The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20222148.tiffRaptor Materials, Inc. Office of Special Projects 1431 East 16. Street Greeley, Colorado 80631 Telephone (970) 353-8310 Fax (970) 353-4047 Tuesday 6 September 2022 Weld County Clerk to the Board 1150 O Street Greeley, Colorado 80632 RECEIVED SEP 06 2022 COMMISSION RE S Subject: Raptor Materials, Inc. (formerly, Varra Companies, Inc.) - Regular Impact (112) - Permit Application M-2022-013 - Two Rivers Sand, Gravel and Reservoir Project. Materials submitted to the Colorado Division of Reclamation Mining and Safety (CRMS) - Office of Mined Land Reclamation (OMLR) for placement for public review. • Correspondence of 6 September 2022 to the Colorado Office of Mined Land Reclamation, in response to OMLR Adequacy correspondence of 24 June 2022 and 5 August 2022, with attending attachments. Attachments: • Correspondence from the Colorado Office of Mined Land Reclamation (OMLR) of 24 June 2022 • Correspondence from OMLR of 5 August 2022. • Correspondence from Raptor Materials LLC. to OMLR of Wednesday 31 August 2022. • Raptor Materials adequacy response of 31 August 2022 to Colorado Office of Mined Land Reclamation • Exhibit A (revised), Legal Description • Exhibit C1(revised), Existing Conditions • Exhibit F Map (revised), Reclamation Plan Map • Exhibit G Map, Addendum 5 (revised), Water Information Map • Exhibit G, Addendum 6, Flow Technologies Response to DRMS Adequacy Review • Exhibit G, Addendum 7, AWES Response to ORMS Adequacy Review - Dewatering Evaluation • Exhibit H, Addendum 5, ERO Response to CPW Adequacy Review • Exhibit N (revised), Source of Legal Right to Enter • Exhibit R, (updated), Proof of Filing with County Clerk and Recorder • Exhibit S, Addendum 2, AWES Response to ORMS Adequacy Review - Slope Stability • CDPHE Fugitive Dust Application • CDPHE Varra Stormwater Permit Withdrawal • CDP HE Raptor Materials Stormwater Permit Application Your signature below acknowledges receipt of the above referenced material, as attached. The material should be added to the above referenced Application under M-2022-013, as originally submitted to the Weld County Clerk to the Board; and made accessible (i.e., Placed) for public review. Received On , 2022 By: Office of the Weld County Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners Raptor Materials, LLC (aka, Varra Companies, Inc.) OMLR 112 Permit M2022-013 1 Two Rivers Sand, Gravel and Reservoir Project Weld County Proof of 6 September 2022 P✓b I C Rem; ,.,) cc: PL(1 P/iN) Pk) (sh/cm /ER/ct) 202a- 211-I8S RAPTOR MATE RIALSLc 8120 Gage Street • Frederick, CO 80516 .Bus: (303) 666-6657 • Fax: (303) 666-6743 Tuesday 06 September 2022 To: Robert D. Zuber, P.E,. Environmental Protection Specialist Colorado Division of Reclamation Mining arid Safety Office of Mined Land Reclamation (CI LR) 1313 Sherman Street, Room 215 Denver, Colorado 80203 From: Garrett Co Varra, General Manager Raptor Materials, LLC 8120 Gage Street Frederick, Colorado 80516 Subject: Two Rivers Sand, Craved and Reservoir Project, Fire No, M-2022-013, 112c Permit Application Adequacy Review #ft l - REPLY Dear Rob, The Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety (Division/DRMS), Office of Mined Land Reclamation (OMLR); reviewed the contents of the Original 112c permit application for the Two Rivers Sand, Gravel and Reservoir Project (TRP), Fide No, M-2022- 013 and! submitted comments via Adequacy Letters of 24 June and 5 August 2022. The Division was required to issue an approval or denial! decision no later than July 17, 2022. An initial extension was requested and granted to 15 Se,ptember2022. Please find attached the following documents as our response: - Raptor Materials adequacy response of 31 August 2022 to Colorado Office of Miir cd Land Radar -nation Exhibit A (revised), Legal Description - Exhibit C1(reviised), Existing Conditions - Exhibit F Map (revised), Reclamation Plan Map - F �hibit G Map, Addendum 5 (revised), Water information Map - Exhibit G, Addendum 6, Flow Technologies Response to DRMS Adequacy Review - Exhibit G, Addendum 7, AWES Response to DRMS Adequacy Review - Dewatering Evaluation e Exhibit H, Addendum 5, ERG Response to OM Adequacy Review - Exhibit N (revised), Source of Legal Right to Enter ▪ Exhibit R, (updated), Proof of Filing with County Clerk and Recorder - Exhibit S, Addendum 2, AWES Response to DRMS Adequacy Review - Slope Stability CDPHE Fugitive Dust Application - CDPHE Varre, Stormwater Permit Withdrawal - CDPHE Raptor Materials Stormwater Permit Application We trust these attend to the comments received and look forward to receiving your response, Additionally, we have reviewed the comments and objections provided in your correspondence ofJune 03, 2022. With regard to your question on jurisdictional issues, we believe any not under the authority of the DRMS which either have no standing or are addressed in this response, will De resolved in permitting with the City of Evans, Regards, Garrett Vara General Manager 8120 Gage Street — Frederick, Co 80516 Bus; (343) 666-6657 - Fax; {3Q3} 66fa-5743 June 7, 2022 Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Water Quality Control Division, D PaB2 4300 Cherry Creek Drive South Denver, CO 80246 Re: Stommater Application for COGS00000 Attached you will find a stormwater application for Raptor Materials, LLC formerly Varra Companies, Inc. Please note that Raptor Materials LLC, took over all permit formerly under Varra Companies, Inc as May 20,2022. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience: Sincerely, Tana Kersting 303-447-2084)(720-474-1563 tkerst ng@raptors ateria I llcccom COLORADO Department of Public Health #t Environment APPLICATION FOR CDPS GENERAL PERMIT COG500000 DISCHARGES FROM SAND AND GRAVEL MINING AND PROCESSING For Agency Use Only: Permit Number Assigned COGS0 - Please print or type. The application must be submitted to the Water Quality Control Division at least 60 days prior to the anticipated date of discharger and must be considered complete by the division before the review and approval process begins. The division will notify the applicant if additional information is needed to complete the application. if more space is required to answer any question, please attach additional sheets to the appticat crr form. Applications must be submitted by malt or hand delivered to: Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Water uaii ty Control Division, WQCD—P-82 4300 Cherry Creek Drive South Denver, Colorado 80246-1530 TEMPORARY (A Vi019 Submit -lion _ Digitally signed documents mny he em&filed to alphe.wgrec rdscenter@state co.OS Do not follow up with n mailed -1n hard copy. The directions for electronic: signatures can be found at this : a uestion 414 A. PERMIT INFORMATION Reason for Application: Applicant is: • NEW CERT © RENEW CERT EXISTING CERT if d Property Owner u Contractor/Operator The applicant requests authorization for the following discharge type(s). Mine (pit) dewatering: ng: includes any water, such as groundwater, seepage, and stormwater (precipitation and surface runoff), that is Impounded or that collects in the mine pit (surface or underground workings) and is pumped, drained, or otherwise removed from the mine through the efforts of the mine operator. In addition, for construction sand and gravel facilities and industrial sand facilities only, mine dewatering includes wet pit overflow caused solely by direct rainfall and/or groundwater seepage; Process generated wastewater: includes any wastewater used in slurry transport of mined materials, air emissions control, and processing exclusive to mining. Water used in processing the mined commodity: includes water from washing, sorting, screening, crushing, classifying, etc. Stormier runoff, corninQled with the above listed wastewaters before the discharge point. Stormwa ter runoff (not cornipited with the above listed wastewaters) from facility pollutant sources: includes runoff from stockpiles, disturbed areas, roads, maintenance areas, etc.; asphalt batch plants (SIC code 2951); concrete batch plants (SIC code 3273); or asphalt and concrete recycling activities conducted at the facility. Note: the following discharge types are not eligible for coverage under COPS General Permit CO 500000: i • Stormwater discharges associated with construction activity that disturbs one acre or more; 6 Process water discharges from asphalt batch plants (resulting from the production of asphalt concrete); process water discharges from concrete batch plants, including drum and truck wash water (concrete wash out 'a a • Stormwater and process water discharges from placer mining industrial activities (SIC Major Group 10). a Process water discharges from the SIC codes identified in Appendix I of this application. Page 1 of 8 - Revision 2/2021 COG500000 Permit A lication Www.cotoradowater- ermits,cun B. CONTACT INFORMATION le Permittee Information Organization Formal Name: Raptor Materials, LLC Permittee Namc the person authorized to sign and certify the permit application. This person receives all permit correspondences and is responsible for ensuring compliance with the permit. Responsible Position (Utley Kevin in ins VCurrently Held By (Person)i e resident: Telephone No: 3O3-666'6657 Email address: jea in ©raptormaterial 11 . or i ilir't Address: 8120 Gage Street Frederick State: ° zip: 80516 City:p This form must be siflned by the permittee to be considered complete. Per Regulation 61, in all cases, it shalt be signed as follows: a) In the case of corporations, by a responsible corporate officer. For the purposes of this section, the responsible corporate officer is responsible for the overall operation of the facility from which the discharge described in the application originates. b) in the case of a partnership, by a general partner. c) In the case of a sole proprietorship, by the proprietor. d) In the case of a municipal, state, or other public facility, by either a pr-inci pa l executive officer or ranking elected official. D R. Cognizant Official (.e. authorized agent) the person or position authorized to sign and certify reports required by permits including Discharge Monitoring Reports [M: R's], Annual Reports, Compliance Schedule submittals, and other information requested by the division, The division will transmit pre-printed DMR s to this person. If more than one, please add additional pages. 11 Same as 1) Permittee Responsible Position (Title): k vi re ins Currently Held By (Person): Vice President Telephone No: 303e666-6657 _ Email address: kjeakins@raptormaterialslic.com Organization: Raptor Materials, LLC Mailing Address: 8120 Gage Street City: Frederick State: CO zip, 80516 Per Regulation 61: All reports required by permits, and other information requested by the Division shall be signed by the permittee or by a duly authorized representative of that person. A person is a duty authorized representative only if: a) The authorization is made in writing by the permittee b) The authorization specifies either an individual or a position having responsibility for the overall operation of the regulated facility or activity such as the position of plant manager, operator of a welt or a well field, superintendent, position of equivalent responsibility, or an individual or position having overall responsibility for environmental matters for the company, (A duly authorized representative may thus be either a named individual or any individual occupying a named position) c) Submitted in writing to the Division Page 22 of 8 - Revision 2/2021 COG500000 Permit _AypLicMtton B. CONTACT INFORMATION (cont) 3. Site/local Contact (contact for questions relating to the facility ft discharge authorized by this permit.) El Same as 1) Permittee Responsible Position (Title): Tana Kersting Currently Held By (Person): EHS assistant Telephone No: 303-566-6657/303-447-2084 Email address: t'k rsting©raptormatei al llc4com Organization: Raptor Materials? LLC Malting Address: 8120 Gage Street City: Frederick State: C° www.cotorado ater rmit .Cram zip: 80516 Operator in Responsible Charge D Same as 1) Permittee Responsible Position (Title): J _ kin Currently Held By (Person): Vice President - - Telephone No_ 303-666-a6657 Email address: kjeakins@raptormateriaislic.com Organization: Raptor Materials, LLC Mailing Add81 ress: 0 Gage Street City: Frederick • Same as 3) Site/ Local Contact State: CO zip: 80516 Billing Contact ci Sams as 1) Permittee Responsible Position (Title): r 1 r rich Currently Held By (Person): Billing Telephone No: 3s6m7 Email address: gprebarich@varracompanies.com j Raptor Materials, LLC Organization: Mailing Address: _81 0 Gage Street CityFrederick State: CO' ` Zip: 80516 6. Other Contact Types (check below) Add pages if necessary: Responsible Position (Title): Tana Kersting ECurrently Held By (Person): 1 assistant Telephone No: 303-666-6657/303-441-2084 Email address: tkersting@raptormaterialslic.com . om Organization: tar Materials, LLC Mailing Address: 8120 Gage Surest City.: Frederick State: CO Environmental Contact Facility Inspection Contact O Consultant o Compliance Contact o Property Owner us Other zip: 80516 Page 3 of 8 - Revision 2/2021 COG500000 Permit Aot lication ww,coloradowatei :eirits,corn C. PERMITTED FACILITY INFORMATION Facility or Project Name Two Rivers Sand, Gravel and Reservoir Project Street Address (or cross streets) cite Milliken County Weld Type of Facility Ownership 14822 CFR 396 Colorado, Zip Code 80543 City Government LI Corporation m Private n Municipal or Water District o State Government rn Mixed Ownership Facility or Project Latitude/Longitude — List the latitude and longitude of the center point of the facility. Latitude: 40 , 348515 Longitude: -104 i 774918 (Provide coordinates in decimal degrees to 6 decimal places (e.., 39.703345' c104.9335671) Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Code(s) for this FACILITY (please use drop own menu to select up to 4 SIC codes, in order of importance) Note: see the SIC codes covered by Permit lire (general permit COG500000) on the division website for descriptions of SIC codes associated with this permit. 1. 1422 2. 3. 4. D. PROJECT DESCRIPTION - Provide an overview of the industrial activities that are conducted at the facility. (NEW FACILITY) Extraction of sand, gravel and related earth products stockpiled and processed as construction materials for infrastructure development, reclamation! E. SITE MAPS AND SCHEMATICS - provide as an attachment to the application = no larger than 11)17 inches t Location Map - Application must include a location map that shows the location of the project/facility, the boundaries of the area subject to the application, and all receiving water(s). A north arrow must be shown. 7. Legible Site Sketch - showing all surface features (buildings, ponds, diversion ditches, stockpiles, processing areas, batch plants, other pollutant sources, etc.); stream location(s); numbered outfalls; and directionlst of water flow at the facility indicated by arrow stormwater and rocess water . Label outfalts to correspond with the numbers Listed Table 6.1 of this application. Are the required maps/Sketches attached? es o - Application cannot be processed without required maps F. SITE -SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - Nearby Sources of Potential Groundwater Contamination/Facility pollutant sources Note: The division may require representative analytical data of the effluent (e.g., mine pit water or discharge) as part of the application review process. The division will notify the applicant if any additional information is required. Failure to provide this data may delay permit application processing until such data is submitted to the division. Note: see Appendix B of Application Guidance Document (Construction Dewatering - COGO70000) on the division website for resources useful in identifying ground water contamination near the facility. Page 4 of 8 - Revision 2/2021 cpcsuouuu Permit Application witmetcotoradowaterpffrnits.corn 1. Has the applicant reviewed the surrounding area for possible groundwater contamination, such as plumes from leaking underground storage tanks (LUSTs), hazardous waste sites, or additional sources? Applicants are expected to exercise due diligence in evaluating their sites prior to applying for a discharge permit. ❑ Yes u No a NA (no water leaves the pit, or stormwateraonly discharge) 2. Is an open LUST located within 0.5 mile of the site? n Yes . No 4/f yes, BTEX ano(ytical data for the mine pit water or discharge must be included with the permit application. The division may request arralyticat data for additional parameters, Failure to include this data may delay permit application processing until such data is submitted to the division. 3. Is a Superfund site or National Priorities List (NPL) site located within 1 mile of the site? ® Yes a No yes, analytical data for the mine pit water or dischorgefr for those parameters associated with the superjund or NPL facility, must be included with the permit applications Failure to include this data may delay permit application processing until such data is submitted to the division. 4. Is a UMTRA facility located within 1 mile of the site? u Yes a No "if yeso analytical data for the mine pit water or discharge, for those parameters associated with the L/MTRA facility, must be included with the permit application. Failure to include this data may delay permit application processing until such data is submitted to the division, 5. Is any other (non -LUST, non-Superfund, non-NPL site) known source of contamination, such as a Voluntary Cleanup (VCUP), E nvi ronmentai Covenant, open RCRA Corrective Action site, or brownfietds site located within 0.5 mite of the site? n Yes • No if yes, analytical data far the mine pit water or discharge, for those parameters associated with the known source of contamination, must be included with the permit application. Failure to include this data may delay permit application processing until such data is submit led to the divisions 6. Is the sand and gravel facility w.ri thi n the footprint of an historic landfill? o Yes a No If Yes for any of questions 1 - 6 above, show location of the source(s) of possible groundwater contamination on the maps required in Item of this application. In the box below, describe the location, extent of contamination, and possible effect on the discharges from this facility. 7, Is concrete truck washout conducted at the facility? If Yes, please provide the foLlu inL additional information with respect to this discharge: n `es M No • Location of concrete washout water discharge. Check At that apply. In to surface water u to a lined impoundment or excavation o to the ground in washout water not discharged - water is reused, or o to an unlined impoundment or excavation evaporates • What is the proximity of the discharge to a lake, pond, stream/river, intermittent or ephemeral creek, drainage, irrigation ditch, wetland, etc? nver is the discharge within the DRMS permit boundary? What is discharge volume and frequency? yc continuous and 6,40 Mao 8. Does the facility discharge stormwater runoff from a concrete batch plant? (SIC code 3273) 9. Does the facility discharge stormwater runoff from an asphalt batch plant? (SIC code 29 51) 10. Does the facility discharge stormwater runoff from recycled concrete? 11. Does the facility discharge stormwater runoff from recycled asphalt? Page 5 of 8 - Revision 2/2021 ❑ Yes II No ❑ Yes ❑ No n Yes ❑ No o Yes ❑ i o COG500000 Permit AD pU cation wvAiv. Icobra .dow.ateroermit i corn G. OUTFALLS LS t. For EACH process water or star-rm .ater-only olutfaLl, provide the information identified in the table. Instructions for filling out this table (superscripts 1 -12) are rovided in Attachment 2 of this application. Please copy this page and submit with the application if more than. 6outfal!k are required. Table G.1 Ourtfall and Activity information Discharge information Receiving water intonation Activity Description(s)2 pition(s) SIC Code3 Processinstantaneous water or stows water G� type I� g Continuous tinu.ous or flow measure Distance Immediate". 11 Number Latitude toMngrtude1 Flow from pit rate in Che mica Is��' �to MG a Da surface water Ultimate - :Specific method' . Clow V Water groundwateril e� soil/aggregate tracted may intercept stockpiled or access. � 1 442 process water pumped continuous 6.40 + South Plattev r 001 403432 061-104. 778490 pump x time 1 002 003 004 005 006 Page 6 of 8 si Revision 212021 COGS00000 Permit Application Anikw,cotoradowaterpertritts,com 2. Are any of the receiving waters identified in the Table 6.1 above a storm sewer system, ditch, or manmade conveyance? u Yes • No Note: if discharge is to a storm sewer system, ditch, or manmade conveyance, approval from the owner of the system must be obtained before discharge, 3e Did the applicant obtain approval from the owner of the storm. sewer system, ditch, or manmade conveyance? ayes u No a NA discharge is not to a storm sewer system, ditch, or manmade conveyance. H. CHEMICAL ADDITIONMEATMENT If chemical additives, settling agents, flocculants, or other materials are proposed for use in or to treat wastewater/stormwater prior to discharge, please submit a Chemical Approval Form with this applicationr 1. Is chemical addition/treatment proposed for this facility? oyes ■No . Did applicant submit a Chemical Approval Form with this application? o Yes ■ No - chemical addition/treatment not proposed OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITS Does this facility currently hotcl any environmental permits, or is it subject to regulation, under any of the following programs? Yes o Effective Date Permit No, Permit Name 1. Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety i I pending M2022-013 Underground Injection Control 3. Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 - US COE 4. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (R RA) 5, cDPs stormwater Colorado State Air Pollution Emission pending/ ubm itted Other J. ACTIVITY DURATION When did the activity commence? pending What is the estimated life of the activity generating the discharge(s) - 36+ — years; Page 7 of 8 a Revision 2/2021 COG500000 Permit Application vnv.cc[orado arerpermiis.corn K. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN (SWMP) CERTIFICATION - r equlu eta ONLY for applications requesting stormwater-only outfalls. The Storm ater Man ement Plan must be corgi Ieted rior to si n the folio in certifications! A Stormwater Management Plan (SWIM) shalt be prepared prior to applying for stormwater coverage under the general permit, and the following certification signed. "I certify under penalty of law that a complete Storrs ater Management Plan has been prepared for my activity. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system, or those persons directly responsible for gathering the information, the Stormwater Management Plan is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for falsely certifying the completion of said SWMP, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations." Signat re of Le6( l Kevin Jeakins Responsible Person or Authorized Agent Vice President Date Signed Name (printed) L. REQUIRED CERTIFICATION SIGNATURE [REG 61:4(1)(H)] Title "I certify under penalty of taw that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gather and evaluate the information submitted, Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system, or those persons directly responsible for gathering the information, the information submitted is to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations:., Signatu atu e o E Kevin Jeakins Name (printed) y Responsib e Person or Authorized Agent Vice President Date Signed Title This form must be signed by the permittee to be considered complete. Per Regulation 61, in all cases, it shall be signed as follows: a) In the case of corporations, by a responsible corporate officer. For the purposes of this section, the responsible corporate officer is responsible for the overall operation of the facility from which the discharge described in the application originates. b) In the case of a partnership, by a general partner. c) In the case of a sole proprietorship, by the proprietor_ d) In the case of a municip i, state, or other public facility, by either a principal executive officer or ranking elected official. Do NOT INCLUDE A COPY OF THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN with the application DO NOT INCLUDE PAYMENT - AN INVOICE WILL BE SENT AFTER THE CERTIFICATION IS ISSUED. Page 8 of B - Revision 2/2021 Attachment I Process water discharges not eligible for coverage under CDPS General Permit CO 500000 - w Process water discharges from the facilities listed below are excluded from coverage due to the potential toxicity and wide variety of pollutants, the minimal operations in Colorado, or Federal ELGs that require no discharge of process water from these facilities: facility no discharge types that of process require :: water : .40 CF Subpart 436 SIC Code E 1499 Gypsum air facilities emissions that control do scrubbers not employ wet Asphaltic mineral facilities F 1499 Asbestos and wollastonite facilities - - 1499 ,J 1479 Barite wet facilities that processes or flotation do not employ processes Flourspar facilities that do not employ heavy K 1479 media separation or flotation processes Saline from brine lake facilities L 2899 Borax facilities M 1474 Potash facilities N 1474 Sodium sulfate facilities 0 1474 Phosphate Rock _ R 1475 Frasch sulfur facilities S 1479 Bentonite facilities V 1459 Ma nesite facilities W 1459 Diatomite facilities ` x 1499 Jade fad li ties V 1499 Novaculite facilities Z 1499 Tripoli facilities A� 1499 Asphalt batch plants Concrete and dnin batch wash plants, including out associated truck JI�0 3273 - Appendix Page 1 of 3 - Revision 2/2021 Attachment Instructions for corn s letin • Table G.1 in Item G of this a ' licatlon see su ! erscri is 1 -12 . 1. Latitude and longitude: Provide the latitude and longitude of each outfall location (NOT the center of the facility) in NAD83 format. The discharge location is the point where effluent sampling will occur. This location must be at a point after treatment and before the effluent joins or is diluted by any other waste stream, body of water, or substance. If the discharge is to a ditch or storm sewer system, include the name of the ultimate receiving waters where the ditch or storm sewer discharges. Note: facilities that discharge stormwater via sheet flow must identify an outfall at a location along the line of flow that is representative of the facility's sheet flow discharge. This location is where the sheet flow exits the facility, or enters a surface water within the facility, and where samples can be collected, if required. 2. Activity Description(s): Briefly describe the activity (or activities) that contribute water to each outfall. Examples include:-stormwater runoff from stockpiled gravel; -construction sand pit dewatering; -stormwater runoff from an asphalt or concrete batch plant; - industrial sand wash water; -stormwater runoff from concrete recycling or asphalt recycling activities; - stormwater runoff from facility haul roads; -other (give a description), If moret an aniactivi contributes water to anop alit (tst_all a ti In :the space pr ►vided 3. SIC code: Identify the SIC code(s) associated with each activity identified above (the SIC codes covered by permit link (general permit COG500000) on the division website for descriptions of SIC codes associated with this permit). If more than one activity contributes water to an outfall, list all SIC codes for the activities in the space provided. At Process water or stormwater: Indicate if the discharge water is process water or stormwater. The discharge is considered to be process water if it is described in the bullets below. Note that the stormwater provisions in the general permit DO NOT apply to process water. Therefore, it is very important that the division understand the contribution(s) to each discharge from the facility to accurately develop the permit certification for the facility. If the permittee identifies that the discharge for all outfalls is solely stormwater and does not comingle with process water, the division will issue a stormwater-only certification. Process water includes: ,Mine dewatering, which includes • any water, including groundwater, seepage, and stormwater (precipitation and surface runoff), that is impounded or that collects in the mine pit (surface or underground workings) and is pumped, drained, or otherwise removed from the mine through the efforts of the mine operator; • additionally, for construction sand and gravel facilities and industrial sand facilities only, wet pit overflow caused solely by direct rainfall and/or groundwater seepage. -Process generated wastewater, which includes any wastewater used in slurry transport of mined materials, air emissions control, and processing exclusive to mining; -Any water used in processing the mined commodity such as washing, sorting, screening, crushing, and classifying; -Stormwater runoff that becomes comingled with the above listed wastewaters before the discharge point. Appendix Page 2 of 3 - Revision 2/2021 Examples of comingled discharges considered to be process water under the renewal permit: Stormwater runoff from mine haul roads that is directed to and discharges from the mine pit. The resulting discharge is considered process water; Stormwater runoff from construction activities at the mine facility that is directed to and discharges from the mine pit. The resulting discharge is considered process water, and the activity does not require separate construction stormwater permit coverage even if the disturbed area exceeds the one acre threshold; Stormwater runoff from asphalt or concrete batch plants that is directed to and discharges from the mine pit. The resulting discharge is considered process water. Stormwater runoff from mine areas that commingles with product wash water prior to discharge. 5. Discharge type: Indicate the discharge type (for example pumped or passive pit dewatering; other process water discharge (such as product wash water); detained stormwater (such as detention or sediment ponds); stormwater sheet flow; etc. 6. 7. Et s. Flow: For all process water outfalls, indicate: • whether the discharge is measured continuously or instantaneously, • the specific flow rate method the permittee uses (v -notch weir, pump capacity, parshail flume, etc.), and • the average flow rate in million gallons per day (D). Note: the division will apply the flow rate provided in this application supplement as a 30 -average flow limit in the facility certification. 9. Chemicals: identify all chemicals used in industrial activities at the facility that have the potential to be present in the discharge. Chemicals in this context include, but are not limited to, chemical used at any point in the treatment process, release agents, etc, If the facility does not use chemicals, please indicate `NA' in the table. 10. Pit distance to receiving water As applicable to the facility, provide the distance from the pit to the immediate receiving water. if the facility does not have a pit, please indicate `NA' in the table. 11, Et 12. Receiving water: Receiving waters include lakes, ponds, rivers and streams (perennial, intermittent or ephemeral), drainages, irrigation ditches, wetlands, etc. Identify the immediate and ultimate receiving water of the discharges from all outfalls for the facility (immediate receiving waters are those that the facility discharges directly to; the ultimate receiving waters are those directly downgradient of the immediate waters). Ase,Ant.k.ritIVAhi.tte vi tW4v. Appendix Page 3 of 3 - Revision 2/2021 .4.. _w.._ 4.1 r ..f-rr'r ' aoVi Y �! 411a 11' 1a• 4141"an -.40 ad%4.•+. "' ..... .. _c> �.--6 _ .ter-' l N. • --, • I 4 •' rT a. aya ire?linitreactisstoTrL. -y • F._ e 1 f 1r L i 4,4 sts J.. -4 Two ivers a rs Sand, •444. r^Yr —� • ,LL _.• . .-- .' —F J, Itl L ey `yam 1� .'gir it 1 1�� ✓ ...try •••J Y . 7 rr{...••:•..tip it Ji, 40 q.jre 1 • r j 1• r ,.. - . y r -11 — • r _/ vM a+'' r' • { its .," _t ".; •,. • ir e s r der •T. �_ •• 11 ki .•...•" sr - _ �}' 1 q X • aat mare earl alp%r I reset .r Air al 4. 1.0M......1.ti n,,.4 6.. _ /L�'• .w� tP-may.. 1• r. t r_ • I; :t1." -7-r,.... _ yal-• M t. 1 1 1 ir 40. awe' and R serv&i r Project Exhibit L: Financial Wiarrenty Mop y9 r J p r Y' sae os lor it rair Yraj son 'M -M1 -"•"•OBI ti • i. 4e� is l ^ i y • 1 nrit--7," .3/4'71Fiett"J`t +-54 alla-asam ft 7 aala • 234.O6±Acres eosins Total + 5.60±Acre Wash Pond • • 1 ;a 20611 Civic by ti rola Ili 1.4 Warr Fibrucir7 Ice L a a e. MSS _ 6 SIN S4T R STREET "" TWO RIVER RANCH F 1 R0P0SED SITE PLAIN I L = ACRES ACRE tr409.234 Ac 4-11`j VaitACOON MIT HMSO - JAL IMAM* OP 31M'V WV SLOPE CENTRAL rIEth MORN -EAST SE 80.76± ACRES CENTRAL FIELD CENTER SECTION K.wielp' . t . ;a.. • . • ♦••q .,. •�tttf.tr.•rtt•ft rt Yr Y�l�'t �tY�tPtt��r01101k, a't t1 Jt� r r r I I I l I I I 1 .. .•.. •. . .. r... ... ,...., I. wai • nJ .. n r. • . ., In� -.v . r n u r�nu- . r. .. r.. nx ��.�. r J .. r. V, . r r w.9.'.tn I bf.�..... �w >N „.r�+rn�...M5 Nr. A ."'. w. • 74 ..�., IV .il Y . \ . . rA U .I r f . • 1 Ilrrr. r" ' y' .. ",.• r � . r I �Ir .. ,� r• - : - , . rr„ ,..�, .... :.*. l l � n �xrrwl.d �w"" w "4. V {+�1•w m.1t'f 9o.. W . Jw . 31 �'.sN. hX'.11::r 1 Via 'Sergi .V..L.f.'r7�7f..•r.... I.Iv%IYNf..r.L 7fwl L.•Y.:}-Y.LsG...1M.WI �.. .r �..+hr w..t.+ .+r..'.'.'X J.,hw5 nyYlJ..,.l_'l.. .. w_L.5. 74..L1 ..w..'r(i�.L ]11hgC.fr]..1 M. _hA4. ST'^jw.•.•L 6CL:•.YL.4kiq r:1G.Y...�JIJCCII •4.1•pY.. ,7_wQ7f(t!'.5d•',W.SY,V.J..ctlu...A,':J...r,.:.:.�..::J+u.'rir.5li •A'w'.vci"nurtU•1':s.n...'.tl't^>K-qC tx:`.S'i:"'••IH.p)l::'.•�.;'.94r'i�1f�.�7:IYH71LL:LCRYfi")?'::h'C.l�5T.1 .;,:;:: J'T7.11'1C. rAf:SUIJION�`/:.1t�'1�5'�741T17^.JI:MW'uiJO/11H•AI M1Wf•iiWIf 4•Y••S1Y!'Ilht7�5�.•N X.F.+WYEr+r.vthN+IIMw'.•'f.Y."�/M.r •Mv nlwv 8120 Gage Street Frederick, Co 80516 Bus; (303) 666-6657 - Fax: (303) 666-6743 Certified Mail: 7018 3090 00015313 8874 June 7, 2022 Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Water Quality Control Division 4300 Cherry Creek Drive South Denver, CO 80246 Re: Withdrawal of permit Attached you will find a withdrawal of permit for Varra Companies, inc. