shores and thus reduce drops in groundwater levels at the southern ends of the site. 5) Portions of the southern ends of the site will be backfilled with excess overburden and spoils. This will increase the distance between the wetland and the ponds, thus resulting in even less lake-leveling affect. Placement of backfill will occur as described in my transmittal of May 28, 2002. Hopefully the attachments and the above discussion of the wet-mining operation will satisfy the Planning Staff's needs and USR-1343 can now be scheduled for a hearing in front of the Board of County Commissioners. If there are any other outstanding issues that I may have overlooked, please call me at 303-274-4277 so may address those as soon as possible. Sincerely, ' Tug in Banks and Gesso, LLC Attach:3 Copies of Updated USR Application Form 2 Copies of Revised Reclamation Plan Maps 1 Copy of WellMetland Impact Study Cc: 20075-Correspondence-Agency-WeldCO Planning Bill Owens, Owens Brothers Concrete Company ■■ Banks and Gesso, LLC. 720 Kipling St. Suite 117 ®® Lakewood, Colorado 80215 Phone(303)274-4277 Fax (303)274-8329 www.banksandgesso.com Memo Weld County Planning Department GREELEY OFFICE Ratio June 24, 2002 To: ChrisGathm_. JUN 2 6 2002 Front Tug Marlin RECEIVED CC: 20075—Correspondence, Weld County Planning Re: Nix USR-1343 Chris: Attached, please find the updated USR application form with the original signature. I wasn't sure if you'd need it or not. Please let me know if there's anything else we need to do to carAre a date in front of the Board of County Commissioners. Thanks. EXHIBIT •Page 1 O U5/2 tJ3Y3 JUN-17-2002 MON 10:28 AM BANKS AND GESSO LLC FAX NO, 303 274 8329 P. 02 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES 1555 N. 17th Avenue,Greeley,Colorado 80631 Phone (970)353-6100, Ext- 3540 Fax (97O)304-6498 USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW(MINING OPERATION)APPLICATION FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES USE ONLY Application Fee Receipt Number Case Number Recording Fee Receipt Number Zoning District Application Checked By: Planner Assigned to Case To be completed by APPLICANT is accordance with procedural guide requirements: 1. I (we),the undersigned,hereby request a hearing before the Weld County Planning Commission concerning a proposed Sand and Gravel (gravel,coal,borrow pit,etc.)mining operation for the following described unincorporated area of Weld County: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: South 1/2 of SW 1/4, W 1/2 of SE 1/4 and entire NF 114 of Section 2&Township 3 North, Range 67 PARCEL NUMBER: 120928000003 (12 digit number-found on Tax I.D. Information or obtained at the Assessors Office). 2. Surface owner(s)of area of land described 5550 Sheridan Blvd., Name: Owens Rmth . s oncrete Company Address; Arvada,s4 80002 Phone: Name: Address: Phone: 3. Owner(s)of mineral rights or substance to be mined Name: same es above _Address: Phone: Name: Address: Phone: 4. Source of applicant's legal right to enter and to mine on the land described: Deed_ (Include certified copy of any documents)noted 5. Applicant's address: Owens Brothers Concrete Comoanv Phone:Q43,424 5850 Address: 5550 Sheridan Blvd Arvada CO 80002 Phone: 6. Identify any prior permits for mining held by applicant or affiliated person: DMG permit no. M-1996-052 _ 7. Description of Operation A. Types and number of operating and processing equipment to he used pit will be wet rnh^ed using a dredge nr dragline B. Maximum number of employees: 5 ,end number of shifts: C. Number of stages to be worked: 4 ,and periods of time each is to be worked Stage t at 3 5 yrs Stage 2 at 3-4 years, Stage 3 at 3-4 years. Stacie 4 at 4 to 6 years 14 JUN-17-2002 NON 10:28 AN BANKS AND GESSO LLC FAX NO. 303 274 8329 P. 03 D. Thickness of mineral deposit: Avg.40 feet.and thickness of the overburden: Ave.7 ft. E. This will be aOArt+pit operation. R Site entrance/exit points and County roads and bridges to be utilized between site and delivery point(sxmust be coordinated with County Engineer) Weld County Road 19 8. Description of reclamation A. Proposed reclamation land use(s): Unlined,open water bodies:limited residential development B. Source of technical advise for reclamation: Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Board, Division of Minerals and Geology 112 permit regulations and standards for reclamation C. Explanation of Reclamation Process: Backfilling of pit edges teat slope to 10 feet below water line and 2:1 slope below that point to pit Non-water storage areas will he ret eed to natural Grade and seed4Q. I hereby depose and state under the penalties of perjury that all statements, proposals and/or plans submitted with or contained within this application are true and correct to the best Of my knowledge. • Signature:Owner/Authorized Agent Rev 1-27-97 15 DUI-09-02 TUE 07:32 AM WELD Cc1JNTY PUBLIC WKS7 FAX: 9703046497 PAGE 1 R Banks and Gesso, LLC 720 Kipling St.Suite117 Lakewood, Colorado 80215 (303) 274-4277 Fax(303) 274-8329 July 3. 7..D02 www.banksandgesso,com Weld County Department of Public Works Attn: Don Carroll PO Box 758 Greeley, CO 80632 RE Owens Brothers Concrete Company, Nix Sand and Gravel Mine—USR 1343 Mr. Carroll: Per our conference call with Mr. Drew Scheltinga of your Department and Mr. Chris Gathman of the Weld County Planning Department, I am supplying you with thefollowing information in hopes that we can satisfy your concerns and obtain a date in front of the Board of County Commissioners for the above referenced USR-Mining Permit application. As you know, the original access point for the Nix operation was proposed to be out onto WCR 28 and then east to WCR 19. However, after receiving comments from the surrounding neighbors and hearing concerns from the County regarding that access point, Owens Brothers agreed to pursue obtaining a shared access point with Varra Companies and Aggregate Industries along State Highway 66 to the north of the property, Initial efforts with Varra proved fruitless and Owens Brothers decided to pursue other options once it became apparent that Varra, in Owens' mind, wasn't being reasonable in their requests, It was then decided that the access point would move to the east of the Nix property and exit onto WCR 19, approximately one-half mile south of ul route will State or.StateHighway rom here the 52, whicheveraoffers the esroceed to safety alternae tiveth, to for thet tur State rning ng haul'trucks and other vehicles using those intersections. It is our understanding that new access point and proposed haul route are satisfactory to you and your staff. We also understand that Owens Brothers will be responsible for supplying the County with construction documents and detailed plans for any and all improvements to the access point onto WCR 19, including possible acceleration and deceleration lanes. We further understand that Owens Brothers will be required to enter into a Road Maintenance and Improvement Agreement with the County for all County roads utilized in the haul route. We ask that your department approve Gathman hof the PlanninngsDepartme t with'na stipulation that pprovalto the access pot and haul route and forwardisyoconditionedur approvalto Mr. upon submittal of the aforementioned intersection design documents and Agreements. I thank your for attention to this matter. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 303-274-4277 Sino rely, Post-it*Fax Note 7671 Data #of /�l�� 9 o,2 ages / To L/'�/`/s Flom Doric, T Ca./Dept. Co. V Banks and Gesso, LLC Phone# Phone# Cc: 20075— Fax# Fax* Agency Correspondence Bill Owens, Owens Brother Concrete Comp, EXHIBIT - f- _ L(S2 *}'/35(3 EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS FROM THE PROPOSED NIX PROPERTY SAND AND GRAVEL OPERATION ON SHALLOW GROUNDWATER LEVELS, WATER WELLS AND WETLANDS Prepared for: OWENS BROS. CONCRETE COMPANY ARVADA, CO Prepared by: WRIGHT WATER ENGINEERS, INC. 2490 W. 26th Avenue, Ste. 100A Denver, Colorado 80211 APRIL 2002 011-074.000 tEXHIBIT ( Ls TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION/PURPOSE 1 2.0 STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION 1 2.1 Wetland on Sage Hill Farm 2 3.0 STUDY METHODS 4 3.1 Review of Existing Data and Information 4 3.2 Piezometers 5 3.3 Adjacent Wells and Monitoring 6 3.4 Proposed Mining and Reclamation Plans 7 4.0 EVALUATION RESULTS 8 4.1 Groundwater 8 4.2 Effects on Water Wells 9 4.3 Evaluation of Potential Impacts on Wetlands 11 4.3.1 Water Sources for Wetland 11 4.3.2 Evaluation of Potential Impacts from the Proposed Gravel Mine 13 5.0 CONCLUSIONS 14 5.1 Groundwater Levels and Water Wells 14 5.2 Wetland on Sage Hill Farm 15 6.0 RECOMMENDED MITIGATION 15 6.1 Groundwater Wells 15 6.2 Wetlands 16 TABLES 1 Wells Located Near The Nix Property End of Report 2 Nearby Wells of Concern End of Report 3 Ground Water Monitoring Program Data End of Report 4 Analysis of Upgradient Lake Leveling Effects End of Report 5 Estimated Change in Groundwater Levels End of Report FIGURES 1 Vicinity Map End of Report 2 Subject Wetland on Sage Hill Farm End of Report 3 Schematic Diagram Showing Lake Leveling Effects End of Report 4 Detail of Upgradient Lake Leveling Effects End of Report 5A Groundwater Profiles Through Wetland (South to North) End of Report 5B Groundwater Profiles Through Wetland (West to East) End of Report 6 Proposed Mitigation Plan Revised March 19, 2002 End of Report APPENDICES A Photographs of Wetland on Sage Hill Farm Sheet 1 Permitted Wells Near the Proposed Nix Sand & Gravel Operation Sheet 2 Monitoring Well Locations Sheet 3 Reclamation Plan Sheet'4 Water Table Conditions and Post Mining Lake Levels ii EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS ' FROM THE PROPOSED NIX PROPERTY SAND AND GRAVEL OPERATION ON SHALLOW GROUNDWATER LEVELS, WATER WELLS AND WETLANDS 1.0 INTRODUCTION/PURPOSE This report presents the results of an evaluation of the potential effects of aggregate mining at the proposed Nix property sand and gravel operation (Nix property) on local groundwater levels, nearby water supply wells and the wetland located immediately to the south on the Sage Hill Farm. This report includes recommended measures to mitigate potential mining impacts to water supply wells and wetlands. This evaluation is based on review of existing information, observations of the study area and collection of additional data. Additional data includes groundwater level readings from monitoring wells installed in the project area and existing wells in the area. The initial mining proposal was for dry mining by means of dewatering. However, due to concerns by local property owners, Owens Bros. Concrete Company (Owens Bros.) changed the plan to wet mining. Therefore, this report evaluates the effects of wet mining only. 2.0 STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION The Nix property is located in the E% and S% of the SW% of Section 28, T3N, R67W in Weld County, Colorado as depicted on Figure 1. The site consists of approximately 320 acres of irrigated agricultural land. The Last Chance Ditch flows in a northeasterly direction immediately to the west of the Nix property. Numerous laterals from the ditch traverse agricultural fields around the property. The Side Hill Ditch and several laterals serve the Sage Hill Farm immediately south of the Nix property. An irrigation pond exists on the Mayer property immediately to the east of the Sage Hill Farm and wetland evaluated in this report. 