HomeMy WebLinkAbout20000627 WV'Priv an.Mein,
SCCODif 'Man.
WSW appa[wir
warternecr
ninon
TuttleApplegate,Inc.
February 29, 2000 Consultants for Land, Mineral and Water
Kim Ogle, Planner 11
Weld County Department of Planning Services
1555 North 17th Avenue
Greeley, CO 80631
RE: Riverview Resource AmUSR-897
Dear Kim:
Enclosed, please find copies of the updated mining and reclamation maps as presented at
the Planning Commission Hearings. I have also included reduced versions on overhead
for your presentation to the County Commissioners.
I have not received the FRAM/CAMAS agreement as of yet. I do know that it is
currently being circulated for signatures. Once I receive a signed copy of the agreement,
I will forward it to you.
If you require anything additional please call me. If you could let me know the date of
the County Commissioners Hearing I would greatly appreciate it.
Thank: you for your continued assistance with the project amendment.
Sincerely, o
TUTTLEAPPLEGATE, INC.
,Jeld Count/ PlanMug Lel"
• *R 012000
Shani L. Eastin RECEIVED
Planner
Enclosures: 10 copies of Exhibit C
10 copies of Exhibit F
1 reduced copy of Exhibit C
l reduced copy of Exhibit F x
q. •� '��MM$T
CC: TA File 99-182 { i
Mike Refer, CAMAS '•z>'{ �.` �' '
Connie Davis, CAMAS "
2000-0627
11990 Grant St. • Suite 304 • Denver, CO 80233 5441 Boeing Drive. • Suite 200 • Loveland, CO 80536-8855
(303) 452-6611 • Fax (303) 452-2759 (970) 461-9884 • Fax (970) 613-1177
yj
yaw
cis •
.
I• 1�1 i
1(..._. 1 Ma 1114O8141 ORM! ffi o
•'4am,
o • (,ELL � - f,.....
nr
•
143 \✓ '. ����' `�• " .�► ..I. �1 0_ --
•—•• '\\\\,7.') .?‘...1 ''''' **•••. .4'
oanticrnx t, li .7
/ ( y m.eesla \ • +J
•••.......t.
4 \ 'I t ` .t • m...lY Iw-.ree Sc �, S 11 y , f::' � I
v „.. :'ts • - t--1-�' .01 lit 1:.
�. '1,1";"."' ,( +,a 4'. .i: ;C.t. `,.. ` <.'s.-�. ,.�'
e $..,44r.,L....‘,...c...... IJ1...:.•.1',—`4 ..+."` w:�,:..�.,..e. � `.ty ^
e
1 .7-7\. i EYE rr j,.per ) 1, ilfy ,- T
•_.....A. J _ -- .- r
...../r." , tek ,' f;
1
=�Q-- ti --1 1 trc� 4l r •`4 h
1 ..A
1 'Ur` �'
J ` + / f:r`r- 1
I
Q.-)
1 ,00 '..--;50 ,,
•
SCALE IN FEET
EX'HISIT C
.
r Nit., 2/23/00 _. -
Jon Nu: 9,-182 CAMAS COLORADO iitic. T! ttleApplegate, Ea.
=—
Dram. EPS: ...�enrr ee. _ como.ane.mr[mt,Min-al..and Wow
Design: REVERV3EV1 RESOURCE uvso Gant Simi-scw:eaa
Chedad, SLE MINING
//aa PLAN
Diver,Co.80133
File: 8.5X11--MINE.DN'G :CS9 6 {>0 �i6BifO FIPhSlb611 FerautoppF52-2"9
Sc.lr. 1'.1100'
i
�.. --•-.7r'—:-.'"?.. -
0
I \
✓'� ��.. :- rs sKew.,".S7IreP ' 'Ia • , --� >
' I.. I it f +\` V. / -' .44.7,':::::: _`` ~gra ..,.J�` .1
` 4.•._____,'-___
:cam 1 a `r" ��. 4 / e // 'r I _
1 /
_.,wnwo I,./ ,11 n� \ � Tr / .x� 2 *: ttr r , �'' -'1..�
� ` r!.1' X51 71 ,�,✓I�°Ry- !.^w, • •••55 .\-�y�,�' ,,d'�•�'1-.. 4 i r 4 �L�..-�.s :'.�:.. 4 -\ I,\ 6..'„: ••-, ,',...f: ? •-i.- ,
43.•^� it ` � I
+znF°7 .� ! ` J' fit; - , Imo,
�.' 3. �� 1.;4 .ems
-1 �_„o':"•� .. \ "{I- t_•. ',• • , :•:Y, \• - Tom'• =
LI �• cu_.„,_,,..T.:••,,..-.1--i.e. :rn
GI .•�a� .,....,:".•. .-- . -- --.- . --•. . . ,--,' 1,4" .,1.r ''
c t
(
r: : i w 14y�/r �' r; �I
0 r
r"" 1 1
JE I
� / i i III
�
v `I //r'/ Jt 1 r ii
k il i 11
11 o �:��t r 11 6
I I
, ,......„)
1100 35(. ,
4EXHIBIT F
Job No: 99—'8 CAMAS COLORADO ADO INC. .....,..---,. T8 ttleApp gate,g72cc
Drawn: _PS Corroaceste fm lend M, ..me Warr
Design: RIVERVIEW RESOURCES -
11990 area Eire,-Sc.7M
Checked SIF 1▪.▪1e Deaver,Co $.0233
RECe MRlAllO c9LA 003)452-6611 Frs:,303 432-2759
Mc RSX11—REC.DWG VH 6l�Ed� .p.�. �,:_,�,
Scale, '-:1100'
MAR. 6.2000 6:52PM DIV'MINERALS&GEOLOGY NO. 182 o.2'7
STATE OF COLORADO
DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY
- -- Department of Natural Resources
li 1313 Sherman St.,Room 215
Denver,Colorado 80203 D I V I s l o N O F
Phone:1303)866-3567 MINERALS
FAX:(303)832.8106
GEOLOGY
EC M
March 6, 2000 RLAMATIN
I NING•SAFEOT
Y
Bill Owem
Mr. Mike Refer Governor
CAMAS Co. Inc. Grog E W filcher