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience; Sincerely, Tana Kersting 303-447-2084/720-474-1563 tkersting@rraptorrnatoriaislIc.com COLO D Department of Public Health & Environment Dedicated to protecting and improving the health and environment of the people of Colorado Water Quality Control Division Notice of withdrawal of Permit Applicator www.coi orado►waterperrrri ts.cor Please print or type all information, All items must be filled out completely and correctly. If the form is not complete, it will be returned. All withdraw of permit application dates are effective on the date approved by the Water Quality Control Division. FAXED or E AILED FORMS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED. MAIL ORIGINAL FORM WITH INK I N TURES TO THE FOLLOWING ADDRESS: Colorado Dept of Public Health and Environment Water Quality Control Division 4300 Cherry Creek Drive South WQCD,,P-B2 Denver, CO 80246-1530 r• PART A. IDENTIFICATION OF PERMIT APPLICATION TO BE WITHDRAWN II NEW We TERMINATION Permit or Certification number n AMENDMENT REQUESTED FOR EXISTING PERMIT or CERTIFICATION Permit or Certification number PART B. PERMITEE INFORMATION Company Name Mailing Address City Legal Contact Name Title Varra Companies, Inc 8120 Gage Street Frederick Garrett Varra general manager PART C. FACILITY/PROJECT INFORMATION Facility/Project Name Location (address)' City Local Contact Name Title State CO Phone Number Zipcode 8051 irnaii gvarra@raptormaterialslIc.com Two Rivers Sand, Gravel and Reservoir Project 14822 CR 396 Milliken Mike Ramsey County Weld operation manager Phone Number Email mramsey@raptormaterialsllc.com Colorado Water Quality Control Division Notice of Withdrawal of Permit Application w w.coIoradow terpermits,corrr a PART D PURPOSE OF WITHDRAWAL REQUEST DISCHARGE WILL NOT BE CREATED AT THIS FACILITY/SITE — CHANGE OF PLANS RUMINATE NEED FOR DISCHARGE OTHER DISPOSAL OPTION TAKEN (DESCRIBE- le LOW RISK POLICY...) DUPLICATE APPLICATION SUBMITTED -- PERMIT PREVIOUSLY ISSUED (LIST PERMIT NUMBER) v OTHER Varra Companies, Inc. was bought by Raptor Materials LLC. A new stormwater application will be submitted under Raptor Materials LLC. o PART E. CERTIFICATION I NATURE REQUIRED FOR ALL WITHDRAWAL OF APPLICATION REQUESTS "I certify under penalty of law that I have personally examined and am familiar with the information submitted in this withdrawal request and that, based on my inquiry of those individuals immediately responsible for obtaining the information, I believe that the information is true, accurate and completes I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting fake information, including the possibility of fine or imprisonment. rs ejii4 Signature of Legally Responsible Party Garrett Varra ef,t,ette Date Signed ()fats- ' avv—rm Name (printed) Title *This withdrawal of permit application request shall be signed, dated, and certified for accuracy by the perrnittee. In all cases, it shall be signed as follows: it In the case of a corpo ration, by a principal executive officer of at least the level of vice-president, or his or her duly authorized representative, if such representative is responsible for the overall operation of the operation from which the discharge described herein originates; 2. In the case of a partnership, by a general partner; 3. In the case of a sole proprietorship, by the proprietor; 4 In the case of a municipal, state, or other public operation, by either a principal executive officer, ranking elected official, or other duly authorized employee. Form updated November 2009 8120 Gage Street - Fredericka Co 80516 Bus: (303) 66&6657 - Fax: (303) 656-6743 Certified Mail_: 7018 3090 0001 5313 8782 Date: 04/04/2022 Colorado Department of Public. Health and Environment Air Pollution Control Division PCD- S -B1 4300 Cherry Creek Drive South Denver, CO 80246 F L 7' 7 N: Gregory Marcinkowski c i 7 ! f' t o ■! s k i Re: 'PIE -222 Attached you ind APEN for Varra Comparks, Inc, If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, Ta rya Kersting 303-447-2084/720-474-1563 Tkersting@varracompaniescom Milling Operations APEN - Form APCD-222 Air Pollutant Emission Notice (APEN) and Application for Construction Permit All sections of this APEN and application must be completed for both new and existing facilities, including APEN updates, Incomplete APENs will be rejected and will require re -submittal. Your APEN will be rejected if it is filled out incorrectly, is missing information., or lacks payment for the filing fee. The ,res submi t tal will require payment for u new filing fee. This APEN! is to be used for mining operations (i.e. quarries, pits, or mines). This APEN may also be used to report haul road activities at non -mining facilities. Additional APENs may be required for process equipment located at the mine. A specialty APEN may be. available for the process equipment (e.g.: asphalt plant, crusher/screen, concrete batch plant, engines, etc.). In addition, the General APEN (Form APCD-200) is available if the specialty APEN options will not satisfy your reporting needs, A list of all available APEN forms can be found on the Air Pollution Control Division (APCD) website This emission notice is valid for five (5) years. Submission of a revised APEN is required 30 days prior to expiration of the five-year term, or when a reportable change is made (significant emissions increase, increase production, new equipment, change in fuel type, etc.). See Regulation No, 3, Part A, ILL. for revised APEN requirements. Permit Number: AIRS ID Number: / {Leave bl?mk unless APCD has :Already p,ssi }reed a permit d:id Alf a 1i 1 Section 1 ! Administrative Information Company Name& Varra Companies, n Mine/Pit Name: Two RiversSand', Gravel and Reservoir Projedi-i 24 Mine/Pit Location Mailing Address 8120 Gage Street (Maude Zip Cade) Frederick, CO 80516 Mine/Pit Location County: Weld MAWS or SIC Code: 212321 Contact Person: Garrett Varra Phone Number: 303-666-6657 E -r a►il Address:! Tkersting@companies.clom Use the full, 'egg company name registered with the Colorado Secretary of State. This is the company name that will appear on all documents issued by the APCD. Any changes will require additional paperwork, 2 Permits, exemption letters, and any processing invoices will be issued by the APCD via e-mail to the address provided. u Ir ire APCIJt222 Mi;nin ' Operations APEN - Revision 07/2021 nee COLORADO b•caq"Wig; Or Haft 6 Di r4 en.ncn't Permit Number: AIRS ID Number: [Leave blank unless APCD has already assigned a permit # and AIRS ID] Section 2 Requested Action II NEW permit OR newly -reported emission source eGR- MODIFICATION to existing permit (check each box below that apples) I Change fuel or equipment U Change company name3re' Add point to i ti permit Change permit limit U Transfer of o nershipl N Other (describe below) - OR APEN submittal for update only (Note blank APENs will not be accepted) ADPITiONAL PERMIT ACTIONS - APEN submittal for permit exemptlgra dfathered source Additional Info Et Notes: For company name change, a completed Company Mame Change Certification Form (Earn( APCD-106) must be submitted. 1. For transfer of ownership, a completed Transferiof Ownership Certification Form (Form APCD-104) must be submitted. Section 3 - General Information) General description of the activity (additionally, provide a toperyr aplhk site mum): Material extraction,, handling, stockpiling, hauling, associaated conveyors and transfer points. For existing 5OurcO5, operation began an: nia For new or reconstructed sours est the projected start-up date is; Normal Hours of Source Operation: 12 Seasonal use percentage: Dec -Feb: 15% bcurs/day day'slweel< 52 weeks/year .Marway: 25% Jun -Aug: 30% Sep -Nov: 30% Commodity Produced: (check each box below that applies - os icificated ithe appliatbte Dr4sjon cf Minerals and Geology Permit) Aggregate I Sand and Gravel Stone Cu& & Minerals or ,Meta1ls Lyp ) H Other (describe): Form APED Opei ktiuns ApEN - Revision 07/2021 L` LIdigiii, ICOLORA DO }jrAlAh 6 irnYrwnrtDtht Permit Number: AIRS ID Number: (Leave blank unless APCD has already assigned a permA 11 and AIRS 1pj Section 4 Processing/Manufacturing Information Et Material Use • Check this box if 4PEI1 is for Haul Roads only (not located at a mining site) and complete the appUcable sections, Section 4H - Raw Material Transport and/or S+ection. 41 - Finished Product Trans 3ort on pages 6 and 7, Otherwise complete alt of Section 4. From what item is me tl;Lisa Motnt amount N/A new project Actual Annual Production (tons) Requested! Annual Production' fton 500000 ,S Requested values will become permit limitations or will be evaluated for exempt status, as applicable, and should consider future process growth. Requestedvalues are required on all APE% including APEN updates. Section 4'A - Topsoil Rem oval Topsoil removed daily (toms) 10,000 Topsoil removed annual (tons) 75,000 Proposed controls for topsoil removal Moist Material O Water Spray • Other (specify): Stockpile(s) Maximum stored on site (toes) 100000 Proposed controls for topsoil stockpile Watering Chemical Stabilizer Compacting of Piles Enclosures (choose one option from below) I❑ Complete ❑ Partial Revegetation, (must occur within one year of site disturbance) Other ifspec,r) Section 4B - Overburden Removal Equipment used for removal excavator Tans removed by dragline (daUUy) 10,000 Tons removed by dragline 'annua° 75,000 Dragtine drop height (feet) Hours scraper operated (daily) Hours scraper operated irairinuati 10 1000 Proposed controls for overburden removal 151 Moist material. Water Spray Other (specify): ■I ■ ■ Stockpile(s) Maximum stored on Site (tons) 100,000 Proposed controls for overburden stockpile Watering ❑ Ciiemikal stabilizer Compacting of piles O Enclosure (choose one option from bellow) O M Complete Partial Revegetation (riiust war within one year of sate disturrbonce) ❑ Other (specify): form APCD-222 - rriinin Operrrnl_inns APEN - Revision 07/2021 3 COLORADO POW litNithiirki44 !!IR nh & Fnr irn'wr PermitNumber: AIRS ID Number: [Leavy blank APCD Teas already assigned a permit # and AIRS ID] Driliirrg Number of holes drilled Naito n/a Number of holes drilled (annual) n/ai Proposed controls for drilling O Water injection Bag collectors Other (specify): Section 4C Drilling and Bia�stin* Removal Material removed daily (tons) Material removed annual (tors) 7500 Blast area (acres) Number of blasts 'doILy Number of blasts annuo Type of blasting Material( Blasting n/a nth n1a nJa Blasting material used (dully) nia Blasting material used eopiwou n/a. Section 4D - Raw Material 1,500,000 Maximum drop height (feet) n/ l Specific moisture content tita) n/a Proposed controls for raw material removal 0 Moist material Water spray O Other (specify) Stockpile(s) Maximum stored on site (torn) 15,000 Proposed control for raw material stockpile ■ Watering I� Chemical stabilizer 0 a ■ Compacting of piles Enclosures (choose one option from below) ' Complete Partial Other fspeci ): Section 4E, - Convevcrs and Transfer Points (not assigned to process eQ► rprnenr) Include a map &nailing Ow ronyeyrr v.ystern layout within the :iLLL . Conveyin Material conveyed daily(tons) Material conveyed annual. Om) Proposed controls for conveyors El Enclosures "choose One option from bdlovioi Complete N Partial Other (specify): moist material 7500 1,500:000 Form APCtJt22_Z - Mining Operations APES Revision 07/2011 Number of transfer points Transfer Points 3 Proposed controls for transfer points ❑ Watering Chemical stabilizer Enclosures (ciloo5 a acre option from be low) 0 i Complete ❑ Partial Other (specify : moist material 4n. .-_ !. • COLORADO Qjp`:111rJrtc.( Ilvtrl,r Ida�YhIr�tnwi!ccur�re Permit Number: AIRS ID Number: [Leave blank unless APCD has atready assigned a permit 1 and AIRS Jul Section 4'F ProcessingE ui merit WM processing (E. q. crushing, screenrnny, etct) occur on site? (yes/no) no If you answered "No" above !i.e. no processing/manufacturing equipment will be located on site) check the box below and skip to page 6, Section 4G - Finished Product. Checkthis box if no process equipment is located on site. List any additional emission sources and related controls (e,g4 concrete hatch plants, crushers/screens; engines, conveyers and transfer points associated with process equipment; asphalt plants} etc.). Additional APENs for any such equipment may be required. The following specialty APENs are available: Form APCD-224 Concrete Batch Plant APEN, Form APCD-221 Crusher/Screen APEN, Form APCDa233 Compression Ignition Engine APEN. If a specialty APEN is not appropriate for the additional equipment, use Form APCD-200 General APEN. Additionally, complete the section below regarding crushing and screening performed on site. Emission Source equipment type) Permit (if vaitabte) Number (or Control Equipment Description r Primary Crushing Maximum crushed per year ono Design process rate (tons/hair) Duration of daily crushing (hours) Secondary Crushing Maximum crushed per year (tons) Design process rate itonshe our) Proposed control for crushing Moist 'material ri Water spray ® Enclosures (choose one option from below) Complete (( Partial O Other (specify): Screening/Classifying Maximum screened per year (tons) Design process rate (tons/hour) Duration of daily screening (hours) Secondary screeningtlassifying Maximum screened per year (rorns) Design process rate (tons/timid Proposed control for screening Moist material Water spray D Enclosures (choose one option from below) Complete p Partial. 1I other (spec( ) Mote: Compiation of this section does. not relieve the applicant from the quire rent to submit APEN farmc inr process, equipment subject to APEN or permitting requirements. Form ARM -222 - Mining Operations APR.' - Revision 07/2021 5p nith iLv Ina( ron•r ors t Permit Number: AIRS ID Number: [Leave blank unless APCU has atready assigned a permit // and AIRS i ] Stockpile(s) Section d4iG Finished Product. Maximum stored on site (tans) 100,000 all finished products Proposed 'control for finished product stockpile Watering Chelrnicat stabiliher Compacting of piles • S "JI Enclosures (choose ow option from below) Complete I Partial. Reaegetatfon (mast occur within one year of site disturbance) Other .specify): (Moist material/ water as necssary Section 4H - Raw Material Transport (raw material removal to stockpiles) Annual on -site transfer: .1,50(1,000 tons Haul Vehicle I Haul 'Vehicle 2 Haul vehicle capacity: Haul vehicle empty weight: Max number a t trips per day: Haul road length (avg.-, one way): Posted speed limit on haul. road: 40 35 188 1699.32 15 List alt air pollution controls used for the haul roads: Paved Surface Street sweeping: ■ No Unpaved Surface Watering: None Surface Is graveled: U No Chemical. sta.bitizer appfled ■ No ii mph Yes As needed Yes p Yes Type: Haul. Vehicle 3 Q Freq uen t6': tons tons feet times/day i(e-g, moss chlcrkje, resin, etc.) 6 If "Frequent" is selected, your permit may include a requirement to water haul roads daily as often as listed in this APEN. cwm APCID-222 - Minine Operations APFWN - Revision 07/2021 COLORADO Doc_irrn:niarl ht,ir Avila b En i4A9��lna# ; Permit Number: AIRS ID Number: [Leave blank untess APC1J has ilireadY 056i ued a permit ft and AIR'S;Il j Section 4 Finished Product Transl Annual off -site transfer: 1,500000 tons Haul vehicle capacity; Haul vehicle empty weight Max number of trips per day: Haul road (length (avg. one way): Posted speed brit on haul .road„ Haul Vehicle I 25 18 187 967 15 List all air pollution controls used for the haul roads: Paved Surface Street sweeping: Unpaved Surface Watering: Surface is graveled: Chemical stabilizer applied: O Ho 5 None O No Haul Vehicle 2 mph O Yes ■ As needed Yes Yes Type: Haul Vehicle 3 Frequent': tons tons feet times/day (e.g. mug chloride, resin, etc.) 6 if "Frequent" is selected, your permit may include a requirement to water haul roads daffy as often as listed in this APEN. Section .5 - Geographical/Site information Total site area *Fps): Geographical Coordinates (Latitude/Longitude or ()TM) 40.348580,-1 04.775237 Attach a topographic site map indicating location. 409.23 Total disturbed site area (acres): 255.42 Proposed site controls Watering (choose one option from below) a Frequent (2 or more rffiws per Sy) As needed O Chemical stabilizer N Revegetatiari (must ccce r wAtfhrr7 one year of site disturbance) Seeding with mulch 0 Seeding without mulch 0 Other (specify): r in APCD-222.-- Mining Operations APEll - Revision 07/2011 COLORADO ' I lie S� t Permit Number: AIRS ID Number: / [Leave bLlaihk unless APCD has already assigned a permit # and MRS IDI Section 6 - Applicant Certification I hereby certify that all information contained herein and information submitted with this application is complete, true, and correct. • r _ Date Signature of Legally Authorized Person (not a vendor or consultant) Garrett Varra President Name (print) Title Check the appropriate box to request a copy of the: Draft permit prior to issuance Daft permit prior to public notice I (Checking any of these boxes may result, in an increased fee and/or processing time) This emission notice is valid for five (5) years. Submission of a revised APEN is required 30 days prior to expiration of the five-year term, or when a reportable change is made (significant emissions increase, increase production, new equipment~ change in fuel type, etc.). See Regulation No. 3,, Part A, II.C. for revised APEN requirements. Send this form along with $242.00 to: For more information or assistance call.: Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Air Pollution Control Division APCD-SS-B1 4300 Cherry Creek Drive South Denver, CO 80246-1530 Small Business Assistance Program (303) 692-3 75 OR (303) 692-3148 APCD Main Phone Number Make check payable to: (30 3) 692-3100 Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Form APCD-222 -Mining Operations APEN - Revision. 07/2021 COLORADO b.paeierrnee el i"sb( Ir VI: al 1:11 6 ta.auttm.unt r nr r SI• 11,1•1111 or Li !ea MVP ■a w me • egos ••a rr...r rrs •rsss•l an •C. Ism to rail rn •.G - - gay,' g JLO Ls- ram. gm. r oIngo•....•rine • r..u0uar•a..a••••urrsns•sa Manniniii.var.a•r•ar-v-f..•er..t-11•111.11-7-1-1.- r cva , MI , aB� Two Rivers Sond, Grovel. lurid Reservoir Project "'1 234.06±Acres Basins TotQI + 5_6U±Acre Wash Pond 1.11 J J�ars,tia a � + •Exhibit .. L: Financial Warranty hoop i .` _I Page 1 6.4.1 EXHIBIT A — Legal Description (1) The legal description must identify the affected land, specify affected areas and be adequate to field locate the property. Description shall be by (a), township, range, and section , to at least the nearest quarter -quarter section and (b), location of the main entrance to the site reported as latitude and longitude, or the Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) Grid as determined from a USGS topographic map. A metes and bounds survey description is acceptable in lieu of township, range, and section. Where available, the street address or lot number(s) shall be given. This information may be available from the County Assessor's Office or U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) maps. (2) The main entrance to the mine site shall be located based on a USGS topographic map showing latitude and longitude or Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM). The operator will need to specify coordinates of latitude and longitude in degrees, minutes and seconds or in decimal degrees to an accuracy of at least five (5) decimal places (e.g., latitude 37.12345 N, longitude 104.45678 W). For UTM, the operator will need to specify North American Datum (NAD) 1927, NADI 983, or WGS 84, and the applicable zone, measured in meters. All lands located within the permit boundary which may be affected include those parcels located in parts of • SW/4, Section 34; and S/2SE/4, Section 33; all in Township 5 North; Range 66 West; and, • I/2NE/4, and the E/2NE/4; Section 4; and the W/2NW/4 and NE/4NW/4; Section 3; all in Township 4 North; Range 66 West; all in the 6th P.M.; Weld County, Colorado, and comprising 409.234± acres, more or less as determined by American West Land Surveyors, Brighton, CO. The mine entrance is identified on Exhibit C-2: Extraction Plan Map, and located as identified under NAD 83 Colorado State Plane North Zone: Lat/Long for ALL Fields: Central Field SW Entrance: Central Field N Entrance: Central Primary Entrance: NW Field S Entrance: NW Field E Entrance: NE Field SW Entrance: Latitude (N) 40.34186 + Longitude (IV,) -104.78375 Latitude (N) 40.34912 + Longitude (W) -104.77490 Latitude (N,) 40.34815 + Longitude (TV,) -104.77661 Latitude (N,) 40.34596 + Longitude (WI -104.78363 Latitude (N,) 40.34954 + Longitude (W) -104.77504 Internal from Central Field Town of Milliken is adjacent to a portion of the West Boundary Town of Evans is overlain across portions of the combined Parcels VARRA COMPANIES, INC.TWO RIVERS SAND► GRAVEL AND RESERVOIR PROJECT MARCH 2022 A REGULAR IMPACT [112] CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION - COLORADO DIVISION OF RECLAMATION MIING NG & SAFETY OFFICE OF MINED LAND RECLAMATION TWO RIVERS Following is Flow Technologies' response to: MEMORANDUM To: Rob Zuber From: Tim Cazier, P.E. Date: August 4, 2022 Re: Two Rivers Gravel Pit Mine — Permit No. M-2022-013; Flood Control Mitigation Plan — Preliminary Adequacy Review August 27, 2022 DRMS Comment No 1 1. Hydrograph Development: Paragraph 3.2.3 indicates the 10 -year flow was subtracted from the inflow hydrograph because "it is estimated the earthen berm will control a 10-yr flood event". This does not seem to be a straight forward assumption. If the entire site is to be flooded, it seems the water elevation of the flood above the berm elevation would be the controlling flow parameter, much as a hydrograph routed through a reservoir controls the depth of overflow in a dam overtopping failure analysis. Please provide some background on why this assumption is reasonable. Flow Technologies Response: The fz.tll 100-yr design flood will not enter the site due to the mentioned earthen berm. That is, flows with water surface elevations up to the berm crest along both the Big Thompson and South Plate Rivers will by-pass the site and continue downstream, and the remainder will flow over the berm and enter the site. Determining the exact amount of low controlled by the berm would require rigorous and detailed 2 -dimensional surface water hydraulic modeling which is beyond the scope of this study. Due to such, simplifying assumptions and engineering judgement were done. As stated in the Disclaimer, "results provide estimates and relative comparisons of potential for head cutting/erosion on gravel pit riverside berms." Thus a detailed analysis of flows over the earthen berm was not performed because it will not affect the bottom line and purpose of the study. DRMS Comment No 2 Hydrograph proportionment: Paragraph 3.2.3 references FEMA, Flood Insurance Study, January 20, 2016 as validation for having two-thirds flow through the south side of the Site (Central Field) and the remaining one third flow through the north side of the site. Please: a. Elaborate on the purpose of splitting the flows, b. Explain if this is used directly in the WinDAM C berm failure analyses or in the hydrograph development for determining water elevation, or somewhere else, c. Explain how it impacts the approach and results (e.g., how sensitive is the analyses to this 2/3 (3:1 is mentioned in report) ratio) Flow Technologies Response to a: The site is located in two "overlapping" floodplains from the South Platte and Big Thompson Rivers. Flows through the site from the two floodplains would not be laminar and separated, and would not combine to result in a single peak flow moving through the site in a downstream direction. Rather, flow through the site would be 2 -dimensional with variations through the site. Determining such would require a 2 -dimensional flow modeling analysis which is beyond the scope of this study. Also, it would not be reasonable to have the total combined peak discharge from both rivers as the WINDAM design discharge for determining berm erosion at various locations throughout the site. Thus in lieu of a 2 -dimensional flow modeling analysis, engineering judgment, and per the Appendix, "Design Hydrographs (WinDam C Input Hydrogr°apps), " proportioning was estimated based on relative peak discharge for each river. As stated in the Disclaimer, "Analyses in this study - as with any computer modeling of natural processes - is not an exact science and claims can not be made as to its accuracy. However, results provide estimates and relative comparisons of potential for head cutting/erosion on gravel pit riverside berms." Flow Technologies Response to b: As mentioned above in "a, " these discharges are used in the WinDAM C berm failure analysis for the respective South Platte River, and Big Thompson sides. Flow Technologies Response to c: A sensitivity analysis was not performed, is not possible, and not necessary. There is no methodology nor data for this process with which to compare results. Per the Disclaimer, "This study is based on innovative methodology that applies a dam -breach head cutting/erosion computer model (WinDAM C) to gravel pit riverside berms. Such methodology may be unprecedented. The study methodology is based on scientific procedures and associated research, but there are no known historic events nor studies with which to compare methods and results." DRMS Comment No 3 Hard Armoring: Both paragraphs 3.2 and 4.2 reference Section V, Hard Armoring. Section V is labeled Mitigating Measures and does not discuss any hard armoring. Please provide some discussion on the anticipated hard armoring for reclamation/closure. Flow Technologies Response: A separate hard armoring document is to be prepared by Raptor Materials, LLC. DRMS Comment No 4 4. Variable Water Surface Elevation: As expected for a river flood and depicted in Figure 8, the water surface elevation varies from the upstream to downstream segments of both rivers. The DRMS' understanding of WinDAM C is that it assumes a uniform flow elevation over the embankment being analyzed. How is the fact that the water elevation is not uniform in this scenario accounted for in the modeling? Flow Technologies Response: Water suiface profiles depicted in Figure 8 are those of the South Platte River along Central Field and do not pertain to WinDAM C analyses. Per Section VI of the report, "as an extra measure of confidence that the likelihood for head cutting into Central Pit would be small, the 100-yr water suiface profile was evaluated via HEC-RAS." Thus, the HEC-RAS analysis was done to demonstrate that the berm would not overtop during a 100-yr flood event, and so a breach would not occur. Also Section VI of the report states, "in addition to WinDAM C head cutting/erosion analysis, the riverside berm length overtopping analysis indicates that much of the riverside berm would not overtop, and a breach develop, thereby minimizing the susceptibility to Central Pit capturing the river. DRMS Comment No 5 Fill Time Estimates — Central Pit: The fourth column in table on p. 30 suggests a nearly uniform incremental delta for every 10 feet of pit depth. This suggests the pit being analyzed for a depth/storage relationship has nearly vertical side walls. Are the pit walls in the berm failure scenarios being analyzed vertical and is this condition reflected in the WinDAM C analyses? Flow Technologies Response: The depth/storage relationship is based on estimated pit extraction. The slope of the pit side walls are not a factor in WinDAM C analyses; rather, elevation -volume data are used in the model input. DRMS Comment No 6: Central Pit Groin Training Channels Calculations: On p. 41 is a Mannings normal depth flow calculator for a 25 -foot bottom width with 1H:1 V side slopes. It is unclear as to the purpose of this image. Based on the Mannings n = 0.025, it would appear this is likely an earth -lined channel. As such, a 1H:1 V slope is not likely to be stable for long. Please indicate the purpose of this image and justify the channel geometry depicted in it. Flow Technologies Response: The image (table) mentioned is a visual to present the parameters for calculation of training channel dimensions and flow capacity. Note that the heading on the table states, "For future reference if needed." Thus training channels may — or may not - be used depending on progress of extraction. Should the training channels be needed, they will be excavated into existing soil conditions. It is important to note that stability of the training channels is not critical because 'I) there is a small probability that they will ever be needed, and (2) should training channel erosion occur, it may increase the cross-sectional area resulting in a higher flow capacity. That will be beneficial for decreasing head cutting at susceptible berm areas due to less flow (that is, less flow would be available to erode a riverside berm). Because gravel mining is somewhat "design/build, " and if it is deemed that channel stability is an issue, then a channel lining (such as turf reinforcement mats or r•iprap) can be placed in the earthen training channels. DRMS Comment No 7: HEC-RAS Output: Several of the HEC-RAS cross section output results indicate additional cross -sections may be warranted: a. The conveyance ratio (upstream conveyance divided by downstream conveyance) is less than 0.7 or greater than 1.4. This may indicate the need for additional cross sections. b. Warning: The energy loss was greater than 1.0 ft (0.3 m). between the current and previous cross section. This may indicate the need for additional cross sections. Please provide rationale for not including additional cross sections Flow Technologies Response to a: The HEC-RAS analysis - as stated on page 21 of the report — was per formed "As an extra measure of confidence that the likelihood for head cutting into Central Pit will be minimal." It is not a factor in estimating berm erosion, and thestudy and report will stand without it. HEM'-RAS output often displays the verbiage that "additional cross -sections may be needed" which is not of practical relevance in many cases. Based on engineering judgement, the necessity for such is not necessary because of the relatively short channel reach and low channel gradient. If additional cross -sections were added, results would indicate a negligible change in water surface face profile, and have no effect on the purpose and final results of the study. Flow Technologies Response to b: HEC-RAS output often displays the verbiage, "Warning: The energy loss was greater than 1.0 ft (0.3 m) between the current and previous cross section. This may indicate the need for additional cross sections. " The same discussion applies as for "Comment a" above. AIM ERICAN WATER ENGINEERING SERVICES, LLC DEWATERING EVALUATION RAPTOR TWO RIVERS MINE 14822 396 HWY EVANS, COLORA O AWES PROJECT # 2022-RM-P124 August 31, 2022 Prepared for: Raptor Materials, LLC. 8120 Gage Street Frederick, CO 80516 Googkee!h J!h8gev? LIdte: /19j2QI1, _tat c10,v•1R A1" Ion •1 ` ch y •1t,32 rt ,,.',e.ylt 1.1:2 Prepared by: AWES, LLC 48 9 Four Star Ct. Fort Collins, CO 8 '524 AWS 4SC) hut- Star Ccu rt, flirt fcllins. CC SC )4 Introduction The following report presents the results of an updated hydrogeologic evaluation regarding a proposed dry mine gravel quarry operation to be operated by Raptor Materials, LLC (Raptor) near Evans, Colorado. The original evaluation was conducted in July 2020 by American Water Engineering Services, LLC. The original evaluation was modified due to changes in the mine pit configuration and questions raised by the Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety. Raptor identifies the proposed mine as Pit 124. This evaluation consisted of reviewing available hydrogeologic d numerical groundwater flow model. ata and inputting those data into a he model was then used to estimate the effects of dewatering operations on the surrounding groundwater hydrology. This report was prepared as part of an OMLR 112 permit application. The site location is depicted on Figure 1. Background Information The proposed gravel quarry is located in sections 3 and 4 of Township 4 North, Range 66 West and sections 33 and 34, Township 5 North, Range 66 West of the 6th Principal Meridian. The surrounding land use consists of agricultural, rural residential and oil and gas gathering. The proposed mine area occupies an estimated 380 acres with an extraction area of 270 acres. The anticipated extraction depth will vary between 12 and 44 feet below grade. Information provided by geotechnical investigations, monitoring well water level data and water resource evaluation reports document the local and regional hydrogeology. In January 2015, 12 soil borings were drilled from ground surface to bedrock to determine the potential aggregate mass within the proposed mine boundary. These borings were completed as groundwater monitoring wells. Bedrock elevations were also obtained from studies by Colton and Finch, 1974. The depth to bedrock within the proposed mine pit boundaries varied between 12 and 44 feet below ground surface. In general soil conditions consist of less than one to six feet of top soil and sandy clay underlain by sand and gravel with occasional clay and poorly graded sand lenses. The coarse alluvial deposits are underlain by bedrock which consists of siltstone, sandstone and claystone. Dewatering Evaluation Report Raptor Materials, LLC Weld County, Colorado Page 2 The average hydraulic conductivity of the sand and gravel deposits is estimated at 125 feet per day (Schneider, 1983) which is consistent with published values and pump test evaluations conducted by the author in similar geologic settings. In addition grain size analyses document the 90% passing (d10) to vary between 0.2 and 0.3 millimeters. Freeze and Cherry 1979, present analytical solutions for saturated hydraulic conductivity estimations. Use of the equation K=Ad210, where K is hydraulic conductivity in cm/s, d10 is in mm and A is a constant equal to one. Based on grain size curves the hydraulic conductivity is estimated to vary between 113 and 255 feet per day. The average effective porosity of the local sand and gravel deposits is estimated at 0.27. The natural hydraulic gradient as documented by past water resource investigation reports is on the order of 0.002 feet per foot within the coarse alluvial deposits. The hydraulic gradient increases to 0.03 feet per foot within the fine sands that are present in the northern model area. The average depth to groundwater measured in the Raptor monitoring wells was nine feet below ground surface. The natural groundwater flow direction varies from southeast to northeast within the model and mine area. Seasonal water table fluctuations of between one and three feet are common for this area; however, fluctuations of greater than ten feet have been documented during drought conditions (Schneider, 1983). The mine area is depicted on Figure 2. The water table in the pit will be drawn down to bedrock by allowing groundwater to flow from the side walls of the excavation into ditches excavated into the bedrock or pit bottom at the toe of the excavation walls. The ditches are sloped so water drains to predetermined pump locations. The water is then pumped from the excavation into irrigation ditches, which eventually outfall to the South Platte or Big Thompson Rivers. The fol Project Assumptions lowing are assumptions made in estimating the effects of mine dewatering