011-074.000 Wright Water Engineers, Inc. Page 1 April 2002 Evaluation of Potential Impacts From The Proposed Nix Property Sand and Gravel Operation On Shallow Groundwater Levels, Water Wells and Wetlands The Nix property is relatively flat and located in the historic floodplain of the St. Vrain River, approximately eight miles south of its confluence with the South Platte River. According to the "Geologic Map of the Boulder, Fort Collins, Greeley Area" (USGS 1978), the Nix property is underlain by Piney Creek alluvium, Broadway alluvium and aeolian deposits. The Piney Creek and Broadway alluviums are described as sandy and gravelly deposits around 20 to 35 feet thick, respectively. The 1972 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) open file report entitled "Hydrogeologic Characteristics of the Valley-Fill Aquifer in the Brighton Reach of the South Platte River, Colorado (Hun, et al.)" identifies the depth of alluvium in this area as approximately 40 to 50 feet with a saturated thickness of 35 to 45 feet. Based on this report, groundwater across the Nix property flows in a northwesterly direction towards St. Vrain Creek with a gradient of between 0.5 and 1 percent. The transmissivity of the aquifer in this area is described in this same report as approximately 200,000 gallons per day per foot (gpd/ft). The water table is reported as being from 5 to 20 feet below the surface in the southern and central portions of the site, and less than 5 feet below the surface in the northern portion of the site, on the "Depth to Groundwater Table Map..." (USGS 1979). According to the soil survey, a variety of soils exist on the Nix property, including Valant sand, Bankhard sandy loam, Lund clay loam, Vona loamy sand and aqualls and aquents. This latter mapping unit occurs in the northern portion of the Nix property where shallow groundwater (less than 5 feet) is reported on the 1979 USGS water level map. Vona sandy loam is shown as occurring in the subject wetland. 2.1 Wetland on Sage Hill Farm An approximately 11-acre wetland exists in a relative low spot immediately south of Weld County Road 28 on the Sage Hill Farm. The approximate limits and features of this wetland are shown on Figure 2. Photographs of the wetland are included in Appendix A. The wettest portion of the wetland occurs in the north and east portions of the wetland along a barrow ditch 011-074.000 Wright Water Engineers, Inc. Page 2 April 2002 Evaluation of Potential Impacts From The Proposed Nix Property Sand and Gravel Operation On Shallow Groundwater Levels, Water Wells and Wetlands for the county road, and where a ditch ("slough") was dug years ago, presumably to improve agricultural drainage conditions (Photographs 2 and 4). The wettest portion of the wetland is dominated by three-square bulrush, with some areas of hard-stem bulrush and cattails. These species typically occur in areas with seasonally or perennially saturated soils and often standing water. Slightly drier areas of the wetland that have saturated soils, but not substantial standing water, are dominated by spike rush, Nebraska sedge, hairy sedge and three-square bulrush. The driest portion of the wetland, which occurs along its southern and western edges, is dominated by drier species including foxtail barley, and salt grass. Canada thistle, sweet clover, and pasture grasses also occur in drier portions of the wetland and areas adjacent to the wetland (Photograph 1). The wetland lacks trees and shrubs. However, the owner of the Sage Hill Farm has planted willows in the northern portion of the wetland south of County Road 28 (Photograph 2). The soil survey shows Vona sandy loam as occurring in the wetland. This is not a hydric (wetland) soil mapping unit. Soil pits dug in the wetland found a 0- to 2-inch surface horizon of silty loam-to-loam soil. This horizon was underlain by a thicker layer of silty, gravely, or sandy clay. This subsoil horizon was saturated at the time that the soil pits were dug (August 14, 2001) and exhibited a dark color and redoxymorphic features indicative of wetland soils. During field observations, water was observed flowing into the wetland from three irrigation laterals on the south side of the wetland (Photographs 3, 5 and 6). The approximate locations of these laterals are shown on Figure 2. One of the laterals discharges into the slough on the east side of the wetland (Photograph 6). A water control box near the north end of the slough governs the water elevation in this portion of the slough. This box has adjustable "stop logs" that can be used to change the water level in the slough. Water from the slough discharges into a barrow ditch south of County Road 28. Water in the barrow ditch flows westward to a point where it is conveyed north under County Road 28 by a culvert. 011-074.000 Wright Water Engineers, Inc. Page 3 April 2002 Evaluation of Potential Impacts From The Proposed Nix Property Sand and Gravel Operation On Shallow Groundwater Levels,Water Wells and Wetlands Water was observed in the irrigation pond on the Mayer property immediately east of the subject wetland. It was estimated that the water level in this pond was 4-to 6-feet above the ground surface of the wetland. Water was also observed in a pond on the Sage Hill Farm south of the . subject wetland (Figure 2). Water in this pond reportedly originates from a spring. 3.0 STUDY METHODS 3.1 Review of Existing Data and Information This evaluation was conducted from a review and analysis of the following existing documents: • "Geological Map of the Boulder-Fort Collins-Greeley Area, Colorado" (USGS 1978). • "Hydrogeologic Characteristics of the Valley-Fill Aquifer in the Brighton Reach of the South Platte River Valley, Colorado" (USGS 1972). • Proposed mine plan documents including "Extraction Plan Map," "Reclamation Plan Map," "Drill Hole Location Map" and "Water Features, Well Owners Within One-Half Mile," prepared by Banks and Gesso, L.L.C. for Owens Brothers Concrete Company. • Well permit records from the State Engineer's Office (SEO) for wells within one-half mile of the proposed operation. • Soil survey of Weld County, Colorado southern part (Soil Conservation Service) 1980. • "Depth to Water Table (1976-1977) in the Boulder-Fort Collins-Greeley Area, Front Range Urban Corridor, Colorado" (USGS 1979). • Letter from Lynn Loren, and Ottenhauf, L.L.P. dated July 11, 2001, Re: U.S.R.-1343, Special Use Permit, Owens Brothers Concrete Company, Nix Sand and Gravel Mine. 011-074.000 Wright Water Engineers, Inc. Page 4 April 2002 Evaluation of Potential Impacts From The Proposed Nix Property Sand and Gravel Operation On Shallow Groundwater Levels, Water Wells and Wetlands • Memorandum to Paul Gesso from Stan Peters, P.E. dated October 20, 2000, Re: Nix Property Reserve Estimates. • Letter from Stan Peters, P.E. dated December 5, 2000, Re: Nix Property-Aggregate Preserve Estimate for Owens Brothers Concrete Company. • Letter from David J. Cooper dated July 16, 2001, Re: Potential Impacts of Nix Property Sand and Gravel Mine. • Letter from Hydrosphere Resource Consultants dated July 13, 2001, regarding initial comments on potential impacts of Nix property sand and gravel mine. • Letter from Leaf Engineering dated July 13, 2001, regarding Owens Brothers Concrete Company gravel pit-well injury analysis. It should be noted that the letters from Hydrosphere Resource Consultants, Leaf Engineering and David J. Cooper were prepared in response to the potential impacts anticipated from dry mining of the Nix property. They did not address a wet mining alternative, as currently proposed. 3.2 Piezometers Seven piezometers (MW-1 through MW-5, MW-7 and MW-10) were installed on the Nix property and adjacent to the wetland on the Sage Hill Farm, south of the Nix property, on August 14 and 24, 2001. The piezometers were installed using an auger drill rig and were completed with 2Y-inch polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe. Most of the piezometers were installed to a depth of approximately 20 feet, with the lowest five feet constructed of slotted casing. Two of these wells were drilled deep enough to encounter bedrock (approximately 50 feet) but were completed to the 20-foot depth. Five piezometers installed by David Cooper (consultant for the Sage Hill Farm) earlier in the summer were also monitored. These piezometers are designated as MW-6, MW-8, MW-9, MW-11 and MW-I3. Figure 2 shows the locations of the 12 piezometers. 011-074.000 Wright Water Engineers, Inc. April 2002 Page 5 Evaluation of Potential Impacts From The Proposed Nix Property Sand and Gravel Operation On Shallow Groundwater Levels, Water Wells and Wetlands The top-of-casing and ground surface elevations at the piezometers were surveyed and water levels were recorded on the following dates: August 14, August 29, September 7, September 14, October 10, October 23, November 13 and December 8, 2001 as well as January 9, February 6, March 8 and April 9 2002. 3.3 Adjacent Wells and Monitoring SEO regulations require that owners of wells within 600 feet of proposed aggregate mining operations be contacted to allow them the opportunity to assess the potential effects on their well. Banks and Gesso, LLC conducted a search of the SEO records to identify all permitted wells within one-half mile of the proposed operation. Table I is a list of these nearby wells as correlated to locations identified on Sheet 1 (drawing pocket at end of report). Following public notification of the proposed Nix mining operation, approximately 20 well owners (some at distances greater than 600 feet) expressed concern about the operation and its potential effects on their wells. Table 2 is a list of the well owners that expressed concern including their well designation on Sheet 1, well depth, well yield and permitted use. Several of the owners expressing concern had wells completed in bedrock aquifers that will be unaffected by the Nix gravel mining operation (i.e., those wells completed deeper than approximately 65 feet). As a result of discussions with the concerned well owners and neighboring landowners, 7 existing irrigation, domestic and/or stock wells (in addition to the 12 piezometers) were used as observation locations for this investigation. Collectively, the 19 wells were given designations MW I through MW 19, and their elevations were surveyed relative to the top of the casing and ground surface. These 19 monitoring locations are shown on Sheet 2. Groundwater level observations at the 19 monitoring wells were made between August 14 and October 10, 2001. 