Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.0 BOCC Staff Report 11.08.2010Exhibits — Major Impact Review — The Dolores B. Blue Revocable Trust and Dee Blue — SUAA 6289 (Blue Pit Expansion) BOCC Public Hearing 11/08/10 (continued from 10/18/2010 Exhibit Letter (A to Z) Exhibit A Proof of Publication, Posting, and Mailing B Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008, as amended C Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2000, as amended D Application E Staff Memorandum F Staff PowerPoint Presentation G Memo from Jake Mall, Garfield County Road and Bridge, dated June 14, 2010 H Email from Jim Rada, Garfield County Public Health, received on June 17, 2010 I Letter from Karen A. Berry, Colorado Geological Survey, dated July 6, 2010 J Memo from Steve Anthony, Garfield County Weed Management, dated July 7, 2010 K Email from Doug Dotson, Town of Carbondale, received on July 12, 2010 L Email from Greg Peters received on July 22, 2010 M Letter via email from Ernest Kollar dated July 26, 2010 N Letter via email from John and Nancy Thorpe received on July 27, 2010 0 Code Compliance letter and report from 1997 P Email, with attachment, from Sean Mello, received on July 26, 2010 Q BoCC Resolution 81-384 R BoCC Resolution 93-051 S BoCC Resolution 96-48 T Email from Dan Roussin, Colorado Department of Transportation, received July 28, 2010 U Letter from Martha Cochran, Aspen Valley Land Trust, received on August 2, 2010 V Letter from Barbara Tunicliffe dated 8/22/10 W Crystal Springs Coalition Membership List as of 8/11/10 X Email from Patrick Burke dated 8/24/10 Y Email from Jaren & Bruce Ducker dated 8/7/10 Z Letter from Katherine Hubbard dated 8/18/10 AA Letter from Christine Jensen dated 10/08/10 BB Letter from Jonathon Fitch dated 10/7/10 CC Letter from the Basin Ditch Company dated 09/13/10 DD Letter from CDOT dated 09/29/10 EE CDOT Access Permit dated 9/24/10 FF Noise Assessment Addendum No. 1 from EDI dated October, 2010 GG Visual Impact Report Addendum from Lewicki & Associates dated 10, 2010 HH Email from Brian & Sandra Gaddis dated 10/07/2010 11 Letter from Earnest Kollar dated 10/14/10 JJ Letter from C. A. Vidal dated 10/12/10 KK Letter from Linda Vidal dated 10/12/10 LL Letter from Jonathan Fitch dated 10/07/10 MM Email and drawing from Earnest Kollar dated 11/2/10 REQUEST EXHIBIT Board of County Com - 11/08/10 (continued from 10/18/10) PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS SUAA 6289 — Special Use Permit Amendment to expand an existing sand and gravel operation (The Blue Pit) APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER The Dolores (Dee) B. Blue Revocable Trust and Dee Blue REPRESENTATIVE Bill Roberts/Western Slope Aggregate PARCEL ID 2393-254-00-265 & 285 PROPERTY SIZE/SITE AREA 146.87 acres LOCATION Approximately 2 miles northeast of Carbondale, CO, east of CR 103 and north of SR 82 ACCESS Direct access to SR 82 EXISTING ZONING Rural I. GENERAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION The property owner requests approval of an amendment to an approved Special Use Permit to expand the "Blue Pit" which is a gravel mining operation originally approved by Garfield County in 1981 with numerous amendments. The two parcels total approximately 289 acres in area with 82.70 acres used for the current mining operation and an additional 64 acres requested for expansion of mining operations. The site is accessed from SR 82 with a secondary access via CR 103 and CR 104. In addition to the existing gravel mining the site contains a maintenance building, office with scales, concrete batch plan, and material storage/crushing area. A more detailed 1 aerial photo of the existing site and expansion area is shown below. The site is located approximately 2 miles northeast of Carbondale, north of SR 82 and between County Road 103 and County Road 100. The request, noted in the application narrative, includes approval of an approximate 64 acre expansion of the mining area for mineral extraction. The terms from Article 16 Definitions of the Unified Land Use Resolution (ULUR) that apply are "Mineral Resource (Other than Natural Gas or Oil)" and "Industrial Use or Activity (1) Extraction" are shown below. Mineral Resource (Other than Natural Gas or Oil). An constituent of the earth in a solid, liquid, or gaseous state which, when extracted from the earth, is usable in its natural form or is capable of conversion into a usable form as a metal, a metallic compound, a chemical, an energy source, or a raw material for manufacturing or construction material. Industrial Use or Activity. Uses engaged in processing, manufacturing of materials from either extracted or raw materials from either extracted or raw materials or from previously prepared materials resulting in a new product designed for wholesale or retail sale. (Note: Article VII of this Resolution contains specific review standards specific to Industrial Uses.) (Resolution 2010-26) 2 1. Extraction: to draw out or forth; hence to derive as if by drawing out"; removal of physical matter in a solid or liquid state from its naturally occurring location; the initial step in utilization of a natural resource; examples include shale and coal mines, gravel pits, timber cutting; II. BACKGROUND The "Blue Pit" Special Use Permit (SUP) for gravel