Laserfiche WebLink
ENVIRONMENT, INC. PAGE 5 <br /> L.G. EVERIST, INC. - RAGSDALE RESERVOIR ADEQUACY RESPONSE O 1 <br /> MAY 6, 2OZO <br /> structures which you are suggesting would have to be built outside the permit area and <br /> against the landowner's wishes. <br /> The landowner has rip rapped the river embankment adjacent to the permit area extensively <br /> over the years. During the last two major flood events on the South Platte River, in 2013 <br /> and 2015, no floodwaters came on to the Cannon Property. And, as mentioned above, the <br /> landowner does not desire the installation of inlet or outlets, thereby alleviating DRMS's <br /> liability to require the structures. We do not think Mile High Flood District (MHFD, formerly <br /> UDFCD) or their standards are relevant to work in Weld County. We will be getting a Weld <br /> County USR Permit, and this will include working with the Weld County Floodplain Adminis- <br /> trator to establish the criteria used within the South Platte River floodplain. <br /> This facility is not in an urban area near public land or facilities where Public Safety is a <br /> concern. So from that stand point, requiring inlet/outlet structures on private reservoirs is <br /> not a valid reason to require them. From a liability stand point, there is not an issue as the <br /> landowner has armored parts of an outer most banks and entire length along the east bank <br /> of the South Platte River on their property. It is unlikely that in the event of a flood that this <br /> armoring would be breached or destroyed. We are not sure why the Division wants to <br /> accept the liability for requiring something the owners do not want. <br /> Furthermore, if a flood occurs and damage occurs to the liner, L.G. Everist will rebuild and <br /> repair it as needed to re-seal the reservoir areas. After all, the liner must be sealed in order <br /> to receive certified approval from the SEO. And the liner must be certified in order to be <br /> released from the DRMS permit. Protection after reclamation and permit release is the <br /> responsibility of the landowner, not L.G. Everist or the Division. <br /> The first paragraph of the RECLAMATION PLAN FOR BACKFILL AREAS " con- <br /> tains some incomplete sentences/thoughts . Please revise as <br /> needed. <br /> I fixed this area so it now makes sense. I have submitted a copy of the entire revised <br /> Exhibit E - Reclamation Plan instead of just the corrected pages to keep them all in one <br /> place. <br /> If backfilled areas are not returned to approximate original <br /> grade, reclamation slopes must be able to be traversed by agri- <br /> cultural equipment to support post mining land use of cropland as <br /> described - please acknowledge . ! <br /> The plan is to leave all areas where slopes are constructed no steeper then 3h to 1v and <br /> they will be capable of being traversed by farm equipment. The slopes around the reser- <br /> voirs will be seeded with the proposed grass mix down to the approximate level of the <br /> reservoir maximum fill level. <br /> If backfill areas are modified from cropland to be reclaimed as <br /> "wetland or wetland bank areas" , a TECHNICAL REVISION must be <br /> submitted as described, and a permanent augmentation plan for <br /> exposed groundwater will need to be approved by the State Engi- <br /> neer' s Office Division of Water Resources before those areas will <br /> be able to be released from the DRMS permit . Please acknowledge. <br />