011-074.000 Wright Water Engineers, Inc. Page 6 April 2002 Evaluation of Potential Impacts From The Proposed Nix Property Sand and Gravel Operation On Shallow Groundwater Levels, Water Wells and Wetlands 3.4 Proposed Mining and Reclamation Plans The mine and reclamation plans were reviewed to assess potential effects from the proposed mining, and post-mining conditions. Several pit configurations have been proposed for the Nix property. The current mine plan is shown on Sheet 2 with the reclamation plan shown on Sheet 3. Consideration of potential impacts from wet mining must take into account the leveling of the groundwater table that results from creation of ponds by sand and gravel extraction below the groundwater surface. Lake leveling occurs when, upon excavation, the sloping groundwater table seeks an equilibrium elevation across the exposed pit (see Figure 3). The resulting groundwater surface on the upgradient side of the pit is lowered relative to the pre-mining groundwater elevation and comparably raised on the downgradient side of the pit. The groundwater level in the exposed pit will equilibrate at an elevation representing the point at which the inflow at the upgradient end of the excavation is equivalent to the outflow at the downgradient end. In general, this is the pre-mining groundwater-level elevation at the midpoint of the exposed pit. The steeper the slope of the groundwater table, the greater the difference between the post-mining ("leveled") and the pre-mining groundwater level at the upgradient and downgradient ends of the lake. This generally benefits groundwater users downgradient of the excavated pit by increasing the saturated thickness of the aquifer. Alternatively, the upgradient groundwater users may be impacted by a reduction in groundwater level (saturated thickness) in close proximity to the mined pit. As a result of lake leveling, WWE recommended modification of the mine pit configurations to minimize the historic groundwater elevation difference across the pit in closest proximity to the upgradient water supply wells. This new pit configuration is shown on Sheet 2. In addition to the reconfiguration of the pit sizes and orientation, backfilling portions of some mining areas was discussed. Based on spoil material calculations, Owens Bros. revised their reclamation plan to show considerable backfilling of Mine Areas 2 and 3 immediately north of Weld County Road 28. This backfilling greatly increases the distance between the post-mining water surface and the 011-074.000 Wright Water Engineers, Inc. Page 7 April 2002 Evaluation of Potential Impacts From The Proposed Nix Property Sand and Gravel Operation On Shallow Groundwater Levels,Water Wells and Wetlands ree% wetland and neighboring water supply wells. The proposed reclamation plan is shown on Sheet 3. Evaporation losses occurring from the ponds were assumed to impart an immeasurable amount of change in the lake surface elevation relative to lake leveling and, as such, were ignored. Nonetheless, evaporative losses represent an annual loss to the groundwater system that must be accounted for from a water rights standpoint. 4.0 EVALUATION RESULTS 4.1 Groundwater Table 3 summarizes the available information on these wells and the observed groundwater levels during this monitoring period. The data obtained from this period shows that groundwater across the property flows in a northwesterly direction towards St. Vrain Creek. This is graphically represented by the groundwater table contours interpreted from the September 14, 2001 data, as shown on Sheet 4. The groundwater gradient varies from a low of approximately 0.5 percent beneath the Nix property to approximately 1.5 percent upgradient of the proposed mining area. Considering the leveling phenomenon previously described, the groundwater conditions represented on September 14, 2001 and the proposed reclamation plan, WWE estimated the reclamation pond water surface elevation for each of the proposed mining areas. These elevations are shown on Sheet 4, and are as follows: • Mine Area 1 ±4,799 • Mine Area 2 ±4,792.5 • Mine Area 3 ± 4,796 • Mine Area 4 ±4,793 011-074.000 Wright Water Engineers, Inc. Page 8 April 2002 Evaluation of Potential Impacts From The Proposed Nix Property Sand and Gravel Operation On Shallow Groundwater Levels,Water Wells and Wetlands r • Mine Area 5 ±4,790 • Mine Area 6 ±4,791 Using this information, WWE computed the maximum elevation difference between the pre- mining groundwater surface elevation and the average reclamation groundwater surface elevation for the upgradient end of each pit. The estimated maximum elevation differences are also shown on Sheet 4. 4.2 Effects on Water Wells Evaluation of upgradient impacts to wells resulting from the elevation differences identified above requires an understanding of the shape of the post-mining groundwater surface upgradient of the pits. An initial assessment of potential impacts is to assume that the maximum change in groundwater level upgradient of the pit is equivalent to the maximum elevation difference at the upgradient end of the pit. However, the lake leveling effect does not remove groundwater from the alluvial system (i.e., the lake inflow and outflow is in equilibrium) and, as such, does not lower the regional groundwater surface. Lake leveling only imparts a localized change in the groundwater table contours. The resulting upgradient groundwater surface varies between the post-mining groundwater surface at the pit and the pre-mining groundwater surface some distance away from the pit (see Figure 4). This groundwater surface is concave upward, with its steepest gradient nearest the pit and shallowest gradient at its point of tangency with the pre-mining groundwater surface. Its exact configuration is a function of the pre-mining slope of the groundwater surface and the hydraulic properties of the aquifer. WWE considered numerous methods for assessing the configuration of this curvilinear post- mining groundwater surface and the distance to where there would be no effects on the groundwater table. Many of these methods, including those for determining agricultural drain spacing, ignore aquifer properties such as transmissivity and specific yield. As a result, WWE r 011-074.000 Wright Water Engineers, Inc. Page 9 April 2002 Evaluation of Potential Impacts From The Proposed Nix Property Sand and Gravel Operation On Shallow Groundwater Levels,Water Wells and Wetlands considered the post-mining groundwater surface, upgradient of the pit, to be best represented by the Theis non-equilibrium equation'. Input values used for determining the drawdown (s) at a given distance (r) from a pumping well (i.e., the gravel pit) include a pumping rate (Q), transmissivity (T), time (t) and a specific yield (Sy). Aquifer properties of 200,000 gpd/ft and 0.2 were used for transmissivity and specific yield, respectively. Using a spreadsheet, an iterative process was used to assign a pumping rate (Q) that would create a drawdown equivalent to the maximum elevation difference (described previously using September 14, 2001 data) at the upgradient side of the mining areas nearest the upgradient wetland and wells after a period of 365 days (t). Using this assumed pumping rate and a period of one year, WWE calculated the drawdown effect (i.e., the difference between the pre-mining groundwater surface and the post-mining groundwater surface) at various upgradient distances. Table 4 is the spreadsheet used to evaluate potential reductions in groundwater levels at various distances from Mine Areas 1, 2, 3 and 6. Using information developed in Table 4, it can be demonstrated that the greatest potential reduction in groundwater level resulting from wet mining the Nix property is to the wells located closest to the excavated pits. In a fashion similar to that developed in Table 4, WWE completed an evaluation of anticipated post-mining groundwater level changes at each well identified in Table 2. Table 5 has been prepared to identify the nearest pit location to each of the wells, the maximum post-mining elevation difference at the upgradient end of the pit due to lake leveling and the resulting anticipated decrease in post-mining groundwater level at each well location based on September 14, 2001 conditions. In all cases, drawdown effects on wells greater than 600 feet from the respective pits are estimated to be less than 1 foot. Evaluation of the available saturated thickness at the wells identified in Table 5 indicates that additional drawdown effects of less than 1 foot will reduce their available saturated thickness by no more than approximately 5 percent. s =Q W(u) whereu = rr?S 4,rT 4Tt 011-074.000 Wright Water Engineers, Inc. Page 10 April 2002 Evaluation of Potential Impacts From The Proposed Nix Property Sand and Gravel Operation On Shallow Groundwater Levels,Water Wells and Wetlands f For comparative purposes, WWE estimated the maximum amount of drawdown that is imparted on the aquifer (i.e., at the well itself) from a 15-gallon-per-minute (gpm) domestic well and an estimated 1,000-gpm irrigation well using the Theis non-equilibrium equation. Assuming a transmissivity of 200,000 gpd/ft and a specific yield of 0.2, a 15-gpm domestic well will create 0.2 feet of drawdown after 365 days at a distance of 1 foot from the pumping well. An additional 0.5 to 1 foot of decreased saturated thickness due to lake leveling will not diminish this well's capacity to produce its permitted 15 gpm yield. Similarly, an irrigation well pumping 1,000-gpm for 365 days under similar aquifer conditions will produce a drawdown in the well of approximately 10.6 feet at a distance of 1 foot from the pumping well. This drawdown is less than half of the saturated thickness available at each of the irrigation wells in close proximity to the Nix property. Similarly, 0.5 to 1 foot of additional drawdown at these wells due to lake leveling will not diminish their capacity to produce their permitted yield. 