HomeMy WebLinkAbout20050583.tiff Crib FtLe
4rri`J' tSL
L. G. RIST, INC. 7321 E.898 HENDERSON,AVCO 8NUE.0640
UITE200
telephone
dba ANDESITE ROCK COMPANY facsimile
303-28
facsimile 303-289-1348
-4348
DATE February 10, 2005 PAGES cover+4
TO Kate Pickford FAX 303-832-8106
Division of Minerals and Geology
CC Kim Ogle FAX 970-304-6498
Weld County Planning
Cc Maureen Jacoby FAX 303-274-8329
Banks and Gesso
Cc David Mehan FAX 303-480-1020
Wright Water Engineers
CC Dennis Fields FAX hand delive
L. G. Everist, Inc. ry
CC Jim Sinner FAX hand delive
L. G. Everist, Inc. iY
FROM LYNN MAYER, Regulatory Manager, phone-303.286-2247, temayer@lgeverist.com
RE FORT LUPTON SAND AND GRAVEL MINE, M-1999-120
WITHDRAWAL OF OBJECTION
ACTION • Urgent ❑ Review 0 Reply 0 Other
Dear Kate,
Great news! Attached please find a letter from Mr Ross Bachofer, withdrawing his objection to our
permit. He attached a copy of his January 15 letter, plus a January 30 letter I have not seen before.
Please call me when you get a chance. Thanks!
Lynn Ma/(yer
Regulatory anager
0, J- 44 . 02 -llo-aO )-73
2005-0583
LM/FAXiroversheetdoc /4/3q
L/.,,�-(n c
S00/T00¢J .LSIUIaA3 9 "I
8bCi6COC %V3 ZT6T SO/OT/ZO
11566 WCR 18
Fort Lupton, CO 80621
February 8, 2005
Lynn Mayer
Regulatory Manager
L. G. Everist Inc.
7321 E. 88th 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#L1SR-1255
Dear Ms. Mayer;
1 wanted to let you know that I am withdrawing from party status.
1 would still appreciate a response to my follow-up letter dated January 15, 2005 I am
enclosing another copy for your review.
Respectfully,
Ross Bacho
soo/zone ISIUI3A3 D 1 .._.- ..
84CI88ZCOC %V3 ZT:4T SO/OT/Z0
•
11566 WCR 18
Fort Lupton, CO 80621
January 15,2005
Lynn Mayer
Regulatory Manager
L. G.Everist Inc.
7321 E. 88th 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 fret to the
west of your amendment area This is not correct lam 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. I 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 shiny 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 arc designed to contain the odors. In addition, I
know that baghouses have failed bags or socks from time to time. How does L. G.
soo/co0cj £SIUad3 9 Z
89CI68ZCOC %tld ZT:6T 20/0T/Z0
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 lam and
7pm and 75db(A)between 7pm and 7am at 25 feet from the property line These are nice
limits,but who monitors to sec 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.
y Respectfull
/K4`
Ro Bachofer
Cc: Kate Pickford, Colorado Division of Minerals and Geology
Kim Ogle, Weld County Planning
soo/rooe asixana a z
8fiET88ZC0C %YdZT:6T 20/0T/g0
11566 WCR 18
Fort Lupton, CO 80621
January 30, 2005
Lynn Mayer
Regulatory Manager
L.G. Everist, Inc.
7321 E. 88th Avenue, Suite 200
Henderson, CO 80640
Subject:
Dear Lynn Mayer:
As you know, I have an unregistered water well on my property at 7525 Highway 85.
This well is potentially within 600 feet of where you may want to expand your gravel
mining operations. For this reason I would like to be notified prior to the issuance of any
new well permits at your Fort Lupton Sand and Gravel Mine located in Weld County.
Thank you,
Ross Bachofer
cc: Bob Stahl
Kevin G. Rein,P.E.
900/soot ISIHHAH 9 Z ..-
84CT68ZCOC %V3 f:T:YT s0%OT/ZO
Hello