3605 S. Teller Executive Director
Lakewood, CO 80235 Mvn B LOMB
Divisionon Director
RE: File No. M-1999-098, Riverview Resources, 112c Recommendation Letter-
- - -Construction Material Operation
Dear Mr.Refer,
On March 6, 2000,the Division of Minerals and Geology(DMG)recommended approval of your
112c mining permit application with the following condition:
1)The setback of 200' from all structures must be observed, as specified under Rule 6.4.19,
unless an adequate engineering analysis is submitted to DMG no later than 4 p.m. March 9,
2000. The setback from structures may be determined by the Division to be less than 200'
based upon such an engineering analysis. Should no analysis be submitted to DMG by the
time and date specified, then the 200' setback must be maintained until such time as a
technical revision to the permit is submitted and approved by the Division.
The following concerns were raised by objectors and commentators on the application, and were
addressed as specified below:
1) The City of Greeley was concerned that designating the end land-use as "water resources"
will compromise the wildlife habitat in the area.They would prefer that the reclamation
plan included several more measures (such as the inclusion of more native species, and
the oversight of the project by a qualified wildlife biologist/ecologist)that would make it
a wildlife habitat.They were also concerned about dust and noise impacts to the City
residents to the south of the site.
DMG required that more native species be included in the seed mix. Dust and noise impacts
are outside the jurisdiction of the Division, and must be addressed in the County permitting
process.
2) The Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE) has commented that their office should
contacted if any dredging or filling associated with this project is to take place in waters
of the United States, with Mr.Terry McKee to be the contact.
I'IHK, b.LUUU b:JGF'N U1V/MiNEKHL5&(LOLU(Y N0. 182 P.3/7
The Applicant has stated that no 404 permit has been applied for because the wetlands
delineation found that no wetlands will be disturbed during this project.
3) Comments from the State Division of Wildlife regarding the Weld County permit have
been forwarded to DMG. The Division of Wildlife's main concerns involving this
development are the narrowing of the riparian corridor associated with the Poudre River;
obstruction of the movement of free-ranging wildlife; loss of wetlands, subirrigated
pasture,warm-water sloughs, wildlife movement corridors, and potential habitat; water
quality issues that may impact small fish habitats, and the permanent loss of wildlife
value because of increased human disturbance, They recommend a different seed mixture,
a weed control plan, variation of the shorelines,protection of the warm-water sloughs,
careful design of the fencing so as not to trap wildlife, a minimum 100-yard setback from
the center of the river, and a complete survey for Preble's jumping mouse and Ute Ladies'
Tresses prior to the onset of mining.
A Technical Revision to the application eliminated 15 acres from the permit area, including
some riparian corridor. DMG believes that the maximum disturbance of 32 acres at one time
will not obstruct the movement of free-ranging wildlife; and no wetlands loss is planned for
the site. Standard back-filling control measures are being taken to prevent any pollution of the
groundwater table in accordance with Rule 3.1.9 of the Construction Materials Rules and
Regulations. The seed mixture has been revised and expanded, and the site will be reclaimed
simultaneously with the excavation, minimizing the encroachment of weeds. In addition, the
site must comply with Rule 3.1.10(6) of the Construction Materials Rules and Regulations, 1
which specifies the minimum performance standard for weed control on all permitted sites.
