The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20050290.tiff En Banks and Gesso, LLC 720 Kipling St.,Suite117 ■■ Lakewood, Colorado 80215 (303) 274-4277 F Fax (303) 274-8329 www.banksandgesso.com November 19, 2004 VIA FAX AND U.S. MAIL Weld County Planning Department GREELEY OFFICE Kim Ogle NOV 2 3 2004 Weld County Department of Planning Services RECEIVE® 918 10th Street Greeley, Colorado 80631 Subject: Proof of Notification; AmUSR-1255 —An Amendment to a Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a Mineral Resource Development Facility, including open pit mining and materials processing; including Asphalt and Concrete Batch Plants, in the A (Agricultural) Zone District of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado Dear Mr. Ogle: Attached please find copies of the certified mail receipts for the notices sent out to several mineral estate owners of the subject property. A sample letter is also enclosed. Please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, YV), ti2e.e�vl. tte-ae ---"za Maureen Jacoby QQ Project Manager Attachments: Certified Mail Receipts Sample Letter Cc: Lynn Mayer, L.G. Everist, Inc. . EXHIBIT I 2005-0290 RMUSC `aSS November 16, 2004 Mr. Murray J. Herring TOP Operating Company 10881 Asbury Ave., Suite 230 Lakewood, CO 80227 RE: 30 Day Notification of Public Hearing AmUSR-1255, Fort Lupton Sand and Gravel Mine, L.G. Everist, Inc. Dear Mr. Herring: Our client, L.G. Everist, Inc., has submitted an application to Weld County for the Amendment of Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit #1255 for a Mineral Resource Development Facility, including open pit mining and material processing in Weld County, Colorado. A search of public records revealed your name as an owner of mineral rights on property described as the N '/2 of the NW 1/4 and the SW ' of the NE ' of Section 30, Township 2 North, Range 66 West and the E ''A of the NE '/a of Section 25, Township 2 North, Range 67 West, 6` P.M., Weld County, Colorado (see attached Vicinity Map). The State requires us to notify mineral interest holders of any public hearing 30 days prior to the hearing. The hearing will be held by the Weld County Planning Commission on December 21, 2004 at 1:30 P.M. in the Hearing Room, South Weld County Planning Department, 4209 CR 24 '/, Longmont, Colorado. Please inform any minority mineral interest holders of this meeting, and feel free to have them contact me with any questions. If you would like more information, please call me at the above number or Lynn Mayer of L.G. Everist at 303-286-2247. Sincerely, Banks and Gesso, LLC Maureen Jacoby Project Manager attachment: Vicinity Map U.S. Postal ServicerM U.S. Postal Service,. M1 CERTIFIED MAIL. RECEIPT o CERTIFIED MAIL. RECEIPT 43 M1 Li,Mall Only;No Insurance Coverage Provided) j (Domestic Mail Only;No Insurance Coverage Provided) F.r ry•alive Inf•rmeti nvisit ur we•site at www.us. .mro F•r•elivery inf•rmati•n visit •ur we•site at www.us•s.c m - ICI L U L ru m OFFICIAL USE Pow _� —� s �e $ 3 7 ,- ,`� 0 Certified Fee �.3r� �� 1 n, i Cemaed Fee /73); c z. 2 Return Redept Fee /V 3 \Po�" i p Return Raciest Fee - _ 11 (Ergorsemem Required) -_ V (Endoreemam Requlrod) N� ul Restricted Delivery Fee O Restricted Delivery Fee �� I.r7 (Endorsement Required) Li-) (Endorsement Required) _. O To• _ - __ a o PETX Petroleum Corporation o Mr. William G. McCanne M1 'w 1616 Glenarm Place, Suite 1700 r` 2415 S. Lansing Way ai Denver, CO 80202 ( Aurora, CO 80014 EL _ L U.S. Postal Service,. U.S. Postal ServicerM m CERTIFIED MAIL,M RECEIPT -° CERTIFIED MAIL. RECEIPT uT (Domestic Mail Only;No Insurance Coverage Provided) u-I (Domestic Mail Only;No Insurance Coverage Provided) 0 0 F•r•slivery inf•rmati•n visit ur we.site at www.us•s.c•me F•r•elivery inf•rmati•n visit•ur we•site at www.us• . "' OFFICIAL U E N OFFICIAL USE ru = Postage $ 37 �,5 ,A. P $ 37 a �� } Certified Fee r 1 ,.k -- Certified Fee O $dV Realm Retlept Fee / re OO ittr Rehm Redepl Fee 7 "%— �/ (Endrsement Required) 73 (Endorsement Required) ��qre\ / VI 0 Restricted Delivery Fee O Restricted Delivery Fee 1D 1 ` u7 (Endorsement Required) ui (Endorsement Required) (/ N a .,r : P- I To. o -m Jack A. and Karen L. McCartney o sent Mr. Billy J. Watkins ` o McCartney Engineering o or 4521 Kipling Street '' o Threat 16300 Yosemite Street 'dr Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 car.= Brighton, CO 80601 ..--- U.S. Postal Service,. U.S. Postal ServicerM D- CERTIFIED MAIL,. RECEIPT ru CERTIFIED MAIL,. RECEIPT = (Domestic Mall Only;No Insurance Coverage Provided) m in u7 (Domestic Mail Only;No Insurance Coverage Provided) F•r • .rmati•n visit•ur we•site at www.us•s.c.m F•r•slivery inf•rmati•n visit ur we•site at www.us•s.c•mrr. ru OFFICIAL USE f„ OFFICIAL USE ru m m S Postage $ 3 7 S Postage $ 3 7 o camped Fee 3 l7 �� o Certified Fee c/J o s0 O (EndorsemRetumenntedept t Required) / .C c Het i° CI Rehm Raciest Fee 7S 18 (Endorsement Required) Lhi O Restricted Delivery Fee a �� 0 Restricted DelivRe Fee in (Fl(EndorsementRequired) u'7 (Endorsement u4ec) . "' �i� IL) Total P•wrnr.e a rm. C J- CI Florence B. Schneider o s sr o Hishashi Vinoshita 445 Yampa Ave. r- 'mil Route 1 or I Craig, CO 81625 or°O MIEJ car,: Chappall, NE 69129 - - ---- PS Fo U.S. Postal Service,M U.S. Postal Service.,n ti CERTIFIED MAIL. RECEIPT o CERTIFIED MAIL . RECEIPT •n (Domestic Mail Only;No Insurance Coverage Provided) ,i (Domestic Mail Only;No Insurance Coverage Provided) O F.r •elivery inf•rmati.n visit •ur we{,•site at www.us•ss.c m� For delivery information visit our website at www.usps.com, FFICIA USE rru u OFFICIAL USE n: m 3 S Postage S Postage $ 37 conned Fee a 3 0 D D Certified Fee 49-9D ,'.0 N Return Recbpt Fee Postmark —- &k D (Endorsement Required) / 7S Here. D (Endorsement Redact d)) /`/ 3- / % Here . O Restricted Delivery Fee r O Restricted Delivery Fee t-- I ul (Endorsement Required) tr) (Endorsement Required) W C N O minin.m•n.A Feat 4 / . . / D Mt.'n,..•..^e.a... e VW.' -<-.' _,I Do Ms. Margaret Ann Hoffman D ' D Mr. Lee T. Murata ---- N 7or li 764 Legion Street N _-g 555 171h Street -6; Craig, CO 81625 co Denver, CO 80202 Instructions I U.S. Postal Service,. U.S. Postal Service.. N CERTIFIED MAIL,M RECEIPT m CERTIFIED MAILTM RECEIPT _D (Domestic Mail Only;No Insurance Coverage Provided) _Ei (Domestic Mail Only;No Insurance Coverage Provided) 0 F•r•elivery info rmation visit ur we•site at www.us•s.c•m,u D F•r•elivery it.rmati•n visit•ur we•site at www.usps.c•me m OFFICIAL, USE ru m OFFICIAL USE Postage E ., Postage $ /� - `\ 7 D . . •\ O Certified Fad C7 ed Fee 7 / O P �' d Return Reeiept Fee / (( 'n:I D O Realm Reeled Fee /'7 HAS- (Erdorsenlert Required) - i (Endorsement Required) `- u-I (Endorsement_L.. Restricted DeliveryRequired) Fee / D Restricted rsem Delivery Required) ` lri (Eno D Required) O .r i e__•___.•.___ at / D T•.I o,,.r....,a.c...., a L/ CD Ms. Mary Jane Montoya o s Mr. Chris Greneaux r 586 Stout Street M10 .s<err-McGee Rocky Mountain Corp. Craig, CO 81625 1999 Broadway, Suite 3600 Denver, CO 80202 I—. - -for Instructions U.S. Postal ServicerM U.S. Postal Service,. co CERTIFIED MAIL. RECEIPT J- CERTIFIED MAIL. RECEIPT ,.° (Domestic Mail Only;No Insurance Coverage Provided) to (Domestic Mail Only;No Insurance Coverage Provided) D F•r •elivery intrmati•n visit•urwe•siteat www.us•s.c.m�� D . F r •elivery information visit urwe•siteat www.us•s.c•ms m OFFICIAL USE ru m OFFICIAL Postage $ - t., r postage $ - S _7- Codified F� r� Q o Certified Fee �3 D 'w n D c Ppr. rl� --'heevhrler`rt D (Endnresenbm Required) /�J ""lT" , - O (EndorsementmtReeguired) i5 Here O Restricted Delivery Fee ��`� -- D Restricted Delivery Fee Ul (Endorsement Reqired) Isi (Endorsement Required) r- DTotal P^^•-^^..c...... e N M1 Sent Mr. Murray J. Herring J-izi • aaaaac TOP Operating Company o PETX Petroleum Corporation orPo 10881 Asbury Ave., Suite 230 r` ' 1600 Stout Street, Suite 1400 oro:S Lakewood, CO 80227 Denver, CO 80201 ructions • U.S. Postal ServiceTM, in CERTIFIED MAIL. RECEIPT ru ti, (Domestic Mail Only;No Insurance Coverage Provided) o F•r•elive ry inF rmati.n visit•ur we•site at www.usnc e.ma,.Ill M DJ OFFICIAL ; `7 = Postage E 3 7 �o o` 1 Certified Fee / 4 i O Retum Redept Fee A �6,etrnerk / o (Endorsement Required) / 2,5— Here,.i im Restricted y Fee �, - - o (Endorsement Required) -r•- CI Total a..e•e,.ut It ceva t v 4 ti 0 1415 Corporation r` -eerie, PO Box 11038 City,+ Denver, CO 8O2@@ ril 12/20/04 17:39 FAX 3032891348 L G EVERIST z002/003 L.G. EVERIST, INC. MOUNTAIN DIVISION OFFICE FAA T,yl 7321 E.88TH AVENUE•SUITE 200 ^t,&� iya HENDERSON,COLORADO 80340 Rock Solid Since 1876 303-287-9x06 FAX 303.289.1348 dba Andesite Rock Company FVT.r CORPORATE OFFICE 500 S.PHILLIPS AVE.