extraction was originally approved by Garfield County in 1981 with approval of Resolution 81-384 (Exhibit Q). The approval included specific conditions for access and hours of operation which have been maintained as conditions throughout the project history. An application to add Asphalt and Concrete Batch Plants was denied in 1983. There have been various amendments to the original SUP approval including temporary access to SR 82 (Reso 93-051, Exhibit R) then permanent access to SR 82 (Reso 96-48, Exhibit S) and approval of a concrete batch plant in 1991. The current request is to maintain the existing operations and add an additional 64 acres to the permitted area for gravel extraction. The application states that there is approximately 25 acres remaining for gravel operations which would provide approximately 9 years of mining activity on the site. Comments have been received from adjoining property owners (attached as various Exhibits) concerned with expansion of the site and note impacts such as noise, dust, traffic, visual impacts, and hours of operation. A search of Garfield County Code Compliance records find only one complaint letter received and investigated in 1997 (Exhibit 0). III. SITE DESCRIPTION The Blue Pit is located approximately 2 miles directly northeast of Carbondale, CO, north of SR 82, and between County Road 100 and County Road 103. Primary access is provided by SR 82 with an approved access permit from the Colorado Department of Transportation (Application Appendix C) with secondary access of off CR104/CR 103. The primary access point is directly across from The Ranch at Roaring Fork subdivision sharing the median break for site access. The driveway from SR 82 is paved up to the top of the ridgeline screening site operations from the roadway. The overall site plan shown below (Map C-1 in the application) illustrates the existing site operations and the proposed expansion area. The property is bounded on the south by SR 82, on the east by private property (a portion of which was the old Carbondale Landfill), on the north is a steep hillside within the parcel boundaries and protected by a conservation easement, and by a farm field to the immediate west also within the parcel boundaries. Further to the west there is 3 farmland that appears to be used for agricultural production. The Ranch at Roaring Fork subdivision is located directly south of the site adjacent to and across SR 82 and the Wooden Deer subdivision is located approximately % mile north of the proposed expansion area. There are no bodies of water identified on the site but the Basin Ditch runs through the central portion of the site and the applicant states that water from the ditch is used on site in their mining operations. IV. SITE PLAN The overall site plan, shown above and included in the application binder (Labeled Map C-1), shows the existing mining operations and the proposed expansion area. The current operations (shown below) include a maintenance building and office with scales located at the site entry, just over the top of the berm. There is a concrete batch plant located in the bottom of the pit at the eastern end of the parcel. The material storage/crushing area is also located in the pit bottom just west of the concrete batch plant. Primary access is directly to SR 82 with a secondary access through a private roadway, labeled "farm road" 4 which connects to CR 104. Current approved mining operations will move westward into "Mining Area 2" towards the proposed expansion area. The expansion area, shown below, is currently in agricultural production/pasture and would move mining operations both westward, past the farm road, and northward. The application shows the relocation of the private roadway along the northern and western boundary of the proposed expansion area. The total land area for all phases of the expansion is 63.79 acres and is best illustrated on the Mining Plan. A portion of the Mining Plan showing the proposed expansion area is shown below. 5 The mining plan shows five "Mining Areas" labeled 1-5 and also a "Temporary Wash Plant and Stockpile Area" just east of Mining Area 3. Mining Area 1 and 2 are both located within the current confines of the approved SUP. Mining Area 1 would remain to house the office/scales/maintenance buildings, concrete batch plant, and crushing/stockpile area. This area would be the final portion of the site to be reclaimed due to on-going site operations within the original gravel pit. Mining Area 2, still within the original SUP site boundaries, would be included in the "reclaim as you go" proposed as part of the operations within the expansion area and discussed in the Visual Analysis Report in Appendix G. The remaining phases, 3-5 would be sequentially mined and reclaimed as gravel extraction proceeded to each sucsessive phase. Initial slopes, during mining operations, will be 1.5 to 1 to maximize extraction and then reclaimed to 3 to 1. The pit floor will be the reclaimed during the final stages of operations with top soil and reseeded for use as pasture. The reclaimed slopes will be reseeded and used as rangeland. V. REFFERAL AGENCY COMMENTS Staff referred the application to the following State agencies and/or County Departments for their review and comment. Comments received are noted below and incorporated within the appropriate section of this memorandum. Comment letters are attached and labeled as noted. • Town of Carbondale (Exhibit K) An email from the Town of Carbondale noted no concerns as long as mining activities did not pierce the aquifer supplying Town water. • Carbondale and Rural Fire Protection District (No Comments Received) 6 �\ �Vry 000Tona NeededTORecleim -.. i [\�\\\ \\\ I t \, 1 \\\Y\ \ 1 $ ]fZ 803 AcresMining ...8 3.430.000 Tone To Mine fl 1 E 810.000 Tone Needed To eclelm Mining Area ♦ ?2.05 Aoroo 4,425,000 Torr To Mine 005.000 Tone Needed To Roele:m Y.