4.3 Evaluation of Potential Impacts on Wetlands 4.3.1 Water Sources for Wetland • The data and observations collected for this evaluation indicate that the wetland on the Sage Hill Farm is sustained by both surface water and groundwater. As shown on Sheet 4, the direction of groundwater flow is to the northwest and generally follows the land surface. Data collected from piezometers MW-1 through MW-13, which are in or close to the wetland, are shown in Table 3. Figures 5A and 5B are cross-sections through the wetland at piezometers installed in a north-to-south and east-to-west direction, respectively. The following observations are evident from the data: • The depth to groundwater (during the growing season) beneath the wetland varied from slightly above the ground surface to greater than 5 feet below the wetland towards its western boundary. r 011-074.000 Wright Water Engineers, Inc. Page 11 April 2002 Evaluation of Potential Impacts From The Proposed Nix Property Sand and Gravel Operation On Shallow Groundwater Levels,Water Wells and Wetlands • During the growing season, groundwater ranged from 0.76 to 2.40 feet below the surface in the wetland at MW-6, and ranged from 0.1 feet above to 1.60 feet below the ground surface in the wetland at MW-8. • Groundwater levels fluctuated over a relatively large range during the approximately one- month of the growing season that was monitored. The maximum differences in groundwater readings during the growing season are shown on Figures 5A and 5B. Groundwater fluctuated 1.6 and 1.7 feet at MW-6 and MW-8, respectively. • Groundwater continued to decline after the growing season beneath and around the wetland through April 8, 2002. Groundwater was beneath the bottoms of MW-6 and MW-8 in early winter. • A relatively large range of hydrologic conditions existed throughout the wetland. The data from the piezometers indicate that moisture conditions in the wetland vary both throughout the wetland and with time. These fluctuations are likely caused by changes in pumping of irrigation wells, ditch diversions, and other changes in water used for agriculture in the area since little precipitation occurred during the monitoring period. Groundwater levels in the wetland are likely dependent upon agricultural use of water in the area. Field observations indicate that surface water sources are important for sustaining the wetland. Water was observed flowing into the wetland at the three laterals indicated on Figure 2. The easternmost lateral maintains surface water in the slough. The slough is relatively flat so that water from the slough infiltrates and sustains groundwater beneath the wetland. Water from the laterals, and in the slough, likely extends the area of saturated soil to the south and may result in a larger wetland than that sustained solely by groundwater. The slough acts as a buffer by controlling water levels in the wetland. Excess water is discharged from the wetland in the barrow ditch under County Road 28. 011-074.000 Wright Water Engineers, Inc. Page 12 April 2002 Evaluation of Potential Impacts From The Proposed Nix Property Sand and Gravel Operation On Shallow Groundwater Levels,Water Wells and Wetlands 4.3.2 Evaluation of Potential Impacts from the Proposed Gravel Mine The effects of mining on groundwater levels were evaluated in Sections 4.1 and 4.2. It was assumed that the water surface of an excavated lake on the Nix property would equal the midpoint of the pre-existing groundwater surface across the lake. That is, the lake level would be slightly higher than the existing groundwater surface on the downgradient end of a lake, and slightly lower on the upgradient end. A schematic of this "lake leveling" effect is shown on Figure 3. Sheet 4 shows the groundwater contours in the area (based on the September 14, 2001 measurements), the approximate post-mining pond levels and the estimated maximum changes in groundwater levels along the south boundary of the Nix property. These changes are expected to occur due to the lake-leveling effect previously described. These changes range from ±0.5 to ±2.0 feet at the edge of the reclamation ponds immediately north of Weld County Road 28. It is believed that the actual changes in groundwater levels beneath the wetland will be less than shown on Sheet 4 because: (I) the amount of the change will decrease with distance from the ponds (Figure 4), (2) the wetland is upgradient of the ponds, (3) seepage from the pond to the south on the Sage Hill Farm and the pond to the east on the Mayer property will sustain groundwater levels, and (4) diversions and return flows in the laterals to the wetland will maintain groundwater levels. A check on the potential effects from the proposed mine is that there are two irrigation wells located relatively close to the wetland (Well No.'s 38 and 39 on Sheet 1). These wells are relatively high capacity, and pumping from them has not affected the wetland. The data collected shows that the wetland currently experiences relatively large fluctuations in groundwater levels and hydrologic conditions, and the vegetation in the wetland is relatively tolerant to changes in moisture conditions. Slight changes in groundwater levels, therefore, should not have a significant effect on the wetland. 011-074.000 Wright Water Engineers, Inc. Page 13 April 2002 Evaluation of Potential Impacts From The Proposed Nix Property Sand and Gravel Operation On Shallow Groundwater Levels,Water Wells and Wetlands tese‘ The evaluation conducted by David Cooper in his letter of July 16, 2001 was based on dry mining of the site with relatively large reductions in the water table. The changes in the water table from wet mining, as is now proposed, will be much smaller and would not result in large- , scale dewatering of the wetland. 5.0 CONCLUSIONS Because of early concern with dry mining expressed by adjoining property owners and WWE's initial evaluation of this alternative, Owens Brps. made the decision to use wet mining methods to develop this resource. As such, WWE has conducted a post-mining evaluation of the potential well and wetland impacts from the proposed wet mining of the Nix Sand and Gravel Operation. The conclusions reached as a result of this evaluation are as follows. 5.1 Groundwater Levels and Water Wells • Impacts to neighboring wells will occur from the leveling effects imparted on the sloping, pre-mining groundwater surface resulting from the extraction of sand and gravel from below the groundwater surface. • This leveling effect will create post-mining lake surface elevations 0.5 to 3.0 feet lower than the pre-mining groundwater surface at the upgradient end of Mine Areas 1, 2, 3 and 6 based on September 14, 2001 groundwater surface observations. • Using the Theis non-equilibrium equation, the lake leveling impacts (i.e., reduction in available saturated thickness) to upgradient well owners within 600 feet of the mining areas can be shown to be generally less than 1 foot, with many wells projected to experience less than 0.5 feet of reduced saturated thickness. • Using the Theis non-equilibrium equation, it can be shown that a typical 15-gpm domestic well and a 1,000-gpm irrigation well create 0.2 and 10.6 feet of drawdown, respectively, in the aquifer at a distance 1 foot away from the pumping well if pumped continuously for 365 days. An increased reduction in saturated thickness of up to 1 foot at these representative 011-074.000 Wright Water Engineers, Inc. Page 14 April 2002 Evaluation of Potential Impacts From The Proposed Nix Property Sand and Gravel Operation On Shallow Groundwater Levels,Water Wells and Wetlands domestic and irrigation wells is less than 5 percent of the available saturated thickness at upgradient locations. • Lake leveling will create lake surface elevations 0.5 to 3.0 feet higher than the pre-mining • groundwater surface at the downgradient end of Mine Areas 1, 2, 3 and 6 based on September 14, 2001 groundwater surface observations. This leveling effect will tend to benefit downgradient well owners by increasing the saturated thickness in the vicinity of the ponds. 5.2 Wetland on Sage Hill Farm • Groundwater and moisture conditions vary greatly throughout the wetland. • The wetland is sustained by both surface and groundwater. • The data collected and analysis conducted indicate that there could be small to moderate changes in groundwater levels beneath the wetland from a wet mining alternative. • The magnitude of these changes will likely be within the range of existing groundwater fluctuations. • The wetland is adapted to relatively large changes in moisture conditions. 6.0 RECOMMENDED MITIGATION 6.1 Groundwater Wells Significant effects on water wells near the proposed mine are not expected. However, the following measures could be implemented if monitoring determines that the mine is affecting the wells in a capacity greater than anticipated and described in this report: 1. Deepen the affected well if additional saturated thickness is available. 2. Move and/or replace affected well if conditions warrant. /. 011-074.000 Wright Water Engineers, Inc. Page 15 April 2002 Evaluation of Potential Impacts From The Proposed Nix Property Sand and Gravel Operation On Shallow Groundwater Levels,Water Wells and Wetlands t^ 3. Provide supplemental water from mining areas if feasible. 4. Assess other methods to increase saturated thickness in the area of the affected well (i.e., create recharge pits with water delivered from the pits, ditch rights, etc.). 6.2 Wetlands The following measures are proposed to mitigate for any impacts to wetlands. 1. Excavation of Area 1 should occur first to the approximate limit ("berm") shown on Figure 6. This will create an upgradient lake with a lake surface elevation greater than that of the wetland. A pipe/ditch should be constructed to deliver water from Area 1 to the wetland slough at the most upgradient (highest) point possible. Water levels in the wetland, including surface water levels in the slough, should be monitored. If monitoring shows larger than anticipated reductions in water levels in the wetland, then water should be delivered from Area 1 in the pipe/ditch to the wetland. The slough is relatively flat. Maintenance of the existing water level in the slough should stabilize hydrologic conditions in the wetland since the slough buffers the hydrology of the wetland. (This recommendation is shown as proposed "mitigation Item I" on Figure 6.) 2. Additional stop logs should be added to the water control box in the slough to assure adequate "back-up" of water. This is shown as "mitigation Item 3" on Figure 6. 3. While Area 1 is being excavated, Owens Bros. should deliver shares that it owns in the Last Chance Ditch to the easternmost lateral to the slough via the Side Hill Ditch, if • monitoring data shows the wetland is becoming drier. A new headgate with a connection to the lateral is needed. The cost for delivering this water should be borne by Owens Bros. This interim measure, which will stabilize the hydrology of the wetland, is r-� 011-074.000 Wright Water Engineers, Inc. Page 16 April 2002 Evaluation of Potential Impacts From The Proposed Nix Property Sand and Gravel Operation On Shallow Groundwater Levels,Water Wells and Wetlands recommended to avoid delivering sediment-laden water to the wetland from Area 1 while it is being excavated. (This recommendation is shown as mitigation Item 2 on Figure 6.) 