•SUITE 200 P.O.BOX 5829 SIOUX FALLS,SD 57117-5829 ' PHONE 605-334-5000 ... FAX 605-334-3656 December 17, 2004 I Mr. Ross Bachofer 11566 Weld County Road 18 Fort Lupton, CO 80621 ' RE: L. G. Everist, Inc.'s Fort Lupton Sand and Gravel Mine Colorado DMG Permit#M-1999-120,Weld County Permit#USR-1255 Dear Mr. Bachofer: Thanks to you and Mike for taking the time to meet with Maureen Jacoby of Banks and Gesso and me to discuss our mine permit amendment application and your concerns. I apologize for not getting back to you sooner. First, we would like to address your concern with the amendment to our Colorado Division of Minerals and Geology permit- The concern directed toward the state permit was in regards to your well located on your property in the SW Y.of the NE' of Section 30,Township 2 North, Range 66, in Weld County. This property and well, which we saw when we met with you, is on the east side of the South Platte River, on the opposite side of the River from our operation. Just to let you know, we were unable to find any listing of this well in the Colorado State Engineer's permitted well records. You mentioned in your letter and when we met, that you are worried about drawdown to and contamination of your well by L. G. Everist, Inc.'s sand and gravel operation. We have since confirmed with a hydrologist what we explained in person-that the South Platte River acts as a barrier and that our operation will not affect groundwater levels on the opposite side of the River. The South Platte River is a perennial stream which flows through a fairly extensive alluvial deposit. Any drawdown of groundwater on the west side of the River would be replenished by the River, so there would be no impacts on groundwater level or groundwater quality on the east side of the River. The phenomenon of a river as a continuous boundary preventing effects from translating across it has been observed and is a widely accepted concept. Therefore, with this in mind, we do not see how our operation could affect your well, so if we were to monitor your well, as requested, the monitoring would show effects from sources on the east side of the River, rather than from our operation. Although you mentioned that you are not concerned about the wells you have on property located more than 1,000 feet to the west of amendment area, we would like to inform you that we are preparing a Groundwater Monitoring and Mitigation Plan for our Colorado Division of Minerals and Geology permit Second, we would like to address your concerns with the amendment to our Weld County permit: One concern is your well, which we have just addressed above. Another concern mentioned in your letter was regarding asphalt plants. Our current permits include sand and gravel mining and processing, and concrete and asphalt batch plants. All asphalt plants in Colorado are regulated by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environments Air Pollution Control Division, and are required to have air pollution control devices known as baghouses. These baghouses are designed to contain the majority of emissions of air pollutants from asphalt plants, including much the odor that these plants used to emit years ago. If, however, sometime in the future, you do notice an LM/FL-Bachofer-1 21704.doc EXHIBIT n1 #'— 12/20/04 17: 39 FAX 3032891348 L G EVERIST Z003/003 RE: L. G. Everist, Inc.'s Fort Lupton Sand and Gravel Mine Colorado DMG Permit# M-1999-120, Weld County Permit# USR-1255 unpleasant odor from an asphalt plant located on our site, please let us know right away and we will take immediate steps to resolve the issue. Another concern mentioned in your letter was regarding noise associated with a gravel operation. The processing plant was running the day we met and we could not hear it. Just to let you know, the processing plant will moved to the north and/or south-west as mining progresses, but never closer to your property on the other side of the River. We did faintly hear the back-up alarm on the front-end loader while we were there. Unfortunately, we can not disengage any alarms for you. Back-up alarms are company policy and are required by the federal agency in charge of mine safety, known as MSHA, for the safety of mine employees and anyone else working near heavy mobile equipment. We can tell you that our operating hours are restricted by Weld County, with mining operations being allowed from Sam to 8pm, Monday through Saturday. Another concern mentioned in your letter was regarding whether the area was agricultural or residential and how concrete and asphalt operations fit into this zoning. The land included in the amendment area and the original permit area is zoned agricultural. Mining operations, and concrete and asphalt plants, are acceptable within agriculturally-zoned districts with a Weld County Use-by-Special-Review permit. This permit amendment is for a land-area expansion of our current Use-by-Special-Review permit. In your letter, you state that gravel, asphalt, and concrete truck traffic will increase. Actually, this amendment to our permit is just an expansion of an existing permit that allows sand and gravel mining, a concrete plant, and an asphalt plant. We are just increasing the acreage to be permitted and mined. We are not asking for an increase in production or truck traffic above what we already have permitted. Finally, you mentioned that you feel that our operation negatively affects your quality of life and property value. It is the policy of L. G. Everist, Inc. to operate in a manner that is as unobtrusive as possible to our neighbors while still enabling us to provide sand and gravel products to our customers and to compete in our industry. We do not believe that mining operations are detrimental to surrounding property values, and therefore cannot compensate for perceived devaluation. As mentioned earlier, if, sometime in the future, you have any specific issues with our operation that we are able to control or mitigate, please contact us so that we may discuss potential solutions and resolve any issues. My direct line is 303-286-2247. Sincerely, Zat Lynn Maye , Regulatory Manager cc: Kate Pickford, Colorado Division of Minerals and Geology Kim Ogle, Weld County Planning Dennis Fields, Vice President L.G. Everist Maureen Jacoby, Banks and Gesso LM/FL-Bachofer-121704.doo 2 1)(fir), MEMORANDUM WIlDTO� Planning Commission - COLORADO. DATE: January 4, 2005 FROM: Kim Ogle, Planning Manager SUBJECT: AmUSR-1255, L.G. Everist, Inc. Ft. Lupton Sand & Gravel Mine do Maureen Jacoby, Banks & Gesso LLC, The Amended Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for Mineral Resource Development facilities; including open pit mining and materials processing; including a Concrete and Asphalt Batch Plant in the A (Agricultural) Zone District had several conditions to be met prior to scheduling the Board of County Commissioners hearing. The applicant has submitted the appropriate documentation to address: 1. Prior to scheduling the Board of County Commissioners hearing: A. Section 22-5-100.A of the Weld County Code states "oil and gas exploration and production should occur in a manner which minimizes the impact to agricultural uses and the environment and reduces the conflicts between mineral development and current and future surface uses." Section 22-5-100.A.1 of the Weld County Code states "...encourage cooperation, coordination and communication between the surface owner and the mineral owner/operators of either the surface or the mineral estate." Finally, Section 22-5-100.A.2 of the Weld County Code states "new development should be planned to take into account current and future oil and gas drilling activity to the extent oil and gas development can reasonably be anticipated." Tetra Tech RMC, submitted a Slope Stability Analysis to address the accommodation of oil and gas operations and other appurtenances. The engineering study discusses the element of stability of the mining operation. This information indicated that mining could take place up 80 feet from structures including oil and gas facilities without endangering the stability of those structures. The applicant shall either submit a copy of an agreement with the property's mineral owner/operators stipulating that the oil and gas activities have been adequately incorporated into the design of the site or show evidence that an adequate attempt has been made to mitigate the concerns of the mineral owner/operators. The plat shall be amended to include any possible future drilling sites. The applicant has submitted signed agreements with TOP, Kerr-McGee and Lupton Bottom Ditch to satisfy Condition 1.A. The Department of Planning Services moves to strike this requirement as the condition has been met. EXHIBIT G 'hi . f " � Page 1 of 1 Kim Ogle From: Maureen Jacoby [mjacoby@banksandgesso.comj ,t: Thursday, December 23, 2004 9:34 AM To: Kim Ogle Cc: Mayer, Lynn Subject: AmUSR-1255 LG Everist, Inc -- Hi Kim, We appreciate your recommendation for approval of this project! In reviewing your staff comments, I noted that you are missing the oil and gas agreements that were submitted with the amendment application. Please find the TOP, Kerr-McGee and Lupton Bottom Ditch agreements attached, to satisfy condition A for scheduling a BOCC hearing. Lynn will be sending you and Char evidence of an adequate permanent water supply shortly also (to satisfy condition B). I will also send you a new copy of the entire application package, since it appears you are missing some of the appendices. I am also sending the certificates of conveyance to Esther Gesick- she should receive them early next week. Happy Holidays! Thanks, Maureen Jacoby BANKS AND GESSO, LLC 720 Kipling Street, Suite 117 Lakewood, CO 80215 (303) 274-4277 office (303)274-8329 fax (303) 868-1963 cell EXHIBIT 1 12/27/2004 Weld Count i, CR" cif'F 'W IAN 11566 WCR 18 Fort Lupton, CO 80621 [� E C E I V L) January 15, 2005 E� Lynn Mayer Regulatory Manager L. G. Everist Inc. 7321 E. 88`h Avenue, Suite 200 Henderson, CO 80640 Re: L. G. Everist, Inc.'s Fort Lupton Sand and Gravel Mine Colorado DMG Permit# M-1999-120, Weld County Permit# USR-1255 Dear Ms. Mayer: Thank you for getting back with me to address my concerns in your letter dated December 17, 2004. I have had the opportunity to review the material you left with me and that you have sent me since. I have also reviewed what is on record with Weld County regarding your amendment to your permit. First, I would like to make a correction from your letter to me. You stated that I am not concerned about the water wells I have on property located more than 1,000 feet to the west of your amendment area. This is not correct. I am in fact concerned about not only the well east of the river, but also about the wells to the west of your proposed new boundary. I have reviewed the report from Wright Water Engineers dated January 3, 2005 for your DMG permit. The groundwater data presented is all gathered after L. G. Everist had already installed a slurry wall in the existing permitted area. I have seen no baseline data from before the slurry wall was constructed and therefore have a hard time drawing the same conclusions as expressed in the report. Further,there should be baseline data from monitoring wells 15 and 16 from before they were damaged during the construction