-." '�. Mining Neat /0 06.000 a Mina 9.008.000 Tons Needed 820,000 Tons /raedetl To Rac�etm _ f�.`� z ,7 : dJ/� i' /7J7%/Y / ,'�w - " i Mining Area 1 4agdd 880,000 T Reme.n ,j .vma+w.e 028.000 Tone F.xcevv � .vii >bf . • ar-..... 1 -- The mining plan shows five "Mining Areas" labeled 1-5 and also a "Temporary Wash Plant and Stockpile Area" just east of Mining Area 3. Mining Area 1 and 2 are both located within the current confines of the approved SUP. Mining Area 1 would remain to house the office/scales/maintenance buildings, concrete batch plant, and crushing/stockpile area. This area would be the final portion of the site to be reclaimed due to on-going site operations within the original gravel pit. Mining Area 2, still within the original SUP site boundaries, would be included in the "reclaim as you go" proposed as part of the operations within the expansion area and discussed in the Visual Analysis Report in Appendix G. The remaining phases, 3-5 would be sequentially mined and reclaimed as gravel extraction proceeded to each sucsessive phase. Initial slopes, during mining operations, will be 1.5 to 1 to maximize extraction and then reclaimed to 3 to 1. The pit floor will be the reclaimed during the final stages of operations with top soil and reseeded for use as pasture. The reclaimed slopes will be reseeded and used as rangeland. V. REFFERAL AGENCY COMMENTS Staff referred the application to the following State agencies and/or County Departments for their review and comment. Comments received are noted below and incorporated within the appropriate section of this memorandum. Comment letters are attached and labeled as noted. • Town of Carbondale (Exhibit K) An email from the Town of Carbondale noted no concerns as long as mining activities did not pierce the aquifer supplying Town water. • Carbondale and Rural Fire Protection District (No Comments Received) 6 • Colorado Department of Wildlife (No Comment Received) • Colorado Department of Transportation (Exhibits T, DD, and EE) The Applicant updated the existing CDOT access permit which includes specific roadway improvements within three years. This new permit also more accurately ties the permit to 77 Design Hourly Volume (which includes passenger car equivalents) rather than based on acreage mined. There are no issues using the current access permit for gravel mining activities. • Colorado Geological Survey (Exhibit 1) The CGS noted the surrounding geology and the potential for subsidence and temporary effects on mining activity if a subsurface collapse occurs. This potential exists and is unrelated to the mining activity and will not impact mining activity. • Garfield County Road and Bridge Department (Exhibit G) Road and Bridge noted the requirement for a stop sign at the entry to CR 104, overweight/oversize permit requirements, and participation in future road maintenance or improvements to the County Road System. • Colorado Division of Mines (No Comment Received) • County Vegetation Management (Exhibit J) • Garfield County Engineer (No Comments Received) • Garfield County Development Engineer/Contract (No Comments Received) • Garfield County Health Department, Environmental Division (Exhibit H) All permits appear to be in order. The wrong contact information was in the SPCC plan. • Basin Ditch Company (Exhibit CC) indicated they agree in principal to the proposed design to relocate the ditch. Final acceptance will be contingent on the final engineered drawings. • Spring Ditch/Private (No Comments Received) 7 VI. PROJECT DISCUSSION A. Traffic Garfield County Road and Bridge commented noting that there were minimal impacts to the county road system and recommended conditions which have been included at the end of this Staff Memo. The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) has now updated the current CDOT Access Permit with no issues for continued access. This permit better addresses the actual trips from the mining operation (at 77 DHV) rather than acreage being mined. The application included a copy of the CDOT access permit to CR 82, issued in 1996, and also a basic traffic analysis (Application Appendix C). The report, prepared by Kimley-Horn, notes that there will be no increase in traffic from site operations and proposed expansion of the permitted mining area. Emails and letters received from area residents commented on the current traffic impacts, especially operating outside of the permitted hours of 7AM to 5PM including back-up alarms on the trucks (Exhibits L -M). WSA is concerned with the noise of back-up alarms and is exploring other types of systems that are both quieter and also meet the safety requirements for their staff (Exhibit P). It should be noted that the only traffic that