Shorelines have become more varied with the submission of the Technical Revision. 100' and
200' setbacks from the river have been approved,in accordance with site conditions, and a
Preble's jumping mouse survey was done in August 1999 by Stoecker Ecological
Consultants, Inc.No indicators for their presence were found at the site.
Residents' concerns:
1) Incorrect siting of buildings and homes on the map, with fencing omitted from the maps.
Please verify distances and include fencing on the maps.
The maps have been corrected as of February 29, 2000.
2) Incorrect sizing of Rocky Road on the map. Please verify the dimensions of this road and
adjust the map if errors have been made.
Again, the maps have been corrected to scale as of February 29,2000,
3) Lack of drainage tile location identification, or consideration of the consequences of
disturbing these drainage tiles. There is also a concern that no setback agreement has been
reached and no geotechnical stability analysis of excavations near this tile has been done.
MFR. 6.2000 6:53PM DIV/MINERALS&GEOLOGY NO.182 E.47(
The tile drains are the property of CAMAS Co.,Inc. They will either be preserved as is, with a
10' setback from their current location, or they will be replaced with new tile drains with
increased capacity.
4) Concerns about damage to existing structures near the site, and the lack of an engineering
evaluation of the area or setback agreement with the landowners
The aforementioned condition to the permit preserves the 200' setback required by Rule 6.4.19 in
lieu of an adequate slope stability analysis. Should such an analysis be submitted no later than
4p.m. on March 9, 2000, then the setback may be revised in accordance with geotechnical
engineering practices and standards.
5) Concerns about the groundwater and surface water flows from the north, should the drainage
tiles be disturbed; also a concern that the drainage agreement will not be honored.
The Technical Revision to this application submitted on January 14, 2000, removed 15 acres
from the proposed excavation area, and the drainage tiles are to be preserved as there are, as well
as improved in some areas. No groundwater will be exposed at the site prior to the approval of an
augmentation plan or temporary substitute supply plan by the Office of the State Engineer(OSE)
and the approval of clay lining specifications by DMG.
6) Concerns about the groundwater and surface water flows if the ponds are lined, and the
subsurface drainage area is reduced to a corridor through the residential area.
A groundwater monitoring plan has been approved, with reporting triggers and mitigation actions
to be taken should the groundwater levels rise beyond 18"in the monitoring wells. Five of the
ponds are to be lined, leaving the other two open to subsurface flows.
7) Concerns regarding the possible narrowing of the 100-year flood plain, and subsequent
flooding.
Setbacks from the Cache le Poudre have been set for summer and winter conditions, along with
backfilling requirements within 200' of the river.No narrowing of the floodplain is expected
under these conditions.
8) Concerns that the stockpiling of materials near the river may change the course of the river.
All product stockpiles will be stored in the process area, outside the 100-year floodplain.
9) Concerns that the re-seeding will not be done in a timely fashion, and that weeds will
encroach upon the site and surrounding areas. Please verify that only two acres at a time will
be in the process of preparing for re-seeding each year, and that the rest of the 34 disturbed
acres will either be actively worked or part of the processing facilities.
This statement was confirmed by the Applicant.
MAR. 6.2000 6:53PM DIV/MINERRLS&GEOLOGY NO. 182 P.5/7
10)Concerns that the groundwater monitoring plan is inadequate.
The groundwater monitoring plan has been revised to include reporting times and mitigation
actions to be taken in case of a rise in the groundwater monitoring wells, one consistent with the
floodplain analysis done by the Applicant.
11)Concerns that the public on-site posting only consisted of one 8 Sri"x 11"page at the
proposed site entrance.
This posting is actually standard for new sites, and is not considered a problem by DMG, in
accordance with Rule 1.6.2(1)(b) of the Construction Materials Rules and Regulations.
The following concerns do not fall directly under DMG's jurisdiction,but were also expressed by the
adjacent landowners:
12)Concerns regarding the isolation of the housing development.
13)Concerns regarding noise.
14)Concerns regarding increased traffic.
15)Concerns regarding dirt.
16)Concerns regarding unpleasant views for many homeowners,
17)Concerns regarding damage to local roads due to heavy truck traffic.
18)Concerns regarding property devaluation due to adjacent mining.
If you have any questions,please contact me at (303) 866-3567.
Sincerely,
Christina L. ICamnikar
Environmental Protection Specialist
Enclosure
Cc: Carl B.Mount,DMG
Mark Held,AGO
Shani Eastin, Tuttle-Applegate Inc.
Connie Davis, CAMAS
US Fish&Wildlife Service
US Army Corps of Engineers
Objection List
CERTIFIED MAIL NO. P 436 785 429
Return Receipt Requested
MAR. 6.2000 5:53PM DIV%MINERALS&GEOLOGY NO.182 P.6/
Shani Eastin
Tuttle-Applegate,Inc.