of the slurry wall. 1 believe this baseline data is crucial in understanding the impact of the existing slurry wall on the groundwater flows and levels. I also believe this understanding needs to be obtained before allowing more slurry wall construction or determining trigger points. It is for this same reason that the computer models of future slurry walls' impact on groundwater does not seem reliable. It would take baseline data from before any slurry walls were constructed to accurately model groundwater effects. Again, what has been used for the existing model is data gathered after a slurry wall was already in place. My concern about the odors from an asphalt batch plant still stands. You state that the baghouses are designed to contain the majority of emissions of air pollutants from asphalt plants. I would agree that they are designed to contain the majority of particulate emissions. I would not agree that they are designed to contain the odors. In addition, I know that baghouses have failed bags or socks from time to time. How does L. G. EXHIBIT M #1 t Everist monitor its baghouses to ensure they are working as designed? What is the typical life of a sock? How often are all of the socks changed? Is there some set interval or is it done only after multiple failures are observed? My noise concern still stands as well. I will not argue the point that we could not hear the plant on the day we met. I will however explain why. As you know it was a little windy on the day we met. We had to put weights on the maps to keep them from flying off the hood of my truck. The wind muffled the noise that day, yet even with the wind and all of the trees between us and the plant we could still hear back-up alarms. You might well imagine that on a still day, the noise can be much worse. I am aware of the noise levels that must be complied with per 25-12-103 C.R.S. Industrial: 80db(A) between 7am and 7pm and 75db(A) between 7pm and 7am at 25 feet from the property line These are nice limits, but who monitors to see if they are being complied with. The county might have the resources to spot check it every now and then, but who monitors it on a regular basis? These measurements are also to be taken when the wind velocity is less than 5 m.p.h. I concur that gravel pits are allowed in agricultural zoned areas with a Use-by-Special- Review permit I agree that the truck traffic will not increase, but the increase of 162 trips per day that has already taken place will continue for a much longer period. Instead of the traffic dropping off at the end of the existing mine's depletion, it will continue to as late as the year 2030. I stand by my statement that I feel this operation has and will continue to negatively affect my quality of life and property values. The Division of Wildlife has recommended a 200-300' setback from the cottonwood riparian tree line at the river because of the use of this corridor by the wildlife in the area. The wildlife in the area adds to my quality of life and my property value. The permit is requesting a 200' setback from the river bank instead of from the tree line. Respectfully, Ross Bachofer Cc: Kate Pickford, Colorado Division of Minerals and Geology Kim Ogle, Weld County Planning PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' SIGN POSTING CERTIFICATE THE LAST DAY TO POST THE SIGN IS DECEMBER 11, 2004 THE SIGN SHALL BE POSTED ADJACENT TO AND VISIBLE FROM A PUBLICALLY MAINTAINED ROAD RIGHT- OF-WAY. IN THE EVENT THE PROPERTY BEING CONSIDERED FOR A SPECIAL REVIEW IS NOT ADJACENT TO A PUBLICALLY MAINTAINED ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY, THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES SHALL POST ONE SIGN IN THE MOST PROMINENT PLACE ON THE PROPERTY AND POST A SECOND SIGN AT THE POINT AT WHICH THE DRIVEWAY (ACCESS DRIVE) INTERSECTS A PUBLICALLY MAINTAINED ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY. I, KIM OGLE, HEREBY CERTIFY UNDER PENALTIES OF PERJURY THAT THE SIGN WAS POSTED ON THE PROPERTY AT LEAST TEN DAYS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSIONERS HEARING FOR THE AMENDED SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT FOR MINERAL RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT FACILITIES; INCLUDING OPEN PIT MINING AND MATERIALS PROCESSING; INCLUDING A CONCRETE AND ASPHALT BATCH PLANT IN THE A (AGRICULTURAL) ZONE DISTRICT KIM OGLE Name of Person Posting Sign Signaturet4 erson Posting Sign STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. COUNTY OF WELD /9111 , The foregoing instrument was subscribed and sworn to me this day of t , 2004. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Lutic oN tay Public My Commission Expires: / EXHIBIT 1 u *1255 U1/12/uo 1d:u7 FAA, 3032891348 L G EVERIST 002/005 L.G. V T4 �� INC. MOUNTAIN DIVISION OFFICE j�l 7321 E.NTH AVENUE•SUITE 200 11V C. ��„'-, y' HENDERSON,COLORADO 80840 303-287.9606 Rock Solid Since 1876 $ FAX 303289-1348 dba Andesite Rock Company M' CORPORATE OFFICE ' ' ,._.,.,,,• 300 S.PHILLIPS AVE.•SUITE 200 P.O.BOX 5829 SIOUX FALLS,SD 57117-5829 PHONE 605-3345000 FAX 605-334-3658 January 12, 2005 Char Davis Weld County Department of Public Health & Environment 1555 North 17th Avenue Greeley, CO 80631 Via Facsimile: (970) 304-6411 RE: L. G. Everist, Inc.'s Fort Lupton Sand and Gravel Mine, AmUSR-1255, Evidence of an adequate permanent water supply Dear Char: We respectfully submit this information to show"Evidence of an adequate permanent water supply," which is needed to satisfy the following, from the Staff Administrative Review of AmUSR-1255: The Department of Planning Services staff recommendation for approval is conditional upon the following: 1. Prior to scheduling the Board of County Commissioners hearing: B. Environmental Health Services...applicant shall provide evidence of an adequate permanent water supply to the Dept of Public Health and Environment and Dept. of Planning Services. L. G. Everist, Inc. (LGE) does have a permanent water supply on site in the form of two water wells. LGE has a well which has been permitted for commercial use, Permit 57957F. We use this well for our overall operation, and the augmentation of this well is covered by a Substitute Water Supply Plan (SSP). A copy of the SSP approval letter is in Appendix B of the USR application. We have another well on site for which we recently applied for a Change of Use. This well is currently permitted under Permit 80437. Enclosed please find a copy of the paperwork submitted for the Change of Use, including: the General Purpose Water Well Permit Application, the Commercial Drinking and Sanitary Well Worksheet, and a site map. This well was used historically as a source of water for the migrant farmhouses when this property was being farmed. When we receive the new/changed permit for this well from the State Engineer, we can send a copy to you, if you would like one for your records. With both of these wells being permitted for commercial use, we feel this information provides evidence of an adequate permanent water supply, and meets the sanitary and drinking needs of employees and visitors. Please let us know if you agree that this is adequate evidence. Thank you. And of course, if you have any questions, or require additional information, please contact me by phone at 303-286-2247 or by email at lemayer@lgeverist.com. Sinc rely,- Mayer— Regulatory anager EXHIBIT cc: Maureen Jacoby, Banks and Gesso I K' -\mUSIZi1255 LM/F L-permwatedoWeldCoCDavis-011205.doc u1/1.Z/us lb:u7 FAA 3032891348 L G EVERI ST Cj003/005 _ COLORADO DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES Office Use Only Form GWS45(102064) Ill DEPARTMENT or NATURAL RESOURCES M 1313 SHERMAN ST.,R 818,DENVER,CO 80203 phone—info:(303)866-3587 main:(303)8663581 ix:(303)866.3589 httpJhvww.water.Statc.cO.us • GENERAL PURPOSE Water Well Permit Application • Review instructions on reverse side prior to completing form. The form must be completed in black or blue ink or typed- 1.Applicant Information _6. Use Of Well (check applicable boxes) ' JJ'' 1. Attach a detailed description of uses applied for. L. Q- � k t ST1 INC• ❑Industrial 0 Other(describe)_ Maaig agar= 73Z I E Ave v,lY ❑Municipal - Stale � 0 litigation `V J--) a Lx) 6 y o 54 commercial .S Va ,y.„. a A nil lU Telephone , � � ) 26lar�2V er 7.Well Data(proposed) m M w Anna amount* 2.Type Of Application(ch p feeble boxes am**tan IS 9pm /eSg 4 ,ki acre-feet ❑Construct new well use .ring wag Tura,dept Awake ❑Replace existing well ,erg or increase tae 0 feet ❑Change source(aquifer) Reapplication(expired permit) 8 Land On Which Ground Water Will Be Used ❑ahel: A Legal Description fly be protease ea an etadvnwu 3.Refer To((iii applicable) � / 0-3 4 • Wei pewit* evsoes( wmwa cces Smge. � oe;gn tedSa:mD eemill,mlmu '!W5 nano ore .- 4.Location Of Proposed Well (If used for cop litigation,attach a scaled map that than;ahead area.) County Id (ScT' B. sages C. Oster„�e ma Nit) „a h0 -i tt%Ati �i� sit Ke a3' Setlion TO0 2 Pen Berge El Pr incipal MCIpd Mmtda, Ebel . �r IlM D. W!M'dha..elte .u�rdpMelned on WsUnd.2.slMwe er evIlxam facial axis( rues we het nap paper/tea) • 16..4/01) `t ROm 4 t❑S 250D Fts,a'❑E w 9. Proposed Well Driller License#(optional): For.yJ�dmad Wells orgy--dlganco and d4oman Wm old we tanereeb feet direction 10.Signature Of Applicant(s)Or Authorized Agent c The making of false statements herein constkutes perjury h the second we(amain rraar he eppunable) degree,which is punishable as a class 1 misdemeanor pursuant to C.RS. 244-104(13)(a). I have read the statements herein,knee the contents Optional; GPS well bailor hibernation in UTM format thereof and state that they are true to my knowledge. You must check GPS Link for required settings se moan: Sign here ust rnaisiyaW.) Date Format must be UTM - - _� • /2/36/61 Zone my bet] ]gyp �rs� A,� ,�/� �r/�-��)I ,--r�p��) Q screw mug ho Meters Northing2. I /r//V /viA�"�., ,cV.V�rTu VL7 to�(/`, Datum must be NADea we rust be gat to true norm Office Use Only was GPS um chocked roramw7 ❑YES Rmreorber to set Datum to NADas USGS reap name DYeR nap no. Sedate rev. 5.Parcel On Which Well Will Be Located A Legal Description(mtbo wovidad as an atmdenting: Receipt area only NVO kt S&v4Ta .