4. Water levels in the piezometers in and around the wetland should continue to be monitored. It is recommended that an independent third party evaluate the monitoring data. Delivery of water to the slough, as is recommended, will maintain the status quo of existing wetland hydrology. Additional water provided will maintain water levels in the wetland, and excess water will be drained off the wetland by the slough and barrow ditch. C:\011-074\000d1 NmpactsReport2.doc • • 011-074.000 Wright Water Engineers, Inc. Page 17 April 2002 TABLES r N CI O O es .0 .0 M O a Coo 0 in 30 Din oo o O0 oo en NI en � 00 � o�oov 1p ^ N I I I I I 00 I I I '• '• N v� CA c v� � o00 M 000Zzz for O 7 O V M en O 7 D, N O a0 ON b UN N N .N-, •_, M m y z E 3 E z z z 0 : 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 H 3 - .0 .7 .0 .0 .: .: .: .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 . eb00zz0000 Wcon << « < < « « « < moaw « << « < P. O y AO .p C C O C O C o o o z O O c c u 9 u 0 u O O 0 O u O O '� O '• .. O 'y 'y 'y ct) .O O O O i E E y y '- ,O li g 000 omn E to E to E E E E on ,no ,omn to A E A A A I E E E no zZ _ E 'E o 'E O '1 0 0 0 0 'E E 'E .k 0 —4 —u Y CO O 'E 3 .- A A AAAA .. .. uA u o u A ac .. GT40 0 0 0 cs x co CA CACAV ti F" V r O0 ot) La co a/y� g o t _IN) o O Ln O V O� V1 .N-. en en o 0 0 o h ,--� in cn v, N cn cn v, 0 e PSI d Vi v/ H .�I d W4 L 0v N E- z � > 3 A 'o a W r+ N O O, M ,O O M N O, r 00 O N 1O O I I CO N - ,n I ?� W 6L/ `4' N .-a N N N N 00 p N F 2 1 ' d y 3 U it I. AI O .- ,n M O1 h h r ,O o en .--. ,O M O en O O O O o M _ 00 V, I 1 a , " In N In '.O 'I' ,O '.O V M M V, M N M ° N N d' 7 N VO M 7 ci L ,_ r. w �. w ,. “, ,.. C 1.4 c5d cct i.. O , , z C L 0 to O to F4 0 T T T T T � ^O ^O cn c E L 0 T T ' ti 0 . bA C O C m m m m m ._ ._ m m E' ._ ._ E E 0 It 0 3 p aw > > 3 C4 C4 c © _ _ N N N N N r r r r r r N r r V' V' 7 V 7 V 7 u N N N N N N N N N N N N N N en M en en en en en N N N O CA QL (Yi M [,{,, �i M O < rKi �i �i h 01 h < 0., 0o o v, o' O, r [-- v, ,0 r oo O, 7 v, r ,O ,O ,.n M N N u' E O 4 M O O, ,O r ,O cn 7 v, N N M. L �-. M ,D O b _M O N O, O, O, N 7 V1 V, N N V, ,0 V-, Or, .k.. in 7 i r _ O`2,- .-r en en en— Mr ,r, 7 O N N N V' V V, r C+ .. in N N N N N V , , U E v ' o. 6J A .-. N M 7 V, ,O r 00 O, O "" N M Cr in ,O r 00 O1 O "— N M V 04 0 Q e".., N N N N N O N o _ O` 0 . m O N in C O i m 03 `0 N a n oit d 00 iW W W kr,0.7 WO in OS G VD in N 00 M CT 'p i i i i i Z i N i i N i i I z 0 O O .n in Cl 0 O V M M N vn .-. Cl N A Y 4i E E E P. E E E E EJ E E E E E E. -; L '> > > "' > > 1 1 > > > > > > > > > > > � ,i . O O O O O O O 7 7 O 'O 7 7 7 7 'O W 3 `" d d ¢ Q Q d d d ¢ d d d ¢ ¢ ¢ d Po °a = y y a, 0 C C 2 2 C C C C .a C C U a .0 O '. .O O 'N '� O N ,O O O y .O O .N ti d h N c0 ti v N iC N <a t. cV N id a) b U Z — a E .E .E o o 1 o .E .E .E o .E .',DEC) o W u o rzo of rzi - ... o um YAM 3 ° .: d V .. E.. ,� m o o O r'-‘ a O d Oen o 04 o0 0 .n .n 1 1 00 v-, ,I 1 00 .n oo .n 'c o y V : a W Fz o A 'o a -c Zcn W W 6 4. o0 'a 00 1 1 1 1 � 'n 1 1 •n v ^ vD 1 .o rn d N .d+ C . d I W .45 _ d .�"~,. M en M CD I I 7 tr.O V 00 00 N Vet d' N N a O a Y O V F. 4. I W 3 o C Z Z 2 z > o ad x a O Q -... E > z a. a. O O y. 00 00 00 00 00 00 en en N Cl N V N N N N N N N NN N N N N N M M M M M 6J un .�.+. M W 0 , ¢ , r r.. w W M p4 LL CT G O CT VD N in CT vl O O N in en V 0J� N 01 ON N C; b ar z N 't M ten N r- a\ O N V V V in _ to ti n N U t . 0 o d O C! A to 10 1-- 00 CT O -+ N M V .n .D r 00 or co N 0 CC ii N N N N N M M M M M M M M M MM. 7 V U v y O 2 8 m m .4. m oo o - 603 r` TABLE 2 NEARBY WELLS OF CONCERN Nix Sand and Gravel Operation Well Well Depth Yield Use No. Owner (ft) (gpm) 37 Nix 24 15 Domestic 38 Mayer 54 900 Irrigation 35 Kurtz 48 800 Irrigation 36 Varra 48 1000 Irrigation 40 Parker 14 15 Domestic 39 Parker 40 750 Irrigation 6 Miller 67 1100 Irrigation 7 Miller 66 15 Domestic 15 Mayer 200 15 Stock, Domestic 11 Vollmar 56 900 Irrigation r` 16 Mayer 240 11 Domestic 8 Miller 40 12 Domestic 10 Flynn 31 15 Domestic 12 Vollmar 33 400 Irrigation 20 Smith 23 12 Stock 19 Wilson 40 15 Stock, Domestic 18 Wilson 40 15 Stock, Domestic 14 Short 33 800 Irrigation 17 Smith 240 15 Dom./Stock 9 Clark 33 15 Domestic r ' Owens Bros. Concrete Co. 011-074\000gdw\Report\ Wright Water Engineers, Inc. Des. by: GDW Well\Table 2 4/18/02 Ckd. by: c G O O r` a 5, m a a. m $ O O lel'eIlet A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C ^ N 7 N ON in t- N a, h V N O O -- 00 co0o o0 'n M 0 O t� N o\ M 00 M M 00 00 V O -O 1 0 0 0 0 0 0. o 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 -- 00 —. O -- .. CO t r-` 00 00 00 00 00 co co o0 00 0o0 co v 'Cr 'Cr v v v v v v v v v v v v v c v g Cd d o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 G �^, N M co 'n 7 N N 'In 0 N N co co, 'D N 'o t-- o t--- W4 C h o N M N O 00 W N O vi vi t ' 7 01 _h &/1 , '1' 000 W 000 000 W 000 000 000 000 000 0 'Cr 00 00 00 00 �/ V Tr 7 V d' V 7 7 't 7 7 d' V V 7 V 7 7 d- O e O. gr" a ... O O O O O O O o O O O o O O O O O o O pde .--" M Men M N — N o O N 00 --- M O O , o e rM V y w .. oo vi in v, o h v oo 0 o0 0 pn O ci © d N O Cn N 0 O O en ' I Cti O F'i A N N NN N M 0V -- 7 M EC M CU y /'� pad O oio�+ N M V v� ,to r- oo on o N M in ‘C? [- 00 0N c o d ICI .dV° Ile 3v E—t O ... A t u w w m ^O „no c el O CI) Is N M y ‘41) N is r y .c4 r4 cAc -. .. ..+ O vN et aaa a s sec o oa a o t W z in 0 � � 0x0 E g € € .� C. P. P. P.. -- a T T Gv A CO o N ° a a ° a o rl A, t) b y ai a el k O ci z a 3 Z O : d n c K U rnC ,r, - ° m m C 1,-- F 30 � on 0 O O O O O M O O O C> O O O O i v el v co M vl v1 O O '• +- '>. M .1-* CA CA N teak d v ,to oo ri kn ' N 00 p4 E FG `O I I v a n CD rrrr rrrr 'I- 't o0 rrr nt d v v v v v v v v v v v v v v N v m ....... p _ 0 O O� ,6^ 0 0 0 O o r O 0 0 0 '" yC., '" CD .C. 0 0 0 V 00 v v VD 00 r co co N p!i F: a. M G I oo is 0000ry rNkr; NVMAOA a; O vr: r.: let W co ha a a co 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 .-. M 0, v v 00 0 0, N N >. +-' ',. N v 0 en 0 ill 0! N v b W M v) v6 r 00 I4 i a4 r cr, M vt W 0, CD or, Or, ar, ar, a r, � Orar, ggAOA cr2 ggo' Or, oNNNN A v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v o _ -iii 12 '" C7 oaao oMrq ,0D, 000oy, Ep4 v 0o0. `o?, CD CC g is 0o r ,O 7 t� ri h -.� ri M Q O Q 00 r- � v "" O W a a a v, O en 0 0 v) v1 O O 0 0 0 0 v1 O 0\ in 00 c, c N 00 en r- en 00 ', r •--- vt •0 CA V1 'L v In r 00 M ,D r r 00 00 01 r p! 0, 00 M d V1 r O c C, o c-- a a' c D\ a M cc o E D\ a .-, W r r r r r r r r r r r t--- a00 r 00 ❑ r r-- C., v v v v d' v v v v V' '7 v 7 v p, v v rz H ^ - - ° d ro o 0 o vl O r O 0 vi vl O o > O O O .$ O ^ .a C7 N v M ,D vl N O r ,D v CA O p4 . d T M 071 y L ‘O C3 \CS M 1/46 — 4 a N N N M m V1 ^' zz, � ci . A W C �I O v, in vt 0 0 co 0 0 ken 0 o o v, O v1 OU v) 41 �/ ,� > > r v, ,O en v) N W O ,O CA v '>. 7 .-- b . ,' 00 v1 N M w ; y d 7 Ca a o: kn r r o0 00 0o ci DO rn oo M d .o t� y mCA 01 O CA CA O1 O1 CA 01 c. 0 O, M CA 0 5 c, c r r 00 r r r r r r r r r A co r 00 z r r c a ,/-\ ;4 O Cd ^ vvvvv 'Cr v v v v vv v vv p. vv co L` IIs� Vi 0:1l V C cr, 7 to UJ co O 1,42 .5 In d v Z E y v1 <- M M4 O M O N N N N Ac6 0\ o E 00 met L k" — �'" ~ C C0 c0, 0 0 0 cam, O Co0 O O O Ov M O 0 0 0 r/ L 7 vi N SO 00 b N N 00 00 a< r ri O v) M 0. c, c, O1 Q, Q, CA CA CA O, c, c, o v D\ O A r:4 .tl .. I.' c,r r r r r r r r r r r r 00 00 r o0 Wet o v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v p. a N -0• b9 I O O O O O N O O O O O O O O O 5..F. .. ille C9 ,-+ v •-, ,--. v N N r O, v1 CD v ,D ,D r l S I i FL ,O ,O ,D ,O N —. v O N N M M M 'n N — fL O9 M r m c, O N ,O 0 0 O A O M N v v1 Vt ' N v ,O ' S h ,D r c:7 v1 r i O, I N i N i I IC I i ti w Or, CA cr, cr, N Or, CA OO OO c O v vvv v v v v v p, -.',-..A • to O 0C1 Tr ❑ C9 ,r• OM, vii O c0, ,p . I r ON ' 0 i I i d h: h lei l0 c ; v O " i Si i M i a i i C..., E v a) p_ N N D Q' el O .ti F ,-. N M 7 v.) \O r_ 00 O, c= -TN M v wn b r 00 CA N O W d 4 �, ) A 00 � t' `o G O "1p` O o O O - 0 _w i tim _O 0 0 0 0 O d l� Ori -. M KS f:4i a4 g R: 4 N+ C4 N " f• O N N in XI a W N °0 °° g AAAAAOt�' AOA 00 Ott`' rN O' N a o v v v •v 'I v v 'l v v CO � © o00o a � ra' a � ^ �S. � � 0 .g0 ccoo Ni fel • C7\ 000100 t A 0 A Otri N N let > 0 0 0 0 >., >_, >_, » 0 � >4 0O0. -. 000, 0 O0,. 000 AAe 4aaaa rs Ex E NW � � � � AAAAAnA0Ao'00Og °~r' gg o Ni-vvvv v v v v v v M L. OC7 ' CO^ '0 0 o a 0 �a' a 04 E a o°• 8 O O o O, rg :, - , -, 00OAAAA � AOA " O ^ °ONCNl ..+ > moo o >_, >, >, >., vD>4 • >.,0 O o "COON 0OO0 � � O 6l Clog M Vt a Gi Q�-, a PL a. E FG ri E t" M M NW OOO c\ C\ AAAAAgAOAo'0OOr' °gggg • C o _ v v v v v v v v v v a O V it VD L evC7 � oo O � ga � 04 `R04 Ea044 5N. � ,oqv a Gz .-. — 0AAAA '^ AOA 02 � NNv 0 0 0 0 O 0 O O 0 0 0 0 ta M E — s 00 O\ en 00 >„ >. O t- >., en >., .+-, >r 4-' N 'O d 6v u v vi as vva ,Oa Ea7 god t`i V C > W 00C ON ON A A 0ri °O' A °r`' AOA coM •OO0, 01OO, Or, C r a Q L c vvvv vv v v v vvv w0 h� . � � OOOO >- > oo >4O > > o ... 0 000 my H Z c7 r 0. R Ni oo a a E R - E V ' oo ._.: 4- y a •O AAtcMAvAOA . O N r o W of q0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 _ O 0 0 0 0 > 00 O en >., >., m v, o t� >, >.., in --. O, m v In Cin u o ri ti ,c a a v Le; ,c a E a v g ao ri ,o vi n/ .. W a a a Oa, a a A A a, a a °t a O A 00 0 Ot ' CNN ON C r� • o vvvv vvvv v v vvv W Z 00 -44 "CI _ _ v" l'• 0000 O N rg > 0000 > •5 >- o .5o ov. `° o �t O cc; ‘c g g vi r kn v g O A ^ owl , ; 00 O w O O o O u0 COooOo O 0 000 ; r .O t` v �n t` o0 o en v, >. _ _>., co 4r) N a\ O g: u d M Vl N v V' K E R: 7 E v W NOa, a <D. O� 01OO, NOONOON OOH cgP. � v v v v v v v v v 'Cr v vvv v I� ~ ti O ,�". c, O 0 0 0 a N Ov Ov-i o o 04 E 04 5 O O o 4 ai 06 06 v-, r en ,o cv v en a 0 a o O � vi cc 0c w _ 0 °) a 2 m C U (Y s. O C O tt .--, N M v h ,O r..... 00 O, O • N r v -• 1 VI ,O t` 00 O, 0 '3O U a 0t- E_ 803 es." TABLE 4 ANALYSIS OF UPGRADIENT LAKE LEVELING EFFECTS (Post-Mining) Nix Sand and Gravel Operation Q= 94 141 189 283 gpm T= k x b= 200,000 200,000 200,000 gpd/ft Sy= 0.2 unitless t= 30 365 days r= 1 300 6001 10001 20001 ft Flow Rate Transmissivity Specific Yield Time Distance Well Function Drawdown Mining Q T Sy t r u W(u) s Area (gpm) (gpd/ft) (days) (ft) (ft) 94 200000 0.2 365 1 5.12E-09 18.51 1.00 1 94 200000 0.2 365 300 4.61E-04 7.11 0.38 1 94 200000 0.2 365 600 1.84E-03 5.72 0.31 _ 1 94 200000 0.2 365 1000 5.12E-03 4.70 0.25 1 94 200000 0.2 365 2000 2.05E-02 3.33 0.18 1 Flow Rate Transmissivity Specific Yield Time Distance Well Function Drawdown Mining Q T Sy t r u W(u) s Area (gpm) (gpd/ft) (days) (ft) (ft) 141 200000 0.2 365 1 5.12E-09 18.51 1.50 2 r 141 200000 0.2 365 300 4.61E-04 7.11 0.57 2 141 ' 200000 0.2 365 600 1.84E-03 5.72 0.46 2 141 200000 0.2 365 1000 5.12E-03 4.70 0.38 2 141 200000 0.2 365 2000 2.05E-02 3.33 0.27 2 Flow Rate Transmissivity Specific Yield Time Distance Well Function Drawdown Mining Q • T Sy t r u W(u) s Area (gpm) (gpd/ft) (days) (ft) (ft) 189 200000 0.2 365 1 5.12E-09 18.51 2.00 3 189 200000 0.2 365 300 4.61E-04 7.11 0.77 3 189 200000 0.2 365 600 1.84E-03 5.72 0.62 3 189 200000 0.2 365 1000 5.12E-03 4.70 0.51 3 189 200000 0.2 365 2000 2.05E-02 3.33 0.36 3 Flow Rate Transmissivity Specific Yield Time Distance Well Function Drawdown Mining Q T Sy t r u W(u) s Area (gPm) (gpd/ft) (days) (ft) (ft) 283 200000 0.2 365 1 5.12E-09 18.51 3.00 6 283 200000 0.2 __ 365_ 300 4.61E-04_ 7.11 _ 1.15 6 283 200000 0.2 365 600 1.84E-03 5.72 0.93 6 283 200000 0.2 365 1000 5.12E-03 4.70 0.76 6 283 200000 0.2 365 2000 2.05E-02 3.33 0.54 6 r^ Owens Bros. Concrete Co. 011-074\000gdw\Report Wright Water Engineers, Inc. Des. by: GDW \Well\Table 4 4/18/02 Ckd. by: o1C7 /s.