11990 Grant St,Suite 304
Denver, CO 80233
Connie Davis, CAMAS
(see above)
•
II
I'IHK. b.G{OUV) b;53PM DIV/NINERRLS&GE0L0GY N0.182 P.7/7
Objector List
1.
Myron and Mabel Cunning
442 N.Brisbane Ave.
Greeley,CO 80634
2.
Troy and Jean Kyne
$17N.71"Ave.
Greeley,CO 80634
3.
Richard Goetze'
13489 WCR#66
Greeley,CO 80631
4.
Joe and Helen Lohnes
13804 Weld County Road#64
Greeley,CO 80631-9331
5.
Ronald 3. Spurlin
541 Brisbane Ave.
Greeley,CO 80634
6.
Matt and Lisa Gelb
13742 Rocky Road
Greeley,CO 80634
Matt and Lisa Gelb
1218 48'i Ave.
Greeley,CO 80634
7.
Wayne L.and Joyce A.Dawson
30878 Rocky Road
Greeley,CO 80631
8.
Kim Davis
30856 Rocky Road
Greeley,CO 80631-9375
9,
Jonathan Cragle
13648 WCR#64
Greeley,CO 80631
10
City of Greeley
Kim Scopel,Natural Resources Planner
1100 10th St.
Greeley,CO 80631
AGREEMENT
This Agreement is made and entered into this 15th Day of February, 2000, by and among
AGGREGATE INDUSTRIES WEST CENTRAL REGION ("Al"), formerly known as CAMAS
Colorado, Inc., and JOE LOHNES and HELEN LOHNES and NOBLE BENSON and MARY SUE
BENSON and DAVID MILLER and MATTHEW GEIB and LISA GEIB and JONATHAN
CRAGLE and PAULA CRAGLE and EARL ERBES and SUZANNE ERBES and KIM DAVIS,
collectively referred to as "Property Owners".
WITNESSETH
WHEREAS, AI has purchased and currently owns property in Weld County and in the
vicinity of Property Owners' property for the purpose, among others, of mining sand and gravel; and
WHEREAS, Property Owners have concerns regarding those operations, and have expressed
them, orally and in writing, to officials of Weld County; and
WHEREAS, the parties have determined to settle their differences and intend that this
agreement completely set forth the terms of the resolution of those differences;
NOW THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. AI's Exclusive Obligations. AI shall:
A. Amend its application for an amendment to its special use permit currently
pending before the Weld County Planning Commission to delete the approximate northern 17 acres
from the application.
B. Amend its application currently pending before the Colorado State Division of
Minerals and Geology ("DMG") with a Technical Revision to likewise delete the approximate
northern 17 acres from the application.
C. Prepare maps and other documents and submit them to the Weld County Planning
Department to effect the changes in its application prior to the Weld County Planning Commission
hearing scheduled for 1:30 P.M., February 15, 2000.
D. Ensure that the shoreline of resulting reservoirs are undulating for wildlife
activity.
E. Not conduct mining activities on the 17 acres identified in Section 1(A) of this
Agreement.
Page 1 of 3 i 1 aoOO-Or�a7
EXHIBIT
a
aSR 4$q'1
.7
2. Property Owners' Exclusive Obligations. Property Owners shall:
A. Represent to the Weld County Planning Commission that they have reached an
accommodation concerning AI's Amendment to its special use permit, as above amended.
B. Represent to the Weld County Board of County Commissioners that they have
reached an accommodation concerning AI's Amendment to its special use permit, as above
amended.
C. Withdraw all written and oral objections filed with the Weld County Planning
Commission or any other Weld County agency concerning AI's Amendment to its special use
permit.
D. Never contest the initial permit before any Weld County administrative or
legislative or executive agency or in any judicial forum.
E. Not object to any future application by AI or its successor-in-interest for rezoning
of the property as defined in Section 1(A) of this agreement and others which may by rule or
regulation or law be required to be included, to residential use with lots in size of not less than two
and one-half acres; PROVIDED HOWEVER,that they may comment on the specifics of any such
development, such as set-backs.
F. Restrict their participation in the February 15, 2000 Weld County Planning
Commission hearing to joining AI in representing that they have reached an accommodation
concerning the application for an amendment to the special use permit.
3. Both AI and Property Owners shall:
A. Join in presenting this resolution of their differences to the Weld County Planning
Commission and to the Weld County Board of County Commissioners; and
B. Agree that the agreements and duties and obligations of the parties contained
herein are the totality of their obligations to each other in this matter.
Page 2 of 3
d.