- <3C 72,1\1 1 21�1�W (9+-1--PM Wei? COt4 SQQ f 9-ref ti c) �nc�.f U ___,.•• -- B.II at aver in parcel 7 3 C.ekn°t ' . > ,r� L. C.j. EviA4-- ((tic_ ion D.Nil Met be the only wail on Liu Pares id YES ONO fd ran—list odvswdt,) GLACE V TOPO - . Stale Past ice muumuu: MYLAR I SB5 DIV WD BA MD uL12/0b 18:07 FAA 3032881348 _L G EVERIST Z0o4/005 Colorado Division of Water Resources Application Receipt No. 1313 Sherman St.Rm.815 Denver,CO 80203 - Applicant's Name: 1303)866-3581 _. http://waterstate-co.u.-/default.htm COMMERCIAL DRINKING ANDSANITARY WELL WORKSHEET Name and Type.of Business `i- . Q. £IJcC) l Arc, —&11-4) -6 riweA 1. Is this application for a new well? Yes Y No If no, is this application for a change of use for an existing ell? 2-'7 /\ AI_Yes Permit Number of well (if applicable) 8p�3 / _No For wells used for drinking and sanitary purposes prior to May 8, 1972, a field inspection of the well to verify -historic uses is required. See form GWS-12 Registration of Existing Well for further information. 2. Is another source of water available to the property? wat district or another well)_Yes If yes, indicate what this other Source is S 7757- r (name of water district or well permit number) No 3. Type of disposal system: X. Septic tank/absorption leach field _ Central System (district name:) Vault(location sewage hauled to:) Other(attach copy of engineering design( 4. Water Demand Calculations (for average factors for water demand see below) Employees Number of X Number of Gallons X Number of Days = Gallons per Year Employees per Employee per Day Employee Works per Year / -to Z X X 300 = 9Sbo +.9000 A Customers I Number of X Number of Gallons X Number of Days Business = Gallons per Year Customers per Day per Customer is Open per Year iJ 4A _X X t) B Other Uses (Note: No uses outside of the building would be permitted for these types of wells? Type of Use X Gallons per Use per X Days per Year = Gallons per Year Day N X X O c Total amount of water required: Gallons per Year (A+B+C) = ISooto gf For wells used for commercial drinking and sanitary purposes on and after May 8, 1972, the total water demand cannot exceed 108,600 gallons(1/3 of an acre-foot)per year. For wells used for commercial drinking and sanitary purposes prior to May 8, 1972,the total water demand cannot exceed 325,900 gallons 11 acre-foot) per year. General Guidelines focWater Demand in Canons per Day Oay Workers at Offices-15 gallons/person/day Food Service Establishments With toilet and kitchen wastes)-10 gallons/patron/day Churches(does not include food service)-5 gallons/SeaUday Overnight Lodging-50 gallons/customer/day On-Site Proprietor of Overnight Lodging(i.e.on-site owner of a Bed 6 Breakfast)-8D gallons/person/day Additional water demand figures may be obtained from a private water consultant or from a technical reference on this subject. GWS•57 11/99 ut/it/us DJ: 07 PAX 3032891348 v \ L G EVERIST - Z005/005 t � ' • A `_%J _ c U �� / ! s I A li L._ ) < C /e. \ 1� e ns j Wet I \ 4802 tt)7Hill Si.. , "63 ..esa�. - . saoi J •-0867 •I w � .-2q OO . V __ . 2 , , - 01 c, .vim f 11 " ° W L° O °° ° I / n . o 1112\ 3ff 71E-1 -cl 1 II >r, --..,, p - _I -x-Thsj;j) . O I " f Vt.. ( Sid 4883 � 3 1 i / :. I • � i -- p+$141i I Weil ova a9Pr0p►�c 1 k•f k , � �rl ) 13, ° 3 , . � / 4 35! ACAS S � E S7a� ��r !..4 ' : E. 4 Are zett A 'I ieFrw '7��ra L"a,�?+�,5yrylit i'. 777 U� • pj" ` � � S f Ii;v� li•I i r r ...2�£.+ W i x r.20001 4 Banks & Gesso Exhibit B 720 Kipling, Suite 117 Index Ma Lakewood, CO 80215 L.G.Everist,Inc. Fort Lupton Sand tt Gravel Mine 12/19/99 99024 I 01/Z4/u5 18:01 FAX 3032891348 L G EVERI ST 002 JAN-14-06 13:02 FROM-Colorado Division of Minerals & Geology +13038663567 T-605 P.001/004 F-053 STATE OF COLORADO DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY Department of Natural Resources l3l 3 Sherman St., Room 215 COLORADO Denver,Colorado 80203 D t v I s LON OF Phone: (303)866-3567 M I N RA LS S FAX:1202)a32-at06 GEOLOGY REC LA MAT I ON'M IN I NG January 14,2005 snr Err-SC icNCE Paul Gesso Sill Owr-r.�. Banks and Gesso,LLC cevurner 720 ICipling St.,Suite 117 R ==cl a Dire Lakewood,CO 80215 Executive Director Ronald W.Caitanv Division Director RE: L.G. Everist, Inc, File No. M-1999-120 Natural ftcourcc Tru tee Fort Lupton Sand and Gravel Mine'.I 2c Amendment(AM-0 I)Application, Second Adequacy Review Dear Mr.Gesso, Listed below are the second adequacy review comments for the Fort Lupton Sand and Gravel Mine 112(c) Amendment(AM- 01) Application. File No. M-1999-120. The Division of Minerals and Geology ("Division") is required to make a recommendation no later than January 21, 2005,therefore, your response to the following adequacy review concerns should be submitted to the Division as soon as possible. Rule 6.4.5 Exhibit F- Reclamation Plan 1. The first adequacy review requested the Applicant to state how much mulch per acre will be applied should mulch be required for revegetation. The Applicant responded with, "The applicant has found through years of reclamation experience at various sites throughout Colorado that mulching is not always needed to prompts healthy seed growth. Mulch will be used if necessary." Based on the possibility that mulch may be needed for reclamation, the Division must assume that mulch will be used in the calculation for the bond amount for the site. In order to accurately estimate the cost for mulch, the Division must know the proposed application rate for the mulch, and, ideally, the type of mulch proposed for use. Please Indicate how much, mulch per acre would be applied, should mulch be required for revcgetatinn,and what typo of mulch would be used_ 2. The Natural Resources Conservation Service(NRCS) commented on the plan at the site on November 18,2004, The Division asked that the Applicant address the issues raised in the NRCS letter. The NRCS requested that the Operator maintain slopes of 4H:l V or less on the stockpiled topsoil. The Division agrees with the Applicant's commitment to maintain slopes of 3H:1 V or 2H:1 V as long as the stockpiles are stable in this configuration. The Construction Materials Rules and Regulations do not require slopes of 4H:IV or less on topsoil stockpiles. The Division further agrees with the Applicant's commitment to implement slopes of 3H:1 V for the sides of the water storage reservoir, as long as this is a stable configuration, rather that the NRCS proposed slopes of 4H:t V or 5i-1:IV V so that the water storage reservoirs are conducive to use by wildlife. The proposed post-mined land use is for water storage reservoirs and not for wildlife habitat Therefore the Operator is required to conform to the rules and regulations specifying parameters For water storage reservoirs and not for wildlife habitat. The Division also agrees that the approved seed mix, formerly suggested by the NRCS, and approved with the initial application, is acceptable for reclamation of the site. The Division agrees with the NRCS that some form of effective weed management must be implemented at the site, The Division will express its concerns related to the NRCS comment regarding impacts to surface and subsurface water in the Water information comments. Rule 6.4.7 Exhibit G - Water Information 33_ The Applicant has committed to installation of slurry wails in each phase prior to mining below the water table. Please submit geologic information regarding the bedrock in the area to assure that the installation of slurry walls will result in a relatively water-tight vessel.and that there are no geologic features,such as faults,that would prevent the desired result. • Office of Office of Mined Land Reclamation Colorado Active and inactive Mines Geological Survey 0i/24/uo 18:u1 FAX 3032891348 L G EVERI ST Z003 JAN-14-05 13:02 FROM-Colorado Division of Minerals & Geology +13038663567 T-605 P.002/004 F-053 4. The Division requested that the Applicant explain any mitigation measures to be implemented if trigger points are met. The WWE report indicates what mitigation measures should and could be taken, but does not commit the Operator to implement any single one or combination of these measures. Please commit to what measures win be taken should the trigger points be reached 5. The Applicant has proposed to provide the baseline groundwater data to the Division via a Technical Revision. between the time that the slurry wall is installed and before mining commences below the water table. The Operator and Applicant should be aware that the slurry wall is the feature that may disrupt the groundwater Mgime, and not mining below the water table inside the slurry wall. Therefore, one year's worth of groundwater data must be acquired and submitted to the Division for review,prior to installation of the slurry wall. 6, In a letter from the Operator dated January 7.2005,the Operator has proposed to"continue to collect data for at least 12 months, or until just prior to the start of disturbance in amendment area-and the final pre-mining baseline averages will time be calculated from all data collected" To clarify,the Division is in agreement with the WWE report, which states. "It is recommended that LGE continue to measure groundwater in the existing monitoring wells...throughout the life of the existing mine. Groundwater should also be monitored throughout the life of the expansion area_.." 7. The January 7's letter also states,"...we propose that a change in the preliminary and then final baseline average monthly groundwater level In she vicinity of the amendment area of greater than 5 feet,and documentation of a complaint caused by this change,would trigger an investigation to confirm that L,G.Everist, Inc.