\ T a a uio 0, -,C OO be OG « U U 41 Oa •D \/ Ti O in O C O 0 0 0 0 - .�. .-. V1 N —. '+ q oo ^-� M t M �O ‘O O N O � v1 ut -^ C a w o ; E O 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O o O O R E ° a �in C W a Cey y+ L cki v a W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W4 0 tip c0000a0 '0ooWa' 0000 'O , Q .,. 0 C R M M 1O . . N N N N N N N N N M [� Z E y 3 0 A A L d Z c ` d d d c o • O m r E N M 'O Vl N N 1/4O 1O - .. •--i 'O .-. M '• .-• o - in Oe Y o N 0 a > z 'a z t a o Wm O O O. E m O F _ Z 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 V CD Q 2 c� ^ ❑ o N o o o o Y O O O o O y E .O .+ O .Y E E .o �O 'V to W p y y 'y 7mi aNi O aNi aNi aNi 0 O o \n aN cm i o V p oo .°q oo E ao co E Q to E E E oo Ca Wog) E E n E ocb Z x Q p° p° o 0 0 0 o o O A V x z v) v) o otr, o A p in o O OO O o N .�-. tin O " o b-0 O, oo O t� O� V "" oo '" o W4 > 1O.W ,'y.,CI orn N in 7 7 Tr OO OO �-+ V N M m N V 7 M O en N M 3 ll —. aLi it) N b. 45.., v ai ° a`i = o o t x Cin tO W p > aajw ? n33 `n cnU o o o =,.. a t- 00 V1 'O o a V1 e. c m o N o oo 7 t- a' 7 M r .-. .. N .-. .-. 01Z M M M M O C 0 v o d y u K c 1 U rn r CD LO 88 0 m 'c m c o dt 3 FIGURES r W ce D N L, LL -- eiN ° $ G 6l 0VOB ALNf1O3 ai3M I I CL II LL w J 2 zo W coio I I O V - - - - C fn oZ ® Q x o �Ih W —I la LLJ OS fir! l'N, cc I 4 :2-1-0 b; 1_ 1LLJ i L F� o il 1..1 O t i hh 3 ZCO K z0 2 u < J U L J IK 61, w ' � R LI ® U S v c Zwf W Q ®' 0 0 O c4DO �s ..._ --_ - ' S o �� 3CJ�� w 'l. 23>Ds - . LlaVOBALNf1OJa1 m __. qq P G3G i V-o•m'z"' r. \... W iJ ₹ CC W N8O di 0 w Ed U 0 a o a \.. OM CY62altatillbalSaloaraZt Cl) U W co c N,� .4,"., > 0 % Vti *Ilt j COto, g 00 f %otti 1 It 3 c_ ea �.'+ .�ut`a.. *`s• ' yI d ti !� O c V %``i N as O � `� cC > V z s '�' c r ',i:, C i I13i n#t �i � W cri E 0 CZ a„RI r •C a /,..,./ i/n a��, tflw ay�' t x .'/v/C CA //N� LL Z 13 CL C / u/2 N. //A/Nip��/ � G J rc Y W / / A. //V c O V ium a N in /V/�/// Uj yy u- 4 ) ,,,S 1 if -, 7 v �j ^ ��V//� i Z el 0C O a:x \ / � �� . Z m �du � 2r," •tt,.. E �, � W N J // /\, f o'.\o -o'ra\000ge.\aoo,nwigr.q,,.• e.q I Ground Surface Pre-Mining Groundwater Surface Post-Mining Groundwater Surface ----? ; s • //1 . \\ \ \ \Ili(\ \/ \ \ ,---- NRIGHT WATER DESIGN GDW FIGURE 4 ENGINEERS, INC. DETAIL cow 2490 W. 26TH AVE. 100A CHECK GDW Detail of Up-Gradient Lake Leveling Effects DENVER, CO 80211 DATE 10/17/01 (303)480-1700 SCALE N.T.S. Nix Sand and Gravel Operation W Q O Lc) LL O < d Z cn a < G o O Ti- col N i— O 04 O a \ 0 J M W O N <\ O O O E J M CO W A In• N <V) W m IVI O 1.._ * 0 O O o Z N, 0 zz m W N W D' I O Zp O W J m LJw W w W CO = li- o o0 W U O ~QD "-±w I o ma 1 .� o hCeCe I O C H E— Z fa 0 CZ) CO J O 2 u_ O II in O I II o O Ce D LL ce O .. J OI I ON • 8 N_i. N P ; N �. I O .s8 z _ A G �l �� 0 & O'I oIM Z II : ( O Li. cc 'I _ 0 V U I: _ o N 3 k t- \ I N • 44 O I) > UO n O m o o N%-.C.1 n o o U o rn 3 N a ,.� m r a z x I Q 4 Z. O wti A " 3 I 0 V U-) Z co - 3 co a �aa rte r}:.�/, — O W O 1 W O ! / Z F 0 Z N Jro V W NI / I •M •- IO W J Lij N N Q co 3i-0$ F U•- 2�zO _ 2 W O O O O) 0O N CO Y) < M N O O) 0O 1N CO O / "torn Z - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O) 0) co O) O) CO N N ('Li) N0IIVA313 oPACI..a,D-1vEC)..o-„av0 nthrule wioir W D CO {0—, U ri a (ii __I Z a �o C o -CV) d 0 0 Z Z o3 00 0 0 to cn z0 ZCV LLJ w 0 0 3 po 4.1 0 CL Z U.1 a Q Q L J rn I rn - co a ,.i Ila m 1 II 1- T 8 , ' _0 \\ II N 0 2 N w \\ .III I �i W ce * I 0 _ \\\I\III .9- mO W I I,.N II II Q N a I II N cc l . II 0 6 N W J In I. M, L. /-) L. Q IILI am JN " ___ I I. O co F'11 o J W „:n H y 1 Z III1 ONa En Z I: 0p O 3 a IIItcc O V p "3 ; la V" w N I 9 I. N I ' '.-I 0 O HN F : o Y I I LaU O S a 1 I 0/ 00000 I U I' I 8 Z M i N Wg s I ?H n + o V 7 O Z h W a W N W Q C co 3 O 0) c0 N c.0 N Y M N ' O co V] N co in Q= Q 000000000 O m m A W W 0 < I U a v r - ('id) N0IIW313 U3jv IY7 W O N 1 nroe N Ia,s\oo\rm-unto rw'e'a/m/r Z w III O W o � U U J ®' 6l ddoa uN11OD 011% • 0O V F 11 0u_u_ aZ M KO rt1 J≥ o v0UU z O p x w o n Z m o _J _J _I J N � c�ix z¢ w _Ja WWdJud...� u� O o0� j '. —Lu ern OC OC Z NI O 0 s coo goc=i o0 Nw- 000 - Qi L O ,Lir do no C7 u 0 003 — LIJ O �� Z Q LA En .— ®f wa oLu Zo = � O W c ,I oox� \ H O g fl O 24 � w dr I a�, O w ¢ p 4 La I N J NZ>N \ O 4 ir II 1(2 dpms Se tafr- E i I i‘ry d MW ®O1 10 f �� 4a a mxmL8 Z W I I F o U O I J s d U z R W y7� w L.L. Va III o U to ¢ a a Lci CO a- CO H d % a CL 0d re W La F z he _tiQ O Q Z CL CO O Ien vp 0E 3ryOI 5 L avow uNno�aiann _ 0 _� w Z a cn Z o III Li off s 3or0� _I a LL 3 N. W N. \ . 5 u O - Nw z . \ ,...o-,w\ay,\no mini/. APPENDIX A Photographs " , Photo 1. Subject wetland looking north. Note drier vegetation with thistle in foreground. r Wei ..,.nt liar eMs ' ag; `�'�kry,�l� x ' 4,46 t,4 a ' ' ' rql;`• art+ eeti Photo 2. Wetland along Country Road 28 looking .. East. Note slough and recently planted shrubs ?r ' qtr iss iii , „ . �.f3_�� - x`5"3 to 4De Photo 3 Wetland vegetation along lateral going into wetland iT r a lf.ru t' .ttC�rf,'..'r areJt I�r�ll `iGa3a.Nxia+.n5.. .aA� Yi � py:,+rwf f rx x -. a x r _ id 4-47:1 r 3-1-4,,-----' ,P# Y r`'-,, X . w p1 .x t7,4r,"4 f -'''-•;:-;`,-:_s Y' teems +�' a.-,f < r r14 k d'3 - Lt--t1:1-%"--V:7;t1P & A v d" Nom...' cyfc• x 4 „t Y .th Y YrN'fs, V""2" N -S ` -'" t -.:' L , . r"1 �'F,�) tart ,y�� ..1-;',4% .�'� *,ice _ {F_), a 1 :z."14. �Mxl iSL't ,j,, rvy, Txt ff y �¢ypw` a �y�igp ! -- r '' 1ti 'i t l4S 1 N y tS �n J ' � h� r -} t �" fir: rs �� i� rti . ,t Y.yf , 'V '4 S1 ` s` _ a •e Photo 4 Slough along east side of wetland. Photo 5 Lateral to the west going into wetland. Ydrt,,,* �5 ; LAC '9 - q T t,4' t Nye Cir ' w S' 5 4i1A {,• 'r `f .ya'Y 3 �,44c 1.1. '/. it f Yv ? W '�,,ra S � 1 . r• , { EfrF r,M I; .$� h '3a -i ,- s' 4-4,%-k.-• i r,y '•i'•;gs r �r $ wry x. yt. 1 r T . �":i 1 n t, f { j + }. i,1F, xti, 'ffrdd 'd „-J^" '151 11'l(z 6a( "-F ,r, 1 7 I. �'n'f �Z 1 ..- .. ac' ,'. 4 ~ Y Y f, ,i,_, `� . ,..,..,..”,,..;• ! -- /n 'l 1 Y r iii+ . - ar� i� J.v`^ -? _ '"•- k 3. I. i, .sr Photo 6. Lateral to the east going into slough. r, . ,1 , � � �� V4 11 + !1 J I 11i I I I. I 'NO . .. g 7, I , IR111 ;.. --, 4 ,,: i . : ...,.1 it • j 1.... :"I .). _ _. .: . .. ....-.:,. L'...._; ... _ ,. .t..... . ...i. _. • 40. ::;•,' _ .: . .....i.-__. , .... !:(...1::. "...Is ,, . • f,,,,. . ,_. ,,.. . . .: , ,. ,., r •._ . . , _ .. , ,,.-„,ji ,,,,,.... •-.„ ..: . • . . !,,, • . „oil ::;.:: :"..: --. i ....: ;':, ,1: • 1: Lli • it •,.',/. • if':', ; $ •Ili '' • • C• • '/f/ f _I 'I 'I.: w ,s ?Qt`f �,a Yq„�wlx Pa II • Si, •1 • TTT f• - • E ..__. ._ I ! II • • :� - f .i) I . .. • ....., 7 •, . '..,. .. . ..._ _. 1". ..._. ..- ......" .. _. \L 't k °i • • .C.\\‘‘:\ IN a e ' g ! Ili ! lig I g it — , � i ' i I 1— It 3 w ' II 1 L a r 'I III dil '• i% ni(tr. tn ri J I W '4^ je xavoruww�auKc 1 � ' _ '� '`� �q�` P �'v 'a-,,% 17 0, sL laal � _ 9. O " 41 ,� %i�',. T, _ Nes S ' �.g�u*tix�fi.��s� .mac.VI',,'"4 :� i� — , ' � �___ VI,yg 8 �i 435 ,� $ it . ^,® 1 it.,, I, ri i 3 A°u y i 1 E 1 la 1 —' _ I!!! Libras ill! L'-4'�, I :. 5 i _ fl I s # : ° � o I{ , I.I:I U 44 c I E it • @ 3 I • I{ • I1 i i iIIII�i • i i • { �( � ,• ti ; , .e/ ; • . . , �7 C7 • z • I . ;ti. w. � I-- \ Ills ctavaarasM • Z Q I • \3! `.fit �',`.�\`.• r` 1 Z • ! • ti ••• pllirl .-.-.. .-... _.. k ''' \ -• \ . — ' 5 ''' • •'' .• LLI Ce • \.•�vKyT� .Ti`.SY�::Lt.`YSf1•.:II..:�:^.._ .. .-.-- . I- X Ai.' • : ji A 1 ! _ t� q� i ig i • • E.Vi,. ri . ." . :_' amyl'�uar+oo axis, �;1. _ f g 0 3 ra ''• r) IN :,1.____ LJ,:,-:' -i g ii; I , ii I 1 - I i i i I 51! iif z x 1 � j �.n. Al i11 I s1. Li . F lilt • li • !.li - i -. --7- 77-1... .• I _ . it I11 f .. — — — —I . . !J 0 A t 2.._ II i _` 4.; - , . . i. ______,.,,,:-::_7_ . ,,,, ,,,, „, ,,,...,„...,•_,...:4,.7.7 yg. , • I '•—.. !FI ill i i! - ,•,.. --Q p• ; lir ...,....... .....,,,,....,1 ._ a_.,„,______ ., .., ti r.!.-:.. - 7 ,.._„,,,,,,- ---tr,..„, ,N f., I .1 i z • '7 ' . O."( r ' . .:: . ‘ _2\k,,; a :.0 .0 lift dt <l i i1� l 111 17 . \�' Ii tq. \ ) I i 1; 1.7.:, ii. ll k• . \'51. 1 A it \ I- ..• i' .3 s'iDe3 C. i I N giz 1 ii.li 1 I i ®- , -,rd. A : ..► ' 9:i ' co`'ei --I ' i i�I ill — �,� ...► , '' • `1 _ J 411 ili 1 .. .. .\ ''.1:.::: . ....... ..... :•.;. 1 110:1! . lir N : !.. . "1 ...I ) V i li" T : 2 11(01. '�� it r -- 1 'lI ; :k1 r) ii . . ,,,,,, H .L_________)_%,1,-.4? di _. _ .,l -----".:- .N. \ a I.. 3A,91; I , 11 1 I f iIgf I I.J._Ht ' n1 ! 7-.. .1:;-24.41,-,3_,,,:i ; 1 g , I - , :6 . 2_ , 10 +! t3__ - .E�-;ti. s a Y �. • J z Ise •c 1 tll r Yt ";•{r E g t d i 4 ! r t fig: + C75 � i'i3�.E �l;_. i 111 c i I i II Li tee_ I 1I J ii + J j ' !. co f $ :,..',:3, i+ \'- l i, f , I i j , i.. : 1 .4 044 f y i x • ^I _ e'. i u _ . 11 , , I I I . 7.= . inni .. il bi \ 1 ' i I.L IIii ,F.) i\ I ii • i} t1 i • i it, . ..,. , . . • f "Z. •- I�, • •�� . � = rte ; Q�� 0R ; .; _ 1 ',IIe - -- , •IU .if - }' 8" __--.t _;,K,..: ,-1,r A ! a � t N —•+.= .�F 7F / .1' ,j! • „ 4*:'...i' .‘.'. • .!. Jnam<34 . ' . S '_i:.1::., - • - ' .-1 t '' • '','1'4H-� 1 ' .t I i a �.. :.. ��tr;tlk-•..y • :fit y•c3sji;a aap a ssc ....t. .-•e '-g:Lll':- ..f!. ^ ' "''' r'r,.i'''\-.' t. 'y h 1 I f to 1 :II ti, lti,y��'rtt �-,";.{,F{1!:•.. �•J Tr If I7' .,ii-.. Y.I.kk I, ,\ - ,` 1 ._._,.. •A N1-4 . ,.y r) I r , s. .6 S Li ' i is .a; ��'�1� .•-v,;' " �:1=+; i; I� • r. Ii I I I Il �.. ..'L .. .. .. -,-. _ � "'C.1.^ -ter .01 o I IT I � !, EE • r, I . i..-i....,._..t,IA:. gi IDI , ,,11 ; :. 1 .,. i. ,; : lg I il It . .,......F.:-zit-: xi ,,, a ! ; 11 ., t5., . * a ; i ;; - 11 ! I i IllEI, F iy. ,.:r ■. aF i W $I a ,igi J'• .-r_''-. I 1 R' 11 I ! I I I I- f A li I t ; I OI v l o �. I ,. 6 I 1,. .§:n9: I .1 o -A, I I i i ' Ii.: 1 I II t.L..r, -: Q II N s . • g / f I �. III I I , • L c 8 I I ill Iti. I 4 L I 1 # Ali nI ' Iii 4; M I: ' I I. I II d -�`:. _ l � III '• . : .' - • �t t�+ !. . . 'I Iltt I t._ ''�• . . . '� 1 • sl • '•' SSN N O re 3 ;1• . f1• �; i'a -• 'k f- aS-'..f ',i r' : s .-f 1 W►- z ' v ~`` X71.• i • :I 1'0513 _ _� ...1,-,..L.......:._;...:::,......,,,,:___,..2,:' W _ 11- 14 I • t, • t M+sa':.____....�_ tvla�.._- «_....«..� C , ,.e••:-..01. 71t*.k -•••••','Tk,r� - r4 t. 3= y H t��i-z: ,; ., = I!i�It, -:�, 'o:r.'`1c �V.I...,-4,1' is twr2 • K.U,,.,:a.ss sr+?.-ys-= r.sa!:-...ti�t:t.4::s:::Xt' ___„.. ...•,,•••• mt.. '�' 2... ..... \�".',-• 1'i ..iv1 1.{r. t•6i -....,.,.,-: n:�.y' jl74 I i Z l'�m�LkJLr.C:ar. Lt4.11i II I I., ,6..;•:IEe i*_ SS tri • t_, M. I E 'f '`= ` • ii `I it • i - ..-.r_- .--4». -rn_ •. -- — ..teaw ....