For the Property Owners: F r: AI
Jo I�✓ohnes Name ^ _
2 V. P AV MIia % STRAiiorJ
1 e C�4 i .,.-A/ Title
Helen Lohnes
.77 cretecz S—.0-2y1,0O)-1
Noble Benson
n
avi Milo r,„- A,,,c1
Ty/ideMatthew Geib
1
— Lisa Geib
44, Luc Cl
onathan Cragle
Paula Cragle
Earl Erbes g'61--4/
Suzanne Erbes
i___) c
Kim Da 's
Page 3 of 3
FROM : ROGREGRTE IND GREELE( PHONE NO. : 978 378 5856 Mar. 28 2000 08: 191r1 F1
P.O.Box 3121
Greeley,co 80633 Aggrega e Industries
Phone:(970)336-8526
Fax(970)378-6856
Fax
Toe Kim Ogle Front Connie Nidde Davis
Fwc 3046498 Datec March 28.2000
Phone: Pages: Five(5)
Re: AmU5R 897 CC:
Response to Ray Sears
❑Urgent ❑For Review O Please Comment ❑Please Reply O Please Recycle
*Comments: Following is a copy of the letter prepared by Tuttle Applegate in response to concerns
expressed by Ray Sears at the Planning Canmission hearing. As I mentioned to you yesterday, I have
not heard anything from Mr.Sears since this letter went out.
Please let me know if you need anything else. I really appreciate all of your assistance throughout the
amendment process. You have been great to work with!
EXHIBIT
ss� .
mttleApplegate,lnc.
March 20, 2000 " Consultants'for Land, Mineral and Water
Mr. C. Raymond Sears
13644 Weld County Road 64
Greeley, Colorado 80631
RE: Response to comments on the Riverview Resources 112 Application,
DMG No. M-99-088
Dear Mr. Sears:
Following is an itemized response to comments in your letter to Connie Davis of
CAMAS Colorado, Inc. (Aggregate Industries), dated February 15, 2000,
FLOOD HAZARD DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATION:
1. The volume of flow through the site will not be increased by the mining
operation,therefore it will not cause any additional erosion. The:hydraulic model
shows an increase in average channel velocity of 1.5 fps for reclaimed conditions
through the stretch of river where your property was damaged last year by the
flood. This increase is considered small in relation to the river processes
presently acting on that bend. As evidenced by the old oxbow on your property,
the main channel of the river was once much farther to the north and west of
where it is now.
It is apparent from the erosion this spring that the river is again trying to move in
that direction to stabilize itself. This is a natural process that will occur regardless
of the mining operation, therefore Aggregate Industries cannot be held
tesponsible for the loss of property or structures along your east property
boundary. There will be not be a preventive maintenance plan for riverbank
erosion.
2. Again, the gravel mining operation will not result in increased water volume, nor
will it cause any additional damming of flood flows. The modeling shows that
the mining operation in its various phases will have an"insignificant impact"
(please see explanation in Item 3) on the 100-year water surface elevation, and the
reclaimed condition of the land will actually result in a decrease in the 100-year
water surface elevation. The backing up of flows that occurs now into the oxbow
and your fish ponds is due to the existing topography and the 71"t Avenue bridge,
and will not be made worse by the mining operation or reclaimed conditions.
11990 Grant St. • Suite 304 • Denver, CO 80233 5441 Boeing Drive. • Su to 200 • Loveland CO 806.;6-8856
;303) 452-6611 • Fax (303) 452-2759 (970) 461-9884 • Fax (970) 613-1177
Ed 11d9E:90 088? 8? 'aeW 9S89 8L£ 026 : '0N 3N0Hd .1=I198b0 UN I d1N03;99 : t,08d
Ray Sears
March 10,2000
Page 2
3. The '/z" increase in the water surface elevation does not correspond to an increase
in volume of water. There are several factors considered in the hydraulic analysis
of a river, the most basic of which are cross-sectional flow area(the area actually
under water), velocity of the flow, and flow quantity(discharge). It would make
sense that if some kind of blockage is put within the existing ero:;s-sectional flow
area for a given discharge, either the area or the velocity or both, have to increase
in order to pass the same amount of flow. This is the case in the temporary
scenario of stockpiles in the floodplain.
A conservative analysis of Phase 2 with stockpiles in the floodplain shows an
increase in the water surface elevation of'/z"to compensate for the area blocked
by the stockpiles (at 50 feet wide,they block approximately 2% of the cross-
sectional area). This does not mean that there is any more water flowing through,
just that additional area has been made up for by increasing the water surface.
The additional cross sectional area provided would be '/2"times the width of the
river at that cross section. Imagine standing on the outer limits of the river during
a flood and trying to detect a '''A"increase in the elevation of the water surface. It
would be insignificantly small and impossible to see. Also, a river during a flood
tends to bulk and surge, causing waves that can vary the water surface elevation
up to a foot for the same discharge. Thus, this 'h"increase shown by the model is
considered insignificant.
