Laserfiche WebLink
Page 2 of 3 <br />Lynn Mayer Shults, Regulatory Manager - Imshults@lgeverist.com <br />L. G. Everist, Inc. - 7321 E. 88th Avenue, Suite 200 - Henderson, CO 80640 <br />Office-303-286-2247 - Fax-303-289-1348 - Cell-303-514-2778 <br />L. G. Everist Inc. is committed to providing the highest quality products, <br />and delivering the best industrial services in all of the markets we serve. <br />-----Original Message----------------------------------------------------------------------- <br />From: Lynn Mayer Shults <br />Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2008 10:02 AM <br />To: 'Peter.Hays@state.co.us' <br />Subject: Fort Lupton Sand and Gravel, M-1999-120 <br />TO: Peter Hays, Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety (DRMS) <br />Peter, <br />just realized I have not gotten back to you after our recent phone conversation. Please forgive the delay. <br />So, as a reminder - we talked recently when you called me to explain that Mr. Ross Bachofer recently called you <br />to complain that he is still worried about flooding of his property, and for some unknown reason, he is concerned <br />about L. G. Everist, Inc.'s Fort Lupton Sand and Gravel mine (DRMS M-1999-120) which is located directly across <br />the South Platte River from his residence. <br />And then I explained briefly what had already taken place, since you were not involved in all of the <br />correspondence. Here is a quick reiteration for reference: <br />From what Erica told me in January, Mr. Bachofer sent a letter to the DRMS in January 2008, accusing <br />"various gravel mines" of causing flood flows. About a week later, the Division received a letter from Weld <br />County which discussed a complaint from Mr. Bachofer (which they received June 2007). In the Weld County <br />letter, Weld County specified L. G. Everist, Inc.'s Fort Lupton mine and Weld County asked your division to <br />look into mining compliance. <br />After Erica Crosby of DRMS received the letters, she called me to discuss, and then she and you came to our <br />site for an inspection. We had stockpiled the topsoil and overburden materials of the Golden phase (the area <br />closest to the river) in the Golden phase, which is normal - as operators want to move material around as little <br />as possible. However, having stockpiles in the Golden area was not shown on our mining plan. Ms. Crosby <br />requested two things from that inspection - 1. that we submit a corrective action plan to either remove all the <br />stockpiles or a revision that would demonstrate that the piles would not have an affect on any future <br />floodwaters, and 2. she also requested that we revise our permit to demonstrate that our lined pit will safely <br />pass a 100-year flood event, and suggested that our current plan "does not address how flood waters will be <br />safely passed in the event of a flood." <br />Request 1 - we submitted a corrective action plan to remove some of the piles and leave big breaks between <br />the remaining piles. However, we ended up removing all the piles (which was actually the preferred solution) <br />and came in full compliance with this request. Request 2 - was vacated by the Division. We did not have to <br />revise our permit, because we already have an approved plan, we had not made any significant changes to <br />the mining or reclamation operations, and we have not had any flooding issues on our site. So the second <br />request was vacated, as was verified by a letter from Carl Mount of the DRMS in May 2008. <br />Just as an aside, I would like to quickly note that our mining plan does in fact address Erica's Request 2 - "how <br />flood waters will be safely passed in the event of a flood," even though that request has been vacated by the <br />Division. As she mentioned in her request, we have maintained a 200-foot setback from the river. This setback <br />was proposed on page 15 of our DRMS amendment application, "The South Platte River flows to the east of the <br />amendment area and will not be affected, as mining will be set-back at least 200 feet from the current riverbank. <br />The proposed mining will not reduce the flood conveyance capacity of the 100-year floodplain so that it will not <br />cause a rise in the floodplain." <br />We would truly appreciate if the Division sent a letter to Mr. Bachofer to explain that we are in full compliance with <br />1/6/2009