should be using CR 104 and CR 103 would be specifically to access gravel needs in that section of Missouri Heights. Virtually all other traffic accessing the gravel mine is required to access from SH 82. B. Visual Impact A Visual Impact Report analysis is included in the application (Appendix H of the Application with an Addendum as Exhibit GG). The report identifies three visual sensitive areas; Area 1—Highway 82, Area 2 -The Roaring Fork River Valley, and Area 3 - Homes North of the Pit. The analysis states that impacts to Areas 1 and 2 are minimal due to the screening nature of the berm which shields site operations the full length of the existing site and proposed expansion. Emails and letters received from area residents commented on the significant visual impacts from their home sites. The applicant states that visual impacts are reduced significantly due to the natural terrain, phasing plan, "contemporaneous reclamation", and the use of temporary seeding prior to final reclamation. Staff believes the visual analysis needs some work to better mitigate this significant impact. The photo -view proposed by the Applicant should be revised to include the impacted views from all of the residents in Wooden Deer. See the graphic below that illustrates the view impacted is more severe than the picture shows. 8 Section 7-840(H) of the ULUR states "Reclamation shall be done to create an aesthetically pleasing site or reclaimed area that will blend with or improve upon the surrounding areas." The plan proposed by the applicant could be improved by adding slope undulation to better meet this criterion. C. Noise Gravel extraction emits significant and constant noise levels. Noise levels related to certain uses in Colorado (as well as is referenced in the County's land use regulations) is governed by state law (CRS 25-12-103). Basically, the law provides that the noise emitter cannot exceed certain noise levels (measured at 25 feet beyond the gravel extraction property line) based on the adjacent receiver property's use. In this case of the Blue Pit there are a variety of uses that surround the subject extraction property including agricultural, residential, and industrial. This noise abatement law also provides that times during "construction", a use can be as loud as the table permits (at 80 db(A)) understanding that this is a short but necessary time frame. The revised noise study provided by the Applicant (Exhibit FF) states that Mine Development (including the surface activity of over burden removal) is considered as "construction". Staff disagrees and finds no reference or evidence that there is any state law or case law that supports that claim. Further, the Mineral Rules and Regulations of the Colorado Land Reclamation Board for the Extraction of Construction Materials defines "Extraction" as "the removal of construction materials and/or overburden from places of natural occurrence to surface locations" and defines "Mining Operation" as "the development or extraction of a construction material from its natural occurrences on affected land." An argument could be made, based on these definitions above, that removal of the overburden is part of normal mining operations and not part of the construction of the mine. Thus, overburden removal would not allow for the "construction project" 9 exception to the maximum noise levels as contemplated in the noise abatement statute (CRS 25-12-103). But, because there is no direct link (i.e. no case, no statutory reference/incorporation, and no identical language) between "construction projects" under the noise statute and "mining development" and/or "mining operations" under the reclamation statutes, Staff believes that noise levels can be addressed through a resolution condition which (1) defines what the County considers to be mine "construction" and (2) addresses the time periods and specific phases of the gravel mining during which construction will occur and increased noise levels will be permitted. In this way, the BOCC could interpret this to allow for the removal of overburden as a mine development activity which is allowed to go up to the 80 db(A). The BOCC could allow this to occur so long as there is a defined timeframe (phasing) allocated to this more noisy activity so that the residents nearby have an understanding and expectation as to how long that would last in any given phase. This is an issue for the neighboring residents. Emails and letters received from area residents commented on the noise impacts of site operations from back-up alarms on the trucks outside of the permitted hours of 7AM to 5PM. The Applicant is also concerned with the noise of back-up alarms and is exploring other types of systems that are both quieter and also meet the safety requirements for their staff (Exhibit P). The conditions of approval from past Resolutions are still valid and can be enforced based on a valid complaint from area residents. Based on all of this information, should the BOCC decide to allow removal of overburden as "mine development / construction" which can be as loud as 80 db(A), then the BOCC should require a timeframe of when this can occur. The Applicant will be prepared to propose a time frame to the BOCC at the public hearing. The Applicant has submitted a revised noise study that essentially