On the more technical side,this increase is also insignificant within the accuracy
limitations of the model. A model is only as accurate as the information put into
it. The topography used in this model has been mapped at 2-foot intervals,
meaning that the highest level of accuracy that could correctly be reported would
be one foot. This is still very accurate considering the magnitude of a 100-year
event on the Poudre River.
4. This statement refers to the property owners up-and downstream of the site
boundaries, or 83'd and 71g Avenues. These bridges act as hydraulic controls on
the river, meaning that effects that occur between them will not travel up-or
downstream. The effects on the property owners bounded by these two avenues
have been discussed in detail for each scenario in the Flood Hazard Development
Permit text, and have been shown to be insignificant at worst.
5, The "significant increase" in average channel velocity(within the banks of the
channel) is 3.0 fps. The increase in the average left overbank velocity is 0.9 fps;
the right overbank is 1.9 fps. The velocity increases are localized, and are caused
by the increased conveyance downstream provided by the reclaimed lakes. In
considering this it is important to understand that hydraulic effects in a suberitical
flow regime(the situation here)travel upstream. The increased conveyance area.
(cross-sectional flow area) provided by the lakes causes decreased water surface
elevations and, for the most part, decreased velocities. This effect of a decreased
water surface elevation travels upstream.
Sd W212:80 000E 8E 'aek 9S89 at: OL6 : ON 3NOHd J,3d93ao GIN I 31LE3d9OO : hob_
Ray Sears
March 20,2000
Page 3
When we get up near the 83'° Avenue bridge the available area for the water to
flow through is the same(i.e. the cross section has not changed),but the water
surface is lower. This means the velocity must increase through the bridge in
order to pass the same amount of flow. The velocity increase is localized to this
cross section because downstream, additional area is available from the reclaimed
lakes, and the velocity again slows down. It is also important to realize that this
analysis was completed for the 100-year event,which has a very low probability
of occurrence. The effect will be smaller for floods smaller than the 100-year.
6. Material may be temporarily stockpiled along the northern edge of Cell 4. These
stockpiles will not effect the flow of Tile Drain#1. Tile Drain#1 was installed at
a depth of approximately 8-10 feet in this area. This bury depth is adequate to
support the increased surface loading.
GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN:
7. The installation of the new drain line parallel to Tile Drain#1 will begin once
mining is complete in Cell 4 and reclamation begins. Mining in Cell 4 is
currently estimated to begin in the year 2008 and be completed in 2012. The
installation of the new drain line will take approximately two weeks and the area
that is disturbed will be restored to original condition, including replanting
vegetation.
8. The current monitoring plan calls for measurements to be taken or. a monthly
interval. If at any time you feel that groundwater levels have varied,much less
have water in your basement, additional measurements can be taken from the
monitor wells. If it is felt that there has been a change in the historic ground
water levels,we will work with you to determine the extent of the fluctuation and
to determine the mitigation procedures that need to be implemented.
9. The 18"increase in ground water levels is an increase that was presented to the
DMG for a level that would require mandatory action. This level was set at 18"
due to the natural seasonal fluctuations in the ground water levels. If at any time
you feel that there is an abnormal increase in the ground water levels, whether it is
6"or 18", please contact us so that we can properly evaluate the increase and
initiate mitigation efforts.
10. These lakes will be lined and therefore the water levels in the lakes will not
influence the ground water levels. The lining criteria set forth by the state for
gravel pit lakes require that the lakes be hydraulically separated Prom the ground
water.
bd WddTE:80 000E 8E 'a€W 9989 8L£ 02.5 : 'ON 3NOHd J,3-133a9 QNI di39E?d9Ot : NEdd
Ray Sears
March 20, 2000
Page
MINIMUM MINING SETBACKS FROM STRUCTURES:
11. 100 feet from houses, buildings, transmission towers, and the bank of the
Poudre River. 75 feet from the existing right-of-way of""O" Street. 40 feet from
the existing right-of-way of 83`d and 71s`Avenues. 30 feet from the easement of
underground pipelines.
If we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
Tuttle Applegate, Inc. Tuttle Applegate, Inc.
Kyle Whitaker, PE Dana Moore, EIT
Water Resource Engineer Water Resource Engineer
CC: TA File 99-182
Connie Davis, CAMAS
Sd WHEE:80 000E BE .JeW 9S89 8LE OLE : 'ON SNOHd C19Eb9 QNI dltiO d99t LJu?J2,
oar = : — `. - ' z ' - '=
\S it, .. . R..M- •�-
•'4P'!` --41,...
•
, lillar
fir}
riin011;. 1
141.
I S=r 444114,
4
r -d 3/17 I OM /D/J-
g EXHIBIT
Am► fl
R#iya'tcnA
February ]5, 2000 �
Connie Davis
Support Services Representative 1 s
CAMAS Colorado, Inc.