(LGE)was responsible for the lowering of groundwater,.. Further, if there is a complaint prior to reaching the 5 foot trigger, h would be investigated to determine its causes, and it'it is found that that LGE operations are responsible,then LGE would work with the affected party to implement measures agreed CO in order to resolve the complaint, We are basing our proposed trigger point on the preliminary pre-mining baseline average data, which has shown natural fluctuations of groundwater levels of 3 feet. With this natural fluctuation, the trigger of 5 feet is actually reduced to 2 feet of change, an amount noted as acceptable to DMG" The Division does not agree with the 5-foot:trigger point proposed by the Operator. This trigger is based on an average water level and does not account for seasonal fluctuations in groundwater. The Division has approved plans that set a trigger point of a 2 fbot drop in the seasonal water level,but not based on an average groundwater level,plus nn additional 2 foot drop. As mentioned under item 8 in this letter,a drop of 5 feet in groundwater levels during irrigation season has a much higher potential for negatively impacting well production and subirrigation than would a two loot drop during the seasonal groundwater highs. The Division does agree with the Operator's proposal to investigate any complaint received,regardless of the change in groundwater elevation. 8. The Division requested that the Applicant describe how the shadow effect will impact, among other things, the activities, which rely on groundwater in the vicinity of the site; vegetation on or near the Si!; including the cottonwood trees in the riparian area near the South Platte River; anti the wetlands located on the site. The information contained in the WWE report raises concerns with the Division regarding these issues. The WWE report indicates that the expected shadow cffet.t north of WCR 18 is as great as four to five feet lower than current levels, versus the current shadow effect of the existing slurry wall in this area of I foot lower or less. In that a nursery is known to operate in this area,and no specifics have been submitted to the Division with regard to this operation and its reliance on subirrigation and its well, the Division needs further information regarding the potential impacts to the nursery operation. The well belonging to the nursery is projected to experience a 16 percent reduction in the saturated thickness in and around the well. The report projects that this degree of reduction may fall within the natural range of groundwater fluctuations,and therefore,should have impacts too small to impact yields from the well.The Division does not agree with the conclusion contained in the WWE report without quantified evidence_ Although the 16 percem reduction may fall within the seasonal fluctuations of the groundwater level in this well,the user is more likely to rely on greater amounts of water coincident to the growing season,and therefore,the irrigation season and higher groundwater levels, Although the well may have as much as a 16 percent reduction in the saturated thickness during non-irrigation periods, the user will likely not be pumping large amounts from the well at this time. If the user did attempt to extract the same amount of water as during the irrigation season, when the water levels were lower, the well may not produce the needed quantities of water. The Division requires more quantified data regarding this well and the owner's reliance on subirrigation to assure that the user will not be negatively impacted by the operation. 9. The Division expressed concerns in the first adequacy review that there may be effects on the amount of water conveyed in the irrigation structures that arc located among and adjacent to the proposed phases. As the Division stated, if these structures leak and the groundwater level around the structures is lowered as a result of mining activities there is likely to 2 ur/L4/uo 16: u4 r4,_spizualaas L G EVERI ST fii004 JAN-14-05 13;02 FROM-Colorado Division of MInerals & Geology +13038663567 T-605 P.003/004 F-053 be a greater loss in the amount of water conveyed in these ditches. The Applicant states that the operation should have no significant impacts to the amount of water contained in these structures. According to the WWE report, however.the model used to predict impacts to groundwater due to the presence of shiny walls, does not include recharge to groundwater from Little Dry Creek and irrigation ditches, and that these will lessen impacts to groundwater_ The report further states, "Recharge from the East Lateral of the Lupton Bottoms Ditch, in particular, will maintain groundwater levels north of the expansion?' Please specify whether the Operator hes an agreement with the owner of the Lupton Bottoms Ditch to deplete the amount of water carried in the ditch,or whether the Operator plans to mitigate the losses in some manner. Also specify how the operator will monitor these potential losses of surface water in this ditch. Alternatively the Applicant can propose measures to lessen impacts to groundwater in this area, thus reducing the likelihood that additional water will leak from the ditch, 10_ The WWE report indicates that groundwater mounding will occur west of the pit The report predicts that Little Dry Creek should be able to convey any additional water due to mounding without effects on the channel Please submit quantified data regarding the expected amounts of water and rate of inflows into Little Dry Creek and engineering specifications for Little Dry Creek supporting the statement that the creek should be capable of handling the ir.creased flow. 11. The WWE report addresses questions regarding the wetlands and states that no expected negative impacts will occur to the wetlands. Based on information contained in the report, however, it appears that the wetland adjacent to Little Dry Creek may be at risk of flooding to the extent that current vegetation may be negatively impacted. Please submit a proposal for reduction of the motmding effect in that area of the site, or a monitoring and mitigation plan for the vegetation in that location to preserve the current condition of the wetland. 12. According to the WWE report, the two wetlands located immediately east of CR 25 are projected to experience groundwater level drops of up to three feet below the wetland. The report states that this should have no impact on these wetlands due to being supplied by surface water. Please submit a proposal for reduction of the shadow effect in this area of the site, or a monitoring and mitigation plan for the vegetation in this location to preserve the current condition of the wetland. 13. The WWE report states, "One area of cottonwood forest exists in the projected groundwater shadow (Drawing 5). Groundwater is shown to be lowered 2 to 2.5 feet in this area The^rove contains a low to moderate density of mature trees. No young cottonwoods or wetlands exist, so the roots for the trees tap into deeper groundwater. The grove is immediately adjacent to the river. Groundwater levels beneath the grove may be supported by the river. For these reasons,it is believed that the projected shadow will nor negatively affect this cottonwood grove." The Division refers to the publication Responses of Riparian Cottonwood to Alluvial Water Table Declines, Michael L. Scott, Patrick B_ Shafroth, and Gregor T. Augle,United States Geological Survey,Midcontinent Ecological science Center, Fort Collins, CO. This document, based on a study conducted in the Front Range area, concludes that a rapid drop of groundwater levels by approximately one meter will result in an 82 percent mortality rate in a stand of Cottonwood trees, including mature trees. In that this paper is based on a single study, and the drop was one meter, it does not determine whether a drop of one half to one foot less will have the same impacts. The Division's opinion, however, is that the proposed shadow effect has the potential to negatively impact the stand of cottonwoods located north of the site along the Seuth Platte River. These trees are located off site,and, therefore, if the trees were impacted. this would be construed as off site damage. Please submit a plan to minimize impacts to the hydrologic balance in the vicinity of the cottonwood trees adjacent to the site. 14, The Division of Wildlife has expressed concerns related to the stand of cottonwoods located on the site itself As will be addressed under the Wildlife (DOW) section of this letter, the Division agrees with the Operator's commitment to a setback of 200 feet from the Platte River. The Division's opinion, however, is that the Operator and DOW have an understanding that one reason for the setback is to maintain the riparian habitat for wintering raptors. Although the projected change in groundwater levels in the vicinity of the preserved cottonwoods is one foot, the accuracy of this projection should be monitored prior to. during. and after the installation of the slurry wall to assure that the cottonwoods will not be negatively impacted in this area, and that the desired habitat will be preserved. Please submit a monitoring plan for the cottonwoods located within the permit area adjacent to the South Platte River. 15. 