indicates that they meet the state noise abatement laws if overburden is exempted to the louder limit. (See Exhibit FF). D. Hours of Operation Area residents noted that, at times, the site is operational beyond the approved hours of 7AM to 5PM, Monday — Saturday (Exhibits L -M). The conditions of approval from past Resolutions are still valid and can be enforced based on a valid complaint from area residents. Staff recommends the house of operation oriogonally required by the past BOCC remain in effect. E. Air Quality The application includes copies of Construction Permits approved by the CDPHE (Appendix F of the application). The permits address air emissions from the crushing 10 and screening operations and limit emission of particulate matter including PM 10 (particles less than 10 microns in size) to a yearly amount identified in each of the three permits. Compliance with the permits "... shall be demonstrated by maintaining annual records..." and is self monitoring. Emails and letters received from area residents commented on the dust generated by the mining operations. After discussion with R.K. Hancock of the CDPHE any complaints would be field investigated but cautioned that windy days generate off site dust and a determination of the source is difficult. F. Timing of Application and Joint Application Comment letters from neighboring property owners state that an adjoining property owner is contemplating an application for gravel extraction at the northeast corner of the SR-82/CR 103 intersection, across from the LaFarge Pit located at the northwest corner. The comments request that Garfield County combine the current application for the Blue Pit expansion with any proposal for a new pit at SR -82 /CR 103. A pre - application meeting was held on May 13, 2010 for a proposed gravel extraction operation at the above location and an application has been submitted and is currently being reviewed for Technical Completeness. It would be difficult for Garfield County to force the owners of the Blue Pit to combine their application with an adjoining property owner as they have the right, within the proper confines of the County's land use regulation to submit a stand-alone application at any time and the same regulations require certain timelines so that the application is reviewed in a timely manner. VII. REVIEW STANDARDS & STAFF COMMENTS Major Impact Reviews for Gravel Extraction are required to adequately address topics in the listed submittal requirements of Section 4-501 (F) Major Impact Review which includes Land Suitability Analysis (Section 4-502(D)), Impact Analysis (Section 4-502(E)), Erosion and Sediment Control (Section 4 502- (C) (4)), the general development standards found in Article VII of the Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008 (ULUR). Pursuant to Divisions 1-3 of Article VII all applications for land use change shall conform to the listed standards. Divisions 1-3 discuss General Approval Standards, Resource Protection, and Site Planning and Development. The applicant has addressed all of the requirements of the ULUR that apply to this Major Impact Review and specifically for Gravel Extraction with standards listed in Section 7-840, Additional Standards Applicable to Gravel Extraction. The following provides a review of specific standards that are of interest to the Board when considering the impacts caused by Gravel Extraction followed by a Staff Response: 11 Section 4-502(E) Land Suitability Analysis 1. Public Access to Site. Show historic public access to or through the site. 2. Access to adjoining Roadways. Identify access to adjoining roads and site distance and intersection constraints. 3. Easements. Show all easements defining, limiting or allowing use types and access. Staff Response (For items 1-3): The property has public road access via SR -82 with an active access permit issued by the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). Secondary access to the site is through CR 104 connecting to CR 103. Comments from CDOT stated that he applicant is updating the existing CDOT access permit which may include specific roadway improvements within three years and that there are no issues using the current access permit for gravel mining activities. Garfield County Road and Bridge had no issue with the proposed expansion and recommended specific conditions for a stop sign at the entry to CR 104, overweight/oversize permit requirements, and participation in future road maintenance or improvements to the County Road System. The Basin Ditch runs north/south through the existing mining operation and the Spring Ditch is located within a pipe at the extreme southeast corner of the site. 4. Topography and Slope. Topography and slope determination. Staff Response: The property is hidden from view on the south by a 90 foot high ridge that runs the length of the property along the southern boundary effectively screening mining operations from SR 82. The eastern portion of the site contains the original Blue Pit operations consisting of the office/scales/maintenance building, the batch plant, and crushing/screening operations. The western portion of the site is slightly bowl shaped and currently in agricultural production as grazing land. The topography increases significantly north of the Blue Pit (labeled Pinyon -Juniper Woods on the site plan) with this portion of the parcel contained within a conservation easement. The topography within the expansion area has no significant slope and contains a central "bowl" increasing eastward. The Garfield County Geographic Information System identifies an area of moderate Soils Related Hazard in the northeast corner of the site which is also noted in the letter from the Colorado Geographic Survey (Exhibit I). 