operations. • The aquifer within the model boundary is heterogeneous and anisotropic. • The average water table altitude within the mine area varies between 4674 and 4681 feet above mean sea level. The average horizontal hydraulic conductivity (K) of the sand and gravel deposits is 125 feet per day and the vertical K value is 12.5 feet per day. Silty sands, which are predominant north of the Big Thompson River, were assigned a horizontal K of 50 feet per day and a vertical K of 5 feet per day. Dewatering Evaluation Report Raptor Materials, LLC Weld County, Colorado Page 3 • A 1.5 inch recharge rate from precipitation was assigned to the model area. • The vertical hydraulic conductivity of the river beds is 4 feet per day. • The hydraulic conductivity of the barrier wall material is 0.003 feet per day with a lining thickness of four feet. • Other than dewatering associated with the Pit 124 mine operations no other aquifer stresses such as drought and surrounding well use were modeled. • All groundwater solutions are steady state. • The bedrock which underlies the coarse alluvial deposits is an impermeable barrier. Model Parameters The effects of dewatering on groundwater flow within the study area were evaluated by using the three dimensional groundwater flow model Visual ModFlow Pro. The general parameters used in the model are presented below. The model grid is depicted on Plate 1. • The model boundary is 12800 feet (east -west) by 10050 feet (north -south); • The model grid is 251 rows by 320 columns or 80,320 cells; • Two layers were used in the model with the upper layer representing unconsolidated alluvial deposits and the lower layer representing bedrock (Plate 2); • The thickness of the upper layer varied between 12 and 44 feet within the pit areas; • Constant head boundaries were assigned for the dewatering line sinks; • River boundaries were assigned for the South Platte and Big Thompson Rivers; • Barrier walls were assigned to the excavation limits of central and northwest pits for sadow and mounding simulations; • Constant head boundaries were assigned to the interior of the barrier walls to simulate reservoir storage; and, • General head boundaries were assigned to the model perimeter. A uniform flow field was defined in the model with an unconfined aquifer. Water levels obtained from published water level data and existing monitoring well data were used to generate water level contours unaffected by any pumping influences. Water level data within the mine boundaries were used to calibrate the model based on observed conditions. Ground surface and bedrock elevations were obtained from site surveys, drill hole data and USES maps. The ground surface and bedrock elevations were input into the geo-statistical model Surfer®, which created surface and bedrock contour maps. These surface and bedrock elevation data were imported into Visual ModFlow (VMOD) to define the ground surface and bedrock elevations within the flow model. The river stage elevations were extrapolated from survey data. Water table contours generated from measured water levels (Raptor piezometers) are presented on Plate 3. Water table elevations measured in on -site piezometers over a four year period were averaged and these elevations were used in the calibration process. A site survey also provided surface Dewatering Evaluation Report Raptor Materials, LLC Weld County, Colorado Page 4 water elevations of the South Platte and Big Thompson Rivers. The model boundary was superimposed over a topographic map and the author generated hand drawn contours that best reflected measured groundwater and surface water elevations. In the extreme northwest model area the elevations of the intermittent stream beds were used as water table elevations. General head boundaries were assigned to the model perimeter and head elevations were assigned where hand drawn elevations intersected the model boundary. The model was then run and model predicted heads were compared to observed heads. This process took several iterations as water table gradients changed dramatically throughout the model boundary. After the calibration process was completed the "cell inspector" function was used to determine the predicted head elevation for model assigned wells. The head elevations at the model assigned wells prior to pumping or lining were used as a baseline to measure the effects of dewatering and mine wall lining. The calibration simulation included seepage from the river boundaries. The calibration simulation is depicted on Plate 4. The model calculated head values referenced above are depicted on Plates 5 and 5A. Plate 6 depicts calibration boundary conditions. To simulate mine dewatering constant head line sinks were assigned to cells within the pit areas with head values approximately four feet above the bedrock elevation, which accounts for the predicted seepage face. To account for significant differences in bedrock elevations linear gradients were assigned to the line sinks where appropriate. Predicted groundwater contours resulting from mine dewatering are presented on Plate 7. Plate 8 depicts model boundary conditions used for dewatering simulations. The calibration graph for mine dewatering is presented as Plate 9. Two comparison points were used to determine the extent of drawdown own and are depicted on Plate R. The cell inspector function was used to determine heads at the comparison points prior to and during dewatering operations. Raptor intends to line the mined out pits for water storage. To evaluate the effects of lining the mine cells on the local groundwater hydrology, barrier walls were assigned near the excavation limits of the two pits. Plate 10 depicts predicted groundwater contours for post lining conditions. As mentioned model assigned wells were used to obtain pre -mining model predicted water levels at four locations (M1W-1 — MW -4). These predicted water levels were used for comparison to predicted groundwater levels in all simulations, including shadow and mounding effects. To simulate filled ponds, the interior of the reservoirs were assigned constant head values at an elevation slightly below ground surface elevations (4675 feet above mean sea level). A simulation was then run to predict the effects of the lined reservoirs on the groundwater hydrology. Table 1, presents the predicted water level changes as a result of lining the mined out pits. Plates 11 and 11A depict calibration graphs showing predicted groundwater elevations in assigned wells up and downgradient of the lined pits. Plate 12 depicts boundary conditions for the lined pit simulation. Dewatering Evaluation Report Raptor Materials, LLC Weld County, Colorado Page 5 Table 1— Mining and Lined Pit Water Level Comparison Points Point Distance Mine to Wall (ft.) Calibration Water (ft.) Level Drawdown Water (ft.) Level Post Water (ft.)Difference Lining Level Drawdown Difference Elevation (ft.) Elevation Lining (ft.) MW -1 330 4680.39 4679.80 4680.64 -0.59 0.25 MW -2 187 4681.37 4661.39 4681.82 -19.98 0.45 MW -3 1220 4674.07 4670.03 4673.90 -4.04 -0.17 MW -4 488 4675.32 4665.83 4674.91 -9.49 -0.41 -1 1378 4683.22 4679.26 4683.54 -3.96 0.32 C-2 4000 4686.19 4685.91 4686.30 40.28 0.11 Results A review of plate 7 shows that the groundwater hydrology north of the Big Thompson River and east and south of the South Platte River is unaffected by dewatering. The model predicts a drawdown of roughly four feet 1,378 feet west of Pit 124. The model predicted radius of influence is on the order of 4,000 feet - the predicted change in h ead is 0.11 feet. A review of Table 1, shows that the lining of mined pits will have a de minimis effect on groundwater hydrology. Predicted post lining head levels immediately up and downgradient of the barrier walls are within the range of normal seasonal water table elevation changes. Conclusions The results of analytical and numerical solutions indicate that the proposed mine dewatering activities will not adversely affect the regional groundwater hydrology. Based on the location of registered water wells, the saturated aquifer thickness west of the mine is sufficient to provided adequate well yields. The predicted drawdown associated with the mine dewatering represents the worst case scenario and a substantial amount of time will be required before maximum drawdowns will occur. In the author's opinion one cannot reasonably differentiate the head differences of seasonal groundwater fluctuations and head differences possibly created by lining mined pits — they are both within expected seasonal head variations. The permeability of the aquifer materials are sufficient to mitigate pressure gradients created by the impermeable liners. This mine is bounded on three sides by rivers and the surface water gains and losses to and from the aquifer will mask any possible hydrology changes created by pit lining. If there are unregistered domestic wells located within the area influenced by pumping, it may be advisable to conduct a physical well survey prior to the mine start-up. Though there is sufficient Dewatering Evaluation Report Raptor Materials, LLC Weld County, Colorado Page 6 aquifer thickness to provide good well yields in most areas there may be partially penetrating wells that might be affected by mine dewatering. This report was prepared by AWES, Llc Date: 08/31/2022 Joby L Adams, P.G., REM Principal/Hyd rogeologist REFERENCES Bear, J. 1979. Hydraulics of groundwater. McGraw-Hill Inc., New York, 569 pp. Cotton, R . B ., and Fitch, H.R., 1974, Map showing potential sources of gravel and crushed -rock aggregate in the Boulder -Fort Collins -Greeley area, Front Range Urban Corridor, Colorado: U.S. Geol. Survey Misc. Geol. Inv. Map I -855-D. Freeze, A. R., and Cherry, J. A., 1979. Groundwater. Prentice -Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 604 pp. Schneider, P. A., 1983, Shallow groundwater in the Boulder —Fort Collins Greeley area, Colorado, 1975-77: U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Investigation Report 83-4058. Weslest, Inc., 2015. G eote c h n i ca l Investigation, Two Rivers Property, Weld County, Colorado. Prepared for Varra Companies, Inc., February 12, 2015. FIGURES Figure 1 a Site Location Map Varra Companies -* Conrad Capital Group Property TIC illavEr9:1 Map Created .5. 1MILE a KM MEET 0 500 1® PARRS TOF'O r ©2002 National Geographic (ww1 ".natiotualgeographic.C.am" topo) PLATES Plate 1 - Model Grid Model Grid II Li. LI El II Q o.. O' Li In i o L ri EH I . i . . . . . ■. . . . . . ■ . . ■. . . . . . . . . . . ■I . I . . . . . . . S. S. . . ■. ■ ■ . . . . . . ■ . . . . ■ . . ■ .. . . ■ . . . . ■. . . . . ■ . ■. . . . . . ■. . . . . . . . ■. ■ . . ■. ■ . . . . ■. . ■. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : - . ■. ■ . . . .. . . . ■ . . . . . ■ . ■ . . _i 2111110 4 _ 1 L_.I I_ HI I._ 1 I._ I._.I ,H I _l f_J J 1 L_J L_ 1 _J _J 12800 Two Rivers Model Drawdown - Shadow/Mounding Grid Simulations AWES, LLC Fort Collins C 970-590-3807 Varra Companies Pit 1 24 Plate 2 - Model Layer Profile K - 125 ft./day. K - 50 ft/day -___�__ K - 0,0004 ft./day ,\ I 1_ 2000000 1000 6000 .El,],] 3 L 013S0 Plate 3 - Average VCI Measured Groundwater Elevations (9/2015 - 8/2019) 4500 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 NEM l � — ill 4. ��-_rs '� - _ .�' is �~ ref•�r �r' I �':. o,_ • _Lama i.r rQ'P- Pi .-4192'10T left -9 GROUND -46 TOP PIPE= -4 94 j5fr 1-- r 4 Be 0 oo to V s' r ` if• i war J 4_ CD - %%4 to r •-uCalIMIC•Mad j id it.......4d: O.1;;U- :PI '' 1 ''' t -- :::1117- 1 -11e. - cur" -ROUND 60 a TOP PIPE - 44 7:B5, bni NY IPP 03 i • I' „rag! /I. 14. falsirsN '—V. —F GROUND -4 TOP PIPE - ; I; r 1 i —sat— Ths.,.ter e..l •-- �.a,r• ii -tit din- e Lam. rzoinr.tLy,1�, a GR• ND 4481.02 TOP$IPE=4885.07 Ui ,�_ a r •f er- `tea 014 . I 'i- wWw St. 1 _i VS- CRIOUN TOP PI Ida —f 4 . GROUND -4590.37 TOP PiP =4404:44 ' IT Ile 1 sees Lot -8 1' GROUND =1t38 TOP PIPE=458 1 S rms. Pau. r If f , r). jr ;1' Lit GROvtC-4S70.154 T4Pr 1IPEe4 49 I \rd _i 1 1 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 Note: Surfer Generated Contours 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000 6500 7000 Plate 4- Groundwater Flow Calibration Simulation 1200012800 Two Riven Groundwater Flow Calibration Dravdon - Shadow/Mounding Simulations AWES, LLC Fort Collins, CO 970-590-3807 Varna Companies Pit 124 Plate 5 - Calculated vs. Observed Head Steady state a C! r cq . N. Co F F M 1 -2/A Observed = 4681.42 Calculated = 4681.37 f Jar MW -4/A Observed = 4675.32 Calculated = 4675 32 MW -3/A Observed = 4674.04 Calculated = 4674107 4673.89 l 4675.89 Max. Residual 0.064 (ft) at MW -11A Min. Residual, 0.004 (ft) at MIN -4/A Residual Mean : 0.011 0 ft) Abs. Residual Mean : 0.,038 (ft) 4677.89 Observed Head (ft) 4679.89 ■ a a Layer #1 9S% confidence interval 95% interval Num. of Data Points : 4 Standard Error of the Estimate : 0.025 (ft) Root Mean Squared : 0.044 (ft) Normalized RM : 0.599 C ° Correlation Coefficient Plate 5 A a Calculated vs. Observed Head Steady state 5 cg N. co ler Pei MW -1/A Observed = 4680.33 Calculated = 4680.39 "r .f sisr Jr, it r, Jr id. }r e'er re r.E sr tfie tP xse ft .1f t xx ZIP r xr ff xx.t* 01 M -4 A Observed = 4675.32 Calculated = 4675 32 M -3/A Observed = 4614.04 Calculated = 4674.07 fx F rr 4673.89 l 4675.89 Max Residual' 0.084 (ft) at MW -VA Mir. Residual:0.004 (ft) at M Y --41A Residual Mean : 0.011 (ft) Abs, Residual Mean o 0,038 (U) 4677.89 Observed Head (ft) 4679.89 Layer #1 a 9S% confidence interval 95% interval Num. of Data Points : 4 Standard Error of the Estimate : 0.025 (ft) Root Mean Squared : 9.044 (ft) Normalized RMS : 0.599 ( % ) Correlation Coefficient : 1 Plate 6 - Calibration Boundary Conditions O LD r O O, CO I 1 rt O O General Head Boundaries.._- . I I 2000 1-000 10000 1200012800 sit c;i4mrirst'ettIR Ricer Boundaries r r" r'` S MW -3 MW -4 p Two Rivers Boundary Conditions Model Well Calibration Drawdown - Shadow/Mounding Simulations AWES, LLC Fort Collins, CO 970-590-3807 Raptor Materials, LLC Pit 124 Plate 7 Drawdown Contours a 1200012800 Two Rivers Dradown AWES, LLC Fort Collins, CO 970-590-3807 Raptor Materials, LLC Pit 114 Plate 8 - Drawdown Boundary Conditions 0Q 11 Model I II River 'I I�I /General Assigned B oundr1e C-2 Head , IIIV Boundaries Wells _ r Boundaries r1I-i-1 - ii,1 . 5. _ -- i lF e -. ,.F Tee _ - It !^ d -- raw -3 _ C e - r�+ i*r�i� ! a /' ICY C C it Constant I I l Vz Head - 0 I-, CO ni 1_1 I Jl II I" 1 I^I �I \- ' F.N II III II '\ allalP J I a �'' 378 - _ ger ---- � d — _ - tip NW -4 11frillo- r � mi. . '--,_ I . ii I i — - . ; ''' i — Comparison Points 3i = ara 0 2'D I DO 4000 6000 I ILII_I 1n0nn 1200012800 Two Rivers Drawdown Boundary Conditions AWES,LIE Fort 970-590-3807 Collins, CO Raptor Fit 124 Materials, LLC Plate 9 - Calculated vs. Observed Head : Steady state -77 D C) eI J C r 1 F dr co 0 co co 4660.99 r r t dr i f 1 W-i j!A Observed = 4680.33 Calculated = 4679.80 Observed = 4674.04 Calculated = 4670.03 Max. Residual', -20.928 (ft) at MW -VA Min. Residual, -0.532 (ft) at MW -1 r"A Residual Mean : -8.514 (ft) Abs, Residual Mean : 8 514 (ft) 1,1W 41�A Observed = 4675.32 Calculated = 4665.83 W -2/"A Observed = 4681.42 Calculated = 4661.39 4 4670.99 Observed Head (ft) 4680.99 ■ a. i a Layer #1 a 95% confidence interval 95% interval Num. of Data Points : 4 Standard Error of the Estimate : 4.258 (ft) Root Mean Squared : 11.264 (ft) Normalized RM 6: 152.626 % Correlation {Coefficient : 0.044 Plate 10 Lined Pond Groundwater Contours 1200012800 Lined Pond Groundwater Contours AWES, LLC Fort Collins, Co 970-590-3807 Raptor Materials, LLC Pit 124 1t a r,- CC! r d N i r1 4673.72 Plate 11 - Calculated vs. Observed Head Steady state a C, r A r r At 1 l l l r t MW -2/A Observed = 4681.42 Calculated = 4681.82 C, r 1 a' l a. f l l i l r' l It r a r I I l F } a. r l l t .r a. OP l a. l l l r l r l I l SI r r r� nI� MW -41A Observed = 4675.32 Calculated = 4674.91 f MW -31A Observed = 4674.04 Calculated = 4613.88 } vOssiriamiriimirS' 4675/2 Max Residual- -0.412 (ft) at MW -41A Miri. Residual. -0.165 (ft) at MW -3!A Residual Mean : 0.035 (fp Abs. Residual Mean o 0.323 (8) II= r 1 467L72 Observed Head (ft) l l l r X F 1 4679.72 1 4681.72 Layer #1 ea— 95% confidence interval a=ar 95% interval Num. of Data Points : 4 Standard Error of the Estimate : 0.194 (ft) Root Mean Squared : 0.338 (ft) Normalized RM :4.53(%) Correlation Coefficient : 0.999 Plate 11A a Calculated vs. Observed Head Steady state r -- v- N ir MSS •J N CO r MW -1/A Observed = 4680.33 Calculated = 4688.64 se I. r F F f C f MW -41A Observed = 4675.32 Calculated = 4674.91 I F I° S. I' F A, AP Jo f f MW -3/A Observed = 4674.04 Calculated = 4673.88 e P } .1 filllarairiSMr! 4673.72 4675.72 Max. Residual: -0.412 (ft) at MW -4/A Min. Residual; -0.165 (ft) at MW -3/A Residual Mean : 0.035 (ft) Abs, Residual Mean o 0,323 (8) 1 Mr 1 4677.72 Observed Head (ft) F I F of I, I T f F f at 14. S. f F 4679.72 4681.72 Layer #1 95% confidence interval 95% interval Num. of Data Points : 4 Standard Error of the Estimate : 0.194 (if) Root Mean Squared : 0.338 (ft) Normalized RM'4 :4.38(%) Correlation Coefficient : 9.999 Plate 12 Lined Pond Boundary Conditions O r 54itvr svieelPIR . Li 378 Mm -8 O; co Constant Head Boundaryd - Ilk -1 i Pit Liner 11-.1-4 IS A 1_1 D 1 MII I I WV - - il - 396 --3 41 Er I� III II , River Boundaries - I i r I_ I" .,1 LT i� r, 4. =i zDIl iu *000 6000 ,(_iU:,il,-1 1nnn0 1200012800 Lined Pond Boundarry Conditions AWES,.LLC Fort 9.70-5910-3807 Collins, Raptor Pit 124 Materials, LLC ERQ ERO Resources Corporation Denver Durango Hotchkiss Idaho 1842 North Clarkson Street, Denver, CO 80218 1015 '4 Main Avenue, Durango, CO 81301 161 South 2nd Street/ PO Box 932/ Hotchkiss, CD 81419 7154 West State Street, STE 398/ Boise, ID 83714 8/26/2022 TO: Bradford Janes, Office of Special Projects Raptor Materials Colorado FROM: Ronald Beane, Senior Wildlife Biologist RE: Two Rivers Sand, Gravel and Reservoir Project, Weld County, CO. ERO Resources Corporation is providing this Technical Memorandum to respond to the comments from Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW), dated June B, 2022. CPW identified several concerns and issues pertaining to wildlife impacts from the proposed Two Rivers Sand, Gravel and Reservoir Project. ERO has reviewed the mine plan and application and believes that many of these concerns and issues were previously addressed in the mine application. This memo provides ER0's response to the issues raised by CPW and provides additional clarification to specific concerns as needed. Issue a Prairie Dogs. ERO Response: The current land use on the project area is primarily irrigated cropland, upland pasture along 54th Street and degraded mixed mesic grassland between the Evans canal and the Big Thompson River. Most of the project area and all areas of proposed mining areas do not currently contain prairie dogs. Prairie dogs only occur on upland pasture north of the Evans canal. This area will be used for aggregate storage and processing. Site development will involve vegetation clearing and soil preparation techniques that are similar to farming activities. These activities will likely disperse the prairie dogs to surrounding areas. Active prairie dog management will be implemented as needed following the approach described below. ER0 understands that Raptor Materials (Operator) will implement a voluntary prairie dog management approach that may include avoidance, passive dispersal, and/or humane lethal control. The selection of any single or combination of these techniques will be prioritized based on site -specific conditions and regulations, and the likelihood of success. ERO supports this approach as a humane and practical solution to address human -prairie dog conflicts. Because mining would be incremental in scale over decades during the life of the project, avoidance will be the first option for most of the project area. Prairie dogs will be allowed to remain is areas not being actively mined. If impacts on prairie dogs cannot reasonably be avoided, one (or a combination) of the alternatives described above will be implemented. Any management ERO Resources Corporation Consultants in Natural Resources and the Environment www.eroresources.com Two Rivers Sand, Gravel and Reservoir Project/ Weld County/ CO 8/26/2022 option selected to address prairie dogs will be conducted in a manner that is compliant with local, state, and federal regulations. Issue - Mule Deer (severe winter range and migration corridors). "The applicant should discuss the following (related to Rule 3.1.8): How will the operation minimize impacts on mule deer habitat during the winter season (December 1 through April 30) This should include (but not be limited to) a discussion on fencing. Fencing should be limited as practical, and wildlife - friendly fencing should be used. ERO Response: Aggregate mining in general is a slow, steady progression of mining within active cells, generally 8 to 16 acres in size, then incrementally moving onto the next cell and concurrently reclaiming the previous cell. This incremental approach will retain open areas and opportunities for wildlife movement and foraging within unmined areas during the life of the mine. Even when mining is completed and the cells transitioned to water storage, there will be ample room remaining within the existing riparian and riverine areas along the Big Thompson and South Platte Rivers. Deer and other wildlife will be able to freely migrate, forage, breed and complete all life requirements along these two broad migration paths. These two river drainages will be undisturbed and remain open to maintain suitable habitat year-round, including severe winter weather, and provide movement corridors both on the north and south of the mine areas. Even at the end of the life of the mine and the transition to water storage reservoirs, wildlife/deer will have access to a wide riparian corridor along the South Platte River (minimum width of 1,968 feet and average width of 2,560 feet) (Figure 1). These corridors will continue to support mule deer and during all seasons and provide habitat for all wildlife. Issue- Fencing ERO Response: ERO feels there is no need to fragment wildlife habitat with unnecessary fencing. Existing fencing at the project site consists of wildlife -friendly, 3 -strand barbed wire. ERO understands that the Operator will remove all unnecessary fencing that currently exists at the site. ERO will assist the Operator to identify existing unnecessary fencing, as well as fences that benefit wildlife (e.g., fencing along 54th Street that may provide a physical/psychological obstacle to wildlife traversing dangerous roadways). Deer populations commonly traverse active resource conservations projects like these. Deer and other wildlife are commonly seen at other Colorado mining operations by truck and haul operators as they browse the vegetation at the bottom of more fully extracted basins. Issue -- Escape Ramps. ERO Response: Mining will normally be conducted during daylight hours when wildlife is the least active. As described above, aggregate mining in general is a slow, steady progression of mining within active cells that are generally 8 to 16 acres in size, affording wildlife the ability to avoid conflicts over the majority of the project area. There will be no vertical walls created by mining and each cell will also have multiple ingress and egress roads at moderate slopes for ERO Resources Corporation i Consultants in Natural Resources and the Environment Page 2 Two Rivers Sand, Gravel and Reservoir Project, Weld County, CO 8/26/2022 equipment. These roads will allow ample opportunity for wildlife to escape, particularly during wildlife active periods when no mining will occur. The operator has no record or evidence of trapped deer in a basin or cell at any of its aggregate operations in Colorado. Issue Aquatic Species ERO Response: The mine will substantially occur on agricultural land that is already a source of human disturbance within 500 -feet of streams and other aquatic resources. The mine will comply will all regulations, standards, and policies of the Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Board for the protection of aquatic resources, including establishing a minimum 100 -foot buffer between planned disturbance and the bankfull river/riparian corridor. Furthermore, Raptor Materials has provided a full set of stormwater BMPs and reclamation plan in the mine site application that are designed to protect aquatic resources. issue a Reclamation of Disturbed Lands ERO Response: The reclamation plan adopts a philosophy that will restore terrestrial and aquatic ecological functions that will match, or more likely exceed existing conditions. This plan focuses on vegetation community height, form, function and diversity that will benefit a full suite of aquatic and terrestrial wildlife, from soil microfauna to native insects, birds, rodents and large mammals. The reclamation plan incorporates noxious weed management as a tool to achieve the objectives described above. Issue — Water Storage Ponds Response: While islands are not compatible with lined water storage reservoirs, reservoirs will be designed to take advantage of the natural curvature of the landscape. Reservoirs will have variable slopes to the extent practicable to provide aquatic habitat while maintaining efficient water storage. Successful reclamation and creative reservoir design will provide a permanent natural buffer between the existing riparian corridors and ever increasing residential development in Weld County. issue — Wildlife Protection Recommendations. Response: The majority of the Best Management Practices (BMPs), Voluntary Conservation Measures and Recommendations described in the ERO 2022 report will be implemented. These measures include: • Work areas will be stabilized in a manner to prevent or minimize soil erosion. • The operator will protect the surrounding area and, from siltation. The Contractor will utilize well -established NRCS storm water and erosion management measures to control erosion, as necessary. • All temporarily disturbed areas will be reseeded with native seed mix as specified in the mine plan. The mine plan states that the "Primary Revegetation Seed Mixture ERO Resources Corporation i Consultants in Natural Resources and the Environment Page 3 Two Rivers Sand, Gravel and Reservoir Project, Weld County, CO 8/26/2022 combines a thoughtful mingling of predominantly native grasses of diverse height, form, color and function, to add cover, food source for wildlife and pollinators." • The project will implement mine -site reclamation consisting of reseeding with native grasses and pollen producing species. • The cottonwoods along the lower terrace of the two rivers will be preserved.. • All riverine areas will otherwise remain untouched. • All mining areas, access routes, staging areas, and work areas will all be outside riparian areas and in previously disturbed or modified cropland and nonhabitat areas. • The project will avoid fragmenting linear riparian corridors. • The project will avoid disturbing (e.g., crushing or trampling) or removing (e.g., cutting or clearing) all vegetation, such as willows, trees, shrubs, and grasses in riparian areas. A few tall trees and shrubs may be trimmed to provide a corridor for conveyors. • Impacts to all riparian habitat consisting of shrubs, grasses, and forbs will be avoided or minimized to maintain current vegetation communities and allow for habitat connectivity to habitat upstream and downstream. • Mining areas will predominantly occur with existing areas of human disturbance such as agricultural cropland, grazed pastures and roads. • 100 -foot buffers will be established between planned disturbance and the bankfull river/riparian corridor. • Traffic will be limited to existing roads and bridges. Noise and dust levels for the project are regulated under the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. These measures are sufficient to reduce and minimize noise and dust impacts to wildlife. As always, ERO is open to additional communication with CPW to work through any outstanding issues, if circumstances are warranted Ronald Beane, Senior Wildlife Biologist ERO Resources Corporation I Consultants in Natural Resources and the Environment Page 4 1 Varra Companies - Endangered Species Reevaluation Location P Iattetirille "Lmngnicznnt Sections 33 and 34, T5N, R66W; Sections 3 and 4, T4N, R66W; 6th PM UTM NAD 83: Zone 13N; 519043 rn E, 4466286mN Longitude 104.775771°W, Latitude 40.346911°N USES Milliken, Co Quadrangle Weld County, Colorado a 750 1,500 Feet Project Area Minimum Distance to Mule Deer Migration Corridor Boundary (1,968' Mule Deer Migration Corridor* Project Area Boundary Figure 1 Vicinity Map * Data Source: Colorado Parks and Wildlife Prepared for: Varra Companies, Inc. ER0 File: 21_266 Figure 1.mxd (GS) August 23, 2022 ERO Er,>o Jrce5. Corp. Portions of this document include intellectual property ESRI and Its licensors and are used herein under license. Copyright 0 2022 ESRI and Its licensors. All riig is reserved. Page Ii :4 14 EXHIBIT N Source of Legal Right to Enter The source of the Operator's/Applicant's legal right to enter and initiate a mining operation on the affected land. (Same requirements as Rule 6.3.7), As landowner(s) to all lands to be permitted for extraction under a Colorado Division of Reclamation Mining and Safety (DBMS), office of Mined Land ReclamatIon (OMLR pennit, my signature below testifies that Raptor Materials, ILC., has the legal right to enter and mine with respect to all lands under permit M -2022-0I3; Two Rivers hand, Gravel and Reservoir Project. Signed; Kevin ica ,ins, Vice -President Raptor Materials, LLC. Signed and dated this tbi` clay of State of %railQ )ss County of We.tol The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ac\%714k day of Lit—Skre by _1<ev mo/A deetiCiii\S as of Re( +Of' rfltake ; cal) Lis -C. • JESSICA HOOVER NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF COLORADO NOTARY ID 2004403657/ MY COMMISSION EXPIRES OCTOBER 4, 202 vCu' Pre (ACte+ Not y Public My Commission expires: VARRA COMPANIES, 1NCIT O RIVERS SAND GRAVEL AND RESERVOIR PROJECT MARCH 2022 A REGULAR IMPACT [112] CONSTRUCTION PERMITAPPLICATION - COLORADO DIVISION 01 RECL4MATION MIINW & SAFETY OFFICE OF MINED LAND RECLAMATION ,American Water Engineering Services, LLC August 10, 2022 Raptor Materials, LLC 8120 Gage Street Frederick, Colorado 80516 Attn: Garrett Varra RE: Revised Two Rivers Slope Analysis Technical Adequacy Review DRMS Letter Date June 1, 2022 Dear Mr. Varra: This letter report presents an updated geotechnical stability analysis performed by American Water Engineering Services, LLC (AWES) for the Raptor Materials, LLC (Raptor) mine located near Evans, Colorado. This report is intended to address the issues raised in the Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety (DRMS) letter dated June 1, 2022. The review letter is provided as Attachment A. The following summarize DRMS comments by item. 1. Comment 1- Please provide an updated slope stability models and associated FoS using the correct friction angle for bedrock. We reran the four slope configurations with the suggested friction angle of 22 degrees. Predicted factors of safety for the four mine wall scenarios varied between 1.3 and 1.5. Model outputs are presented in Attachment B. 2. Comment 2 — Please provide additional discussion in regards to conditions or scenarios which determine one of the four proposed highwall slope configuration. The different mine wall slope analyses were intended to represent, as much as possible, the different soil profiles and mine depths that will be encountered. As such, it is anticipated that each slope profile will be encountered at various locations during mining. Comment 3 — Please provide slope stability analyses for the four highwall scenarios under seismic conditions including rational for the seismic coefficient used in the analyses. The four slope configurations were ran using a uniform horizontal and vertical acceleration factor of 0.075. This factor was chosen based on the United States Seismic Zone Map, which was based on the Uniform Building Code seismic values. Predicted safety factors varied between 1.15 and 1.26. Model outputs are presented in Attachment C. Included in Attachment C is the United States Seismic Zone Map. 4SC 4 Four Star [:court, Fort Collins, CC SCi24 11C-44C-3SC1 Technical Adequacy Review Two Rivers Application August 10, 2022 Page 2 Based on model predictions it appears that the proposed mine wall configurations meet or exceed the minimum required safety factors. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at (970) 590-3807. Sincerely, AWES, LLC Joby Adams, P.G., REM Principal/Hydroeoloist „fiats 4SC9 Four Star Court, Fort Collins. CC [Yi24 - COIF -EVIL -3S[ T ATTACHMENT A TECHNICAL ADEQUACY REVIEW LETTER COLORADO Division of Reclamation., Mining and Safety Department of Natural ral Resources Date: June , 2022 To: Rob Zuber Jason Musick, Michael Cunningham From: Zack Trujillo RE: Two Rivers Application, MIMS File No. M4022413 Technical Adequacy Review Rob, As requested I have reviewed the proposed 112c Permit it Application for the Two Rivers Sand. Gravel and Reservoir Project (Twin Rivers) submitted by Raptor Materials, LLC (RI1/44) in relation to the requested and applicable Rules, Regulations and Policies. The primary focus of this review as requested is to ensure Rule 6.5 of the Mineral Rules and Regulations of the Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Board for the Extraction of Construction Materials has been. satisfied. Additionally, proposed geotechnical stability support material as part of the application was reviewed in relation to Section 30 of the Policies of the Mined Land Reclamation Board (Section 30). Rule 6.5 • Per Rule .5(i)[oln a site -specific basis, an Applicant shall be required to provide a geotechnical evaluation of all geologic is hazards that have the potential to affect any proposed impoundment, slope, embankment, highwall or waste pile within the affected area. A. geologic hazard is one of several types of adverse geologic conditions capable of causing damage or loss of properby and life. The Applicant may also be required to provide a geotechnical evaluation of all geologic hazards., within or in the vicinity of the affected lands, which may be de -stabilized or exacerbated by mining or reclamation activities: • Per Rule 6.5(4 [o]n a site -specific basis, an Applicant shall be required to provide engineering stability analyses for proposed final reclaimed slopes, hi hwalls, waste piles and.. embankments; An Applicant may also be required to provide engineering stability analyses for certain slopes configuration as they will occur during operations, including, but not limited to embankments_ Information for slope stability analyses may include, but would not be limited to, slope angles and configurations, compaction and density, physical characteristics of earthen materials, pore pressure information, slope height. post -placement use of site, and information on strUctures or facilities that could be adversely affected by slope failure. • Per Rule 6.5(3), [w]here there is the potential for off -site impacts due to failure of any geologic structure or constructed earthen facility, which may be caused by in in frig OT reclamation activities, the Applicant shall demonstrate through appropriate geotechnical d stability analyses we Rivers Review Memo June 1.2022 1313 Sherman Streets Room 21 5, Deiiv'er, CO 80203 P 301866.3567 F 301832. 