-2r=•=r'.'4n�---..._ -� 1rf.fm�n,.r—=� I' I I . I • . I . • • :1•- I ME Banks and Gesso, LLC 720 Kipling St.,Suite117 ■■ Lakewood, Colorado 80215 (303) 274-4277 Fax (303)274-8329 www.banksandgesso.com August 22, 2002 Board of County Commissioners 915 Tenth Street 7 PO Box 758 ay Greeley, CO 80632 t,.w CD t cii w ` o ri'i G RE: USR 1343- Nix Sand and Gravel Mine; Draft Resolution - (0 Dear Board: U N As representatives of Owens Brothers Concrete Company in the permitting process of the Use ey Special Review referenced above, which will be heard before you on September 4, 2002, we are in receipt the draft resolution of approval from the Clerk to the Board. We would like to take this opportunity to express some our concerns with the resolution as currently drafted. First, and perhaps most important, the resolution makes reference to Owens Brothers operating a "dry open pit" mine. However, due to citizen concerns about potential water and wetland impacts, Owens Brothers has decided to mine the site in the wet, with no dewatering activities on the site except for possible placement of dredge, which in any event would be for a short period of time with limited impact of groundwater levels. We hope that the reference to a dry-mining operation is simply a misprint and that any confusion over the method of mining can be cleared up prior to the hearing date of September 4th . There are also concerns about several of the pre-conditions to plat recordation that are listed in the resolution. While there are no real issues with the context or content of the conditions, there is some concern that the County is placing an unrealistic time frame on the Applicant to satisfy some of these conditions. We acknowledge the County's desire to get approved USR permits platted in as short a time as possible to keep them from languishing, however, many of the conditions simply cannot be realistically completed in the 30 days allotted. We suggest that some of these conditions would be more appropriate as preconditions to operation at the site. A summation of the conditions we find questionable follows. Condition 3.8—We would like make clear to the County that a maintenance shop was simply a proposed use in the application and may not be constructed on the site at all. Even if there will be a maintenance shop, a design may be used that does not incorporate a floor drain. Further, it is our experience that obtaining such permits can take significantly longer than 30 days, and in some cases as long as 6 to 9 months. Due to the uncertainty of whether there will be maintenance shop with a floor drain and the significant length of time an Injection Well Permit approval will take, we would request that this condition become a pre-condition to operation on the site. When operations are scheduled to begin, Owens Brothers will submit appropriate building permits. If they decide to build a maintenance shop with a floor drain they will then submit approval of a Class V Injection Well Permit to the County Department of Public Health and Environment. Condition 3.D—With Owens Brothers not expecting to begin operations at the site until for at least 6 to 9 months from now, any APEN that would be approved by the Colorado J EXHIBIT U54. t3y3 Department of Health and Environment would expire by the time Owens Brothers would be ready to operate at the Nix property. To keep the Applicant from having to spend time and expenses on obtaining and then renewing a permit it won't need for another 3 to 5 years, we request that this stipulation become a precondition to operation at the site. Evidence of an approved APEN permit will be submitted to the County prior to operations at the site. Condition 3.E—This item doesn't seem to be a condition at all, but rather a statement of fact. As such, it is unclear what the Applicant would need to do to comply with this condition. We acknowledge that an ISDS will be required for the processing plant and other facilities and will need to be installed according to County ISDS regulations. We also acknowledge that any new septic system is required to be designed by a Colorado Registered Professional Engineer and that the installation needs to comply with County ISDS Flood Plain Policy. However, as the County indicates in Development Standard#4, the Applicant has the option of utilizing the existing septic system in the residential building currently on the site. If Owens Brothers decides to utilize the current system (along with any improvements that may be needed), it would seem to make Condition 3.E unnecessary. Further, our experience tells us that it is virtually impossible to inspect a current system for adequacy, make any needed design changes, submit a permit application, and/or gain approval within a 30 day time period. We suggest that Condition 3.E become a Development Standard that is placed in conjunction with Standard#4. Condition 3.G— It is our understanding that the County considers the conditions and regulations placed on APEN permits by the Colorado Department of Health and Environment to be adequate as a Dust Abatement Plan. As with Condition 3.D, we feel this condition would be more appropriate as a pre-condition to operation. Owens Brothers will submit a Dust Abatement Plan to the County for review and approval upon receipt of the approved site APEN which will be obtained prior to beginning of operations. Condition 3.L— In the year since the Planning Commission hearing, it has been discovered that access from the site onto State Highway 66 will not be possible. As such, all traffic to and from the site will be utilizing Weld County Road 19. Therefore, this condition is no longer applicable to the operation and we ask that it be stricken from the resolution. In sum, we would like to re-emphasize that we understand the County's position and reason for placing a 30-day deadline for plat recordation. Owens Brothers would like to the get final plat recorded as quickly as possible as well. However, some of the stipulations simply cannot be satisfied in the time allotted. We ask that you consider the requests made here and we look forward to presenti our case in front of you on September 4, 2002. Sincerely, Turtt Banks and Gesso, LLC Cc: File—Correspondence/County Chris Gathman—Dept. of Planning Services Bill Owens—Owens Brothers Concrete Company • Weld County Planning Department GREELEY OFFICE AUG 5 2002 MEMORANDUM RECEIVED WI D 1 C TO: Chris Gathman, Planner DATE: August 1, 2002 •COLORADO FROM: Donald Carroll, Engineering Administrator u"-G4 SUBJECT: USR-1343, Owens Brothers Concrete Nix Sand and Gravel Mine There are two additional items that need to be submitted for review and approval prior to recording the plat. 1. A construction drawing detailing the improvements for the access on to WCR 19 including acceleration lanes, deceleration lanes, and a left turn slot is required. 2. The Owens Brothers will be required to enter into a Road Maintenance and Improvements Agreement with the Weld County Public Works Department for the County roads that may be affected in the designated haul route. pc: USR-1343 M:\WPFILES\DON-C\8-USR.WPD 4. EXHIBIT iR_ t 1.343 4w MEMORANDUM wokTO: Board of County Commissioners 9/4/2002 COLORADO FROM: Chris Gathman - Planner SUBJECT: Recommended additions to USR-1343 resolution Based on the memo from the Department of Public Works dated August 1, 2002, the following condition is recommended to be added to this resolution: * Condition 2.Q: "A construction drawing detailing the improvements for the access on to Weld County Road 19 including acceleration lanes, deceleration, and a left turn slot shall be submitted for review and approval by the Department of Public Works. Evidence of Department of Public Works approval shall be submitted to the Department of Planning Services. EXHt It �^ SERVICE,TEAMWORK,INTEGRITY,QUALITY (AWC41342 • Varra Companies, Inc. Office of Special Projects 1431 East 16th Street + Greeley,Colorado 80631 + Telephone(970)353-8310 + FAX 970)353-4047 Monday 20 August 2001 Ross M. Horvath,P.E. Banks and Gesso, LLC 720 Kipling St., Ste. 117 Lakewood,Colorado 80215 Subject: USR 1347—Kurtz Ranch Sand and Gravel—Aggregate Industries. USR 1343—Owens Bros. Concrete Company. Dear Ross: It was not immediately apparent to us or to the above participants as to the need to coordinate planned activities with our existing operations. It was appropriate for the County to suggest it respective of the Owens project,however, it appears to us equally appropriate for the Aggregate Industries project as well. Chris Varra is interested in assuring that the traffic impact studies at Owens and Kurtz North be combined to consider existing and projected levels of impact from our on-going Kurtz South operations at Highway 66. While open to the potential for sharing access at 66 with the Owens Concrete project,there is little to consider at this time without the potentials first being examined by a qualified study,the cost of which should be born by Owens Concrete,and shared by Aggregate Industries,due to their adjacent proposal. Additionally, it our understanding from discussions with C-DOT is that a left hand turn will be required immediately North of our access point for the planned Aggregate Industries project North of Highway 66. This project will shift the existing eight feet of our paved access to the North to provide for this left turn access,for which we should be compensated. Since considerable funds were utilized in the development and approval of our access,compensation for existing studies would be necessary prior to release of this information. Regardless, it would appear that our portion of the access has been completely satisfied,and any studies which may benefit the two adjacent applications should not be an additional expenditure for Varra Companies,Inc. or Sand Land,Inc. This does not preclude the need to assess a coordinated view for the benefit of all, including the traveling public and area community,for which there may surface residual benefits by a coordinated review and establishment of the additional access. Regardless,Varra Companies,Inc.needs to be considered in any Traffic Impact Studies respective of these proposed operations. We respectfully request to be included in any negotiations regarding the same at the State and County level. Please coordinate a meeting with all of the respective parties,i.e.; Banks&Gesso;Aggregate Industries;Owens Bros. Concrete;Colorado Department of Transportation;Weld County Government;Varra Companies, Inc.;and,Sand Land,Inc.at your earliest convenience. Please feel free to continue any communications through my office directly. Thank-you for your cooperation and kind consideration. Sincerely, Varra Companies, Inc. Bradford Janes Professional Forester EXHIBIT cc. Gloria ssi Hice-Idler ---R .--- Assistant Access Manager l,(5(Z $1 V3 Colorado Dept.of Transportation- Region 4 1420 Second Street r Greeley,Colorado 80631 Weld County Commissioners Weld County Colorado Weld County Dept. of Public Works Weld County Colorado Weld County Dept.of Planning Weld County Colorado Christopher L. Varra,President Varra Companies, Inc. Sand Land,Inc. fa- 2 UcT-U8-2002 TUE 03:31 PM BANKS AND GESSO LLC FAX NO. 303 274 8329 P. 02 is. Banks and Gesso, LLC 720 Kipling St.,Suite117 .