5. Natural Features. Significant natural features on-site and off-site. Staff Response: The expansion area is slightly bowl shaped and currently in agricultural production as grazing land. There is an increase in elevation as you move northeastward in the proposed expansion area. There are no water bodies identified on the proposed expansion site. The Basin Ditch runs north/south through the existing mining operation and the Spring Ditch is located within a pipe at the extreme southeast corner of the site. Two wash ponds are located within the confines of the current mining operation and shown on the site plan. There is a significant 90 foot high ridge 12 that runs east/west along the property's southern boundary. A significant hillside is located north of the Blue Pit and out of the mining area. 6. Drainage Features. Existing drainages and impoundments, natural and manmade. Staff Response: There are no water bodies or drainage features identified on the proposed expansion site. The Basin Ditch runs north/south through the existing mining operation and the Spring Ditch is located within a pipe at the extreme southeast corner of the site. Two wash ponds are located within the confines of the current mining operation and shown on the site plan. 7. Water. Historic irrigation, tailwater issues, water demands, adequate water supply plan pursuant to Section 7-104. Staff Response: The proposed expansion area will not create an additional demand for water. The current Blue Pit operations has an approved augmentation plan for use of ditch water and an approved well for site operations (Appendix J). 8. Floodplain. Flood plain and flood fringe delineations. Staff Response: The Garfield County Geographic Information System does not identify any designated flood plain or flood hazard area. 9. Soils. Soils determination, percolation constraints, as applicable. Staff Response: The top soil located on the proposed expansion area will be stockpiled and will be reused for final site reclamation. This standard does not apply. 10. Hazards. Geologic hazards on-site, and adjacent to site. Staff Response: The Garfield County Geographic Information System identifies an area of moderate Soils Related Hazard in the northeast corner of the proposed expansion area which is also noted in the letter from the Colorado Geographic Survey (Exhibit I). There are no other geologic hazard areas identified on the site. 11. Natural Habitat. Existing flora and fauna habitat, wetlands, migration routes. Staff Comments: A Wildlife and Habitat Assessment was prepared by Environmental Solutions for the proposed expansion area. The report notes that the site consists primarily of irrigated hay with the northeast corner a juniper -pinyon forest on the edge of the hillside slope. No wetland species were found on the site. Deer and elk are the two most affected species that use the site both during the summer and as winter range and that deer make less use of the site than elk. There are no mapped summer range, production areas, or migration routes for elk. The report states that there will be a reduction in habitat area during mining activities but proper reclamation and replanting would enhance the site for wildlife. The report suggests the proposed weed control plan is a mitigating measure and that pet restrictions be imposed to limit harassment of wildlife. The Garfield County GIS identifies the following fauna habitat on the site; ➢ Black Bear overall range 2006 ➢ Elk overall range 2006 13 ➢ Mule Deer overall range 2006 ➢ Mt. Lion overall range 2006 ➢ Wild Turkey overall range 2006 (north 2/3) 12. Resource Areas. Protected or Registered Archaeological, cultural, paleontological and historic resource areas. Staff Response: The Application contains a letter from the Colorado Historical Society located in Appendix I of the application. The letter does not identify any archeological or historic sites within the project area. Section 4-502(E) Impact Analysis The Impact Analysis shall provide a description of the impacts that the proposed land use change may cause, based upon the standards that the proposed use must satisfy. The Impact Analysis shall include a complete description of how the applicant will ensure that impacts will be mitigated and standards will be satisfied. The following information shall be included in the Impact Analysis. 1. Adjacent Property. An address list of real property adjacent to the subject property, and the mailing address for each of the property owners. Staff Comments: The Applicant provided an address list for property owners within 200 feet of the parcel for public notice which is located in Exhibit G of the application. 