8106 http //mining.state■.ca■ups Jared S. Pas, 'Governor I Dan Gibbs, Executive Director I Virginia Brannon, Director i l Y - O— _. 1. .�f�!`hai 11ii 11', ICI 111/2 that off -site areas will be protected with appropriate factors of safety incorporated into the analysis. The minimum acceptable safety factors will be subject to approval by the Office., on a case -by -case basis, depending upon the degree of certainty of soil or rock strength determinations utilized in the stability analysis, depending upon the consequences associated with a potential failure, and depending upon the potential for seismic activity at each site. As part of Snake River's application., a georechnical site investigation and, stability analysis was provided under Exhibit 6.5: Slope Stability Analyses (Report). Material strength properties used in the analyses were determined from field investigation and lab testing. A, total of twelve investigative borings were drilled throughout the proposed permit area where hulk samples were obtained and then lab tested. Material strength properties are summarized in Table 1 — Soil Strength Properties of the Report as well as associated lab results. Each borehole after completion was then convened to monitoring wells 1 through 12 as shown on Figure 1 of the Report. Detailed borehole logs showing subsurface conditions are also provided within the Report. As part of the Report, multiple slope stability analyses were performed using the strength material properties and associated profiles attained from the site investigation and lab testing.The proposed set of analyses within the Report takes into consideration four general highwal I, scenarios under static conditions for the Snake River operation. 1. 40 foot mine depth with. a bank cut of 1.25H: I V (Plate 1), , .47 foot mine depth*Rh a bank cut of 2H: 1 far the bottom 20 feet and I ,25 14: 1V for the remaining slope (Plate 2), 47 foot mine depth with a bank cut of 2H: I V for the bottom 20 feet and 1.251-I: 1V for the remaining slope with overburden (Plate 3) and 4. 37 foot mine depth with a lower 20 foot bank cut oft: 111 with the remaining slope of 1.25H: I (Plate 4 The resulting Factors of Safety (FoS) are shown below in Table 1. of this memo: Table 1, Snake River FoS Analysis FoS Plate 1 1,303 Plate 2 1.407 Plate 3 1,533 Plate 4 1:41 Each resulting FoS from the four analyses indicate slope stability however, there appears to be inconsistencies in the friction angle used for Bedrock as detailed in the crossmsection.al slope stability result printouts provided at the end of the Report, Based on Table l — Soil Strength Properties, Bedrock has been assigned a friction angle of 22 degrees however of the four analyses, only Plate 4 uses this friction angle. Plate 1, 2 and 3 use a friction angle of 14 degrees. Please see Comments at the end of this memo for requested information. Additionally, it is unclear onwhat conditions would determine the proposed highwall to be constructed to one of the four scenarios. Based on the differing material profiles within the cross-sectional slope stability result printouts provided, it appears to the Division that it might be based the strata and/or location within the proposed permit. Additional clarification will be necessary. Please refer to the this section of this memo, Two Rivers Review Memo June 1, 2022 Section 30. Based on the information in the Report provided by Snake River and Table 1 of Section 30.4, FoS will be compared to strength measurements resulting from multiple tests for a critical structure. For static conditions, minimum required factor of safety is 13 and for seismic conditions, minimum required factor of safety is 115. s noted earlier under section Rule 6.5 of this memo, each resulting FoS from the four analyses indicate slope stability under static conditions. However, additional discussion will be needto be provided which will he outlined under the Comments at the end of this memo.. In addition, the four scenarios provided in the Report were only analyzed on under static conditions and no models were ran or provided under seismic conditions as required under Section 30. Comments 1. Please provide updated slope stability models and associated FoS using the correct friction angle for bedrock. Please provide additional discussion in regards to conditions or scenarios which determine one of the four proposed highwall slope configuration, .. Please provide slope stability analyses for the four highwall scenarios under seismic conditions including rational for the seismic coefficient used in the analyses. Upon receipt of the requested responses and clarifications, a slope stability analysis "check" will be performed by the Division and provided vtiithin an additional memo. This concludes my review and comments for the proposed 1 12c Permit Application for the Two Rivers Sand, Gravel and Reservoir Project submitted by apto r Materials. LLC in relation to the requested and applicable Rules, Regulations and Policies. If yohave any questions feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Zack Trujillo Environmental Protection Specialist (303) 866-3 567 ext.. 8164 Zach_Trujillo@state.co..us Two Rivers Review Memo June 1, 2022 ATTACHMENT B NON -SEISMIC STABILITY MODEL OUTPUTS Plate 1 Problenrr TWO' Rivers Stability Analysis - ES Mm- Spencer = 1.305 6E. 60 las la! 45 - 40 3!5 - 30' 20 .1E. C .— _ I II -.10 a S a a a a = = Soils Bedrock Snd, gr.* ' Snd wgravel Sand Water Table Critical Surface Cohesion Friction Angle 0.0 45.1 13.0 0.0 e..3..a_ la`.�.� e 1 1 I a —1— I a a OS I I I -I— I ---- ;---— -;- 1 I I I 1 I 1 1 ... —I.... —I — a — I I 1 1 I I a I I 1 1 — — — a — a 1 — — a a 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I I I I I 1 I I I I I - --------—--—-1- 1 I I I I a a a I a I 1 I I I I 1 — ---1-----1—----1----1 I a I a I 1 a I 1 a a a a I a 1 a I a I I a I 1 a I I a I I 1 a 1 I 1 1 1 1 — — — — — a — — T 1 I I I T 1 1 1 1 T I I T I I I I T I I I T I I I _ a — — — a — — — _ — — a — a — a a — a — — a _ — r I 1 — SI _ — I I I I 1 1 1 --r—----I-----I- - a I I I I I I r I I I I r I 1 1 I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 I I I 1 I I I I —I I I I 1 I a a - -i .... - -.... - - 1 I a a a a 1 I I —a— I — I -I — a a _ 1— a 1 1 1 —I — a — a 1 I 1 1 I a I -I — a — _ I I I I I I -I 1 1 1 1 I I I I 1 I I — _ — a _ a — — — al a a — a — _ — — a — _ _ — F _ _ — —I— _ — — _ I I I —� I I SI 1 I I I —I— I I 1 a I —a— I I --—r——---I --—— —1— I I 1 a a I --- - I-- ------ — -I— I 1 I I I I a — — — al a -- 1 1 I 1 1 1 — _ a — • a a a I I I I I T I T I I r r — _ a a — a a a a — a a -- - a a — — — — a SW a — — a — — a — a a a a — — a a a I I 1 1 I I I -10 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1O 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 59 55 6O 65 7O 75 8O 85 90 95 1OO e O5 11O (Scale rjfl Feet) Plate 2 Probern: Iwo ftvers Stab tidy Aiaatysis - FMin- Spencer _ 1 A 7E 70 65 CC IL.,0 I I i I I I r I 1 I 1- I I I I I I I L 1 1 1 - - - - - - - I 1 I I 1 I �- L - J a Soils Cohesion Friction Angle B e:d r e 11 Sand w Gril Sand I"y . I! . aI °e Lay eater able Critical Surface 50.0 1 C L . 28.0 40 35 30=I L 20 .1s -10 0 -5 -10 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 — — — .... -1 - - - - - - - - r ...... I I I I 1 1 1 1 I I L I I 1 I I I 1 I I I 1 I I I 1 I I I 1 1 1 I I I I I 1 I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 J 1 1 1 1 1 J 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 I I T I 1 1 1 r 1 1 I I I I I 1 1 I 1 I I r I I I I I I I I I I — — — — — — — — 1 ........ 1"' — In — — — a — -.I - - - .... 1 ..... - - - L ........ I ........ J ........ L. I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I T r -I I I I 1 1 1 1 —1— — — — — — — — ........ T - ....... 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 I J 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I L J I 1 1 1 I I I L I I 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I 1 I I I I I 1 1 I I--I---------I I- I -I + I I I I 1 1 1 I I I 1 1 1 1 I I I I 1 1 I 1-- ....... -.I ........ J L ...... - - 1........ J ..... - - 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I r ..... - In --IM — -I — In — — — — — — r .. a a — I ....... — -I — — — I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I J........ L — — — — — — — —I— — — — — — — — `' I I 1 I I I I I r ....... ------ -I ........ ------- 1 I I 1 I I I I I —-— — --- I I I I- I I I I- I I I I- I I i -10 I I i 110 I I I r I I 20 1 i .30 i ' I EC 1 1 1 I- 1 1 I i 1 1 1 1 .,1 I I I J — a — — — — a I I I T I I I 1 1 1 1 1 T I I I — - 1 1 1 1 L 1 1 I I I I I I I I I 1 I I ...... — I I I I- I I i 90 lOU 110 120 (Scale in Feat, 70 Plate 3 Problem: Two Rvers Stability Analysis - IFS Mm- Spiel = 1 _5 5 =._ 60 CC ea'0 4r - 40 � 2C e a' e.1' 30 25 20 •1E_' .10' C -.1 0 -15 1 I I I I I I— I I I I I a I I IC _ Bedrock Sand Cray 'Water i]tle Critical Surface Soils Cohesion Friction Angle 500.0 110 .1 SIG G AU'. 0 a MS J 1 1 a a 1 a 1 a 1 a a 1 1 1 1 1 r 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 . ai 1 1 1 .1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 .1 1 1 1 a 1 1 I I T 1 1. a I T I I 1 1 1 1 T 1 I I 1 1 a I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 L. I a a 1 L I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 L 1 1 a a I— —1 a a 1 a 1 1 1 r' a a a 1 a 1— ....... U) ........ J 1 1 1 a a 1 1 1 1 a 1 a a a a 1 a a I a 1 1- 1 a a a a a a a a — a a -'1 0 a a a 1 a a 1 1 F — - - - - - - 11 0 a 1 a a a a 1 a — 1. 1 a L 1 20 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 f 1 I _—'—r I rr 1 r-' .— 1 r I _— sie 1 1 1 1 1 40 EC r, Lr L 1 i 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 J 1 I a a a a a a 1 a 1 1 1 1 n9 1 L I r 1 1 1 I 1 1 r 1 1 I L I I 1 1 1 1 I— I I I L I I I r I L I I r I I I. I— I— I I 90 100 1.10 120 CE3caIe in Fret: Plate 4 Probliem: Two Rivers Stabirity Anarysis - ES Mm- Spencer = 1 _41 70 60 45 40 as 30 25 20 '1c • -10' C ..1• -51 -'151 =�_ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 a I 1 1 1 1 I 1 a 1 r� IC _ I I I Soils Cohesion Friction Angle Bedrock 500.0 22.0 Clay •1 EMU 28.0 Water Table Critical Surface Mill J J I I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 Y I I 1 1 1 1 r I 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • 1 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 I J 1 1 1 I I I T I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 T I 1 1 1 I 1 1 I I I I L I 1 I L 1 1 1 1 1 I L 1 1 1 1 I- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -I I- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I r 1 7 I I I I I I I I I 1— ....... U) ........ J I I I I I I I I I I I I- I I I 1 I I I- I I I I 1 1 1 1 I I I r I I L I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I I I I I I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 I I J I 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I 1 1 1 I I I I I 1 1 1 1 H I I I L I I I r I I L I I I r I I LU r I I I- I- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I 9 �1203+11 40 50 60 8Q 90 100' 1 1 f} 1 2Cli CScale in. Feet) ATTACHMENT C SEISMIC STABILITY MODEL OUTPUTS UNITED STATES SEISMIC ZONE MAP Plate 1A Prohkm: Ti cs Rilvers Stabirity Anaryss - ES Min- Spencer = 1_15 0 65 60 CC O . = C, 40 30 25 - 20 - 15- - 5 - Belli i. .1 G ✓ v v n ;- Soils Cohesion Friction Angle Bedrock 50'.0 -nd gri Sand virth gr 0.G Sand' 0.0 Water Table Critical Surface Surface 2 Surface Surface -4 - - rij 1?. Surface E. Surface 6 Surface 7 Surface a Surface 9 Surface -10 aa I I I I a I I I a I aI a a a — — --I- - ---I-----I ---- ----T a I I a I a I a a a a I a a a a I I a a —a — —I — — —I — — 1 — T a I a a a a I I a I a I a a a a I a a a a I a 1 T a I a a a I I a I a I I a a I a I I I I a a I I I I I a I a I I a I I a a I a I a I I T a I I T I I I T —— I I I I ----r I I _I_ - - - _ _ I I a I I a a a a a a a a a a a a I a —I— , — — —, — a a a I I 1 I I a 1 I I a a a a I a —I — — — — —I — — - — - a — a - I a a a I a a a al _ - - _ — I I I I T I I I I T T I I I _ F _ _I... _ _ _ _1_ _ _ _ al_ _ al_ _ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -▪ ---------------- --I- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I 1 I I --- r — — — — r- —--- , ---— —a— — ——I—— I a a a a I I I a a a I I a a a a a a a — — — r — — —r• .... 1 .... -I NIB - --I--- 1 I a a a I I I I a a I a I I - - r - a - et - — I I 1 I I I I a r _ _ - - — -- - a a - WO MS _ — a —a a — a a a a — a — a I . ■ I 1 . -'1 0 -5 .II I I . I I . I I I . . I . . 1 . , . , . I . I ... I .. . I , . . I .. . I . II.I•I,..I.,III I,.II 5 10 1:5 20 i 30 as 40 45 50 55 60 S.Yiu TO 75 80 85 0 95 H 105 110 (Scale in Feet) Plate 2A Problem: T'io Rivers Stability Analysis - ES Min- Spencer = 1169 I 1 I I soils Cohesion Friction Angle jj1 �q �.!' r .e roc '... Sand w GM 0.0 I 65 ;- Sand U.0 1 , rely G.0 r Clay 56.G 1 Water Table Lio=5 ; Cr ica I Surface 1 I i 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 501 I 1 r 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I I I 1 1 1 1 1 5 L J J L 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 j'1 1 1 1 1 1 11,,,11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1- -I---------1 F 1 5 25 .1s 10 S 0 -10 35.6 45.-1 28.0 1 I I I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I I I 1 1 I J L 1 a I 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 I I I I 1 1 I 1 a 1 r -I- - -1 - - - - - - - - r — — — — - - IS -I 1 I I I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I I I 1 1— ....... ........ J — — I.. ........ I — — 1 1 a a I 1 1 1 r a 1 I 1 1 r I 1 1- 1 I 1 1 -10 I I 1 1 I a 110 20 1 30 I I 1 I I I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I I I 1 1 1 I I 1 1 I 1 1 I I I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 J 1 1 1 1 1 J 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 a 1 - - - - - - - 1 I I T I 1 a 1 I a — 1 ........ L 1 I 40 I I 1 I I 1 1 1 1 T a 1 1 1 1 1 I 5G 60 (Scale in Feet) 1 r I I 1 1 1 I - - - a - a 1 I I L .J I 1 1 I I I L 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I - a 1 I 1 1 1 1 ..1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I T I 1 1 1 1 I I I I I 1 1 1 T I I 1 a 1 1 1 1 1 1 - L ........ — — — — — —I ........ J ........ L. t I 1 I 1 1 1 1 I r 1 I I I- 1 I IMIS TO 801 90 I 0 a 110 120 70 6 , Plate 3A Problem : Two Rvers Stability Analysis - IFS Mm- Spiel cer = 1.259 =�_ 60 CC 1 1 I I I I I 1- I I I I 1 1 I 1 a 1 r, I- I 1 40 1 1 1 1 1 30 25 20 •1 C, _' .10' C ..1• -.10 -15 a a 1 a 1 1 1 r a a a 1 a 1-- ....... U) ........ J 1 1 1 I I IC _ Bedrock Sand Cray 'Water T i]tie c ritic:a I Surface Soils Cohesion Friction Angle 500.0 110 .1 SIG G AU'. 0 4 a - J 1 1 a a a 1 a I 1 a a 1 1 1 1 r 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 J 1 1 1 1 a I 1 I I T 1 1. a I T I I 1 1 1 T I 1 I 1 1 a I 1 I 1 1 L. I 1 L I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 a a 1 1 1 1 a 1 a a a a 1 a a I a 1 1- 1 a a a a a a a 1- 1 a -10 a a a 1 a a 1 1 F 11 0 - - - - - a 1 a a a a 1 a — r 1 a L 1 20 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 f 1 1 -r I �r 1 1 1 1 1 40 EC ri Lr L 1 i 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 J 1 1 1 1 1 ft 1 r 1 1 1 1 1 a a a a a a .1 a a 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I- I I I L I I I r L I I r I I I. I- I- I I 90 100 .10 120 CE3caIe in Fret: 70 6.„ Plate 4A Problem: Two Rivcrs Staftilty Analysis •- ES Min- Spencer = `1. ii5 =._ 60 CC II IN tai 0 4c - 40 � 2C hails fa -0 ft 1 1 1 I 2c.. J J I I I I I I 1 1 1- I I I I 1 I I I a 1 a 1 I I a a a a 1 a a I- I I IC _ Soils Cohesion Friction Angle DCL_rOL:k 5001.0 22.0 Sand 0.0 P} Clay 28_ Ater T able c-ritic:a I Surface - 1 1 Y 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I I I 1 1 I a a 1 J J L I I I 1 I I 1 I I 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -I I - a I a I I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 20 r -1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 C1--------— J . ` 1 1 1 .10' C -.10 -15 I a a I a I 1— 1 a a a a a a a 1— 1 a a 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I --- 1 1 1 1 .' 1 1 1 .1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 .1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 J - - - a - - - 1 I I T I 1 I 1 T I I I 1 1 1 1 1 T 1 I 1 1 1 1 I I 1 I I 1 1 I L I 1 1 L I 1 1 1 - ....... a - - - - - a 1 1 1 L 1 1 1 1 I 1 I J 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 J 1 1 1 a - #0 1 1 1 1 1 r 1 1 1 I I 1 I 1 1 I 90 100 a 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 X10 1 1 1 1 H I I I L I I I r I- I- I I 120 (Scale in Fret NRC-070 Submitted: 5/8/2015 United States Seismic Zones Map III€ aua 'I • Grlylri * kin ' :itri11 Pu e r t r_► zr !Mr! l'iarl *Olympia Saran CoL if be, --in &Virgin'Islarlr_�w Washinaton remn • Carson City Helena Salt Like C. rkliciu North Dakota Bismarck Saat1 Da:ko;a Pierra it Nebraska ;'fir LincIllin r r. T.?59 Ca i i'] e a7 is i it Des Moines Stir4 r�{if ew Louis talta H ,tin Rouge* It�,_lcrlfl Lansing f urn bus 0 Tallahassee Mello i' uncl * oInmbi. South Carolina F➢orida Raleigh iciccar rd# Boston* Ito ton @Met a 4a IdeL!Lr' a MITLIZCILILISMI Nice Seismic Zones (Ground Acceleration) Zone 0 = 0.0g Zone 1 .= 0.075g Zone 2A _ 0 . L 5fg Zone 211 0.20g Zone 3 = 0.30g Zone 4=0.40g Source!! 1 99.if Edition LiBC I STATE OF COLORADO DIVISION OF RECLAMATION, MINING AND SAFETY Department of Natural Resources 1313 Sherman St., Room 215 Denver, Colorado 80203 Phone: (303) 866-3567 FAX: (303) 832-8106 APPLICABILITY: CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL REGULAR (112) OPERATION RECLAMATION PERMIT APPLICATION PACKAGE COLORADO DIVISION OF RECLAMATION MINING COLORADO DIVISION O F RECLAMATION MINING N I N G SAFETY This application package is for a construction materials operation which affects 10 acres or more. If you plan to conduct a construction materials extraction operation which meets these criteria, please follow the instructions provided in this package, in the Rules and Regulations, and in the Colorado Land Reclamation Act for the Extraction of Construction Materials, as required. RECOMMENDATIONS PRIOR TO FILING: The Construction Material Rules and Regulations (the Colorado Land Reclamation Act for the Extraction of Construction Materials, Section 34-32.5-101, et seq., C.R.S., ., and 2 CCR 407-1) and the Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Board (the "Board") regulate the permitting, operational and reclamation requirements for all construction material extraction operations in Colorado. It is your obligation to comply with the Act and Regulations. You are encouraged to obtain and review a copy of the Rules, available for $8.00 from the Division of Reclamation, Mining, and Safety (the "Office"). In order to submit your application properly, it is recommended that you review the Act and: Rule 1.1 Rule 1.4.1 Rule 1.4.5 Rule 1.6 Rule 3.1 Rule 3.3.1 Rule 4 Rule 6 Rule 6.2 Rule 6.4 Rule 6.5 Definitions; Application Review and Consideration Process; Specific Requirements for Regular 112 Operations; Public Notice Procedures; Reclamation Performance Standards; Operating without a Permit - Penalty; Performance Warranties and Financial Warranties; Permit Application Exhibit Requirements; General Requirements of Exhibits; Specific Permit Application Exhibit Requirements; and Geotechnical Stability Exhibit. It is recommended that you contact the agencies listed in the application section titled "Compliance With Other Laws" prior to submitting the application to the Office . Office of Mined Land Reclamation Office of Denver • Grand Junction • Durango Active and Inactive Mines FILING REQUIREMENTS: In order to apply for a Reclamation Permit for a Regular 112 Operation, please provide: One (1) signed and notarized completed ORIGINAL and one (1) copy of the completed original Regular 112 Operation Application Form. ORIGINAL SIGNATURES MUST BE DONE IN BLUE INK. o Two (2) copies of Exhibits A -S (required sections described in Rule 6). o Two (2) copies of Addendum 1- Notice requirements (described in Rule 1.6.2(1)(b)). A sample of this notice is attached for your use. The Geotechnical Stability Exhibit when required by the Division. o The application fee. The ninety (90) day period for review of the application and exhibits will NOT begin until all required information and fee are submitted. The Office will then review the submitted information for adequacy. NOTICE REQUIREMENTS: 1. You MUST send a notice, on a form approved by the Board, to the local board of county commissioners. A copy of this "Notice of Filing Application" form is attached for your use. 2. If the mining operation is within the boundaries of a conservation district, send a notice to the board of supervisors of the conservation district, PRIOR to filing the application. A copy of this "Notice of Filing Application" form is attached for your use. 3. You MUST include proof of notice #1 and #2 above with the application at the time the application is submitted to the Office for filing (Rule 1.6.2(1)(g)). 4. PRIOR to filing the application, place for public review a copy of the application, less confidential items, with the clerk or recorder of the county or counties in which the affected land is located. 5. You MUST include an affidavit or receipt demonstrating that the application was filed with the county clerk or recorder at the time the application is submitted to the Office for filing. 6. Any changes or additions made to an application submittal MUST be filed with the county clerk or recorder. You MUST also provide the Office with an affidavit or receipt demonstrating that the change was filed with the county clerk or recorder no later than the close of business on the day the change was filed with the Office (Rule 1.8.1(2)). 7. Within ten (10) days after your application is considered filed, you must publish four times in a newspaper of general circulation, in the locality of the proposed mining operation, the notice described in Rule 1.6.2(1)(d). 8. In addition, after the first publication you must mail or personally serve a copy of the notice described in Rule 1.6.2(1)(d) to all owners of record of surface rights to the affected land and all owners of record of lands that are within 200 feet of the boundary of the affected land (Rule 1.6.2(1)(e)). A copy of a form which includes all required information for the notice is attached for your use. 9. Prior to the Office making a decision (consideration of the application), you MUST submit a copy of the proof of publication from the newspaper and proof of all required notices. Proof of the notices may be by submitting copies of return receipts of a certified mailing or by proof of personal service (Rules 1.4.1(4), 1.4.2(4)(c), 1.6.2(1)(a)(ii), and 1.6.2(1)(g)). The copy of the application and any changes or additons placed at the office of the county clerk or recorder shall NOT be recorded, but shall be retained there for at least sixty (60) days after a decision on the application by the Office and be available for inspection during this period. At the end of this period, the application may be reclaimed by the applicant or destroyed (Rule 1.6.2(2)). APPLICATION REVIEW PROCEDURES: The Office shall approve or deny the application within ninety (90) days of filing unless the date for consideration by the Office is extended pursuant to Rule 1.8. The time for consideration shall not be extended beyond ninety (90) days after the last such change submitted. For complex applications, the review period may be extended an additional sixty (60) days. Please see Rule 1.1(10) for the definition of what constitutes a complex application. APPLICATION APPROVAL/DENIAL: If the requirements of the Act and Mineral Rules have been satisfied, the Office will approve the application. The Act also provides for automatic approval if no action is taken by the Office by the end of the review period. If the Act and Regulation requirements have not been satisfied, the Office will deny the application. If the Office denies the application, you may appeal to the Board for a final determination by submitting a written request for administrative appeal to the Board within 60 days of the decision date (Rule 1.4.7). PERFORMANCE AND FINANCIAL WARRANTIES: A performance warranty, and a financial warranty dollar amount determined during the application review process, must be submitted and approved by the Office PRIOR to permit issuance. A financial warranty should NOT be submitted until a decision on the application has been made. If the applicant is a unit of state or county government, then ONLY a performance warranty is required. Several different types of financial warranties are allowed by the law. Please review Rule 4.0 to determine which type of financial warranty you desire to use. You may obtain the appropriate warranty forms from the Office during the application review period. Please note that an application approval DOES NOT convey a right to begin operations. You MUST submit, and have approval of your performance and financial warranties, and receive your copy of the signed permit document PRIOR to beginning on -site mining activity. AUTOMATIC PERMIT APPROVAL: An automatic approval will occur where the Office fails to notify the applicant/operator that the application has been denied. This decision must be made ninety (90) calendar days from the date the application was determined to have been filed. However, the performance and financial warranties must be submitted and approved by the Office before the permit will be issued even if you receive an automatic approval. NO MINING OPERATIONS SHALL BEGIN UNTIL A PERMIT IS ISSUED (Section 34-32.5-109(1), C.R. S.). -iv - COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER LAWS: Compliance with the Act and Rules and Regulations of the Mined Land Reclamation Board DOES NOT relieve you of your responsibility to comply with all other applicable state and federal laws. We recommend that you contact the following agencies to determine whether you need to comply with their legal requirements: O The Colorado State Historical Preservation Office regarding properties of historical significance including the need for an archeological survey, procedures for requesting a file search, and inventory forms to identify structures. O Colorado Division of Water Resources with regard to water rights; O Colorado Department of Health, Water Quality Control Division, with regard to the discharge of pollutants into the State waters; O Colorado Department of Health, Air Pollution Control Division, with regard to the need for a fugitive dust permit; O U.S. Bureau of Land Management or the U.S. Forest Service if the proposed operation will occur on federal lands; O U. S. Army Corps of Engineers regarding a dredge and fill (404) permit; and O The County Planning Department for the county or counties in which your proposed operation is located. Section 34-32.5-109(3), C.R.S, requires a mining operator to be responsible for assuring that the mining operation and the post -mining land use comply with local land use regulations and any master plan for extraction adopted pursuant to Section 34-1-304, C.R.S. COMPLETION OF MINING: Upon completion of any phase of reclamation, you should consult Rule 3.1 for reclamation standards and 4.16 for details on how to request a reclamation responsibility release from the Board. STATE OF COLORADO DIVISION OF RECLAMATION, MINING AND SAFETY Department of Natural Resources 1313 Sherman St. Room 215 Denver, Colorado 80203 Phone: (303) 866-3567 FAX: (303) 832-8106 CHECK ONE: CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS REGULAR (112) OPERATION RECLAMATION PERMIT APPLICATION FORM There is a File Number Already Assigned to this Operation COLORADO DIVISION OF RECLAMATION MINING SAFETY Permit # M21322 - 013 (Please reference the file number currently assigned to this operation) 117 New Application (Rule 1.4.5) Conversion Application (Rule 1.11) Permit # M - i _ Amendment Application (Rule 1.10) - - (provide for Amendments and Conversions of existing permits) The application for a Construction Materials Regular 112 Operation Reclamation Permit contains three major parts: (1) the application form; (2) Exhibits A -S, Addendum 1, any sections of Exhibit 6.5 (Geotechnical Stability Exhibit; and (3) the application fee. When you submit your application, be sure to include one (1) complete signed and notarized ORIGINAL and one (1) copy of the completed application form, two (2) copies of Exhibits A -S, Addendum 1, appropriate sections of 6.5 (Geotechnical Stability Exhibit, and a check for the application fee described under Section (4) below. Exhibits should NOT be bound or in a 3 -ring binder; maps should be folded to 8 1/2" X 11" or 8 112" X 14" size. To expedite processing, please provide the information in the format and order described in this form. GENERAL OPERATION INFORMATION Type or print clearly, in the space provided, ALL information requested below. 1 Applicant/operator or company name (name to be used on permit): Raptor Materials, LLC. 1.1 Type of organization (corporation, partnership, etc.): Limited Liability Company 2. Operation name (pit, mine or site name): Two Rivers Sand, Gravel & Reservoir Project 3. Permitted acreage (new or existing site): 31 Change in acreage (+) 3.2 Total acreage in Permit area 4. Fees: 41 4.2 4.4 4.5 New Application New Quarry Application Amendment Fee Conversion to 112 operation (set by statute) 5. Primary commoditie(s) to be mined: sand 5.1 Incidental commoditie(s) to be mined: 1. 3. 1 lbs/Tons/yr 4. gravel earth products lbs/Tons/yr 2. 1 lb s1T onslyr 409.234 permitted acres acres acres $2,696.00 $3,342.00 $2,229.00 $2,696.00 application fee quarry application amendment fee conversion fee 1 lbs/T onslyr 5. 1 lbs/Tons/yr 5.2 Anticipated end use of primary commoditie(s) to be mined: commercial urban & rurual infrastructure needs N/A 5.3 Anticipated end use of incidental commoditie(s) to be mined: 6. Name of owner of subsurface rights of affected land: Raptor Materials, LLC. If 2 or more owners, "refer to Exhibit O". 7. Name of owner of surface of affected land: Raptor Materials, LLC. 8. Type of mining operation: J Surface Underground 9 Location Information: The center of the area where the majority of mining will occur: COUNTY: Weld PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN (check one) : I" SECTION (write number): TOWNSHIP (write number and check direction) RANGE (write number and check direction) : QUARTER SECTION (check one): QUARTER/QUARTER SECTION (check one): 6th (Colorado) S T 1 10th (New Mexico) 4 14* R 66 NE NE NW North I 1 South LEast _7 West NW Fr SE � SW SE SW Late GENERAL DESCRIPTION: (the number of miles and direction from the nearest town and the approximate elevation): 10. Primary Mine Entrance Location (report in either Latitude/Longitude OR UTIVI): Latitude/Longitude: Example: (N) 39° 44' 12.98" (W) 104° 59' 3.87" Latitude (N): deg min sec (2 decimal places) Longitude (W): deg min sec (2 decimal places) OR Example: (N) 39.73691° (W) -104.98449° Latitude 40 .348174 5 decimal .laces ( p ) Longitude(W) -104 776631 (5 decimal places) OR Universal Tranverse Mercator (UTM) Example: 201336.3 E NAD27 Zone 13 4398351.2N s ecif NAD27 NAD83 or WGS 84) Nod 83 Zone 13 UTM Datum (specify a Easting Northing 11. Correspondence Information: APPLICANT/OPERATOR (name, address, and phone of name to be used on permit) Contact's Name: Kan Id Company Name: Street/P.O. Box: City: State: Telephone Number: Fax Number: Raptor Materials, LLC. Title: Vice -President 8120 Gage Street P.O. Box: Frederick Colorado 223 1. 666-665 (303 ) . 666-6743 PERMITTING CONTACT (if different from applicant operator above) Garrett C. Varra Contact's Name: Company Name: Street/P.O. Box: City: State: Telephone Number: Fax Number: INSPECTION CONTACT Contact's Name: Company Name: Street/P.O.Box: City: State: Telephone Number: Fax Number: Raptor Materials, LLC. Zip Code: 80516 Title: General Manager 8120 Gage Street Frederick P.O. Box: Colorado Zip Code: 80516 666-6657 303 _ 666-6743 Garrett C. Varra Raptor Materials, LLC. Title: General Manager 8120 Gage Street Frederick P.O. Box: Colorado 303 _ 666-6657 303 w 666-6743 Zip Code: 80516 CC: STATE OR FEDERAL LANDOWN Miff f any) Agency: Street: City: CC: State: Zip Code: Telephone Number: ( STATE_ OR FEDERAL LA.NDO' EP (if any) Agency: Street: City: State: Zip Code: Telephone Number: _ - 12. Prima future Past -mining) land use (check one): Cropland(CR) Darr eland(RL) Residential(RS) Pastureland(PL) General Agriculture(GA) ji For (FR) Wildlife 1-I h tat( L) riRecreation(RC) Industrial/Commercial (IC) Developed Water Resources('}) Solid Waste Disposal(WD) 13. PrimaPtimarv. present lane _ use f check one It Cropland(CR) Pastureland(PL) d(�'L) General Agriculture(GA) El Ida.. eland R.L Pones FR Wildlife Habitat(WL) Residential(RS) Recreation(RC) lndustria.lic ommercial(i Developed Water Resources(R) 14. Method of Mining: Briefly explain mining method (e.g. truck/shovel): Surface extraction, processing, and transport of aggregate resources until bedrock establishment of final basins is complete. 