1t is the Division's opinion that although the installation of slurry walls will dieetically reduce the impacts to the hydrologic balance, relative to the initial proposal by the Applicant to dry mine some phases without slurry walls. the impacts presented in the WWE report still project potentially detrimental effects to surface water, groundwater and 3 vi/Laiuo 1o:u4 me aua28a1a4a L G EVERI ST Z005 JAN-14-05 13:03 PROM-Colorado Division of Minerals & Geology +13036663567 1-605 P.004/004 P-053 groundwater users in the vicinity of the site. It does not appear that the Applicant has proposed any measures to minimize these impacts other than to state that mitigation measures will be implemented if a complaint is received and a truer point is reached_ The Division's opinion is that the predicted mounding and shadow effects resulting from the presence of the slurry walls pose a number of problems stemming from impacts to the hydrologic balance. The Division's opinion is that other measures can be incorporated into the plan that will minimize impacts to the hydrologic balance related to the presence of the slurry walls, for example, installation of a French drain. Rule 6.4.8 Exhibit H-Wildlife Information 16. The Division of Wildlife (DOW) commented on the site in a letter to the Division dated November 28, 2004. The Division agrees with the Applicant's commitmtnit to maintain setbacks of 200 feet from the river as opposed to the suggested setback, by DOW, of 200 feet from the existing tree line. The Construction Rules and Regulations do not require a setback from existing trees on the site. Rule 6.4.12 Exhibit L-Reclamation Costs 17. The Division accepts the Applicants proposal to bond in phases For the site and that a Technical Revision will be submitted prior to the commencement of each phase indicating the engineering specifications for each slurry wall, or a submittal of 100%bond for each slurry wall. Because an objection was filed, this matter must be set for a hearing before the Mined Land Reclamation Board, The tentative date for the hearing is February 15 and 16, 2005. However,the Division will need to make a recommendation by January 21,2005. Please be advised that the L.G. Event Fort Lupton Sand and Gravel Mine 112(c)Amendment(AM-01) Application may be deemed inadequate,and the application may be denied on January 21. 2005 unless the above mentioned adequacy review items are addressed to the satisfaction of the Division in a timely manner allowing for adequate time to review the responses. If you feel more time is needed to complete your reply, the Division can grant an extension to the recommendation date. This will be done upon receipt of a written waiver of your right to a recommendation by January 21, 2005, and request for additional time. This must be received no later than the deadline date. Also be aware that the responses to the adequacy questions raisers in this review may result in further comments by the Division, which may require an additional response from the Applicant. If you have any questions,please do not hesitate to call me at(303)866-4935. Sincerely, Kate Pickford Environmental Protection Specialist cc: Carl Mount;DMO Lynn Mayer, L.G.Everist,Inc. (via fax) 4 _ _. _Vy it .pa rnn ouacoaaruo L G EVb;RI ST 003 004 JAN-25-05 15:48 FROM-Colorado Division of Minerals & Geology +13038663667 T-693 P.001/002 F-220 STATE OF COLORADO DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY Department of Natural Resources 1313 Sherman 5t.,Room 215 Denver,Gatorade 80203 C L O IZ.A(]O Phone:(303)866-3567 DIVISION OF FAX;(3031 832$106 MINERALS GEOLOGY January 24,2005 SCC rA nnn0N.NI NiNc sAFETr.se IENCF Paul Gesso Ranks and Gesso, LLC am Owens 720 Kipling St., Suite 117 Governor Lakewood,CO 80215 Russell George tXUC9rIVe Director Ronald W.Carrara., RE: L.G.Everist, Inc,File No. M-1999-120 Division DirectorFort Lupton Sand and Gravel Mine 112c Amendment(AM-01)Application-Third Adequacy Review Natural Resource Trustee Dear Mr. Gesso, Listed below are the third adequacy review comments for the Fort Lupton Sand and Gravel Mine I I2(c) Amendment (AM- 01) Application, File No. M-1999-120. The Division of Minerals and Geology ("Division") is required to make a recommendation no later than January 26,2005,therefore. your response to the following adequacy review concepts should be submitted to the Division as soon as possible_ Rule 6.4.7 Exhibit G -Water Information I. In the Applicant's Second Adequacy Response Letter, under item 4, "Commit to measures to be taken if trigger points are reached," the Applicant stares, "If a trigger point is reached and either a complaint is received or if monitoring of vegetation indicates a hydrologic imbalance, LGE commits to starting the assessment of the situation immediately," The Division does not accept this as the required set of circumstances to commencing an investigation and potentially implementing mitigation measures. The trigger point is reached if any of the trigger criteria are reached: the groundwater level drops two fret below the 3 month average for groundwater, a complaint is received; or vegetation is sn•essed_ If any one or combination of these conditions occurs, it is an indication that groundwater might be being influenced by the operation, and the Division's opinion is that an investigation to identify the cause(s) should immediately commence, and immediate implementation of temporary or permanent mitigation measures may be required. Because an objection was filed, this matter must be set for a hearing before the Mined Land Reclamation Board. The tentative date for the hearing is February 15 and 16, 2005. January 26, 2005. Please be advised that the L.C, Eve t Fort Lupton She and and Gravelvision will nMineeed o1 make a recommendation- 1) Application may be deemed inadequate, and the application may be denied on January I2(c) Amendment(nt mentioned adequacy review items are addressed to the satisfaction of the manner_ al unless f the above t e to review the responses_ If you feel more time is needed to completetyou in a timelyhe Division can n grant for extension time to recommendation date. This will be done upon receipt of a written waiver of our youru right tto a recommendation by Januarym tl6, 2005, and request for additional time. This must be received no later than the deadline date. Also be aware that the responses to the adequacy questionsised in this review may result in further comments by the Division, which may require an additional responsefrom Applicant. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at(303)8664935. Sincerely, Kate Pickford Environmental Protection Specialist Office of OfnCro tied Land Reclamation of AQive anti inactive Mines Colorado Geolosical Survey —. -- �4 ...o am 000coaioyo L G tVU<1ST 0O4/OO4 JAN-25-05 15:48 FROM-Colorado Division of Minerals & Geology +13036663567 T-693 P.002/002 F-220 cc; Carl Mount; DMG Lynn Mayer,L.G.Everisi, Inc. (via fax) V.I./ o VJ ir :oa ins JUJZ591J46 L G EVERIST a 002/004 L.G. E�EVERIST, INC. MOUNTAIN DIVISION OFFICE v 1.;i 7321 E.88TH AVENUE•SUITE 200 _ i HENDERSON,COLORADO 80840 Rock Solid Since 1876FAX 287-9806 rtii 303-289-1348 dba Andesite Rock Company ur 1 CORPORATE OFFICE 300 5.PHILLIPS AVE.•SUITE 200 P.O.BOX 5529 SIOUX FALLS,SD 57117.5529 PHONE 505-334-5000 January 25, 2005 FAX 805394-3658 Ms. Kate Pickford Environmental Protection Specialist Division of Minerals and Geology 1313 Sherman St., Room 215 Denver, Colorado 80203 Via Mail and Facsimile (303-832-8106) RE: L. G. Everist, Inc. (LGE), Fort Lupton Sand and Gravel Mine, DMG #M-1999-120; Third Adequacy Review Response Letter Dear Ms. Pickford: We have received the Third Adequacy Review, dated January 24, 2005. Thank you for getting back to us so quickly- We accept the Division's requirement and commit as follows: Exhibit G -Water Information Commit to measures to be taken if trigger point is reached If any one of the following trigger criteria are reached, then the trigger point has been met: groundwater level drops 2 feet below the 3 month average for groundwater; a compliant is received; or vegetation is stressed. If any one or combination of these conditions occurs, LGE commits to starting the assessment/investigation of the situation immediately to identify the cause(s), and also commits to immediate implementation of appropriate temporary or permanent mitigation measures as required. We hope with this additional commitment, that LGE has addressed all of the Division's concerns, and that the Division can now recommend approval. Thank you for all your work and guidance. Feel free to contact me at 303-286-2247 (office), or 303-514-2778 (cell) with any questions. Since, Maye Regulato Manager cc: Dennis Fields, L. G. Everist, Inc. Jim Sittner, L. G. Everist, Inc. Maureen Jacoby, Banks and Gesso . Dave Mehan, Wright Water Engineers Kim Ogle, Weld County Planning Weld County Clerk to the Board Ross Bachofer LMIFL-Resp3rdAdegRev-dmgKP•012505.doc 1 EXHIBIT 1 �mUse,#izs5 Rationale for Recommendation for Approval over Objections; Regular 112 Construction Materials Amendment Application, L. G. Everist,Inc. Fort Lupton Sand and Gravel, File No. M-1999-120 January 26, 2005 Introduction On January 26, 2004 the Division of Minerals and Geology ("Division") issued its recommendation for approval of a 112 Construction Materials Amendment Application, over objections. This document is intended to provide a basis for the Division's recommended approval over concerns and reasons for objection to the Fort Lupton S & G amendment application, File No. M-1999-120 The L.G Everist, Inc. amendment application was found complete and considered filed with the Division on October 12, 2004. The site is located 2 miles northwest of Fort Lupton, Weld County, Colorado. The property is located in Section 30, Township 2 North, Range 66 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian. The current permit area is 85 acres in size, 78 acres of which is being mined. The amendment proposes to add 212 acres to the permit area consisting of 5 additional mining phases to the mine plan. The total site will consist of 7 separate pits. The active pit will be dewatered during the mining process. The proposed post-mined land use for the site is for seven water storage reservoirs; each newly proposed reservoir will be surrounded by a separate slurry wall. Reclamation at the site includes some grading of the disturbed acreage, plus topsoil replacement and seeding and planting of the exposed edges of the pit. I. OBJECTIONS: The Division received one objection from the following individual during the initial public comment period, which ended on December 1, 2004. Objector Dated Date Received Ross Bachofer 29-October-04 1-November-04 11566 WCR 18 Fort Lupton, CO 80621 A pre-hearing conference was scheduled for January 28, 2005 at 10:00 AM at 1313 Sherman St., Denver, CO 80203, Conference Rm. 318 II. ISSUES RAISED