131 N. 35th Avenue re
Greeley,CO 80633 +r tet: t
9¢!
Re: Riverview Resources
112 Application
DMG No. M-99-088
Dear Connie,
Thank you again for bringing all the information regarding your application.
Just yesterday I finished reviewing the Flood Hazard Development Permit Application,
the Groundwater Management Plan,the Mining Plan,and the Reclamation Plan. I am
enclosing my comments and questions for your review and response. Sorry it's taken
me several weeks to respond to you.
First, I want to reiterate,as 1 have vocalized in the past,that 1 am not opposed to your
gravel mining,as long as it is done respectfully to your neighbors,and the
environment itself. When I bought our property from Chris Elder,he informed me of
the possibility of your mining. My wife and I love wildlife,and we look forward to
enjoying the eventual reclaimed lakes and wildlife habitat, provided that the mining
operation doesn't make our lives miserable in the meantime. I hope ws can cooperate
so that the effects can be mutually beneficial.
Following are my questions and comments:
Re. FLOOD HAZARD DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATION:
1. In the Spring 1999 flood, we experienced severe deterioration of the river bank on
our east property line. I estimate we lost an average of 10-12'of riverbank for a
distance of about 200'. Included in the loss were two large trees, 200'of fence and
one of our property marker pins. How does CAMAS plan to proceed in repairing
any further damage to river banks caused by increased water volute and/or
velocity as a result of normal gravel mining operations,or in the event of another
flood incident? Will repairs be made on a mutually agreeable basis?
From the report,I deduce that no preventive maintenance for river bank erosion is
planned at this point. Is this deduction correct?
2. The report does not address the backing up of water from the Poudre River into our
existing ponds or the ox-bow,as a result of increased volume and downstream
damming hindering water flow. We experienced such a situation in the Spring
1999 flood. With the normal spring runoff,when water volume increases, we also
experience the backing up effect. When our ponds and the ox-bow fill and are
unable to drain,the operation of the fish-farm is negatively impacted. Good water
flow through our ponds to the river is essential to the farm's efficient operation. �+
How will CAMAS rectify any such backing up caused by gravel mining operations,
or any modifications to the river bed and banks caused by your mining operations? t t-
O
11644 Weld Ceunly I0oed b4 0nck-4t Colorudc 80631 Phonc 4 Fax: (970) 3929000 Pager 1800-212-12* W
'MN•w.atrgmVJNid
Can you set a predetermined response time to rectify any such situai ion, should we
alert you to rising water levels in the ponds and/or ox-bow? I desire that our
relationship be good and neighborly. 1 just need assurance that you will respond to
my contacting you when I see problems developing.
3. During the Spring 1999 flood,approximately 14 of our 15 '/2 acres (as well as the
area depicted by your Cells 1, 3,and 4) was submerged under 16 to 40" of swiftly
moving water for approximately one week. This flood was not a 103 year flood,
and yet our water levels increased about 40"above normal. The nu.ssive amount
of water involved is mind boggling to me. The estimated '/2" increase in water level
mentioned in your engineer's report may be "insignificant" to your engineer,but to
me,an additional '/2"of rushing water could be the difference in whether or not
my residence sustains significant damage. Needless-to-say, I'm not reassured by
your appraisal of"insignificant".
4. Page one of the WELD COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE SECTION 2E..4 STANDARDS
report states that "It (the water surface elevation increase) will not affect any
houses or private property downstream." Is this statement a guaran tee,or a guess?
Likewise,page three states,"the landowners up- and downstream will not be
adversely affected." What is your mitigation policy should we be adversely
affected?
5. Page two addresses a"significant increase in the river channel velocity just
downstream of the 83rd Avenue bridge." What exactly is "significant"? What is the
actual result of this increased velocity downstream? Doesn't velocity continue in
some regard,particularly when water is contained within the rivers banks? Does
the water spread out over a larger area if the river's banks are exceeded?
6. Page three of the FLOODPLAIN IMPACT ANALYSIS states that "Material mined from
Cell 4 will be placed along the northern edge of the cell on the outer fringe of the
floodplain..." Is this location on top of or crossing over Tile Drain # 1,causing
possible damage and impeded water flow? Will the new tile drain to he installed
parallel with Tile Drain # 1 be in place at time of excavation of Cell 4? Sec item
# 7.
Re: GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN:
7. Re. The proposed new Drain Tile #1 to be installed parallel with existing: This
drain tile will cross the fish farm and terminate in the pond on our property.
When will this installation occur? Do you know how long water supply will be
disrupted to the fish farm? Will you restore the excavated area to original
condition, including vegetation?
8. Monitor wells are a good idea. However,is additional monitoring possible at my
request? For example, if I get water in my basement from increase 1 water table,
will you check the level of the monitor well closest to me upon my request? Can
we work together to determine the cause of the fluctuation? Should the fluctuation
be the result of your mining operation,will you remedy the situation in a timely
manner?