15. On Site Processing: J71 Crushing/Sereening 13.1 Briefly explain mining method (e.g. truck/shovel): En place extractor' of uncansolidat.ed soil and aggregate try eAcavalors, dozers. scrapers, Or buboes followed by tenspodation by conveyor or haul truck to a processing locations where material is crushed„ screened, and prepared ands stockpiled for commercial safe and removal from proper. All extracted materials may be utilbted Inc eitheroomrnerdal purposes or ran=site reclamation and development. List any designated chemicals or acid -producing materials to be used or stored within permit area: None 16. Description on of Amendment or Conversion: If you are amending or converting an existing operation, provide a brief narrative describing the proposed change(s). Maps and Exhibits: Two (2) complete, unbound application packages must be submitted. One complete application package consists of a signed application form and the set of maps and exhibits referenced below as Exhibits -S, Addendum 1, and the Geotechnical Stability Exhibit. Each exhibit within the application must be presented as a separate section. Begin each exhibit on a new page. Pages should be numbered consecutively for ease of reference. If separate documents are usedas appendices, please reference these by name in the exhibit. With eachof the two (2) signed application forms, you must submit a corresponding set of the maps and exhibits as described in the following references to Rule &4, 6.5, and I.6. (1)(b): EXHIBIT A EXHIBIT B EXH1:IT C EXHIBIT D EBB IT E EXHIBIT F EXHIBIT C EXHIBIT H EXHIBIT I EXHIBIT J EXHIBIT K EXHIBIT L EXHIBIT M EX HLB1T EXHIBIT 0 EXHIBIT P EXHIBIT EDIT R EDITS Rule 1.6.2(1)(b) Rule 6. Legal Description Index Map Pre -Mining and Mining Plan Map(s) of Affected Lands Mining Plan Reclamation Plan Reclamation Plan Map Water Information Wildlife Information Soils Information Vegetation Information Climate information. Reclamation Costs Other Permits and Licenses Source of Legal Right -To -Enter Owners of Record of Affected Land (Surface Area) and Owners of Substance to be Mined Municipalities Within Two Miles Proof of Mailing ofNotices to County Commissioners and Conservation District Proof of Filing with County Clerk or Recorder Permanent Man -Made Structures ADDENDUM I - Notice Requirements (sample enclosed) Geotechnical Stability Exhibit (any requi t sections) The instructions for preparing Exhibits A -S, Addendum I , and Geotechnical Stability Exhibit are specified under Rule 6.4 and 6.5 and Rule 1.6.2(10 ) ofthe Rules and Regulations. ifyou have any questions on preparing the Exhibits or content ofthe information required, or would like to schedule a pre -application meeting you may contact the Office at 303-X66-35&7. Responsibilities as a Permittee: Upon application approval and permit issuance, this application becomes a legally binding document. Therefore, there are a number of important requirements which you, as a permittee, should fully understand. These requirements are listed below. Please read and initial each requirement. in the space provided, to acknowledge that you urdorsta-nd your obligations. If you do not understand these obligations then please contact this Office for a full explanation, -- I. Your obligation to reclaim the site is not limited to the amount of the financial warranty. You assume legal liability for all reasonable expenses which the Board or the Office may incur to reclaim the affected lands associated with your mining operation in the event your permit is revoked and financial warranty is forfeited; IssiUS! . The Board may suspend or revoke this permit, or assess a civil penalty, upon a finding that the permittee violated the terms or conditions of this permit, the Act, the Mineral Rules and Regulations, or that information contained in the application or your permit misrepresent important material facts NIZ \CZ, ‘414-4s. 3. if your mining and reclamation operations affect areas beyond the boundaries of an approved permit boundary, substantial civil penalties, to you as permittee can result; 4. Any modification to the approved mining and reclamation plan from those described in your approved application requires you to submit a permit modification and obtain approval from the Board or Office; 5. It is your responsibility to notify the Office of. any changes in your address or phone number: 6. Upon permit issuance and prior to beginning on -site mining activity, you must post a sign at the entrance of the mine site, which shall be clearly visible from the access road, with the following information (Rule 11.12): the name of the operator. ; b. a statement that a reclamation permit for the operation has been issued by the Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Board; and, the permit number. 7. The boundaries of the permit boundary area must be marked by monuments or other markers that are clearly visible and adequate to delineate such boundaries prior to site disturbance. . it is a provision of this pernnit that the operations will be conducted in accordance with the terms and conditions listed in your application, as well as with the provisions of the Act and the Construction Material Rules and Regulations in effect at the time the permit is issued. 9. Annually, on the anniversary date cfpermit issuance, you must submit an annual fee as specified by Statute, and an annual report which includes a trap describing the acreage affected and the acreage reclaimed to date (if there are changes from the previous year), any monitoring required by the Reclamation Plan to be submitted annually on the anniversary date of the permit. approval. Annual lees are for the previous year a permit is held. For example, a permit with the anniversaiy date of July 1, 1995, the annual fee is for the period of July 1, 1994 through June 30, 1995. Failure to submit your annual fee and report by the permit anniversary date may result in a civil penalty, revocation of your permit, and forfeiture of your financial warranty, it is your responsibility, as the permittee, to continue to pay your annual fee to the Office until the Board releases you from your total reclamation responsibility. 10. For joint venture/partnership operators: the signing representative is authorized to sign this document and, a power of attorney (provided by the partner(s)) authorizing. the signature of the representative is attached to this application. NOTE TO COMMENTORS/OBJECTORS: E TOR It is likely there will be additions, changes, and deletions to this document prior to final decision by The Office. Therefore, if you have any cotnments or concerns you. must contact the applicant or the Office prior to the decision date so that you will know what changes may have been made to the application document. The Office is not allowed to consider comments, unless they are written, and received prior to the end of the public comment period. You should contact the applicant for the final date of the public comment period. Ifyou have questions about the Mined Land Reclamation Board and Office's review and decision or appeals process, you may contact the Office at (303) 866-3567. lit Certiticittion: As an authorized representative of the applicant, I hereby certify that the operation described has met the minimum requirements of the following terms and conditions: 1 To the best of my knowledge, all significant, valuable and permanent man-made structures) in existence at the time this application is filed,and located within 200 feet of the proposed affected area have been identified in this application (Suction 34a323 -115(4)(e), CRS.). .). 2. No mining operation will be located on lands where such operations are prohibited by law (Section 34-32.5-115(4)(0, 3. As the !applicant operator, I do not have and, extraction/exploration operations in the State ofColorudo currently in violation of the provisions of the Colorado Land Reclamation Act for the Extraction of Construction Materials (Section 34.32.5-1 0, .R. .) as determined through a Board findings 4. I understand that statements in the application are being made under penalty of perjury and that false statements made herein are punishable as a Class 1 misdemeanor pursuant to Section 184.503,. C.R.S. This form has been approved by the Mined Land Reclamation Board pursuant to section 34-32.S-II2, R.., of the Colorado Land Reciatnadon Act for the Extraction ofConstruction truction Materials. Any alteration or modification of thisform shall result in voiding any permit issued on the altered or ntodiffed form and subject the operator to cease and desist orders and civil penalties for operating without a permit pursuant to section 34-32.5423, '.R. £ Signed and dated this Iglek day of A- s 0 .. %%liar nias:"Tt�, Applicant/Operator or Company Name Signed: Title: Kevin ,Jenkins, 'ice -President Sate of 0r 4.d c7 } County of W41d } If Corporation Attest (Seal) Signed: Corporate Secretary or Equivalent Town/City/County Clerk before me this 1 day of The foregoing instrument was �acknowledged - a t2o 'V b \dons P JESSICA HOOVER NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF COLORADO NOTARY ID 20044035671 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES OCTOBER 4, 2024 for Mcd,:be trek,4t LLC My Commission expires: ;SIGNATURESMUST BE IN BLUE INK to 14/i2 You must post sufficient Notices at the location of the proposed mine site to clearly identify the site as the location c a Raptor Materials, LLC. 8120 Gage Street Frederick. CO 80516 Telephone (303) 666-6657 Fax (303) 666-6743 Wednesday 31 August 2022 To. Robert D. Zuber, P.E. Environmental Protection Specialist Colorado Division of Reclamation Mining and safety office of Mined Land Reclamation (OMLR) 1313 Sherman Street, Room 215 Denver, Colorado 80203 From: Garrett C. Varra, General Manager Subject: Two Rivers sand, Gravel and Reservoir Project, File No. M-2022-013, 112c Permit Application Adequacy Review #1 - REPLY Dear Rob. The Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety (Division/DBMS), Office of Mined Land Reclamation COMLR); reviewed the contents of the Original 112c permit application for the Two Rivers Sand, Gravel and Reservoir Project(TRIO, File =Y o. M-2022 013 and submitted comments. The Division was required to issue an approval or denial decision no later than July 17, 2022. Given the limited time to respond to those concerns and pending comments anticipated from the OMLR by 5 August 2022, an initial extension was requested and granted to 15 September 2022. The review consisted of comparing the application contents with the specific requirements of Rules 1, 3, 6.1, 6.2, 6.4 and 6.5 of the Minerals Rules and Regulations of the Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Board for the Extraction of Construction Materials (effective date July 15, 2019). Any inadequacies were identified under respective exhibit headings, along with suggested actions to correct them, We have reviewed the Division's comments and trust the following reply will serve to fully address them. For greater continuity and ease of reference, we have iterated the comments from the OMLR Adequacy Review (Review) of 24 June 2022 and 05 August 2022, necessitating a reply according to its respective item numbers from the Review, iterated in a graphical box, with our comments in blue following: Page 1 Prologue The permit application has been prepared as a holistic document. We believe it would be inconsistent with the intent of the Rules and Regulations or good practice to approach it otherwise. Mining must be designed from the outset and operated through the life of the mine with closure in mind. To different degrees then, all the elements of the application are interwoven and form a narrative about the development, operation and ultimately closure of the mine. Naturally the Rules and Regulations must be segmented to at least address different elements of this process, but where the context of a discussion suggests certain discussions be combined, we have done this. There comes a point when the review will so put into fractions for purposes of style as to make the application fundamentally difficult to navigate or perform as a useful tool for compliance by the Operator. To cross reference every subject or element of the application would make the document both unwieldy and likely harder to understand and comprehend, rendering it less likely to be useful to either the operator or regulator. For example, while some information in Exhibits D and E addresses soils and vegetation, there is another exhibit completely devoted to the same. Similarly, there are independent exhibits intended to satisfy parts of Exhibit H - Wildlife Information, which may also add to the understanding of ICJ - Soils and vegetation and other data. Soils and vegetation are grouped because they are so contextually close and difficult to regard separately, so keen are their influences. This is not new and is also consistent with how we access established information of the same from S (NRCS) reports and data, as provided under Exhibit ICJ= Soils and Vegetation Information, and maps. The vegetation, being typified according to soils, shown on the maps, fully complies with a map -based description of vegetation as it may naturally occur absent man caused modifications like agriculture or natural events like flooding or wildlife impacts, clearly evident in the aerial photographs used to enhance maps. Consequently, there are extensive references to Exhibit I/J throughout this application, in large part because soils are so integral to every aspect of the project, and it would be ungainly to repeatedly end every paragraph touching on the subject in Exhibits D, E, or others with redundant references. The same logic applies to Exhibit G: Water Information, which may also have other supplemental water information contextually placed in other exhibits. An effort is made to call out these respective exhibits where the information desired in one exhibit is found in another, or as it may be otherwise be identified by a map legend. With regard to map exhibits, please consider the aerial information at scale is intended 2Rage Conespondence to the Colorado Office of Mined Land Reclamation — Reply to Rob Zuber, EPS — Adequacy Letters of 24 June and 5 August 2022 in the matter of the Two Rivers Sand, Gravel and Reservoir Project — M2022-013, to speak pictorially and provide substantial detail. Typically maps includes additional information to aid clarity, even though suchinformation is not necessarily called out by the Rules and Regulations. This serves to minimize extensive additional narrative. since a picture (commonly) really is worth a thousand words, It should be considered that the Rules and Regulations call for a considerable amount of information that must appear on the included maps. Some discretion as to what is revealed and how on a given map exhibit is in part determined in the submittal to meet the demands of communicating to a broad audience. Some information that might appear or not appear on a given map are commonly represented on another for the sake of context with the associated narrative under the same or similar intent. We are aware of the present-day names and full anacronyms of governmental agencies referenced in this submittal. It is a matter of convention versus free expression as a reasonable person might view it. Clearly, the Agency comments suggest it understands the application of the names and letters that we used. In other cases, we are unclear on apparent conflicts with the Rules and Regulations. • OMLR (it has been suggested we remove this acronym as it does not exist): It's in your Definitions: ule 1.1 (32) (32) "Office" means the Office of Mined Land Reclamation within the Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety (DRMS). It's in your Rules and Regulations: Any reference to the Colorado Office of Mined Land Reclamation is consistent with the following Colorado Revised Statutes, as of year 2020 (Source: Justia US Law } US Codes and Statutes > Colorado Revised Statutes > 2020 Colorado Revised Statutes > Title 34 - Mineral Resources > Article 32, Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Act > Section 34-32-105, Office of mined land reclamation - mined land reclamation board created. Universal Citation: CO Rev Stat 34-32-105 (2020) (6)There is hereby created, in the division of reclamation, mining, and safety in the department of natural resources, office of mined land reclamation and, in the department of t h e Conespondence to the Colorado Office of Mined Land Reclamation — Reply to Rob Zuber, EPS — Adequacy Letters of 24 June and 5 August 2022 in the matter of the Two Rivers Sand, Gravel and Reservoir Project — M2022-013, natural resources, the mined land reclamation board. The head of the office of mined land reclamation shall be appointed by the director. The head of the office of mined land reclamation shall have professional and supervisory experience in mined land reclamation, mining, or natural resource planning and management. • Change "NPDES" to "DP" to reflect the requirements of the Water Quality Control Commission. Our only reference to NPDES was simply incorporating the following text directly from the rules. Rule 6.4.7 (5) g The Operator/Applicant shall affirmatively atively state that the Operator/Applicant has acquired (or has applied for) a National Pollutant Discharge Elinn in adon System (NPDES) permit. from i he Water Quality Control Division at. the Colorado Department of Health and Environment, if necessary Also, any effort to update agency names betrays our desire under the First Amendment to maintain a casual reference in place of convention, which is apparently easy enough to follow, and has been since 1999. For example: • We use DOW in reference to the Colorado Division of Parks and Wildlife, but left out Parks - because wildlife is involved, but not parks. We are aware of their formal name and alphabet soup. • For the Colorado Division of Water Resources, we may use DWIZ or ()SF,- for the office of the State Engineer, or some, SEC for State Engineer's Office, which resides within the Division. Our abbreviations occur in parenthesis at least once in reference to their full expansion. In future submittals, we will make efforts to bring some of these forward as desired, but for consistency and to avoid possible confusion in the many documents making up this application and in keeping with convention accepted in our submittals since 1999, it is preferred to maintain the current acronyms. June 24, 2022 Adequacy Review — General comments 1) On May 18, 2022, the Division approved a transfer of the Two Rivers Sand, Gravel and Reservoir Project 112 Application from Varra Companies, Inc. to Raptor Materials, LLC. Please provide a letter from Kevin Deakins (as part of your response to this adequacy review) stating that Bradford Janes is authorized to act as a permitting representative of Raptor Materials LL. Wage Conespondence to the Colorado Office of Mined Land Reclamation — Reply to Rob Zuber, EPS — Adequacy Letters of 24 June and 5 August 2022 in the matter of the Two Rivers Sand, Gravel and Reservoir Project — M2022-013. The work and prior submittals of Bradford Janes, a Professional Forester and Soil Scientist, laving nearly 43 -years of experience in orchestrating the diverse talents and content that comprise Minerals Section permits of the Colorado Division of Reclamation Mining and Safety's CDRMS)I Office of Mined Land Reclamation (01\41110, is presently employed by Raptor Materials, LLC. WM). All submittals through our Office of Special Projects represented essential continuity from his work k under the same with Varra Companies, Inc. His work . ntinues, now under the direct responsibility, oversight and approval of my Office, as signified below; and continuing under Garrett C. Varra, General Manager and fanner President ident of Varra Companies, lnc ; all under the authority of Raptor Materials, LLC. Please NOTE: Since the Application began under Varra Companies, Inc., a Succession of Operator to Raptor Materials, LLC has since been approved by the Garrett C. Varra is now our new Fermittee Contact and Designated Representative, until and unless otherwise notified. 6,) Kevin Jeakins, n , Vice -President Raptor Materials, LLC. 2022 2) Please commit to submitting Financial and Performance Warranties with the name Raptor or Materials, LLC. All financial and performance warranties necessary for the issuance of an approved OMLR Permit will be submitted, as underwritten by or for, Raptor Materials, LLC. u The Division received timely state agency comments from History olora to and the Division of Water Resources, as well as a late comment letter from Colorado Parks and Wildlife. The letters from these agencies arc included as an enclosure with this adequacy review letter. Please review the letters and provide comments accordingly, iie comments from History Colorado are acknowledged. RM intends to complete Class III Intensive Cultural Resource Inventory of the permitted area. 5I age Correspondence to the Colorado Office of Mined Land Reclamation - tit cply to Rob Zuber, EPS — Adequacy Letters of 24 June and 5 August 2022; in the matter of the Two Rivers Sand, Gravel mid Reservoir Project— M2022-013. Concerning comments from the Division of Water Resources, PM has affirmed in Item 54 of this response that all permits including well permits and documents related to water rights, such as a Substitute Water Supply Plan will be obtained and provided before actions requiring permits commence. A revised application for CDPS General Permit COG500000 Discharges from sand and Gravel Mining and Processing is submitted with this response. Comments from Colorado Parks and wildlife are addressed in various comments throughout this response and in the response prepared by ERG dated August 26, 2022 attached as an addendum to Exhibit H. Application Form 4) The application form must be updated to indicate that the new permitte e is Raptor Materials LLC. An updated and signed, Regular Impact (112_ Construction Materials application form under Raptor Materials, LLB:,, is attached, 5) on Page 1, Item #1.1 of the application form, the Applicant indicated the type of organization as a corporation. Please provide the corporation seal on Page 8 of the application form, if the corporation does not have a seal please indicate "no seal". Raptor Materials, LLC., is a Limited Liability Company and does not have a Corporate Seal. Consistent with Item #1, above, a newly completed 112 Construction Materials Application is provided as requested and having the signature of the Vice -President of Operations, 6.2 General Requirements of Exhibits 6) Rule 6.2.1(2)(b) requires maps be signed by a registered land surveyor, professional engineer, or other qualified person. Please submit signed copies of the Exhibit C and Exhibit F maps All maps for Permit M2022-013, were submitted Digitally. All maps show they were `Drawn by: B. L. Janes.' There is no reliable way to insert a legitimate signature on the maps. Please allow this reply to serve as testimony and signatory that all maps previously created in cooperation with diverse content providers and technical support, with Autodesk software and utilized by the office of Special Projects, from which the Wage Conespondence to the Colorado Office of Mined Land Reclamation — Reply to Rob Zuber, EPS — Adequacy Letters of 24 June and 5 August 2022 in the matter of the Two Rivers Sand, Gravel and Reservoir Project — M2022-013, final drawing was created by B.L. Janes. The content includes survey and aerial data for optimum accuracy and portrayal of all features and content to scale; including area roads, vegetation, and other obvious features as apparent or othemise identified there -in, such as internal irrigation ditch -works all owned by Raptor Materials, LLC. This Signature, below. bears witness to this effect that all maps as submitted prior to this date were digital reproductions on 1 d1 and in this instance were Drawn By: B.I. Janes. 2022 .L_ Janes PLEASE NOTE: Future Map Submittals beyond those already provided with the Original Application, or under this Adequacy Reply, will come with separate letterhead bearing this OR a similar Affirmation relative to the assigned Cartographer, and Original (riot facsimile) Sin Blue Ink Draw By; will apply equally t ALL as Signified. Signed and Dated, as provided Aith that submittal. Kevin Jeakins. Vice -President Raptor Materials. LAC 6.4 Specific Exhibit Requirements _ Regular 112 Aerations The foilovting items must be addressed by the Applicant to satisfy the Mineral Rules and Regulations of the Mined Land Reclamation Board: 6. 4.1 Exhibit A— Legal Description 7) The Applicant indicated that a portion of the permit area is in Sections 3 and 4 of Township 4 North, Range 65 West. However, it appears (based on the Exhibit Map in Exhibit B) that the text should indicate Range 66 West instead of 65 West. Please address this apparent error and revise the Exhibit A text as necessary. Exhibit A has been updated to reflect the correction,. as attached. 8) It appears that the coordinates for the Central Field SW Entrance are incorrect. Please check them and revise the Exhibit A text as necessary. (The coordinates 7Icage Correspondence to the Colorado Office of Mined Land Reclamation — Reply to Rob Zuber, EPP — Adequacy Leiters of 24 June and 5 August 2022; in. the mutter of the Two Rivets Sand, Gravel and Reservoir Project as M2022-013. listed for this entrance appear to be near the Varra Coulson Project.) Three locations were corrected as reflected in the revised Kxhibit A, and verified via supporting snippets of the coordinates captured from Goggle Maps, which follow, below: 6.4.3 Exhibit C - Pre Mining and Mining Plan Maps of Affected Land 9) The irrigation ditches need to be clearly shown and labeled on the Existing Conditions Map (Exhibit -1). SRage Conespondence to the Colorado Office of Mined Land Reclamation — Reply to Rob Zuber, EPS — Adequacy Letters of 24 June and 5 August 2022 in the matter of the Two Rivers Sand, Gravel and Reservoir Project — M2022-013, The Evans Ditch is labelled. The internal irrigation ditches are owned and controlled by NM, are visibly evident in the aerial image. While these company owned ditches are predominantly outside the extraction limits, some are inside the extraction limits and will be lost to extraction. 10) Also, per Rule 6.4.3I, the existing vegetation at the site should be shown. Aerial images are provided to reflect a better understanding as to the nature of the diverse vegetation that either exists or could exist over the affected lands. Since it is stated that extraction occurs with the cropped lands exclusively, the denuded lands shown in the aerial image reflect the seasonal absence of crops. Crops may vary in composition from year to year, so any manifestations as to what kind of crop, if any; or the state of cover, is somewhat misleading. Still, while we believe the aerial image satisfies the requirement, it should also be understood that this submittal is consistent with those submitted to the OMLR since 1999. We believe your colleague, Peter Hays, can attest to this, Further, there is ample information in 1�1xhibit I J - where the native vegetation that may exist as correlated to area soils is fully manifested in the included Range Site Descriptions, per SCSNRCS publications. Further, information is provided that much of the cottonwood corridors that occupy a majority of the riverine areas have vegetation that is atypical, since it is highly overgrazed or otherwise disturbed by natural conditions, sporting a near monoculture of smooth bronze or diverse annuals. 11) The scale on Exhibit -1 appears to be incorrect. Please check and revise as necessary. 9IPage Conespondence to the Colorado Office of Mined Land Reclamation — Reply to Rob Zuber, EPS — Adequacy Letters of 24 June and 5 August 2022 in the matter of the Two Rivers Sand, Gravel and Reservoir Project — M2022-013, It was off, but so little you could just see a minor shift in the image as the scale was remedied. A corrected version at 1" = 400' of the Original Drawing now in .pdf, is included with this submittal. Please keep in mind that in the translation of highly complicated drawings produced in Autod.esk Civil 3D and Raster Design, some loss may occur as Adobe attempts to translates the .dwg files of Autodesk, into usable .pdf files necessary in communicating the °MLR permit to a diverse agency and public audience. Then (the scale reflected as indicated at 0.002496): f Af B. 0.002496 L I`ow (the scale reflected as indicated at 1 inch = 400 feet - as set in Model Space). Note: Revised Map with corrected scale included in .pdf with this digital submittal: GEM D'dtivrt 314 Q_ Janen SC4L 1 Ir1G'1 = L0U tee: OATEN (11 Nt'w nber ?C2. 4Einsioul 22 February 2322 AA.; 1 or 1 a v ;a#a 1 inch- AIDa feet ivLj� 12) The legend on Exhibit C-1 includes the 100 -year floodplain, but the floodplain lines are not on the map. These lines should be added to this map as well as the Extraction Plan Map, Exhibit C-2. The 100 -year floodplain intersects the affected lands only to the north of the Big Thompson River and can be seen in both drawings. It's clearly identified in the -1 Legend where the 100 Year Floo dplain appears in True Blue. The line remained as a reference on Exhibit C- , but having been called out on C-1, did not appear in the C-2 Legend. lORage Conespondence to the Colorado Office of Mined Land Reclamation — Reply to Rob Zuber, EPS — Adequacy Letters of 24 June and 5 August 2022 in the matter of the Two Rivers Sand, Gravel and Reservoir Project — M2022-013, 54TH 5JR P `'`ti�'�tRUNEI CF THE E'tiANS DITCH.-K,rf �, `REC. IJO. 1 9698 �1 � --- / INaEta0N 10 & 29 cv, ADROXIMATE FLOODPLAIN :GUNDARY (SEE NOTE 6; it -7 /r ti ��/ __ _ A YD4 2670, . s QAMEVIsEI— 33 R 10 pI A A 30' E EME\IT r _ REC. N0. 2410746 r/ 20' EASEMENT --ti REC. NC. 3537429 (EXCEPTION 4E) J • �! iti1 3 13) For the sake of clarity, the Division recommends that the entire permit area be permitted to be affected, and this should be stated in Exhibit C and Exhibit D. (The Division recognizes that this statement is made in 1-4fxhibit L.) Your language is accurate, for it provides more precisely that all lands within the permit boundary may become `affected lands,' Regardless, this statement is included in the Original Submittal — Exhibit D, Pages 5 and 8: 11lPage Conespondence to the Colorado Office of Mined Land Reclamation — Reply to Rob Zuber, EPS — Adequacy Letters of 24 June and 5 August 2022 in the matter of the Two Rivers Sand, Gravel and Reservoir Project — M2022-013. Page IS 6.4.5 EXHIBIT D — Extractioir aura 5.11± feet from the surface, we determined the Static Water Level using the upper limit of 5.0± feet The Cyan colored contour shown on Exhibit G: Water Information Map represents the Static Groundwater Elevation at 4675' at North-West Field, and 4673' at Central Field_ Since completed reservoirs will be lined to meet State of Colorado Water Resources specifications and requirements, and since lined basins will ultimately equalize with the surrounding groundwater elevations, the Static Water Levels shown should reasonably reflect those of the both the lined or unlined state; and represent a proper reflection of the optimal surface area of the water over the finished basins. Varra Companies, Inc. has sufficient water to meet the circumstances mid obligations of both the lined and unlined states,, and as reflected under Exhibit G:, Water Resources Information; until and unless the reservoirs have an approved liner, the Operator will dedicate sufficient waters to secure the reclamation of the resulting basins in the unlined state. Planned Field Activities: The 409.23± acre parcel boundary forms the permit boundary, as reflected on exhibit maps_ All lands under its direct control within the 409_23± 3± acre permit area, are affected lands under C_R_ _ 34-32.5- 103(1), respective of this permit application_ As a result, any changes required in the nature of planned extraction or reclamation will be made only through the Colorado Office of Mined Land Reclamation (OMLR), by Technical Revision only_ If lands are needed beyond the designated permit boundary,-, those lands will be secured for the active °MLR permit byAmendment_ ANL : Page l 6.4.5 EXHIBIT D — Extraction 1 Operations Ivill predominantly utilize unmodified existing agricultural field access roads (unless otherwise indicated), which will themselves be subsequently extracted in time where they fall within the extraction limits shown on Exhibit C-2: Extraction Plan Map_ No other defined roads within the Extraction Limits will occur except for the temporary paths created by extraction equipment, or otherwise determined by subsequent Revision to the permit All existing agricultural roads outside of the designated extraction limits will be retained according to the desires of the landowner. The same shall form part of the final end use of the reclaimed lands, unless otherwise indicated in this submittal or by subsequent permit revision_ For purposes of this submittal, all lands within the indicated permit boundary will be considered affected lands, but only those locations between the existing access roads, and which otherwise remain above the anticipated static water level of the resulting basins, will be soiled (where soil is absent) and seeded to establish vegetation consistent with the approved reclamation plan. 14) During the preoperationsground truth inspection on Rune 14, 2022, the idea of relocating the access point at the northwest corner of the site (to the east) was discussed. Please update Exhibit C-2 to reflect any change in that location. 1211 Correspondence to the Colorado Office of Mined Land Reclamation — Reply to Rob Zuber, EPS — Adequacy Letters of 24 June and 5 August 2022 in the matter of the Two Rivers Sand, Gravel and Reservoir Project — M2022-013, No changes to Exhibit C-2 are necessary as no change is proposed to access at this time. Alternate plant site development and access may be considered at a later tim e if possible and in consultation with the City of Evans. Any future changes will be included as part of a Technical Revision to the approved permit at that time. 15) Please add the following to the Kxtraction Plan Map, >-K xhibit C- : roads, parking and equipment storage areas, levees, soil piles, keyways, settling basins, and other structures pertinent to the mining operation that are not currently shown on the map. Comments on the map can indicate where these features are subject to change. There are no established parking and equipment storage areas. Parking may occur within planned active extraction, along existing access roads, or within the homestead location. Levees are also access roads for street legal vehicles and service trucks. These roadways atop the levees are not designated for extraction and are visible to scale on the outer perimeter of planned extraction areas. There are no soil piles at this time, except that identified as stockpiled soil from the adjacent Westervelt Wetland Bank, and as established and set aside over the entire 1-3f Section of Central Field, as stated in the application. Updates to soil stockpile conditions over the NE Section of Central Field, or other locations, may also be updated in required Annual Reports as conditions warrant. As previously stated in the application, keyways are a feature that run at or near the toe of extracted slopes. It is unprecedented to show them in an application but can be updated in required Annual Reports to better reflect their size and extent, as they are field fit concurrent with extraction progress, which may vary in a manner difficult to portray in advance. Here's some additional information taken from the application on the planned keyways: 13IPage Conespondence to the Colorado Office of Mined Land Reclamation — Reply to Rob Zuber, EPS — Adequacy Letters of 24 June and 5 August 2022 in the matter of the Two Rivers Sand, Gravel and Reservoir Project — M2022-013, Page t3 follow the perimeter of the extraction limits over approximately 75.45± acres in order to estab ish the perimeter keyway for the 127.fg± acre Center Section of Central Field. The perimeter extraction will leave a 51,65± acre Core, that may be extracted as needed as keyway drainage capacity allows. The initial extraction area is bordered to the South along a near 800± foot section of oil and gas line that is pending removal; along with the two oil and gas wells, also pending removal (refer to Exhibit C for ownership details). Extraction will not occur within 10 'eat of these lines, or 25 feet from the walls, as indicated in the setbacks detailed under Exhibit D: Extraction Plan. Below this gas line is an existing pond and well that will be used as a Settling Basin Area, containing at present a solitary settling basin and pump as a point of discharge of groundwater. This pond may be expanded or added to below this line, and may then be extracted itself once discharge is discontinued forCentral Field Operations. Perimeter Keyway Extraction will maintain a perimeter slope no steeper than 1.25H:,iV, except for the perimeter shown in red along it's extraction limit,and respective toe where cut slopes wil not exceed 2.00H: Di; as indicated (refer to Exhibit S: Stability Analysis for addiitiona irformation). At the toe of the cut perimeter slope is the keyway that runs below the extracted deposit of the basin, into the bedrock, which allows the subsurface waters to flow to the settling basin and discharge pumps necessary to keep the cut basin dry during a time of extraction and reclamation of the affected perimeter slopes. The keyway dimensions may vary more or less from 4± to 8± feet in depth and 4± to 16± feet in width. Extraction must be broad enough to allow equipment to safely approach the toe and exise the bed dimensions where the resulting channel is sufficient to convey the groundwaters to the settling basin for discharge. Please Note: 'he graphic representation of the Perimeter Keyway Extraction and Core are idealized, and may vary in shape and size presented. Annual Reports will report on the nature and extent of affected lands and more properly ref cot actual conditions on the ground in a given year of operations.' 