BY OBJECTING PARTIES: Issues raised by objecting parties during the comment period are listed below,along with the names of the objectors. The Division's response to objection issues follows. Issues are listed under the section of the 1 Construction Materials Rules and Regulations to which they pertain. ISSUES WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE DIVISION AND BOARD AND RAISED DURING THE INITIAL PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD 3.1.6 Water—General Requirements 1. On November 1, 2004, the Division received a letter from Ross Bachofer stating the following concern: " I am on a water well that is vulnerable to contamination from drawing too much water or from surface contamination getting into the 35-60' level of water I use from. And of course, pumping the water table down to the point that my well goes dry or at least has periods where it is dry because of too much drawdown and not enough recovery time." Division of Minerals and Geology (DMG) Responses- The questions raised by the above comments are related to Section 3.1.6 in the Construction Materials Rules and Regulations, specifically: "Disturbances to the prevailing hydrologic balance of the affected land and of the surrounding area and to the quantity or quality of water in surface and groundwater systems both during and after the mining operation and during reclamation shall be minimized..." On January 4, 2005, Banks and Gesso, LLC, on behalf of L.G. Everist, Inc., submitted responses to the first adequacy review letter related to this amendment application. In these responses, the Operator has committed to installation of slurry walls around each phase prior to commencement of mining and dewatering activities in the pit. Included in the first adequacy response materials was a groundwater report composed by Wright Water Engineers (WWE), Inc. The report includes maps depicting the predicted impacts to groundwater levels in the vicinity of the proposed amendment area, which are the result of the presence of slurry walls and the expanded activities at the site. The predictions are based on observations related to nearby gravel mining operations and on a MODFLOW groundwater model (a program used by the USGS for groundwater modeling) that incorporates what appear to be conservative, realistic assumptions for the area in question. The results of the model indicate that potential impacts to groundwater levels in the vicinity of the operation consist of: • A 5-foot drop in groundwater level north of the proposed expansion area extending approximately 500 feet north of the site. • A gradual decrease in this groundwater level drop to approximately 1-foot 5,000 feet northeast of the site. • A 2-foot drop in groundwater level east of the site decreasing to a 1-foot drop approximately 1,000 feet east of the site. 2 ` • No impacts are predicted east of the South Platte River, which is located approximately 200 feet east of the easternmost portion of the proposed expansion area. • A 4- to 5-foot mounding of groundwater west of the proposed expansion area, extending west approximately 1,000 feet, where the Lupton Bottom Ditch is expected to reduce or isolate the effects of mounding. It is predicted that the projected variations in groundwater levels will actually be less, due to the fact that the model was based on the existence of a single slurry wall encircling the entire site, whereas the mining plan indicates that separate slurry walls will be installed around each mining phase. Therefore, more groundwater will flow through the sight than is projected in the model. Impacts to wells and irrigation in the shadow of the slurry wall are addressed in the WWE report, and the report states that the reduction in the aquifer resulting from the projected drop in groundwater level should not adversely affect the production of wells in this location. Additionally, according to the report, there is no reliance on subirrigation in the shadow area. It does not appear that the projected mounding effects of the slurry wall will negatively impact any residences, as there are none located in the more severe areas of the projected mounding. The Operator has committed to a monitoring program consisting of 14 monitoring wells in and around the site. The groundwater levels will be monitored monthly throughout the life of the permit. Groundwater levels have been monitored since May of 2004 and will continue until a year's worth of baseline data has been collected, prior to commencement of the new mining activities, to assure that the model is based on accurate data. The Operator has also committed to monitor the vegetation in two cottonwood groves located in the shadow of the slurry wall and of wetlands located both in the shadow of the slurry wall and in the mounding area to identify signs of stress to the plants. The Operator has committed to commencing a groundwater investigation to determine the operation's effects on groundwater should any of the following conditions occur: • The groundwater level drops 2 feet below the 3-month average for the shadow area of the slurry wall (each month's baseline level will consist of an average of that month's reading and the previous month's and following month's readings), • A complaint is received from a nearby resident, • Vegetation in the vicinity shows signs of being stressed. Results of the investigation will be submitted to the Division for review within 60 days of the initial condition triggering the investigation. The Operator has further committed to mitigation measures that will be implemented during the investigation to rectify the condition triggering the investigation. If the condition is determined to be a result of the mining operation, mitigation measures will be implemented, including: • Construction of a pipe/drain to equalize groundwater levels, • Release of water in ditches/laterals (Note: LGE will bet proper agreements with ditch an/or landowners prior to release of any release of water.) • Well improvements (i.e. deepening an/or relocation) and/or well replacement • Planting trees, shrubs, vegetation • As mentioned above— in"emergency" situations, prior to full assessment, LGE will 3 supply water via a portable tank or other method. The Operator also noted that this is not an exhaustive list, and if a situation arises that calls for a different mitigation measure, LGE will work with the injured party and the division to formulate an appropriate mitigation plan. If it is determined that the condition cannot be permanently resolved with temporary mitigation measures, the Operator has committed to incorporate permanent mitigation measures to resolve the groundwater issues at the site. In the event that a permanent solution is required, the design specifications for the proposed measures will be submitted to the Division in the form of a Technical Revision for review and approval prior to implementation of permanent mitigation measures. Division Comment The Division has determined that L. G. Everist, Inc. has committed to a comprehensive groundwater monitoring plan that will give an adequate estimate of the pre-mining, mining and post-mining groundwater levels, and will indicate impacts that the mining activities may be having on groundwater in a timely manner. The Division has determined that the model submitted by WWE is a relatively accurate depiction of the effects the activities at the site will have on groundwater. And the Division has determined that Aggregate Industries has committed to a comprehensive mitigation plan which should correct any problems related to groundwater resulting from the mining activity. The Applicant and the Operator have identified to the Division that the Objector's wells are located both east of the South Platte River and west of the site, west of Little Dry Creek. The Division has determined, based on the information supplied by WWE, that impacts to the Objectors wells are unlikely in that the eastern well is located east of the South Platte River, which should isolate the well from any impacts from the operation, located west of the river, and the western wells should be somewhat isolated from groundwater impacts by Little Dry Creek. If impacts are experienced at the western wells, the impacts are likely to be more water in the wells rather than less in that these wells are located in the projected groundwater mounding area. III. DIVISION RECOMMENDATION It is the Division determination that the Applicant has fulfilled all of the minimum requirements for approval of an amendment to the existing permit for the Fort Lupton Sand and Gravel site. The Division recommends approval of the permit amendment. 