■ Lakewood, Colorado 80215 (303) 274-4277 Fax(303)274-8329 www.banksandgesso.com October 8, 2002 Weld County Planning Department Attn: Chris Gathman 1555 North 17'"Avenue Greeley, CO 80631 RE: USR-1343, Nix Sand and Gravel Mine; Pre-Conditions to Plat Recordation Mr. Gathman: Attached, please find the appropriate documents that should serve to satisfy several of the pre- conditions to plat recordation for the above referenced Use By Special Review Permit The conditions to which the enclosures apply are outlined below, Condition 2.4—Mr. Terry McKee of the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers has reviewed the proposed mining plan as submitted to both the County and State end has indicated that a 404: Clean Water Act Permit will not be required. A letter from Mr. McKee stating such has been attached for your records- Condition mining Condition 2.N—The Appiicant has obtained a commercial well permit for tt a pr well n permit operation through the Colorado Division of Water Resources. A copyapproved is attached for your reference. Condition 2.O—A Letter of Concurrence from the U.S. fish and Wildlife Service stating their agreement with the Savage and Savage report regarding the absence of potential habitat for Ute Ladies-tresses Orchid has been attached for your records. Conditionee 2w h Letter of Concurrence S age report egardking the absence of potential a habitat for g their agreement with the Savage. Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse has been attached for your records. Proof of satisfaction of the remaining preconditions to plat recordation will be submitted to your office once completed. If youee to call me questat ions 303/274 4277.or concerns regarding any of the submittals included herein, please SinyTht Tug Martin Banks and Gesso, LLC Attach' 404 Disqualification Letter Approved commerial Well Permit • Letter of Concurrence—the Ladies-tresses Letter of Concurrence—Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse Cc: Project File—20075/Correspondence/County/Planning, 1 EXHIBIT Bill Owens—Owens Brothers Concrete Company Uui-Utf-ZUU ut, Ui;J1 hN UHNK5 HNU UL•b;,U 1'R Nl • ,;u,1 e diLU P, Ui r DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY �`� '' CORPS OF ENGINEERS, OHARA DISTRICT DENVER REGULATORY OFFICE, 9307 SOUTR WADSWORTH BOULEVARD LITTLETON, COL PADO 80128-6901 August 30,2002 RECEIVED SEP z s 2002 Ba.Tug Martin BANKS&GESSO,LLC 0ks and Gesso,LLC 720 Kipling ipliling St., Suite 117 Lakewood,CO 80215 RE: Owens Brothers Concrete Gravel Mine,Nix Sand and Gravel Mine,Case Number USR- 1343,Exhibit C Corps File No.200180386 Dear Mr.Martin: Reference is made t67 Wethe st,Weld County,Colorado. project jecdocated in the riouth Y2 of Section 28, Township 3 North, Accompanying your August 22,2002 letter to this office is the pi oposed mining activity plan map dated September 18,2002. This ep1aan w these hsegments is of unlined b e ditches ie that may beconsided waters of the U.S. Concerning this mined in the future. This project has been reviewed in accordance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act under which the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers regulates the discharge of dredged and fill material and certain excavation activities in waters of the United States. Waters of the U.S.ent wetlands and el, intermittent and perennial streams,their surface connected wetlands and a; j . certain lakes,ponds,drainage ditches and irrigation ditches that have a ne s to interstate commerce. Based on the information provided,a Department of the Army permit will ,;,‘t required areas of Mined Area 1,2 and 3. For this review Stage 2 will not be mined. Although a Department of the Army permit will not be required for mining areas 1,2 and 3, this does not eliminate the requirements that other applicable federal,state,tribal, and local permits are obtained if needed. If there are any questions concerning this matter,please call Mr.Terry McKee of this office at 303-979-4120 and reference Corps File No.200180386. Sincerely, Tinto T. Office Chief,D Re: 3.5 tm UUI-U5-211112 TUN. UU:UI NM UIINK13 MU GESSO LLU FAX NU. 3U3 Lti. 8329 N. U4 MAY CO 2002 09t2B DIV WRIER RESOURCES 3S 066 3589 P.02/02 Penn No. Off ICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER T ,gGURC@S GWS26 ate a RADOtanmermenSs,DeverWoao3 (gp3)WW1 3. 1J WELL PERMIT NUMBER _ DIV. 1 WD 2 DES.BASIN Mt gIPPRAV, D„WeJJ.R ON WELD COUNTY SW 1/4 SE 1/4B7SecNW S ixth P.M. 'Township 3 N Range OWENS BROTHERS CONCRETE CO nrcfAnCES FRA M SEC 1C L iigi 6550 SHERIDAN BLVD "'""— Section Line ARVADA,CO 80002- 42 Ft front South Section Line 1337 Ft.from Ernst (303)429-5850 NoMint N1I Fasting: C NGEIEXPANS SE OP NO WELL ISSUANCE OF THISCN N F p lO DOES NOT Oligya R A WAT ER FLIGHT 1) This well shell be used in such a way as to cause no metodal injury to existing water rights.. The issuance of fhb Permit does not assure the applicant that no injury will occur to another vested water right or prod.kb another owner of a vested water right from seeking rotor ih a deft court anion. 2) The construction of this well shall be In compliance with the Water Well Construction Rules:%CCR 4024,unless approval of a variance has been granted by the State Board of Examiners of Water Weil Construction and Pump Installation Contractors in accordance with Rule 18. of the State Engineer dated 4/9/95 for appropdefion of ground ASProved pursuant to CRS 37-82402(3)(b)(0 and the policy water tributary to the South Platte River system. s as described in CRS 37 0?r802(1)(c). 4) The use of ground water from this wed Is limited to drinking and sanitary fs landscape Tribe dhi or for an)/37424020x* 02(purpose fors commerds bceb,�_ Water from this well shall not be used for lawn or outside t♦,ebusiness building structure. • 6) Approved tor the use of en existing unregistered well decreed in Division 1 water Court Case n A.W4351. 6) The maximum pumping note of this well shall not exoeed 15 GPM. 113 a re,foot 008,600 gallons)• 7) The mardmum annual amount of ground water to be diverted by this well shall not exceed el Approved as the only well on a tract of lend of 99 songs)assumed to Not/4 of the SE114,Section 28,Township 3 Noah.Range 87 West 8th P.M.,Weld County,reference attached exhibit W. sal s1'stern of the 9) The return Row from Oro use of thla well must be through an Individual waste water disp0 • ,ion.evaporative type where the water is returned to the same stream system in which the wed Is located. The maximum consumptive use of ground water shall not exceed 10 Percent- 10) In good werWrq one Permanent recorder of ed Atotalizing flow meter must be installed on this web and maintained diversions must be maintained by the well owner(recorded at least annualb)and submitted to the Division Engineer upon Pelmet 11) This well shall be not more than 200 fast from the location specified on this permit with Water Wed Construction NOTE Pursuant to condition 2,the construction of this wail must be in compliance nstand rW,ft Consin of Rubs 2 CCR 402.2, it maybe neoseeery to modify the welt casing to bring up to n adequate seal and grouting. If you need a variance from this standard or if you need guidance on modification of the at the well can contact the State Board of Examirtprs of Water Weil Consbudon and Pump address above. _ e Me of this should be set through the eriti�rexr�5(7�0� NOTE:To ensurer ed cone or aquifer r Mcated abovee perorated casing .rod4/ interval of the approved • • APPROVED JMW Y ► t o.04 State Engineer D TE SSUEO • IRA I IOTPt_ P.02 UU I Utl-LUUZ Wt. Utl:JZ Yfl bhNY S tiNU GC55U al; r H, NU. NJ G 14 n Jcy r, UO ----47•ib United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE_ Ecological Services _: i 755 Parfet Street, Suite 3M Lakewood, Colorado 80215 IN REPLY REFER TO: RECEIVED ES/CO: ES/Species/Plants/ REP 2 0 2002 SD/Survey Reports SEP 12 2002 Mail Stop 65412 LK BANKS&GESSO,LLC Edith Savage Savage and Savage 464 West Sumac Court Louisville, Colorado Dear Ms. Savage: Based on the authority conferred to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Senrvice)by the Endangered Species hid (Spiranthes3ciiluviali) hab as amended itat assessment re31 port for Banks and Gesso LLC's proposed seq.), the Service reviewed the Ute ladies'-tresses ses Property-Project in Weld County, Colorado (Township 3 North, Range 67' West, East '/zgand South'h, Southwest VA Section 28). The proposed pro ect site is bounded on the cn of the by State Highway ighCountyn the east by Weld County Road 19, the south by Weld County Road 28, Road 17. The nos present in t the he sr assessed.Thert efore, tort he Spervice concurs with the determination tat tha or theluvra es proposed project is not likely to adversely affect the continued existence of the orchid. We appreciate your ubcontact submitting this McKee at report our office c 275-2370, Sincerely, and comment. If the Service can be of further assistance, please Sincerely, i ,/c.g,L----- oy Carlson • Color oFieldSupervisor cc: U.S. Army COE;Littleton, CO (Attn.: Terry McKee) Banks and Gesso, LLC. (Attn: Tug Martin) Referee Rtor&WSD/2002\SDSBcSl0907.002.Wpd 3. O -UUI-Uti atue IUr. ui:Se I'll WINKS AND GESSU LLO Fh., N i, 303 2/4 8329 P. 06 AT Op). ��\17%iy, United States Department of the Interior Si ` a fir, . FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Sao Ecological Services C Colorado Field Office 755 Parfet Street, Suite 361 Lakewood, Colorado 80215 IN REPLY REFER TO: ES/CO: T&E/PMJM/Survey Mail Stop 65412 DEC 2 0 2001 Ms. Edith Savage Savage and Savage 464 West Sumac Court Louisville, Colorado 80027-2227 Dear Ms. Savage: • Based on the authority conferred to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service)by the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), as amended(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.),the Service revue wed the Preble's meadow jumping mouse,Zapus hudsonius preblei, (Preble's)habitat assessment report submitted with your letter of September25,2001. This report regards the Nix property in Weld County, Colorado (E 'A and S '4, SW 1/4 of Section 2E, Township 3 North, Range 67 West). Given your compliance with the Preble's survey guidelines, the Service finds the report acceptable and agrees that Preble's habitat is not present within the subject area. Thus,the Service concludes that development on this site should not have direct adverse effects to Preble's. Should Preble's populations exist downstream from the site, actions on the site that result in significant modification of Preble's habitat downstream(for example,through alteration of existing flow regimes, or sedimentation) may be subject to provisions of the ESA. If the Service can be of further assistance,please contact Leslie Ellwood of my staff at(303)275-2383. Sincer , / �,,�it tc--- ------ Roy W. Carlson Colorado Field Supervisor cc: Ellwood ReferawsEllwood/PMJM/RabitatEval/2001.020 S. .? Hello