6.4.4 Exhibit D - Mining Plan 16) In. this and other exhibits, an effort should be made to update agency names. For example, the Colorado Division. of Wildlife is now Colorado arks and Wildlife. The abbreviation CDH should be CDPHE. Please refer to the discussion as it applies to the use of agency names and anacronyms, as discussed in the Prologue, above. 17) The mining plan (aka extraction plan) requires more detail. In particular, the plan should include a schedule that specifies the areas to be worked for given phases, with ranges of time periods. The phases described in Exhibit D should be coordinated with the Extraction Plan Map, Exhibit C -I The operator can change the plan later, as needed, with technical revisions and/or amendments. Additional clarification on the sequence of the mining plan is necessary to calculate the 14Rage Conespondence to the Colorado Office of Mined Land Reclamation — Reply to Rob Zuber, EPS — Adequacy Letters of 24 June and August 2022 in the matter of the Two Rivers Sand, Gravel and Reservoir Project — M2022-013, required financial warranty. Fields vs. Phases: As detailed in the Extraction Plan over pages 13 and 14 (copied below), we detail a modified Phasing Plan based upon Field Sections. The NW Field is separated in the whole by a public road from Central Field, while Central Field is bound together in three contiguous Sections (you may consider them Phases, although not sequential phases as they can be accessed simultaneously in time). So, the Fields and Sections are distinct from conventional mining phases, in that with enough Warranty, any or all can be accessed and extracted independently and simultaneously, instead of sequentially. One of the attributes of our Established Extraction Methodology is the use of flexibility to aid a rapid access to the deposit and completion of the basin. If needed, four separate extraction teams could be set up in each Section or Field to speed or adjust the extraction timeline. This has been a feature accepted by the Office over many submittals and many years. Your own Specialist, Peter Hays, can attest to this.. The timely application and use of Annual Reports, or Technical Revisions, to anticipate and adjust attending Financial Warranty to allow the operations to pulse over time is a humble approach that respects the requirements and objectives of the Rules and Regulations. The idea is designed to reduce the need for untimely delays and expensive permit revisions, as well as needless field operation conflicts that can also jeopardize Compliance with otherwise rigid self-imposed constraints. The greater beneficial effect is to flexibly match extraction and subsequent reclamation as operations adjust more naturally to shifts in market demand that determine the functional life of the mine. This is a projected 35 -year life of mine operation that could be shortened or lengthened by economic influences and other factors for which we and your Office cannot reliably or genuinely foresee. This answer will play out for 1-Vfxhibit L as well, as the entire described Onset Area is not essentially planned for disturbance, simply the area where initial disturbance may onset, however, given possible directions NE and SE along an idealized core, could affect 8-16 acres over the course of the initial 2 years, unless we hit a depression and it takes 10 years instead. Unlikely as either are, they are projections in time. The actual areas will be monitored using aerial imagery and handheld survey instruments to monitor and report the acreages and make revisions to the Plan and estimated Warranty in response to the current market drivers of the business. We will then reflect this on related maps and as content through the annual report process as determined at the time. 15IPage Conespondence to the Colorado Office of Mined Land Reclamation — Reply to Rob Zuber, EPS — Adequacy Letters of 24 June and 5 August 2022 in the matter of the Two Rivers Sand, Gravel and Reservoir Project — M2022-013, Active e Resource ecovery: Following soil salvage, the balance of the extractable deposit will be removed to the depth of the unconsolidated or weathered bedrock, transported. by conveyor to the plant site pit .rte, and subsequently .. 'pulate d as desired by screening, crushing, washing, and other methods to size t d properly dimension the earth product into diverse merchantable materials for sale. Resource recovery will commence radially North th and East from a point near the eydsting pond and planned first discharge point shown near the Southern boundary of Central. Field.. There are no fixed sequences or phases scheduled as part of the 'extraction ply. Instead, Fields are used instead of Phases to describe the activities, since each Field can be accessed conculTently instead of sequentially with. the Page 11; .4.6 EXHIBIT D— Extraction Plan other; as reflected or otherwise updated as part of required OMLR Annual Reports_ Under this method, extraction is 'pulsed-' As such, the rate of extraction and subsequent reclamation will _ slow or quicken according to influences of the markets,, weather, and internal logistics_ FleNibility in Operations encourages better outcomes when adapting to changing circumstance or unexpected field conditions, and i' lay involve actively working different fields or different parts of the same field as necessary. Generally, flexibility aids integrity of operations and encourages optimizing operational activity and subsequent reel ation o f affected lands_ Therefore, any method that accelerates the extraction timeline will be utilized, n i d should be encouraged to better engage the unpredictable ele ICI ems and variables that reasonably affect the capacities ie f the Operator. Exhibit C-2: Extraction Plan Map, shows the location d planned auction limits, general. direction of extraction, and related features des ..bed above; along with features made obvious the I chided aerial image of the permit location and surrounchng lands. Additional info ation is provided under Exhibit C-1: Esasting ConditionsMap; which shows all known current and active sig • -cant man-made truc s located on or witfrm 200 feet of the permit boundary detailed under including creeks, roads, lbu .il' _ .: s, oil and gas facilities Isuch as tanks, batteries, wells and. lines], and power and comnpanication lines and support structures, easements d rights -of -way: locatedover the permitted lands or within 200 feet of the same A listing of the adjoining surface owner's names and addresses located within these areas are listed der Exhibit C Text, correlated with those shown. it l t rim afore -mentioned Exitibit -1: I:di ondi ions Map_ 18) The discussion on pages 6 and 7 regarding structures and easements h uld discuss which structures and easements will be relocated or removed from the site (if any), 16IPage Conespondence to the Colorado Office of Mined Land Reclamation — Reply to Rob Zuber, EPS — Adequacy Letters of 24 June and 5 August 2022 in the matter of the Two Rivers Sand, Gravel and Reservoir Project — M2022-013, For lands within the Extraction Limits, only those structures, easements, and rights -of -way shown in Exhibit C-2: Extraction Plan Map, are anticipated to remain from those shown under Exhibit -1: Existing Conditions Map. If changes to existing or possible revised structures, easements, or right -of -,ray, are in any manner retained, or where they might occur subsequent to °MLR approval of this application, then a Technical Revision will be submitted to update Exhibit C-2: 1-4fxtraction Plan Map, All established set -back distances from planned activities will be maintained regardless. Operations are not intended to affect existing structures, Easements or Right -of - Ways within the Planned Extraction Limits or related Processing Areas and Wash Pond, and are designed to avoid and retain any structure, Easement or Right -of - Way on the surface, and subsurface. Future agreements may be reached allowing mining in areas currently identified as being restricted to mining containing certain. structures, l-3fasements or Right -of -Ways. 1-V1xhibit C-1 shows and identifies all these features understood by us, and the respective Surveyed information, and correlated observation and Title Work upon which they are based and represented on the attending Maps. The Maps are not Surveys. They are Maps and as such, they comprise a reasonable representation of all site features, but must not be relied upon by themselves exclusively for location purposes. Maps and features are not a substitute for identification of underground structures and will rely upon location services of the 811 service. Fifxhibit C-2 shows the remaining Oil Wells and Lines within Planned Operations at the time of the Submittal. Any revisions, additions, or modifications of residual Oil Wells or Lines will be avoided as represented on updated Maps and Revisions to the Permit, and consistent with Setback Distances identified in this submittal. Removal of any Existing Structures such as the Oil and Gas structures and or lines, will be updated on required Annual Reports, or by Technical Revision, as warranted, or as otherwise directed consistent with Colorado Statute. 19) on page 7, more detail is needed for the roads onsite. Please explain which roads will be built and which will be modified. Explain construction method and dimensions. All lands within the Vxtraction Limits will be traversed during extraction and are not roads. Areas outside of Active Extraction that have existing agricultural access roads below the existing riverside berms, may be accessed by all manner of vehicles and equipment and may be modified accordingly. 17Rage Conespondence to the Colorado Office of Mined Land Reclamation — Reply to Rob Zuber, EPS — Adequacy Letters of 24 June and 5 August 2022 in the matter of the Two Rivers Sand, Gravel and Reservoir Project — M2022-013, In this instance, these are not leased lands but Owner operator lands. As such, any improvement of existing access roads, or creation of new access roads, are capital improvements of the land. Therefore, all improvements to access are an asset to the landowner, and as such, will not be removed by a default by the operator, but. retained subsequent to extraction where they are not otherwise removed by the same. This is established real property law, s to design widths and composition, this will be field fit and determined, and updated in required OIL' Annual Reports. Road widths will vary but may typically be 10 to 40 feet wide depending on end use. oad surfaces will be fit for purpose and constructed using site produced materials if necessary to improve or establish the running surface. 20) On pages 1 - 13, the discussion on stockpiles should include text indicating that soil management practices will protect the soil piles from erosion, prevent contamination of the soil from toxic or acid-forming material, and ensure that the soil will remain usable for reclamation. Comments 20, 23 and 32 we believe are best addressed in a comprehensive rather than fragmented manner. Consistent with the backfill permit, it would be highly unusual that an alluvial aggregate operation would find potentially toxic or acid forming materials, nor would they if found be utilized. Sulfur is sometimes used on plains soils where acidification moderates alkalinity or the planting of evergreen trees which prefer a slightly acidic soil. Nonetheless the operator's intent is not to create or import such a problem. If found on site such materials would be disposed of in an appropriate landfill. The application does attend to the real threat on irrigated lands, which is the accumulation of salts due to evapotranspiration in some circumstances of the lower soil profile, which profile is significantly absent in Unit 3 Soils, as iterated here: Continued...next page... 181Page Conespondence to the Colorado Office of Mined Land Reclamation — Reply to Rob Zuber, EPS — Adequacy Letters of 24 June and 5 August 2022 in the matter of the Two Rivers Sand, Gravel and Reservoir Project — M2022-013, 6.4.5 EXHIBIT D a Extraction Plan Unit 3 soils commonly form within floodplains. As a result, differing states of soil formation may exist within the soil unit designation; such as soils with little horizon development like Entisols and Insc tisols_ Mollisols with deep well -developed horizons may exist in the minority and the near fringe of planned extraction_ Refer to graphic above, and bleow. Enceptis�ol tL�,'MLLLb LLLLLL4 In g tisol '..t�YV Lt�t..'LLLta ''. L r Io '5..Lt..4h'Mbis4h.�R.o JL. Soil Morphology With over a century of agricultural manipulation of area agricultural fields, prior mfg or importation ofsoils for land leveling, or flood plain management in the creation of levees, may have dramatically altered the original native soil profiles and properties. The native A profile of the upland terrace found within the agricultural Fields at the TRP, is predominantly modifiedas a plow (Ap) layer of 6.0± to .o± inches. The historic practice of incorporating manure into the plow layer should have served to maintain the organic base and quality of the cropped soils and accelerated soil horizon formation and development where it was lagging. Since the cropped soils have been irrigated, care should be taken not to salvage soils greater than 12.0± inches in depth to avoid mixing of potential accumulated salts. We use Exhibit I/J to expand upon Soil and Vegetation considerations that are also considered relevant to Exhibit E - the Reclamation Plan and correlated as well in attending supplemental information provided from the U.S. Natural Resources and 19IPage Correspondence to the Colorado Office of Mined Land Reclamation — Reply to Rob Zuber, EPS — Adequacy Letters of 24 June and 5 August 2022; in the matter of the Two Rivers Sand, Gravel and Reservoir Project — M2022-013. Conservation Service (formerly the U.S. Soil Conservation Service). The SCS were the principal authors and creators of soil conservation and management throughout the United States, and the first to systemically incorporate plant -soil -water relations in their considerations, which are certainly a factor in our own and reflected in the correlated exhibits to reflect their influence and relevance in this submittal. Persons familiar iliar with the SCS/N CS, know these are the authors of Soil Stabilization, so we commonly locate this information under Exhibit If J, where the information used for those considerations resides. Subsequently, what follows is a guide through the Application to reveal how the matter was addressed. We hope this clarifies and assures the Office in this manner. Itshould be understood that the application attempts to guide the reader point blank, as follows: Page 110 6.4.6 EXHIBIT D — Extraction Plan Soils found within the entire project area are described more thoroughly under Exhibit I - Soils Exhibit, and the attending Exhibit I,j - Soils and Vegetation Map, shown not to scale, above_ Additional geologic considerations are also included under Exhibit S- Stability Analysis. Area and Site Geology: The area geology is typified by mixed alluvial and Soil Stabilization methods are rather extensive in the application, intended to minimize erosion and impacts to waters and adjacent lands. Specifically, soil salvage and stockpile stabilization are called out by topic under 1-4f hibit D, as follows: Continued...next page... 201Page Conespondence to the Colorado Office of Mined Land Reclamation — Reply to Rob Zuber, EPS — Adequacy Letters of 24 June and 5 August 2022 in the matter of the Two Rivers Sand, Gravel and Reservoir Project — M2022-013, Soil. Salvage: .Resource recoverys%Till commence by first removing the upper IA profile, plow layer] six. to twelve idles of soil [six (6..0±.) inches trRicall, combined with existing grass or crop stubble_ Removal will utilize scrappers or excavators, aided by dozers Where necessary, ,, d hauled to the Northeast Section of Central Field_ All extraction and surface related activities detailed in this application will occur under an approved Fugitive Dust Permit issued y the Colorado Deponent of Public Health and Eno nt e-nt (CDH) Until resoling activity occurs, where harvested soils have been stockpiled and remain undisturbed for reclamation or sale" they will be seeded with the mixture specified under Exhibit ibit L - Table L-1: /Pr of erredl Re�vegetation Seed Mixture. A stabilizing cover of native vegetatio:nmay take up to three years to fully establish, the desired cover. In the event the native seed natnue fails, an optional mixture of predominantly introduced species will be used as a fall back to better assure a stabilizing cover of vegetation_ Stith using the Page 113 6.4 ,5 EXHIBIT D— Extraction Plan preferred native seed m i ture offers opportunity to gauge the potential p erfor nce of the selected species prior to utiliz iIYg it over :larger areas req g reclamation later in the life of the resource recovery operation Once vegetation is establishedover the initial reclamation soil stockpiles,, they, will likely remain untouched for the life of the operation until final reclamation of reniaining affected lands t ak e s place_ Where co ncurre t reclamation is possible" operations will utilize soil in an over the shoulder method when practical_ In this manner, reclamation is 'expedited Without creasing soil stockpile volumes while reducing expenditures related to labor" handing,, and time_ There are no agents preventing the soil from functioning for reclamation other than the inevitable loss of some native soil structure, organic matter, and fertility that can be compensated for by any analytically determined need at the time of resoiling and revegetation, via analysis using of soil samples by the CSU Soils Laboratory. This and other measures are detailed in the application under Exhibit I/J: Soils and Vegetation Information, as follows: Continued...next page„, , 211Page Conespondence to the Colorado Office of Mined Land Reclamation — Reply to Rob Zuber, EPS — Adequacy Letters of 24 June and 5 August 2022 in the matter of the Two Rivers Sand, Gravel and Reservoir Project — M2022-013. Once applied to the surface, the new soils will be exposed to the raw forces of erosion until adequate vegetative cover and root mass develops. Erosion requires both detachment and transportation in order to occur. Running water, wind, and raindrop impact are the main forces of erosion acting upon the soil. The use of a sterile hybrid live cover crop will aid in the stabilization of the soil by allowing a quick vegetative cover to become established in advance of the native grasses. The hybrid will also serve as an aid to reduce competition resulting from the establishment and growth of unwanted pioneer species (weeds) on disturbed ground. The attending reclamation seed mixture, and as approved, has a provision for the use of a sterile hybrid grass in lieu of mulch. Mulch, even when crimped with specialized equipment, is subject to being blown off the property, or reduced to an ineffective stubble. Often, it has been observed to intercept rainfall where it quickly evaporates from the stubble surface, limiting the benefits of light precipitation by preventing infiltration and percolation of moisture to the root zone. The hybrid on the other hand will establish quickly, but since it is sterile, will not continue to compete with the emerging native grasses. After two to three years, the hybrid grass will begin to die out just as the native grasses emerge and improve their dominance over the revegetated areas. Increasing Organic matter, such as the incorporation of manure into fallow soils, will aid in the restructuring of the new soils by increasing the moisture and fertility holding capacity of the upper profile seed bed, while simultaneously facilitating healthier plant -soil -water relations and overall root development of the emerging grasses. As the roots of the emerging grasses develop and mature over time, the resulting root mass will serve to build upon the base percent organic matter content of the new soils, thereby increasing the potential for long term survival and spread of the established grasses. Soil testing may occur on the new soils to better gauge the need or success of any applied organic soil amendments respective of the resulting vegetative cover. The addition of fertilizer may also aid in the establishment, growth and survival of the emerging grasses. Fertilizer may be applied to the seeded areas at rates determined from soil tests of the reapplied soils. To this end, soils may be sampled as needed. Sampling will utilize a hand auger and approved NRCS soil sample bags, and utilizing recommended procedures. Any soil testing will be conducted by the CSU Soil Laboratory in Ft. Collins, Colorado. The tests will be used to monitor soil quality and suitability of any amendments. Fertilizer may be withheld until after emergence to deter the encouragement of weed species. The use, composition and rates of VARRA COMPANIES, INC. TWO RIVERS SAND GRAVEL AND RESERVOIR PROJECT MARCH 2022 A REGULAR IMPACT [112] CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION COLORADO DIVISION OF RECLAMATION MIING & SAFETY OFFICE OF MINED LAND RECLAMATION Page I7 6.4.5 EXHIBIT I/J — Soils and Vegetation Information fertilization will be determined prior to the time of seeding where appropriate, and may be reported in the OMLR Annual Reports, as appropriate. WEED MANAGEMENT PLAN: Because the Agricultural Fields are the only planned area where the deposit itself will be extracted, it should be understood they are within the floodplain of two rivers. As such, stockpiling and placement of soil is initially designated outside of the flood plain on top of the pre-existing soil stockpile located over the NE Section of Central Field, until such a time as sufficient detention can be created to 22IPage Correspondence to the Colorado Office of Mined Land Reclamation — Reply to Rob Zuber, EPS — Adequacy Letters of 24 June and 5 August 2022; in the matter of the Two Rivers Sand, Gravel and Reservoir Project — M2022-013. accommodate above ground stockpiling. The application provided a copy of the Westervelt project detailing that this area of extraction was removed by the City of Evans from the floodplain. There are no floodplain impacts anticipated by continued stockpiling of soil over that location, We can affirm here that stockpiling above the existing ground elevation will not occur in a manner understood to obstruct flood waters where they might occur within the existing floodplain. It is understood and agreed here -in that their longitudinal dimensions if they occur there should extend parallel to anticipated flood flows where they exceed a cone or other shape that might find its existence contrary to intent by volume beyond that which could be understood to be temporary, or transitory; especially outside of seasonality where flooding might be more reasonably anticipated. What follows is information provided in the application (Exhibit I J) that was intended to address this concern as to existing volume stockpiled at that location; and a volume which exceeds the necessary volume needed to reclaim the completed project. The thickness of topsoil capping to be placed is stated as "All affected lands between the extraction limits and remaining above the anticipated high-water mark of the basins will be capped with a minimum of six C6O I) inches of soil, as supported by Exhibit 18 J - Soils and Vegetation Information." In Exhibit E (p5) and "there is sufficient soil to assure a re -soil depth of approximately six inches over the basin banks above the anticipated static water level el of the reservoirs" in Exhibit I/J (p4). Haul and push distances to re -soil will vary based on the actual progress rate and active sections of the operations. Where possible once the operation matures over the shoulder placement will be employed where possible for efficiency and best outcomes with soil. liM will report this activity in the Annual Report as the circumstances for re -soiling become clearer. Page 6.4.5 EXHIBIT I/J sells and Vegetation Information A portion of in s/tu soils may be used in an over the shoulder method to resoil the completed banks of basin slopes or other upland areas in time. Commonly, soils will be parked in stockpiles until ready for application in a manner more fully descibed below. Consistent with existing zoned agricultural practices, soil from an adjacent wetland bank was approved by the City, of Evans, and completed in early, 2021. The City of Evans approved (refer to the Addendum at the back of this Exhibit) the placement of these soils within the floodplain of the upper North-East portion of Central Field, as shown on Exhibit C-2: Extraction Plan Map. These orphan soils are in place, seeded, and the area remains under continuing agricultural production, yet are no longer part of the area floodplain. The current extent of this 200,000± cu.yd., stockpile is represented on Exhibit L: Financial Warranty Map. This stockpile location area will also receive a portion of soils removed from planned extraction locations over other areas of Central and North-West Fields. It should be noted that a monoculture of cultivated corn occupies a majority' of the planned areas of extraction, and will gradually be turned out of production through extraction. This soil may be utilized to line the resulting basins, for reclamation of affected lands above the static water level, or for market as warranted. 23 Conespondence to the Colorado Office of Mined Land Reclamation — Reply to Rob Zuber, EPS — Adequacy Letters of 24 June and 5 August 2022 in the matter of the Two Rivers Sand, Gravel and Reservoir Project — M2022-013. 21) On page 14 in the second to last paragraph, the sentence that begins "specific variations in the location of •••" should be rewritten. The structure of this sentence does not follow standard rules of grammar, and (more importantly) the meaning is not clear. Please revise this statement accordingly, The paragraph segment was simply a DRAFT oversight. There is a tendency to look at lines drawn on a map in a rather precise manner. The forces of nature have laid down a valuable resource that cannot be defined with absolute precision and consequently, applications and actual conditions combined with human error and massive equipment sometimes are unable to make that pencil lined vision in ink line up with reality. Slight variations and departures in the field may occur from time to time, often to ensure safe conditions, minimize impacts, or to fulfil an obligation to maximize the recovery of the resource, Here's a better version that now clarifies this spot under Exhibit D 'Minor variations may occur in the field over time from those represented on Exhibit Maps. The plans detailed in this application are based upon future events for which minor or temporary departures at any of t in time may be e video t. To the extent any significant departure in the field occurs in a time and manner not otherwise anticipated in these exhibits, the operator may u.rre by self -inspection, by observation from O . riLR inspection in a timely manner, or by operator-initthtod Re visi n to the Permit or otherwise via clarification in a tten ding re q u.uire d °MLR Annual l c eports. 22) On page 14 in the last paragraph, the units are not specified (appears to be 125. feet), and this should be revised. Also, add a discussion on pipelines to this paragraph as appropriate. As seen on the paragraph preceding the oversight, as reproduced by snippet, below; underground gas lines or other underground facilities are referenced. The missing units are confirmed as `feet,. +ontinued„.next page„ , 24IPage Conespondence to the Colorado Office of Mined Land Reclamation — Reply to Rob Zuber, EPS — Adequacy Letters of 24 June and 5 August 2022 in the matter of the Two Rivers Sand, Gravel and Reservoir Project — M2022-013, The extract on limits assure through the use of setbacks that other interests are not affected by planned extraction Extraction is set back uniformly at a minimum. 1O.O:± feet from the edge of property lines; easements an z rights -of - way; underground un gas lines or other underground facilities, irrigation ditches and seep ditch, wells and other structures. Specific variations in the location of: stockpiles, boundaries of e .traction, and related information relative to adjacent structures and easements; from that represented on E bibit C-2: Extraction Dl an Map_ Extraction will not occur closer than from the face of a residential structure; unless there is a written accammodation with the e owner of the residential structure that allows extraction to occur within a closer stated limit. Extraction action will occur no closer than 2.5± feet from well heads and related above ground facilities. Extraction action around well heads will be concurrently backffl ( to maintain a 100+ foot buffer from the balance of extracted lands_ At all VARRA 'COMPANIES, INC. TWO. RIVERS SAND GRAVEL AND RESERVOIR PROJECT MARCH 2022 A REGULAR IMPACT [1121 CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION -COLORADO DIVISION CIF RECLAMATION V INS & SAFETY OFFICE OF MINED LAND RECLAMATION Page 15 6.4.5 EXHIBIT D - Extraction Plan 23) On page 16, regarding the discussion on topsoil and overburden stockpiles, more detail is needed regarding the storage volumes and locations of the piles, including distances from the piles to the areas to be reclaimed. It is recommended that. they be shown on Map O-5. It should also be stated that the piles will be configured to prevent obstruction of flood waters, namely elongate the piles to make them parallel to the flow direction. There is no reference we can identify on p16 to stockpiles, at least not explicitly. There is discussion. of backfillin.g cut slopes and topsoiling above water line. Nonetheless items 20, 23 and 32 all broadly relate to topsoil and need to be read together via a consolidated response to comment 20. 