4 JAN-26-05 00:00 FROM-Colorado Division of Minerals & Geology +13036663557 '-AI, P.002/002 F-22T • As mentioned above—in"emergency"situations,prior to full assessment, LGE will supply water via a portable tank or other method. The Operator also noted that this is not an exhaustive list,and if a situation arises that calls for a different mitigation measure,LGE will work with the injured party and the division to formulate an appropriate mitigation plan. If it is determined that the condition cannot be permanently resolved with temporary mitigation measures, the Operator has committed to incorporate permanent mitigation measures to resolve the groundwater issues at the site. In the event that a permanent solution is required,the design specifications for the proposed measures will be submitted to the Division in the form of a Technical Revision for review and approval prior to implementation of permanent mitigation measures_ DivisionComment The Division has determined that L. G. Everist,Inc.has committed to a comprehensive groundwater monitoring plan that will give an adequate estimate of the pre-mining,mining and post-mining groundwater levels,and will indicate impacts that the mining activities may be having on groundwater in a timely manner_ The Division has determined that the model submitted by WWE is a relatively accurate depiction of the effects the activities at the site will have on groundwater. And the Division has determined that L. G. Everist,Inc.has committed to a comprehensive mitigation plan which should correct any problems related to groundwater resulting from the mining activity. The Applicant and the Operator have identified to the Division that the Objector's wells are located both east of the South Platte River and west of the site,west of Little Dry Creek_ The Division has determined,based on the information supplied by WWE,that impacts to the Objectors wells are unlikely in that the eastern well is located east of the South Platte River,which should isolate the well from any impacts from the operation, located west of the river,and the western wells should be somewhat isolated from groundwater impacts by Little Dry Creek. If impacts are experienced at the western wells,the impacts are likely to be more water in the wells rather than less in that these wells are located in the projected groundwater mounding area. UI. DIVISION RECOMMENDATION It is the Division determination that the Applicant has fulfilled all of the minimum requirements for approval of an amendment to the existing permit for the Fort Lupton Sand and Gravel site. The Division recommends approval of the permit amendment_ I EXHIBIT a I.CWn tiz55 JAN-14-05 13:02 FROM—Colorado Division of Minerals & Geology +13038663567 1-605 P.001/004 F-053 STATE OF COLORADO DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY Department of Natural Resources 1313 Sherman St,Room 215 C O L O RA D Denver,Colorado 80203 D I v I s 1 O N o f Phone:(303)866-3567 .M. I N E RA I_ S FAX: 1303)832-8106 & GEOLOGY 4ECLA MAT ION MI N INC January 14,2005 tar rrT•sc ltNcs Paul Gesso 0111 Oww+s Banks and Gesso, LLC Governor 720 ICipling St.,Suite I 17 Russell George Lakewood,CO 80215 Executive Director Ronald W.Cartanv Division Director Natural Resource Trustee RE: L.G. Everist, Inc, File No. M-1999-120 Fort Lupton Sand and Gravel Mine I I 2c Amendment(AM-0 I) Application -Second Adequacy Review Dear Mr.Gesso, Listed below are the second adequacy review comments for the Fort Lupton Sand and Gravel Mine 112(c)Amendment(AM- 01) Application, File No. M-1999-120. The Division of Minerals and Geology ("Division") is required to make a recommendation no later than January 21, 2005, therefore, your response to the following adequacy review concerns should be submitted to the Division as soon as possible. Rule 6.4.5 Exhibit E -Reclamation Plan 1. The first adequacy review requested the Applicant to state how much mulch per acre will be applied should mulch be required for revegetation. The Applicant responded with, "The applicant has found through years of reclamation experience at various sites throughout Colorado that mulching is not always needed to promote healthy seed growth_ Mulch will be used if necessary." Based on the possibility that mulch may be needed for reclamation, the Division must assume that mulch will be used in the calculation for the bond amount for the site. In order to accurately estimate the cost for mulch, the Division must know the proposed application rate for the mulch, and, ideally, the type of mulch proposed for use. Please indicate how much mulch per acre would he applied, should mulch be required for revegetation, and what type of mulch would be used. 2. The Natural Resources Conservation Service(NRCS) commented on the plan at the site on November 18, 2004. The Division asked that the Applicant address the issues raised in the NRCS letter. The NRCS requested that the Operator maintain slopes of 4H:IV or less on the stockpiled topsoil. The Division agrees with the Applicant's commitment to maintain slopes of 3H:I V or 2H:1 V as long as the stockpiles are stable in this configuration. The Construction Materials Rules and Regulations do not require slopes of 41-I:1 V or less on topsoil stockpiles. The Division further agrees with the Applicant's commitment to implement slopes of 3H:1 V for the sides of the water storage reservoir, as long as this is a stable configuration, rather that the NRCS proposed slopes of 4H:IV or 5H:1V so that the water storage reservoirs are conducive to use by wildlife. The proposed post-mined land use is for water storage reservoirs and not for wildlife habitat. Therefore the Operator is required to conform to the rules and regulations specifying parameters for water storage reservoirs and not for wildlife habitat. The Division also agrees that the approved seed mix, formerly suggested by the NRCS, and approved with the initial application, is acceptable for reclamation of the site. The Division agrees with the NRCS that some form of effective weed management must be implemented at the site. The Division will express its concerns related to the NRCS comment regarding impacts to surface and subsurface water in the Water Information comments. Rule 6.4.7 Exhibit G- Water Information 3. The Applicant has committed to installation of slurry walls in each phase prior to mining below the water table. Please submit geologic information regarding the bedrock in the area to assure that the installation of slurry walls will result in a relatively water-tight vessel,and that there are no geologic features,such as faults, that would prevent the desired result. EXHIBIT Office of Office of Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Active and Inactive Mines p r Geological Survey t7 �7 C� JAN-14-05 13:03 FROM-Colorado Division of Minerals & Geology +13038663567 1-605 P.004/004 F-053 groundwater users in the vicinity of the site. It does not appear that the Applicant has proposed any measures to minimize these impacts other than to state that mitigation measures will be implemented if a complaint is received and a trigger point is reached. The Division's opinion is that the predicted mounding and shadow effects resulting from the presence of the slurry walls pose a number of problems stemming from impacts to the hydrologic balance_ The Division's opinion is that other measures can be incorporated into the plan that will minimize impacts to the hydrologic balance related to the presence of the shiny walls, for example, installation of a French drain. Rule 6.4.8 Exhibit H-Wildlife Information 16. The Division of Wildlife (DOW) commented on the site in a letter to the Division dated November 28, 2004. The Division agrees with the Applicant's commitment to maintain setbacks of 200 feet from the river as opposed to the suggested setback, by DOW, of 200 feet from the existing tree line. The Construction Rules and Regulations do not require a setback from existing trees on the site. Rulc 6.4.12 Exhibit L- Reclamation Costs 17. The Division accepts the Applicants proposal to bond in phases for the sire and that a Technical Revision will be submitted prior to the commencement of each phase indicating the engineering specifications for each slurry wall, or a submittal of I00%bond for each slimy wall. Because an objection was filed, this matter must be set for a hearing before the Mined Land Reclamation Board, The tentative date for the hearing is February 15 and 16, 2005. However, the Division will need to make a recommendation by January 21,2005. Please be advised that the L.G. Everist Fort Lupton Sand and Gravel Mine 112(c) Amendment(AM-01) Application may be deemed inadequate, and the application may be denied on January 21, 2005 unless the above mentioned adequacy review items are addressed to the satisfaction of the Division in a timely manner allowing for adequate time to review the responses. If you feel more time is needed to complete your reply, the Division can grant an extension to the recommendation date. This will be done upon receipt of a written waiver of your right to a recommendation by January 21, 2005, and request for additional time. This must be received no later than the deadline date. Also be aware that the responses to the adequacy questions raised in this review may result in further comments by the Division. which may require an additional response from the Applicant. If you have any questions,please do not hesitate to call me at(303)866-4935. Sincerely, •& 4,47<,c,/ Kate Pickford Environmental Protection Specialist cc: Carl Mount; DMG Lynn Mayer, L.G. Everist, Inc. (via fax) 4 I, ,_ itti 1 _ r. 44.- _ s•<.TflbO.., - .. a "�,•.a+.. . ~ .. yw._ x.. gun. r y ils • TTYE4 4.4 "v' ;.::,.:71',;_ziltt:..‘„,I .: • t 4 Cir yin . } �' d. 41, a %&' y • r ate'i'r n 1 . `" - • • italf �4. - of i .airtgi • -41'T;;;'..". 3 SET.. •[ 4 - �•. 't.y, • t .L (�•:' try i -Y R '- {:_y' ^ s. se: 4.x {Sy -s n CT 17;34•44, y. "maw aV "P. to a � • -_ .— ' YkL �e �^ s ^'. FF • Y .yy t P x ~ S. 1 - 4C4 itil '3„ «. r . T t �. 1 . , a f ' r� _ ''x f - _ •ij $ tea` ra�j. ; _ �� • ` • a - ---4— - iC--- a •i n • r 4 '. k f - l f d+Wkk rs i 9 I #_' `� p • "v ._, J .. ' t jr JN1 ?w R wm f 1 � z.,, f$' iii - .{'h ' " &.. •i i 'tom J � ( Grp r€,.: o �' � . 1 + Y - TF' Yet t • _ yt *'�" f"+i` !1'1'v ' e* „ 4" �s - a (� r r , ,,.y = \ iA i _ T . . .ylygx .,. 0 s. i J ' �� f t '1 _, •4.:' .1 1 r 9 ka ig 7\ Ins* J TeYrf, i + 2 As•#6 ' F `l ` �••'TY ZA't •� i i it ' ) : el" , \\� L v Sf y r'•,fit +�' y* ri h iC' ACn,{i+ ry '. j �' u�. _ m �- RRR 4 ks,t 3 it i' • •U' l ) r C . a r • -'C a !It'e t t ,A, u s' . i + V f 'x eitit in �. ' y.` i + '38, t' " .r , sumo • . d_ t . r. 10 �p. �'it'y f �.• t { . 4 3a"' ;(tl A � t n �, n r , •t� )4x 2 �.+ { A - Y • 47 $ s♦ t < �. a Y •> t/1 - F '� , Ems+ y� a 4 II Y yeA 7E \ Y {p 4Var•' Ae 4" 1.T, • % .44 ft..p'fft�� - - 4 i Y ' • 4 'jt‘tik 4` A r3 ,, t i �r. i 3 " M S ) , i I + . r St I- Fx1�... e � a tt4itc'. y " i yam > r r t ¢ fl t T { X47 h f ^�[ r i !y 1,... 3 . .. • r �9 •- r4i }YI; R4 'Y 1,Al... 1' ° v a ,w t 551 l er M •t - t { r�t t 4 spay It 4 C r+ # u4, ^i0. .f7) n s r A ti { s {•• t , ' H7 , v r l +t �;a,M ln. x J e i - • .. 3. t. r '{ +S Sri,.`, . ,,1 4 7 { 1 �. i.,' I. ( 4 yak ' k 1` ' t 1, ' { , , - ,t,'� ; . " - a Ii'. ' 1r h�s x?� `g ro'tr a.K 1 c A 'Se; .µ ' if.* r j� Y +1/4 ry ti Hello