9. I'm not comfortable with the 18"increase in water table stipulatec in your report
to warrant action by you. For example,it could be that a 6" increase results in
water in my basement. Must I wait until I have 12" of water in my basement
before contacting you? I would hope that you would cooperate with me in
mitigating the effects of any increase resulting from your operation.
Can you set a predetermined response time to rectify any such situation, should we
alert you to rising water levels in the ponds and/or ox-bow? I desire that our
relationship be good and neighborly. I just need assurance that you will respond to
my contacting you when I see problems developing.
3. During the Spring 1999 flood,approximately 14 of our 15 '/2 acres !as well as the
area depicted by your Cells 1, 3,and 4) was submerged under 16 to 40" of swiftly
moving water for approximately one week. This flood was not a 100 year flood,
and yet our water levels increased about 40" above normal. The ma$sive amount
of water involved is mind boggling to me. The estimated 1/2" increase in water level
mentioned in your engineer's report may be "insignificant" to your engineer,but to
me,an additional '/2" of rushing water could be the difference in NO ether or not
my residence sustains significant damage. Needless-to-say, l'm not -eassured by
your appraisal of"insignificant".
4. Page one of the WELD COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE SECTION 26 4 STANDARDS
report states that "It (the water surface elevation increase) will not affect any
houses or private property downstream." Is this statement a guaran_ee,or a guess?
Likewise,page three states,"the landowners up- and downstream will not be
adversely affected." What is your mitigation policy should we be adversely
affected?
5. Page two addresses a"significant increase in the river channel velocity just
downstream of the 83rd Avenue bridge." What exactly is "significant"? What is the
actual result of this increased velocity downstream? Doesn't velocity continue in
some regard,particularly when water is contained within the river'a banks? Does
the water spread out over a larger area if the river's banks are excec ded?
6. Page three of the FLOODPLAIN IMPACT ANALYSIS states that "Material mined from
Cell 4 will be placed along the northern edge of the cell on the outer fringe of the
floodplain..." is this location on top of or crossing over Tile Drain t# 1,causing
possible damage and impeded water flow? Will the new tile drain to be installed
parallel with Tile Drain # I be in place at time of excavation of Cel 4? See item
# 7.
Re: GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN:
7. Re.The proposed new Drain Tile #1 to be installed parallel with existing: This
drain tile will cross the fish farm and terminate in the pond on our property.
When will this installation occur? Do you know how long water supply will be
disrupted to the fish farm? Will you restore the excavated area to original
condition,including vegetation?
8. Monitor wells are a good idea. However,is additional monitoring possible at my
request? For example,if I get water in my basement from increased water table,
will you check the level of the monitor well closest to me upon my request? Can
we work together to determine the cause of the fluctuation? Should the fluctuation
be the result of your mining operation,will you remedy the situation in a timely
manner?
9. I'm not comfortable with the 18" increase in water table stipulated in your report
to warrant action by you. For example, it could be that a 6" increase results in
water in my basement. Must I wait until I have 12" of water in my basement
before contacting you? I would hope that you would cooperate with me in
mitigating the effects of any increase resulting from your operation.
10. As mentioned in item # 2,the water level of our first pond and the ox bow is
approximately 4697'. I anticipate that 4697' is the ground water level in our back
pasture. Your maps indicate the elevation of our back pasture is 4700'. With lined
lake water levels to the west being 4700', and to the south being 4698',what keeps
my pasture from becoming a lake itself? Presently, my pasture is usable for grazing
animals,or just walking around. Raising the groundwater level could render it
useless. How will you respond in the event of such an occurrence?
Re: MINIUM MINING SETBACICS FROM STRUCTURES:
11.The State of Colorado Division of Minerals and Geology clearly rec uires a 200'
setback between mining limits and permanent structures (including fences). You
are requesting a 100' minimum setback. 100' is not adequate distance from
someone's residence. Your plans indicate that mining will occur as close as 20'
from existing fences. Such close proximity to physical structures i creases chances
of damage to those structures,notwithstanding damaging the wildlife habitat along
fence rows. You're already planning to destroy 15 to 20 acres of frees in Cell 3
alone. Please,have mercy. I request that you submit to guidelines set by the
regulatory agencies involved. Doing so builds your credibility and instills my trust
and a comfort level that you will indeed be a good neighbor.
On the subject of fences,when you and Shani Eastin first visited me, I mentioned
that I planned to construct a new fence on or just inside my prope.°ty line. You
both encouraged me to proceed. I intend to build this fence this spring.
Thanks for your time and attention. I look forward to your written response.
Yours very truly,
C. Raymond Sears
13644 WCR 64
Greeley, CO 80631
Hello