24) In the section Plant Site Development & Operations, text should be added regarding the details of structures that will be built, including the conveyor. Dimensions and other details should be provided to aid in the estimate of demolition 25Rage Conespondence to the Colorado Office of Mined Land Reclamation — Reply to Rob Zuber, EPS — Adequacy Letters of 24 June and 5 August 2022 in the matter of the Two Rivers Sand, Gravel and Reservoir Project — M2022-013, costs for these structures, Kquipnent to be used at the plant site is described in the Plant Site Development and Operations section on p19 as shown below. Plant site equipment will be semi - mobile in nature and is not expected to require permanent foundations or footers. The conveyor will be set on an elevated structure at varying heights to be situated about the 1 in 100 -year flood level, An average height of 7 feet is expected, The conveyor will be supported by legs at intervals of approximately 20 feet with concrete blocks used as necessary to anchor the legs. Final conveyor specifications are to be determined but a 24-36" belt is anticipated. Page 1 19 6.4.5 EXHIBIT 0' Extraction P Ian north -Test of the eAsting Brans Ditch as it courses winds north. of the Big Thompson River._ Plant activities will require a wash plant and attending wash pond to recycle wash water d receive discharge silts and other reject fines from . the w hed product. Plant and .Wash Pond, areas are 'detained on Exbiblit C-2: Extraction Plan Map_ The wash pond i function as recycling wash water and re cei\... basin for :reject des for the intended Plant/Processing activities_ Since the basin functions in a closed system, it will not require dewa.terin- Once the wash pond is established, wet plant operations can be created and join any dry plant activities in progress. Dry Plant operations can be readily established since water is not integral to their operations. Once established, wash pond water virill function as a closed system Settled materials from wash Ponds viral be utilized as product or for reclamation as desired.. Plant equipment ;via include, but is not limited, to, a crusher, screens, and. conveyors, scale house and scale, d attending equipment. Resulting stockpiles of pit run and processed, products may be temporarily stockpiled here with processed stockpiles, or combined, as needed, until transported to market 25) In the section Plant Site Development & Operations, text should be added regarding the control of prairie dogs. Will they be relocated? Please see response item "Issue — Prairie Dogs" prepared by ERO dated August 26, 2022 attached as an addendum to Exhibit H. 26) The applicant should discuss the following (related to Rule 3.1.8): How will the operation minimize impacts on mule deer habitat during the winter season 26IPage Conespondence to the Colorado Office of Mined Land Reclamation — Reply to Rob Zuber, EPS — Adequacy Letters of 24 June and 5 August 2022 in the matter of the Two Rivers Sand, Gravel and Reservoir Project — M2022-013, (December 1 through April 30), This should include (but not be limited to) a discussion on fencing. Fencing should be limited as practical, and wildlife -friendly fencing should be used. Please see response item "Issue - Mule Deer (severe winter range and migration corridors)" and "Issue - Fencing" prepared by 1-4:RO dated August 26, 2022 attached as an addendum to Exhibit H. 27) Include a discussion on how the operation will allow for deer and other animals to "escape" the mining operations. Please see response item "Issue - Escape Ramps" prepared by ERG dated August 26, 2022 attached as an addendum to Exhibit H. 6.4.5 Exhibit E - Reclamation Plan 28) The Application form specifies that the post -mining land use of the site will be Developed Water Resource. Additionally, the Applicant has provided a shadowing/mounding analysis for the installation of clay liners. However, the Reclamation Plan notes (page 5) that lining of the reservoirs is an option only. If the Applicant wishes to maintain lining of the reservoirs as an option only, , then the Application must be revised to reflect that the reservoirs will be reclaimed to open groundwater ponds. If the Applicant chooses to reclaim the reservoirs to open groundwater ponds, then the following options are available to address the liability associated with exposed groundwater: Please consider the Application Form to be correct and disregard any ambiguity in the application exhibits. Raptor Materials intends to establish lined reservoirs in final reclamation for the purpose of establishing a Developed Water Resource. a) Provide adequate bond to backfill the pit to two feet above the historic highest groundwater level. The application is clarified to reflect choice of lined reservoirs for final reclamation eliminating the need for backfill calculations. b) Obtain a court approved augmentation plan prior to exposing groundwater at the site. As the pits will be open ponds until they are lined and approved by the Office of the 27Rage Conespondence to the Colorado Office of Mined Land Reclamation — Reply to Rob Zuber, EPS — Adequacy Letters of 24 June and 5 August 2022 in the matter of the Two Rivers Sand, Gravel and Reservoir Project — M2022-013, State Engineer, a court approved ed substitute water supply plan will be obtained prior to exposing groundwater at the site. This is stated in Exhibit K, p4, Specific Reclamation Elements and Methods, third paragraph. Specific Reclamation Elements mid Methods: Tai application provides substantial detail of features utilizing aerial photography that is ocho_rectilled to approximately 1.0± percent of surveyed accuracy. This highly accurate and detailed portrayal of planned extraction and reclamation, is visible under Exhibit C-1: Etsting Conditions, .Etbit C-2: Extraction Lion Plan Map, and Exhibit F - Reclamation Map. How reclamation will occur over affected lands is further detailed under Exhibit L - Reclamation Costs. As R _xtraction progresses over the Fields south of the Big Thompson River, the resulting 1.i DH• I V slopes (21-1:1V, where indicated) created during extraction. will be concurrently modified when and where practical. Concurrent reclamation is a natural incentive for Operations to speed site recovery while generally, serving to lower attending financial warranty burdenst. The cut slopes along the extraction limits perimeter will be finished graded by pushing the resulting pit bottom with. a dozer until the resulting basin slopes conform wits Rule 3.1.5(71. Since the primary end use is Developed Water Resources, the basins are intended to hold waters based upon the rights assigned by decree, or as stipulate(: in regulatory compliance with the Colorado Division of Water Resources, office of the State Engineer (OSE). This may include the need to augment water sufficient to cover the anticipated exposed groundwaters of tie basins in the unlined state. The entire unlined basin is or will be sufficiently covered under an approved substitute supply plan. In order to again liberate waters set aide for augmentation, the basins will auome ixdjus _ in the life of the a _ti\ it71/4: _ liri. to segregate the e basin from Coloredo groundwaters. Alternatively, the Applicant may clarify that the post -mining land use of developed water resource will be achieved through clay lining the reservoirs. If the Applicant chooses to clay line the reservoirs, then the Applicant shall provide enough detail for the Division to calculate the cost to line the reservoirs. The application will be revised to reflect choice of lined reservoirs for final reclamation. Details of reclamation to form lined reservoirs is contained in Exhibit F, pp 4-5, specific Reclamation Elements and Methods, 28 Page Conespondence to the Colorado Office of Mined Land Reclamation — Reply to Rob Zuber, EPS — Adequacy Letters of 24 June and 5 August 2022 in the matter of the Two Rivers Sand, Gravel and Reservoir Project — M2022-013, I fining of basins involves the placement of low permeability compactable fill, from on -site or other suitably sourced geologic materials, into the keyway; the same keyway- used to facilitate discharge to keep the basins dry andfree of groundwaters at the time of extraction. The balance of the basin floors and slopes are also covered and compacted with the same materials until it meets t le standards estanshed under the August 1999 State Engineer Guidelines for Lining AR.FAA COMPANIES, IN( . TWO RIVERS SAND GRAVEL AND RESERVOIR PROJECT MARCH 2022 A REGULAR IMPACT [112] CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION - COLORADO DIVISION OF RECLAMATION WING &SAFETY IfY OFFICE OF MINED LAND RECLAMATION Page 15 .4.5 EXHIBIT E - Reclamation Plan Criteria. Typical to obtaining approval for the constructed liner, the lined basin must pass a 90 -day leak test Correspondence from• the OSE approving the construction of the lined basis: will be submitted to the OMLR on receipt; or as part ofany request for release of the permit, in J t or whole. Essentially, the i u sli e d parent rock material will form tie minimum 3h:lv slopes the basin and be compacted to a permeability of 10-e; forming a lined basin that complies vvrith Colorado Water Law and Guidelines mentioned, above. In this manner, the lined basins will maintain a required separation and accounting of storedwater from the underlying ground waters. Evidence f compliance with the rules and regulations of the Colorado Division of Water ater Resources will oe provided to the MILMILR on completion of the lined basins. 29) The reclamation plan requires more detail, In particular, the plan should include a schedule that specifies the areas to be reclaimed for given phases, with ranges of time periods. The phases described in Exhibit V should be coordinated with the Reclamation Plan Map, Exhibit F. Refer back to Item #17: We avoid the use of `Phases' to aid simultaneous development of sections within. Fields. The rules provide for clarity in Required Annual' eports and via Revision (Technical Revisions & Amendments). The goal is to provide flexibility in the document, addressing changes via the Annual Report,. and minimize revisions. 29Rage Conespondence to the Colorado Office of Mined Land Reclamation — Reply to Rob Zuber, EPS — Adequacy Letters of 24 June and 5 August 2022 in the matter of the Two Rivers Sand, Gravel and Reservoir Project — M2022-013, 30) The discussion on pit slopes (pages 4 - 5) should include a discussion on the method for grading these slopes, including push distances. Also, the discussion should include the method for verifying the final slopes and documenting this information. Final slopes are readily determined using hand-held lasers. Push distances will vary by finished basin depth but are not anticipated to exceed 200 feet but will average significantly less than this. A Caterpillar D6 LGP or equivalent will be used supported by a compactor. Some material may be dumped in by articulated dump trucks working together with the dozer push and compaction. 31) The reclamation plan needs to state that all compacted areas will be ripped prior to addition of topsoil and seed. It does: All affected lands ds between the extraction limits and remaining above the anticipated high-water mark of the basins will be capped with a minimum of six (6.0-) inches of soil, as supported by Exhibit I &5 - Soils and Vegetation Information. Timing and use of soil are detailed further under Exhibit I &LT - Soils and Vegetation Information and Exhibit E - Reclamation Costs. Where compacted lands exist, and are to be revegetated, -Close locations will be moped prior to re- VARRA COMPANIES, INC. TWO RIVERS SAND GRAVEL AND RESERVOIR PROJECT MARCH 2022 A REGULAR IMPACT [112] CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION - COLORADO DIVISION OF RECLAMATION MUG & SAFETY OFFICE OF MINED LAND RECLAMATION Page ! 6 6.4.5 EXHIBIT E - Reclamation Plan soil application. There are no known areas of compaction at the time of this . application w ch would require such activity; and ripping remains a contingency of the application. 32) The reclamation plan needs to include a clear plan for the storage and application of topsoil prior to seeding. The plan should include push distances to the areas and minimum depth. Items addressed under ff20 and ## , should satisfy this concern. 30IPage Conespondence to the Colorado Office of Mined Land Reclamation — Reply to Rob Zuber, EPS — Adequacy Letters of 24 June and 5 August 2022 in the matter of the Two Rivers Sand, Gravel and Reservoir Project — M2022-013, 33) on page 6, the discussion on seeding should include timing of seeding (and planting if applicable). At what time of year will seeding operations be conducted? Generally, warm and cool seed mixtures can be treated in a myriad of ways. In Table L-1 this distinction is indicated in the column labelled "CM". Cool season mixtures are often planted in the fall and warm in the spring, however, exceptions may apply, some argue warm season grasses are better broadcast, while others like them drilled with the cool season grasses. 4) The weed control paragraph (page 9) should reference the more detailed plan in Exhibit Ilk We understand your preference. Exhibit I/i is an integral part of the application, and the expansion on weeds made self-evident, by virtue of your own acknowledgement that it exists there. There is a significant plan to control weeds evidenced in both exhibits. We respectfully request the matter be settled as is to avoid needless revision. 35) The Backfill Notice must state the maximum quantity of inert fill that will be stockpiled on the site at any given time. This information is necessary to calculate the required financial warranty amount. Will buildings or other structures be constructed on backfill areas? If so, how will the material be placed and stabilized to prevent settling and voids? Revisiting the Backfill Notice located at the back of Exhibit E: Reclamation Plan, it is noted that a Backfill Notice is required to address specifics in placement of external materials "generated outside of the approved permit area". The notice in this application however seeks to serve both that purpose and address the use of backfill generated within the ML1QB permitted area, The use of on site fill is from extracted or processed reject materials, field fit at the time, depending upon the state of Operations, This is not predictable, but only inert fill, whether found on -site, or imported, will be utilized. There is no means to forecast fill material produced, but the use and location will be reported in required OMLR Annual Reports and addressed as necessary with adjustment to the financial warranty. This is an established practice with the OWILRR from prior operations. As to methodology and avoidance of instability of fill areas, the Notice states= 31IPage Conespondence to the Colorado Office of Mined Land Reclamation — Reply to Rob Zuber, EPS — Adequacy Letters of 24 June and 5 August 2022 in the matter of the Two Rivers Sand, Gravel and Reservoir Project — M2022-013, 'All backfill material will oe placed with sufficient fines to minimize voids and settling of 2ackfilled areas and slopes. There are n o known or expected acid forming or toxic producing materials or ✓ efuse at this location, nor will m,: _terials mown to possess such qualities be knowingly utilized for fill. Any other refuse or reject materials that do not meet the definition of inert and requiring ✓ emoval and disposal will :be placed in closed containers and taken to an appropriate landfill for disposal, unless it is otherwise 'inert,' per Rule 3 .1 .5 (9) , of the OI ILR Rules and Regulations.' 36) The applicant should discuss the following related to the ponds: • The use of very flat slopes (8H:1 ) and irregular shorelines in some locations, to allow for diverse habitat. We submit that is in inappropriate for lined basins. Some natural irregularity of man-made structures, easements, and right-of-way, will suffice for edge effect, as will the likely shallower slopes that may form along the sharper edges of the extraction limits, suggested in Exhibit F: Reclamation Plan Map, if lining is from the basin instead of the perimeter, otherwise, not so much. The purpose of the basin is optimal storage of water, consistent with the stated end use of Developed Water Resources. The use of constructed islands in the ponds for wildlife habitat, Please see response item "Issue - Water Storage Ponds" prepared by ERG dated August 26, 2022 attached as an addendum to Exhibit H. 6.4.5 Exhibit F : Reclamation Plan Map 37) The permit boundary is not shown on this map and needs to be added (or the line weight needs to be larger to improve clarity). Exhibit F has been revised. 38) A legend should be added to the map clearly showing what the hatching and other features represent. A yellow box is shown at the southeast corner of the site; please indicate if this symbol represents a real feature or if it is an error. It was shown at a smaller scale to show the effect on the landforr ecology of the area. A revised 1 inch = 200 scale map with legend is provided. 32Rage Conespondence to the Colorado Office of Mined Land Reclamation — Reply to Rob Zuber, EPS — Adequacy Letters of 24 June and 5 August 2022 in the matter of the Two Rivers Sand, Gravel and Reservoir Project — M2022-013, 39) It appears that the map requires more detail regarding the processing area, Do the topographical lines on Exhibit F accurately show the post -mining topography`? If not, the map needs to be updated. Some minor leveling of this area is anticipated to take place however it is proposed to regrade with similar direction and slope to approximate original contour as part of reclamation unless the owner requires otherwise. 40) Per Rule 6.4.6, post -mining land uses should be shown on the map. This is especially important for the material processing and wash pond areas, Exhibit F has been revised and the primary post -mining land use of Developed Water Resources is clearly evident on the map. Additionally, post -mining land use will be at the ultimate discretion of the owner, also the operator, and is described in Vxhibits D and E. Exhibit 1), page 2 Commencing an the family farm in 1948, the varrafamily combines nearly 73± years of operational experience that serves as tes ony to a history of sound and thoughtfully executed operations of this kind_ For the Two Rivers Sand Gravel and Reservoir Project,, l f ds not otherwise occupied for Developed Water Resources Will be Improved to the highest possible crud -use.. Post Extraction Uses eyond the Primary Use of Developed Water Resources y likely comprise continuing and diverse general agricultural uses; as well as possible light residential, cold etcial, or . dus trial uses: as deternnine d by tight, or as otherwise authorized by the governing authority] Exhibit E, p6 33,Page Conespondence to the Colorado Office of Mined Land Reclamation — Reply to Rob Zuber, EPS — Adequacy Letters of 24 June and 5 August 2022 in the matter of the Two Rivers Sand, Gravel and Reservoir Project — M2022-013, 6.4.5 EXHIBIT E - Reclamation Plan soil application. There are no known areas of compaction at the time of this application which would require such activity; and ripping remains a contingency of the application. The final land configuration will ultimately result in two (2) reservoir basins totaling 2 34.06± surface acres, with a static water elevation surface area of 217.44± acres (refer to Exhibit F: Reclamation Map). The balance of unoccupied affected lands above the anticipated static water level will be stabilized where necessary utilizing the seed mixture as shown under Exhibit L - Table L-1 Primary/Preferred Revegetation etation Seed Mixture. Lands not otherwise occupied for developed water resources will be later developed to the highest possible end -use, and will likely comprise a mixed use which may include other general agricultural uses as well as light residential, commercial or industrial uses. 41) Several structures and easements are shown on Exhibit C-1, and none are shown on Exhibit F. Please explain if all of these structures will be removed during the mining and reclamation operations. Please refer to response to Item 18. 42) The Division recommends adjusting the scale on this map. The current version includes considerable area that is beyond the permit boundary. It was shown at a smaller scale to show the effect on the landform ecology of the area. A revised 1 inch = 200 scale map with legend is provided. 6.4.7 Exhibit G- Water Information 43) On Page 1 of 1-4fxhibit G, the text states that the site will drain internally. Please add a statement that the site will be operated to prevent any significant runoff from disturbed areas from flowing offsite. Also state that the site will be operated to prevent any negative impacts to the hydrologic balance of the two rivers. We are not required to 'Prevent,' but rather 'Minimize' impacts. We believe the submittal conservation measures and provisions attain this standard. Rule 3.1.6 "Disturbances to the prevailing hydrologic balance of the affected land 34IPage Conespondence to the Colorado Office of Mined Land Reclamation — Reply to Rob Zuber, EPS — Adequacy Letters of 24 June and 5 August 2022 in the matter of the Two Rivers Sand, Gravel and Reservoir Project — M2022-013, 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 by measures, ne" Considerable efforts are made to control storm flows, including the use of grassed waterways. Some tilling will occur on cut slopes, but the sediment is inbound. A minor 6 -inch furrow above cut slopes will create a 1 -foot swale that could minimize such tilling, especially valuable on reclaimed slopes above the final estimated water level of the basins. The stormwater management plan referenced in Exhibit I & J will address broader water management covering the material processing area and any piles of soil or inert fill constructed external to the excavations. 44) Describe the physical dewatering system and provide a description of the operation of this system. A copy of the discharge permit application provided to CDII is included with this submittal. It will indicate information about the pump capacity and discharge rates. 1-V xhibit T1= 1-41xtraction Plan devoted a section to it, and AWES devoted a report to it, as provided with the other attachments in thisreply, Here's what the permit application stated, followed by a blow-up of the feature visible near the it10 Piezometer, under Exhibit CT= Water Information Map: 35Rage Conespondence to the Colorado Office of Mined Land Reclamation — Reply to Rob Zuber, EPS — Adequacy Letters of 24 June and 5 August 2022 in the matter of the Two Rivers Sand, Gravel and Reservoir Project — M2022-013, Page 113 6.4.5 EXHIBIT D - Extraction Plan preferred native seed mixture offers opportunity to gauge the potential performance of the selected species prior to utilizing it over larger areas requiring reclamation later in the life of the resource recovery operation. Once vegetation is established over the initial reclamation soil stockpiles, they will likely remain untouched for the life of the operation until final reclamation of remaining affected lands takes place. Where concurrent reclamation is possible, operations will utilize soil in an over the shoulder method when practical. In this manner, reclamation is expedited without increasing soil stockpile volumes while reducing expenditures related to labor, handling, and time. Dewatering: As extraction activity progresses into the aggregate profile, groundwater must generally be removed in advance through the use of pumps and subsequent discharge into area tributaries. A complete dewatering evaluation was performed by AWES in their report of 27 July 2020, as provided at the back of Exhibit G: Water Information. The report concludes that 'the results of analytical and numerical solutions indicate that the proposed mine dewatering activities will not adversely affect the regional groundwater hydrology.' The reader is further assured that all discharge of waters will be conducted under an approved CDH discharge permit. Initial dewatering of the property in preparation for extraction and resource recovery will occur by establishment of a dewatering pump and/or well in the Southern boundary near an existing agricultural pond. The point of discharge is on Exhibit G: Water Information Map. Other discharge locations may occur in time as needed and otherwise approved under the applicable CDH discharge permit requirements. Subsequent CDH approved discharge locations will be field fit and the location updated in the following OMLR Annual Report. 36 P a g c Correspondence to the Colorado Office of Mined Land Reclamation — Reply to Rob Zuber, EPS — Adequacy Letters of 24 June and 5 August 2022; in the matter of the Two Rivers Sand, Gravel and Reservoir Project — M2022-013. 45) The Water Information exhibit should provide a detailed discussion of floodplain management at the site. This must include a discussion of the conveyor crossing of the Big Thompson River. It should also reference the Floodplain Permit report by Headwaters Corporation, as appropriate. Operational elements of floodplain management are described in Exhibit I. 1-Vxhibit D, p6 Wetland conditions appear 'confined within portions of the stream terrace and bank -full stage of the rivers, and along segments internal to the Evans Canal. Extraction will form a depression (basin) withinthe floodplain as shown , in Exhibit C-2: Extraction Plan Map. Temporary above ground fill may occur within the floodplain, and as part of this permitted activity, provided the above ground volume does not exceed tie beiovground volume created by extraction. All product stockpiles and processing will occur within the city limits of Evans under this application, and North and outside of the floodplain boundary of the 100 -year floodplain of the Big Thompson River. The floodplain extent will be visually marked in the field to better assure the integrity of the floodplain. Material transport of raw materials from extraction kcations to the plant site will occur via conveyor (see route on Exhibit C-2: Extraction Alin Map). This will in turn serve to minimize impacts to area transportation corridors. The actual location, extent, and nature of the conveyor systems not otherwise designated in this ssubmittal win be provided a.s updates in the required OrstILR Annual Reports. As described in this response concerning items 23 and 24, additional detail on th floodplain management and the conveyor was stated as follows: From Item 23 Response We can affirm here that stockpiling above the existing ground elevation will not occur in a manner understood to obstruct flood waterswhere they might occur within the existing floodplain. It is understood and agreed here -in that their longitudinal dimensions if they occur there should extend parallel to anticipated flood flows where they exceed a cone or other shape that might find its existence contrary to intent by volume beyond that which could be understood to be temporary, or transitory; especially outside of seasonality where flooding might be more reasonably anticipated. 37IPage Conespondence to the Colorado Office of Mined Land Reclamation — Reply to Rob Zuber, EPS — Adequacy Letters of 24 June and 5 August 2022 in the matter of the Two Rivers Sand, Gravel and Reservoir Project — M2022-013, From Item 24 Response The conveyor will be set on an elevated structure at varying heights to be situated about the 1 in 100 -year flood level. An average height of 7 feet is expected. The conveyor will be supported by legs at intervals of approximately 20 feet with concrete blocks used as necessary to anchor the legs. Final conveyor specifications are to be determined but a 24-36" belt is anticipated. A wider span than typical will cross the Big Thomson River at an elevation above the 1 in 100 year flood level. 46) To ensure that the Two Rivers project minimizes impacts to the hydrologic balance of the rivers, the application needs to include a water quality monitoring plan, specifically for the alluvium. [sec Section 20 - Exhibit G in Adequacy Response] The groundwater monitoring plan should be developed in accordance with Rule 3.1.7 ( 7)(b) and should include a Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAFF) for the collection of groundwater samples. The plan should provide mitigation steps if there is an exceedance at a groundwater or surface water monitoring location. Potential impacts to quality and/or quantity the nearby domestic wells should also be addressed. A copy of the Division's Groundwater Monitoring and Protection Technical Bulletin has been included as an enclosure to this letter for your reference, This was an oversight. Please refer to AWES Report, #2022-I-84 P124 dated August 31, 2022, now appended to the Application as an addendum to Exhibit G. 47) Change "NPD KS" to "CDPS" to reflect the requirements of the Water Quality Control Commission. Acknowledged and noted that our only reference to \PDHS was simply incorporating text directly from the rules. Please see Prologue. Eh H - Wildlife 48) Indicate which recommendations on wildlife protection in "Threatened and Endangered Species Habitat Assessment, Two Rivers Parcels" (ERO, 2022) will be implemented at the site. This report was submitted with Exhibit H of your application. Please see response item "Issue - Wildlife Protection. Recommendations" prepared by ERO dated August 26, 2022 attached as an addendum to Exhibit H. 3 Conespondence to the Colorado Office of Mined Land Reclamation — Reply to Rob Zuber, EPS — Adequacy Letters of 24 June and 5 August 2022 in the matter of the Two Rivers Sand, Gravel and Reservoir Project — M2022-013, Exhibits Ill 49) This exhibit should include a discussion on wetlands in the project area, including the wash pond and material processing areas. Please state that operations will be conducted to minimize impacts on wetlands or state that no operations will be conducted in wetland areas. Under Exhibit M is an approved U.S. Army Corps of Engineers report designating No Permit Required.' Most of the wetlands as they occur at the Big Thompson River are predominantly limited to the channel itself. If and when a conveyor is built upon the projected line, the footings are not expected to exceed the requirements for a Nationwide Permit, but if they will, a Nationwide Permit will be applied for and secured prior to affecting such areas. It simply isn't anticipated at this time. If a Nationwide Permit is necessary, the °MMLR will be provided with the necessary justification or approval under an OML Technical evision to that end. Please refer to Item #45 for additional clarification. 0) In the Weed Management Plan, the paragraph that mentions the state of Colorado noxious weeds list should state that List A species will be eradicated and List B Species will be controlled. The plan should also describe the efforts that will be made to control List C species, including field bindweed, a focus in Weld County. The Division recognizes that mapping and vector identification can be useful tools for weed control, but these practices should not delay treatment of weeds. Weed management will be under the supervision of a certified weed management specialist. All applicable requirements currently in force at the time will be adhered to. 6.4.12 Exhibit L - Reclamation Costs 51) This exhibit should be updated, as necessary, to match any revisions to Exhibits D and E, per the adequacy items for those sections. This includes details on structures, NM has reviewed Exhibit L and believes it adequately reflects changes to Exhibits Dand E. 52) The cost estimate should include a task for ripping areas that. will be topsoiled and vegetated. 39Rage Conespondence to the Colorado Office of Mined Land Reclamation — Reply to Rob Zuber, EPS — Adequacy Letters of 24 June and 5 August 2022 in the matter of the Two Rivers Sand, Gravel and Reservoir Project — M2022-013, An allowance could be made for ripping a percentage of the area assuming it becomes compacted. 53) The Applicant has noted under the eclamation Plan (page 5) that water shares \Till be dedicated to the Division of Water Resources (DWR) to cover the liability associated with exposing groundwater. Please be aware that the Division no longer accepts the dedication of water shares to DWR as a bonding mechanism. The Applicant will need to post a financial warranty to allow for backlilling the areas of exposed groundwater or a financial warranty to cover the cost of installing clay liners in the reservoir. Please see additional comments under Item No. 29. Raptor has confirmed and will amend the application to state that Developed Water Resources will be the post -mining use for the pit excavations and will provide financial warranty appropriate for cost of constructing lined pits. 6.4.13 Exhibit M - Other Permit and Licenses 54) Please commit to providing copies of all required and approved permits and licenses to the Division when available. This should include well permits and documents related to water rights, such as a substitute water Supply Plan. Raptor affirms copies of all required and approved permits and licenses will be obtained and provided before actions requiring permits commence. 6.4.14 Exhibit N- Source of Legal Right to Enter 55) This document must show that Raptor Materials LLC (rather than Varra Companies, Inc.) has the legal right to enter lands under this permit. The exhibit is updated and attached. 6.4.18 Exhibit R - Proof of Filing with County Clerk and Recorder 56) Please provide an affidavit or receipt indicating the date on which the revised application information required to address this adequacy letter was placed with the Weld County Clerk. An updated affidavit is provided and attached as Exhibit R? 6.4.19 Exhibit S - Permanent Man-made Structures 57) The Division requires Raptor Materials LLC to demonstrate that they attempted 40Rage Conespondence to the Colorado Office of Mined Land Reclamation — Reply to Rob Zuber, EPS — Adequacy Letters of 24 June and 5 August 2022 in the matter of the Two Rivers Sand, Gravel and Reservoir Project — M2022-013, to obtain notarized structure agreements with all owners of the structures within 200 feet of the affected area of the proposed mine site, pursuant to Rule 6.4.19, This attempt must be made prior to the Division's consideration of a stability analysis. Please also indicate what agreements have been obtained. This information was provided earlier via Susan Bergmaier submittal of Y ctifications, with the signed versions of an agreement sent to all owners of structures known to us. 6.5 Geotechnical Stability Exhibit 58) The Division has reviewed the Slope Stability Analyses (prepared by AWES, LL, and our comments are provided as an enclosure with this letter. Please review this memorandum and provide responses, Please refer to AAATHS Report dated August 10, 2022, now appended to the Application as an addendum to Exhibit S. 411Page Conespondence to the Colorado Office of Mined Land Reclamation — Reply to Rob Zuber, EPS — Adequacy Letters of 24 June and 5 August 2022 in the matter of the Two Rivers Sand, Gravel and Reservoir Project — M2022-013, The Division is still reviewing two of the technical reports associated with this application: "Riverside Berm Failure Analysis and Flood Control Mitigation Plan" (Flow Technologies LLC, 20 20) and "Dewatering Evaluation, Varra Two Rivers Mine" (AWES LLC, 2020). Division comments and questions related to these reports will be sent under separate cover. August 05, 2022 - Additional reviews for preliminary adequacy Flood Control Mitigation Plan 1) Hydrograph Development: Paragraph 3. .3 indicates the 10yearflow was subtracted from the inflow hydrograph because "it is estimated the earthen berm will control a 10-yr flood event". This does not seem to be a straight forward assumption. If the entire site is to be flooded, it seems the water elevation of the flood above the berm elevation would be the controlling flow parameter, much as a hydrograph routed through a reservoir controls the depth of overflow in a dam overtopping failure analysis. Please provide some background on why this assumption is reasonable. Please refer to Flow Technologies Report dated August 27, 2022, now appended to the Application as an addendum to Exhibit G. 2) Hydrograph proportionrnent: Paragraph 3.2.3 references FEMA, Flood Insurance Study, January 20, 2016 as validation for having two-thirds flow through the south side of the Site (Central Field) and the remaining one third flow through the north side of the site. Please: a) Elaborate on the purpose of splitting the flows, b) Explain if this is used directly in the WinDAM C berm failure analyses or n the hydrograph development for determining water elevation, or somewhere else, c) Kxplain how it impacts the approach and results (e.g., how sensitive is the analyses to this 2/3 ratio) Please refer to Flow Technologies' eport dated August 27, 2022, now appended to the Application as an addendum to Exhibit G. 3) Hard Armoring: Both paragraphs 3.2 and 4.2 reference Section V, I Iard Armoring. Section V is labeled Mitigating Measures and does not discuss any hard armoring. Please provide some discussion on the anticipated hard armoring for reclamation/closure. The Flow Technologies January 2020 report indicated both that the riverside berms under conservative assumptions should withstand breach due to head cutting in a 1 42IPagc Conespondence to the Colorado Office of Mined Land Reclamation — Reply to Rob Zuber, EPS — Adequacy Letters of 24 June and 5 August 2022 in the matter of the Two Rivers Sand, Gravel and Reservoir Project — M2022-013. in 100 year flood event, however suggested that "the pit locations most susceptible to head cutting will be armored "(ection ,2), or more specifically in Sections 3.6 and 4. 