My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2025-01-07_REVISION - M1999120
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Minerals
>
M1999120
>
2025-01-07_REVISION - M1999120
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/7/2025 9:42:55 AM
Creation date
1/7/2025 9:23:32 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1999120
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
1/7/2025
Doc Name
Comment
From
Michael Bachofer
To
DRMS
Type & Sequence
AM3
Email Name
NCG
JLE
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
2
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
, <br /> RECEIVED <br /> P.O. Box 1194 JAN 7 2025 <br /> Albany, OR 97321 Color Division of Reclamation, <br /> mbachofer@aol.com Mining and Safety <br /> January 1, 2025 <br /> Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining, & Safety <br /> 1313 Sherman Street, Suite 215 <br /> Denver, CO 80203 <br /> Re: L. G. Everist Application Amendment public comments <br /> Reference: DRMS Permit#M-1999-120 <br /> Attn: DRMS: <br /> Please find below some comments for consideration regarding L.G. Everist's Fort Lupton <br /> Sand & Gravel Mine Application Amendment Filing, permit#M-1999-120. <br /> 1. This may seem trivial, but the letter from LG Everist notifying me of the <br /> amendment application filing contains an error. It states, "The existing permit <br /> properties are located west of the South Platte River, east of County Road 23.5, <br /> and bounded by CR 18 on the north, and CR 14.5 on the south." However, the <br /> map clearly shows part of the existing permitted property already lies north of CR <br /> 18. The north entrance is marked with an E and is on CR 18. There is a portion <br /> that lies north of CR 18 across from that entrance. It looks to be part of a 314.35 <br /> acre property. <br /> 2. How many amendments to the original permit are allowed? This is not the first <br /> amendment/expansion. I am concerned the original permit requirements may be <br /> lacking based on the ever-increasing size of the mine as well as the effects from <br /> the other mines and lined water storage reservoirs in near proximity. I am not <br /> sure if this application is looked at without considering the other mining activities <br /> in the area or if it includes all related activities in the area but believe it should be <br /> the latter. <br /> 3. Based on previous experience, I am concerned the groundwater modeling may not <br /> be accurate. Is there a review of the monitoring wells and groundwater modeling <br /> to see if the model is predicting actual results to determine if that model is still <br /> appropriate for the expansion or if it needs revisited with the additional data <br /> available? This becomes even more important and there is even more data <br /> available from the additional gravel mines in the area to help refine any existing <br /> models. <br /> a. What baseline data will be taken on groundwater prior to the <br /> commencement of mining? This data is important for following-up on the <br /> accuracy of any modeling that is used in the permitting process. <br /> b. From a previous well permit application hearing in 2018, I understood <br /> L.G. Everist mitigated a neighbor's water well drying up by installing a <br /> well with a 36"diameter casing. I am concerned the groundwater impacts <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.