2. Adjacent Land Use. Existing use of adjacent property and neighboring properties within 1500' radius. Staff Comments: The site is located in an area of residential, irrigated pasture, rangeland, gravel mining, commercial uses, and rural residential uses. 3. Site Features. A description of site features such as streams, areas subject to flooding, lakes, high ground water areas, topography, vegetative cover, climatology, and other features that may aid in the evaluation of the proposed development. Staff Comments: The property is hidden from view on the south by a 90 foot high ridge that runs the length of the property along the southern boundary effectively screening mining operations from SR 82. The eastern portion of the site contains the original Blue Pit operations consisting of the office/scales/maintenance buildings, the batch plant, and crushing/screening operations. The western portion of the site is slightly bowl shaped and currently in agricultural production as irrigated pasture. The topography increases significantly north of the Blue Pit (labeled Pinyon Juniper Woods on the site plan) with this portion of the parcel contained within a conservation easement. There are no natural water bodies on the site but there are two man-made ponds used in the mining operation, the Basin Ditch, and the Spring Ditch. There are no areas of flooding or high ground water located on the site. 14 4. Soil Characteristics. A description of soil characteristics of the site which have a significant influence on the proposed use of the land. Staff Response: The top soil located on the proposed expansion area will be stockpiled and will be reused for final site reclamation. This standard does not apply. 5. Geology and Hazard. A description of the geologic characteristics of the area including any potential natural or man-made hazards, and a determination of what effect such factors would have on the proposed use of the land. Staff Response: The Garfield County Geographic Information System identifies an area of moderate Soils Related Hazard in the northeast corner of the proposed expansion area which is also noted in the letter from the Colorado Geographic Survey (Exhibit I). There are no other geologic hazard areas identified on the site. 6. Effect on Existing Water Supply and Adequacy of Supply. Evaluation of the effect of the proposed land use on the capacity of the source of water supply to meet existing and future domestic and agricultural requirements and meeting the adequate water supply requirements of Section 7-104. Staff Response: The proposed expansion area will not create an additional demand for water. The current Blue Pit operations has an approved augmentation plan for use of ditch water and an approved well for site operations (Appendix J). The proposed expansion area has a historic water usage for irrigation of the pastures. 7. Effect on Groundwater and Aquifer Recharge Areas. Evaluation of the relationship of the subject parcel to floodplains, the nature of soils and subsoils and their ability to adequately support waste disposal, the slope of the land, the effect of sewage effluents, and the pollution of surface runoff, stream flow and groundwater. Staff Comments: There are no additional structures or wastewater disposal proposed for the mining expansion area. The site is outside any identified flood hazard zones. The application narrative reports that groundwater is located approximately 60 feet below the surface in the current mining area increasing to 90 feet in the expansion area (Page C-2). All mining activities will be maintained at least 2 feet above groundwater. The Town of Carbondale commented (Exhibit K) and has no issue with the proposal if mining activities stay above groundwater levels and the SPCC plan if followed to contain spills. 8. Environmental Effects. Determination of the existing environmental conditions on the parcel to be developed and the effects of development on those conditions, including: a. Determination of the long term and short term effect on flora and fauna. 11. Natural Habitat. Existing flora and fauna habitat, wetlands, migration routes. 15 Staff Comments: A Wildlife and Habitat Assessment was prepared by Environmental Solutions for the proposed expansion area. The report notes that the site consists primarily of irrigated hay with the northeast corner a juniper - pinyon forest on the edge of the hillside slope. No wetland species were found on the site. Deer and elk are the two most affected species that use the site both during the summer and as winter range and that deer make less use of the site than elk. There are no mapped summer range, production areas, or migration routes for elk. The report states that there will be a reduction in habitat area during mining activities but proper reclamation and replanting would enhance the site for wildlife. The report suggests the proposed weed control plan is a mitigating measure and that pet restrictions be imposed to limit harassment of wildlife. The Garfield County GIS identifies the following fauna habitat on the site; o Black Bear overall range 2006 o Elk overall range 2006 o Mule Deer overall range 2006 o Mt. Lion overall range 2006 o Wild Turkey overall range 2006 (north 2/3) b.Determination of the effect on significant archaeological, cultural, paleontological, historic resources. Staff Response: The Application contains a letter from the Colorado Historical Society located in Appendix I of the application. The letter does not identify