2, hard armoring is discussed as a reclamation practice in the areas or locations (most) susceptible to head cutting. It should be understood that the head cutting modelled did not result in breach of 100 -feet berms although berms are assessed as varying in width from 100-150 feet. Additional conservatism included in the modeling included inundation from a storm event which would be worst case with little warning allowing pit dewatering to be temporarily halted and reducing pit fill time, assuming the event occurs when the pits are fully excavated, resulting in maximizing fill time, and that there is no vegetation with increases the rate of erosion. The mitigating measures described in Section V state that "should a flood occur that results in head cutting/erosion of a riverside berm, Varra Companies, Inc. [now Raptor Materials] will immediately restore the damaged area to pre -flood conditions.". This is in effect, "reclamation" of the berms. This however does not preclude RM implementing measures to reduce the impacts of head cutting or likelihood of berm breach including establishing or maintaining vegetation, and hard armoring(riprap). Such measures, particularly hard armoring would beconsidered in the areas or locations most susceptible to head cutting, i.e. where berms are narrower. Should such measures be taken as preventative rather than restorative (reclamation), properly installed engineered riprap, (size and thickness calculated) would be assessed at the time,. 4) Variable Water Surface Elevation: As expected for a river flood and depicted in Figure 8, the water surface elevation varies from the upstream to downstream segments of both rivers. The DRMS' understanding of WinDAM C is that it assumes a uniform flow elevation over the embankment being analyzed. How is the fact that the water elevation is not uniform in this scenario accounted for in the modeling? Please refer to Flow Technologies Report dated August 27, 2022, now appended to the Application as an addendum to Exhibit G. 5) Fill Time Estimates - Central Pit: The fourth column in table on p. 30 suggests a nearly uniform incremental delta for every 10 feet of pit depth, This suggests the pit being analyzed for a depth/storage relationship has nearly vertical side walls. Are the pit walls in the berm failure scenarios being analyzed vertical and is this condition reflected in the WinDAM C analyses? 43IPage Conespondence to the Colorado Office of Mined Land Reclamation — Reply to Rob Zuber, EPS — Adequacy Letters of 24 June and 5 August 2022 in the matter of the Two Rivers Sand, Gravel and Reservoir Project — M2022-013, Please refer to Flow Technologies ' epart dated August 27, 2022, now appended to the Application as an addendum to Exhibit G. 6) Central Pit Groin Training Channels Calculations: On p. 41 is a Mannings normal depth flow calculator for a 25 -foot bottom width with 1H:1V side slopes. It is unclear as to the purpose of this image. Based on the Mannings n = 0.025, it would appear this is likely an earth -lined channel. As such, a 1H:1V slope is not likely to be stable for long. -lease indicate the purpose of this image and justify the channel geometry depicted in it. P lease refer to Flow Technologies Report dated August 27, 2022, now appended to the Application as a supplement an addendum G, 7) HEC-RAS Output: Several of the H.E -RAS cross section output results indicate additional cross -sections may be warranted: a) The conveyance ratio (upstream conveyance divided by downstream conveyance) is less than 0.7 or greater than 1.4. This may indicate the need for additional cross sections. b) Warning: The energy loss was greater than 1.0 ft (0.3 rn). between the current and previous cross section. This may indicate the need for additional cross sections. Please provide rationale for not including additional cross sections. P lease refer to Flow Technologies Report dated August 27, 2022, now appended to the Application as an addendum. to V hibit G. Additional Comments on Groundwater (AWES Dewatering Evaluation) Exhibit G General 1) The proposed text of Section 6.4.7, Exhibit G, allows for the post -mining lining of the pits but does not commit to it. It is not appropriate for the Division to approve a contingent reclamation plan; the approved text should describe a single reclamation plan. If the decision is made at a later date to change the plan then an amendment application should be submitted at that time. Please revise the text of Exhibit G to describe the postemining plan for the lining or otherwise of the excavated pits. P lease refer to Flow Technologies eport dated August 27, 2022, now appended to the Application as an addendum to Exhibit G. 44IPage Conespondence to the Colorado Office of Mined Land Reclamation — Reply to Rob Zuber, EPS — Adequacy Letters of 24 June and 5 August 2022 in the matter of the Two Rivers Sand, Gravel and Reservoir Project — M2022-013, 2) The text also refers to "OMLR" in places, which presumably stands for "office of Mined Land Reclamation". This office does not exist in Colorado. Please replace any reference to "OMLR" in the text with "DRMS". Acknowledged. Please see Prologue. 3) Water level data from piezometers P124 1 through P124 12 has been given in the text of Exhibit G but the locations of the piezometers are not shown on Exhibit G: Water Information Map (or Exhibit -1 : Existing Conditions Map). Please add the piezometer locations to Exhibit G: Water Information Map. Please see revised Exhibit G Map. Please note there is considerable detail presented on the map and it may be necessary to either print at scale or zoom to see the information. 4) The key of Exhibit : Water Information Map shows a symbol for wells, but no wells are identifiable on the map. It's not clear whether they were omitted or are not legible. Please identify all registered wells on Exhibit : Water Information Map. Please also add a table to section 6.4.7 with details of these wells including their permit IDs, owners, date of construction and registered use. Please see revised Exhibit G Map. Please note there is considerable detail presented on the map and it may be necessary to either print at scale or zoom to see the information. 5) Nfxhibit G: Water Information Map shows several symbols that are not included in the map key, and the text in many of the labels on the map is illegible (including what are presumably stream stage elevations). Please revise Exhibit G: Water Information Map to improve its legibility and to provide a complete key for map symbols (it may be helpful to remove the aerial imagery base -map). The revised map should be prepared and signed by a registered land surveyor, professional engineer, or other qualified person, as is required by Rule 6.2.1(2)(b). Please see revised Exhibit G Map. Please note there is considerable detail presented on the map and it may benecessary to either print at scale or zoom to see the information. We have found either provides legible information. Exhibit G -AWES Dewatering Evaluation 45IPage Conespondence to the Colorado Office of Mined Land Reclamation — Reply to Rob Zuber, EPS — Adequacy Letters of 24 June and 5 August 2022 in the matter of the Two Rivers Sand, Gravel and Reservoir Project — M2022-013. 6) Key assumptions of the model are that the aquifer is unconfined, homogenous and anisotropic, with a horizontal hydraulic conductivity (h) of 125 ft/day and a vertical hydraulic conductivity (Ky) of 12.5 ft/day. The K values are at the lower end of the expected range of 2000-100 ft/clay (Robson, 1989), Please justify the assumption of anisotropy and the chosen K values for the sand and gravel aquifer. Please refer to AWES Report, #2022-RM-P124 1 4 dated August 31, 2022, now appended to the Application as an addendum to Exhibit G. 7) The piezometers referred to in (3) are described as monitoring wells in AWES 2020. Please describe how these wells were used for pre -mining aquifer characterization (besides the collection of water level data). Please refer to AWKS Report, ti2022-RI1f'I-P1 4 dated August 1, 2022, now appended to the Application as an addendum to Exhibit G. ) No information is presented about the vertical extent of the model. How many vertical layers are used in the model? What are the layer thicknesses? Please refer to AWES Report, /t20 RIVIP124 dated August 31, 2022, now appended to the Application as an addendum to Exhibit G. ) _o information is presented about recharge from precipitation. Is recharge from precipitation accounted for in the model, or is its impact assumed to be negligible? Please refer to AWES Report, #2022-RM-P124 dated August 31, 2022, now appended to the Application as an addendum to Exhibit G. 10) The Mine Area Map presented as Figure 2 shows a different pit configuration from that presented elsewhere in the permit application packet (PAP) - it shows three pits, whereas Exhibit G: Water Information Map, for example, shows just two. The Model Boundary Conditions presented as Plate 1 reflect the configuration shown in Figure 2. Please discuss the validity of the model boundary conditions in the light of the final pit configuration which is assumed to be that shown on maps in the PAP). Please refer to AWF Report, 0 2-RM-P124 dated August 31, 2022, now 46 Conespondence to the Colorado Office of Mined Land Reclamation — Reply to Rob Zuber, EPS — Adequacy Letters of 24 June and 5 August 2022 in the matter of the Two Rivers Sand, Gravel and Reservoir Project — M2022-013, appended to the Application as an addendum to Exhibit G. 11) According to the literature, water table gradients in the alluvial aquifers of the region are typically in the range 0.002 to 0.007 (Arnold, Langer Paschke, 2003). The water table contour map presented as Plate 3 shows a generally easterly gradient of 0.002 across the center of the proposed permit area. A single data point (MW-i, which is presumably the same as P124-1) exists north of the Big Thompson River, with a significantly higher water level. This distorts the water level contours in the north of the study area, suggesting a far steeper gradient (0.01) and a south-easterly flow direction. Please discuss the characterization of the pre —mining water table. How reliable is the data from M-1? How do you account for the steeper gradient? Are there any other data points in the north of the study area to improve the characterization? Please refer to AWES Report, f 20 -RI I -P124 dated August 31, 2022, now appended to the Application as an addendum to Vxhihit G. 12) The model was calibrated using model -assigned observation wells outside of the proposed excavations, (presumably the points shown with green and white symbols on Plates 6 and 7). The first two sentences of the final paragraph on Page 3 of the AWES 2020 report suggest that water levels were measured at these locations, but I think that these are simulated wells. Plates 5 and 5A show the calibration results. They appear to show identical data. Water level contours showing initial conditions in the calibrated model are presented as Plate 4. The contours suggest a gradient of 0.06 to the SSE in the north of the study area. Please clarify the initial calibration process. Please discuss the validity of the model in the north of the study area. Please refer to AWES Report, #2022 RIVI dated August 31, 2022, now appended to the Application as an addendum to Exhibit G. 13) The results of the dewatering simulation are presented as Plate 6. This is presumably a steady state simulation. It simulates dewatering of the central and north-west pits only. Please simulate the dewatering of the full extent of the mined area. Please estimate the time to achieve steady state conditions. Please refer to AWES Report, #2022-RM-P1 4 dated August 31, 2022, now appended to the Application as an addendum to Exhibit G. 47Rage Conespondence to the Colorado Office of Mined Land Reclamation — Reply to Rob Zuber, EPS — Adequacy Letters of 24 June and 5 August 2022 in the matter of the Two Rivers Sand, Gravel and Reservoir Project — M2022-013, 14) Table 1 presents the predicted water levels at the 4 simulated wells before mining and following the lining of the mined pits. Please add a column to Table 1 showing the predicted water levels under the pit de -watering scenario. The table should show the fullest extent of the potential drawdown n caused by the mine operation. Please refer to AWES Report, #2022-RM-P124 dated August 31, 2022, now appended to the pplication as an addendum to Exhibit G. 15) In the conclusions section on Page 4 of the report, the statement is made that "The results of analytical and numerical l olutions indi t i "" however no analytical solutions are presented. Please update the report to present any relevant analytical solutions that support the conclusion. Please refer to AWES Report, #2O22-RM-P124 dated August 31, 2022, now appended to the Application as n addendum to Exhibit G. Garrett C. Varra, General Manager 48 Page Co respondence to the Colorado Office of Mined Land Reclamation - Reply to Rob Zuber, EPS Adequacy Letters of 24 June and 5 August 2022; in the matter of the Two Rivers Sand, Gravel and Reservoir Project — M2022-013. r fN August 5, 2O22 COLORADO Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety Department of Natural Resources Bradford Janes Raptor Materials LLC 812O Gage Street Frederick, CO80516 Re: Two Rivers Sand, Gravel and Reservoir Project, File No, M-2022-013, 112c Permit Application Adequacy Review, Additional reviews for preliminary adequacy Mr. Janes - In my letter of June 24, 2022,1 noted that the Division will provide additional reviews of two technical reports associated with this application: "Riverside Berm Failure Analysis and Flood Control Mitigation Plan" (Flow Technologies LLC, 2020) and "Dewatering Evaluation, Varra Two Rivers Mine" (AWES LLC, 2O20). Division comments and questions related to these reports (and associated information in the application) are provided as enclosures below. Please be advised that the Two Rivers, Sand, Gravel, and Reservoir Project application may be deemed inadequate, and the application may be denied unless all adequacy review items are addressed to the satisfaction of the Division (this includes the items in these two enclosures). If more time is needed to complete the reply, the Division can grant an extension to the decision date. This will be done upon receipt of a request for additional time. This must be received no later than the current decision date, which is September 15, 2022. If you have any questions, please contact me at rob.zuber@state.co.us or (720) 601-2276. Sincerely, ,p, Robert D. Zuber, R.E. Environmental I_ rotection Specialist Enclosures: Division review of Flow Technologies report Division review of AWES report Cc: Michael Cunningham, DRMS ENCL SURES COLORADO Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety Department of Natural Resources MEMORANDUM To: Rob Zuber From: Tim Cazier, P.E. Date: August 4, 2022 Re: Two Rivers Gravel Pit Mine — Permit No. M-2022-013; Flood Control Mitigation Plan — Preliminary Adequacy Review The Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety engineering staff (DRMS) have reviewed the Two Rivers Riverside Berm Failure Analysis and Flood Control Mitigation Plan provided in Exhibit G, Permit M-2022-013. for Varra Companies, Inc Two Rivers Gravel Pit Mine, dated January 22, 2020 and prepared byr Flow Technologies, LLC. The DRMS acknowledges the novel approach to this analysis stated in the disclaimer on p. 3 of the subject plan. The following comments are intended to address this "innovative methodology" and how it was adapted to berm failure predictions. 1. Hydrograph Development: Paragraph 3.2.3 indicates the 10 -year flow was subtracted from the inflow hydrograph because "it is estimated the earthen berm will control a 10-yr flood event,. This does not seem to be a straight forward assumption. If the entire site is to be flooded. it seems the water elevation of the flood above the berm elevation would be the controlling flow parameter, much as a hydrograph routed through a reservoir controls the depth of overflow in a dam overtopping failure analysis. Please provide some background on why this assumption is reasonable. 2 e Hydrograph proportionment: Paragraph 3.2.3 references FEMA, Flood Insurance Study. January 20, 2016 as validation for having two-thirds flow through the south side of the Site (Central Field) and the remaining one third flow through the north side of the site. Please: a. Elaborate on the purpose of splitting the flows, b. Explain if this is used directly in the WinDAM C berm failure analyses or n the hydrograph development for determining water elevation. or somewhere else, 1313 Sherman Street, Room 215, Denver, CO 80203 P 303.866.3567 F 303.832.8106 http://mining.state.co.us Jared S. Polls, Governor I Dan Gibbs, Executive Director [ Virginia Brannon, Director Two Rivers Gravel Pit Mine — Flood Control Mitigation Plan Preliminary Adequacy Review Page 2 August 4. 2022 c. Explain how it impacts the approach and results (e.g., how sensitive is the analyses to this 2/3 ratio) 3 Hard Armoring: Both paragraphs 3.2 and 4.2 reference Section V. Hard Armoring. Section V is labeled Mitigating Measures and does not discuss any hard armoring. Please provide some discussion on the anticipated hard armoring for reclamation/closure. Variable Water Surface Elevation: As expected for a river flood and depicted in Figure 8, the water surface elevation varies from the upstream to downstream segments of both rivers. The DRMS' understanding of WinDAM C is that it assumes a uniform flow elevation over the embankment being analyzed. How is the fact that the water elevation is not uniform in this scenario accounted for in the modeling? Fill Time Estimates — Central Pit: The fourth column in table on p. 30 suggests a nearly uniform incremental delta for ever 10 feet of pit depth. This suggests the pit being analyzed for a depth/storage relationship has nearly vertical side walls. Are the pit walls in the berm failure scenarios being analyzed vertical and is this condition reflected in the WinDAM C analyses? 6. Central Pit Groin Training Channels Calculations: on p. 41 is a Mannings normal depth flow calculator for a 25 -foot bottom width with 1H:1V side slopes. It is unclear as to the purpose of this image. Based on the Mannings n = 0.025. it would appear this is likely an earth -lined channel. As such. a 1H:1V slope is not likely to be stable for long. Please indicate the purpose of this image andjustify the channel geometry depicted in it. 7. HEC-RAS Output: Several of the HEC-RAS cross section output results indicate additional cross -sections may be warranted: a. The conveyance ratio (upstream conveyance divided by downstream conveyance) is less than 0.7 or greater than 1.4. This may indicate the need for additional cross sections. b. Warning: The energy loss was greater than 1.0 ft (0.3 m). between the current and previous cross section. This may indicate the need for additional cross sections. Please provide rationale for not including additional cross sections If either you or the applicants have any questions regarding the comments above, please call me at (303) 328-5229 [mobile - ]. C:\usersltcl documents\projects\O1-supprt\m-2022-013 2 rivers\ rm-22-013_vvindarn-c_par_rrie rm2022-08-04.docx 4 COLORADO Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety Department of Natural Resources Interoffice Memorandum August 4, 2022 From: Leigh Simmons To: Rob Zuber Subject: Two Rivers Sand, Gravel and Reservoir Project (Permit No. M-2022-' 1 ) Application As you requested, I reviewed the material submitted with the Two Rivers Sand, Gravel and Reservoir Project permit application pertaining to groundwater, specifically material submitted as Exhibit G — Water Information. I realize that my first comment is somewhat redundant in the light of your preliminary adequacy review letter, but I'll leave it in my memo for the sake of completeness. My other comments are all with reference to Rule 6.4.7. Other rules are cited as appropriate.. Comments: 1. The proposed text of Section 6.4.7, Exhibit G, allows for the post -mining lining of the pits but does not commit to it. It is not appropriate for the Division to approve a contingent reclamation plan; the approved text should describe a single reclamation plan. If the decision is made at a later date to change the plan then an amendment application should be submitted at that time. Please revise the text of Exhibit G to describe the post -mining plan for the lining or otherwise of the excavated pits. 2. The text also refers to "OM LR" in places, which presumably stands for "Office of Mined Land Reclamation". This office does not exist in Colorado. Please replace any reference to "OMLR" in the text with "DRNIS". 3. Water level data from piezometers P124-1 through P124-12 has been given in the text of Exhibit G but the locations of the piezometers are not shown on Exhibit G: Water Information Map (or Exhibit C-1: Existing Conditions Map). Please add the piezometer locations to Exhibit G: Water Information Map 1313 Sherman Street, Room 215, Denver, CO 80208 P 303.866.3567 F 303.832.8106 hutt p:// mining.state.co.us Jared S. Polls, Governor I Dan Gibbs, Executive Director I Virginia Brannon, Director Page 2 of 4 8/4/2022 T he key of Exhibit 6: Water Information Map shows a symbol for wells, but no wells are identifiable on the map. It's not clear whether they were omitted or are not legible. Please identify all registered wells on Exhibit G: Water Information Map. Please also add a table to section 6.4.7 with details of these wells including their permit IDs, owners, date of construction and registered use. S. Exhibit G: Water Information Map shows several symbols that are not included in the map key, and the text in many of the labels on the map is illegible (including what are presumably stream stage elevations). Please revise Exhibit G: Water Information Map to improve its legibility and to provide a complete key for map symbols (it may be helpful to remove the aerial imagery base -map). The revised map should be prepared and signed by a registered land surveyor, professional engineer, or other qualified person, as is required by Rule 6.2.1(2)(b). In 6.4.7(1) the statement is made that "Operations will not adversely affect surface and groundwater systems". In support of the statement, the text refers to a July 27, 2020 study by American Water Engineering Services, LLC of Fort Collins, CO (AWES 2020). American Water Engineering Services, LLC was formed in 2011 and is currently in good standing with the Colorado Secretary of State's office. The AWES 2020 report presents a hydrogeologic evaluation based on a numerical groundwater flow model built with Visual ModFlow Pro, an industry standard groundwater flow modeling code. Background information is given in the report, followed by assumptions, model parameters, results and conclusions. Figures and plates are appended to the report. By its nature a numerical groundwater flow model is a simplification of the real system and is built using a series of assumptions and compromises on the part of the modeler, with the goal of answering pertinent questions about the system. The questions that the AWES 2020 model seeks to answer are not specifically defined, but are generally stated as "to estimate the effects of dewatering ng operations on the surrounding groundwater hydrology". In my review of the AWES 2020 model I have tried to avoid "nit- picking" but to look first at the overall validity of the conclusions that can be drawn from it, and then to evaluate whether those conclusions support the statement that "Operations will not adversely affect surface and groundwater systems". Questions 6 through .., below are asked to help the Division better understand the model. 6. Key assumptions of the model are that the aquifer is unconfined, homogenous and anisotropic, with a horizontal hydraulic conductivity (Kh) of 125 ft/day and a vertical hydraulic conductivity (K„) of 12.5 ft/day. The K values are at the lower end of the expected range of 2000-100 ft/day (Robson, 1989). Please justify the assumption of anisotropy and the chosen K values for the sand and gravel aquifer. 7. The piezometers referred to in (3) are described as monitoring wells in AWES 2020. Please describe how these wells were used for pre -mining aquifer characterization (besides the collection of water level data). No information is presented about the vertical extent of the model. Page 3 of 4 8/4/2022 How many vertical layers are used in the model? What are the layer thicknesses? No information is presented about recharge from precipitation. Is recharge from precipitation accounted for in the model, or is its impact assumed to be negligible? 10. The Mine Area Map presented as Figure 2 shows a different pit configuration from that presented elsewhere in the permit application packet (PAP) — it shows three pits, whereas Exhibit G: Water Information Map, for example, shows just two. The Model Boundary Conditions presented as Plate 1 reflect the configuration shown in Figure 2. Please discuss the validity of the model boundary conditions in the light of the final pit configuration (which is assumed to be that shown on maps in the PAP). 11. According to the literature, water table gradients in the alluvial aquifers of the region are typically in the range 0.002 to 0.007 (Arnold, Langer & Paschke, 2003). The water table contour map presented as Plate 3 shows a generally easterly gradient of 0.002 across the center of the proposed permit area. A single data point (MW -1, which is presumably the same as P124-1) exists north of the Big Thompson River, with a significantly higher water level. This distorts the water level contours in the north of the study area, suggesting a far steeper gradient (0.01) and a south-easterly flow direction. Please discuss the characterization of the pre -mining water table. How reliable is the data from MW -1? How do you account for the steeper gradient? Are there any other data points in the north of the study area to improve the characterization? 12. The model was calibrated using model -assigned observation wells outside of the proposed excavations, (presumably the points shown with green and white symbols on Plates 6 and 7). The first two sentences of the final paragraph on Page 3 of the AWES 2020 report suggest that water levels were measured at these locations, but I think that these are simulated wells. Plates 5 and 5A show the calibration results. They appear to show identical data. Water level contours showing initial conditions in the calibrated model are presented as Plate 4. The contours suggest a gradient of 0.06 to the SSE in the north of the study area. Please clarify the initial calibration process. Please discuss the validity of the model in the north of the study area. 13. The results of the dewatering simulation are presented as Plate 6. This is presumably a steady state simulation. It simulates dewatering of the central and north-west pits only. Please simulate the dewatering of the full extent of the mined area. Please estimate the time to achieve steady state conditions. 14. Table 1 presents the predicted water levels at the 4 simulated wells before mining and following the lining of the mined pits. Please add a column to Table 1 showing the predicted water levels under the pit de -watering scenario. The table should show the fullest extent of the potential dra►down caused by the mine operation. Page 4 of 4 8/4/2022 15. In the conclusions section on Page 4 of the report, the statement is made that "The results of analytical and numerical solutions indicate..." however no analytical solutions are presented. Please update the report to present any relevant analytical solutions that support the conclusion. I have not addressed the requirements for water monitoring in this memo, but I note that you discussed it in item 46 of your preliminary adequacy review letter. Water monitoring data will be important to validate model predictions in the future. References: Robson, S.G.,1989, Alluvial and Bedrock Aquifers of the Denver Basin Eastern Colorado's Dual Groundwater Resource, U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 2302 https://pubs.usgs.goviwsp/2302/report.pdf Arnold, L.R., Langer, W.H. and Paschke S.S., 2003, Analytical and Numerical Simulation of the Steady - State Hydrologic Effects of Mining Aggregate in Hypothetical Sand -and -Gravel and Fractured Crystalline - Rock Aquifers, U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Investigations Report 02-4267 https://pubs. usgs.. ov/wri/2002/4267/report.pdf COLORADO Division of Water Resources Department of Naturat Resources Response to Reclamation Permit Application Consideration DATE: April 27, 2022 TO: Robert D. Zuber, Environmental Protection Specialist, rob.z.uber®state. co.us CC: Division 1 Office, District.. Water Commission.er FROM: Juana Comaniciu, P.E. RE:Two Rivers Sand, Gravel and Reservoir Project, File No. M - o2 -oi3 Operator: Garrett C. Varra, Varra Companies, Inc., (303)-666-6657 Contact: Bradford Janes, Varra Companies, Inc, (303) 666-6657 Parts of Sections 3 and 4, Twp 4 North, Rng 66 West, 6th PAL, Weld County 1 CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL The proposed operation will consume ground water by: dewatering, €1 water removed in the mined product, CI reclamation: evaporation, dust control, M Prior to initiation of these uses of ground water, the applicant will need to obtain either a gravel pit or other type of well permit,as applicable. However, prior to obtaining a permit, an approved water supply plan or decreed plan for augmentation is required. Prior to approving a well permit, the applicant must conduct a field inspection of the site and document the locations of all wells within 600 feet of the permit area. The applicant must then obtain a waiver of objection frorr all welt owners with wells within 600 feet of the permit area or request a hearing before the State Engineer. COMMENTS: The subject application is for a surface mining operation on approximately 409134 permitted acres Located in parts of Sections 3 and 4, Township 4 North, Range 66 West of the 6&h '4 . The areas to be mined are currently used for agricultural purposes. The primary commodities to be mined at the site are sand, gravel, topsoil overburden and borrow materials. Two mining areas designated as the Central Field and the North West Field were identified in this application as the primary extraction areas. The primary extraction area totals 234.06 acres C180.76 acres for Central Field and 53.30 acres for North-west Field). The remaining 175.17 acres of land within the permitted boundaries will include the secondary extraction. (plant processing/stockpile areas and a wash pond) and existing and future access roads, levees and other structures. The mining plan calls for excavation to remove aggregate from approximately 30 to 45 feet over the entire property. Groundwater occurs at an average weighted depth of approximately 8.4 feet below ground surface. ,Pining will be accomplished by dry mining method. The site is proposed to be reclaimed as water resources for storage of decreed water rights or other water as allowed by this office as well as backfilling.. The two primary extraction areas wilt be mined and reclaimed as developed two water storage reservoirs proposed to be lined in accordance with the August 1999 State Engineer Guidelines for Lining Criteria. Prior to the use/exposure of any ground water the applicant must first obtain a well permit and a substitute water supply plan or decreed plan for augmentation. The site must continue to be operated under a substitute water supply plan until such time as the proposed reservoirs are lined, lining approved by this office, backfilling completed and replacement of lagged depletions shall continue until there is no longer an effect on stream. 1313 Sherman Street, Room &21, !Denver, CO 80203 P 303, 66.3581 www.colorado.gov/water Jared S. PoLis, Governor d Dan Gibbs, Executive Director [ Kevin G. Rein, State Engineer/Director Two Rivers Sand, Gravel and Reservoir Project ,_2022-0i 3 April 27, 2022 Page 2 of 2 Any storm water runoff intercepted by this operation that is not diverted or captured in priority must infiltrate into the ground or be released to the stream system within 72 hours, Otherwise, the operator will be required to make reptacements for evaporation. The applicant may contact the State Engineer's Office with any questions. Raptor Materials, LLC. OFFICE OF SPECIAL PROJECTS 8120 Gage Street Frederick, CO 80516 Telephone (303) 666-6657 Fax (303) 666-6743 Thursday 7 July 2022 To: Weld County Clerk to the Board 1150 0 Street Greeley, Colorado 80632 From: Bradford Janes, Professional Forester Liaison, Interdisciplinary Affairs Subject: Raptor Materials, LLC. (formerly Varra Companies, Inc.) Two Rivers Sand, Gravel and Reservoir Project, File No. M-2022-013, 112c Permit Application • Correspondence of 7 July 2022 from Raptor Materials, LLC., to the Colorado Office of Mined Land Reclamation, requesting a Continuance to the scheduled Decision Date. Attachments: No other attachments Your signature and/or official stamp, below acknowledges receipt of the above referenced materials included with this correspondence. The material should be added to the identified Application, as originally submitted to the Weld County Clerk to the Board, and made accessible for public review. RECEIVED JUL 07 2022 2022 Received On , WELD COUNTY COMMISSIONERS By: Office of the Weld County Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners Greeley, Colorado Pub►;C. Rev,e ) 7/27/.2.a 7/22./22 cc..pL(-rP/mw),PO(31A/cHicRicbc) 2022-2148 Raptor Materials, LLC. OFFICE OF SPECIAL PROJECTS 8120 Gage Street Frederick. CO 80516 Telephone (303) 666-6657 Fax (303) 666-6743 Thursday 7 July 2022 To: Robert D. Zuber, P.E. Environmental Protection Specialist Colorado Division of Reclamation Mining and Safety (the Division) Office of Mined Land Reclamation (OMLR, the Office) 1313 Sherman Street, Room 215 Denver, Colorado 80203 From: Bradford Janes, Professional Forester Liaison, Interdisciplinary Affairs Subject: Two Rivers Sand, Gravel and Reservoir Project, File No. M-2022- 013, 112c Permit Application - Continuance Request. To provide additional time to respond your Adequacy Correspondence of 24 June 2022, the Operator requests a 60 Day Continuance from the 17 July 2022 Decision Date. Please confirm the new Decision Date. To our understanding, where a due date falls on a weekend, the next working day is considered the date due. Please Note: In consideration of a stated pending addendum to the Division's Adequacy concerns, and considering the length, and in places the novelty of some of the considerations, additional extensions to the Decision Date may be necessary as time unfolds. Thank -you for your kind and professional assistance. Enclosures: Proof of Placement with the Weld County Clerk to the Board Hello