any archeological or historic sites within the project area. c. Determination of the effect on designated environmental resources, including critical wildlife habitat. (1) Impacts on wildlife and domestic animals through creation of hazardous attractions, alteration of existing native vegetation, blockade of migration routes, use patterns or other disruptions. Staff Comment: A Wildlife and Habitat Assessment was prepared by Environmental Solutions for the proposed expansion area. The report notes that the site consists primarily of irrigated hay with the northeast corner a juniper -pinyon forest on the edge of the hillside slope. No wetland species were found on the site. Deer and elk are the two most affected species that use the site both during the summer and as winter range and that deer make less use of the site than elk. There are no mapped summer range, production areas, or migration routes for elk. The report states that there will be a reduction in habitat area during mining activities but proper reclamation and replanting would enhance the site for wildlife. The report suggests the proposed weed control plan is a mitigating measure and that pet restrictions to limit harassment of wildlife be imposed. The area is not identified as critical habitat with limited impacts to native vegetation. Impacts appear to be minimal. d. Evaluation of any potential radiation hazard that may have been identified by the State or County Health Departments. 16 Staff Comment: There are no radiation hazards identified for this site. e. Spill Prevention Control and Counter Measures plan, if applicable. Staff Comments: The Application includes a Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure Plan (Application Appendix A) prepared by Greg Lewicki & Associates in compliance with the federal regulations. The plan details how major and minor spills are handled, emergency response, and training. 9. Traffic. Assessment of traffic impacts based upon a traffic study prepared in compliance with Section 4-502(1). Staff Response: The property has public road access via SH -82 with an active access permit issued by the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). Secondary access to the site is through CR 104 connecting to CR 103. The Applicant updated the existing CDOT access permit which includes specific roadway improvements within three years. This new permit also more accurately ties the permit to 77 Design Hourly Volume (which includes passenger car equivalents) rather than based on acreage mined. There are no issues using the current access permit for gravel mining activities. Garfield County Road and Bridge had no issue with the proposed expansion and recommended specific conditions for a stop sign at the entry to CR 104, overweight/oversize permit requirements, and participation in future road maintenance or improvements to the County Road System. A traffic study was prepared by Kimley-Horne (Application Appendix C) which did not identify any increase in traffic volumes. 10. Nuisance. Impacts on adjacent land from generation of vapor, dust, smoke, noise, glare or vibration, or other emanations. Staff Comments: The proposed mining expansion area would impact surrounding property. Mining activities do generate a certain amount of dust, noise, and vibration. The Blue Pit site has been in operation since 1981 and has obtained all required mining, air emission, and access permits. Each permit, including the approved Special Use Permit issued by Garfield County, have specific requirements to reduce or mitigate nuisance impacts to surrounding property. Letters from neighboring property owners have noted excessive noise and dust which may be from Blue Pit or other adjoining land uses which include mining and agricultural uses. The SUP conditions from Resolution 96-48 remain in force and are included as recommended conditions of approval to reduce and mitigate impacts to surrounding property owners. The proposed expansion of mining area activity, as conditioned, meets the requirements of the ULUR of 2008, as amended. 17 11. Reclamation Plan. A reclamation plan consistent with the standards in Section 7- 212 (B). 7-212 (B) Areas disturbed during development shall be restored as natural - appearing landforms that blend in with adjacent undisturbed topography (Reso 2009-53). 1. Contouring and Revegetation. Abrupt angular transitions and linear placement on visible slopes shall be avoided. Areas disturbed by grading shall be contoured so they can be re -vegetated, and shall be planted and shall have vegetation established and growing based on 70% coverage as compared with the original on-site vegetation within two (2) growing seasons, using species with a diversity of native and/or desirable non-native vegetation capable of supporting the post - disturbance land use. a. Revegetation of Disturbed Areas. To the maximum extent feasible, disturbed areas shall be revegetated to a desired plant community with composition of weed free species and plant cover typical to that site. 2. Application of Top Soil. Top soil shall be stockpiled and placed on disturbed areas. 3. Retaining Walls. Retaining walls made of wood, stone, vegetation or other materials that blend with the natural landscape shall be used to reduce the steepness of cut slopes and to provide planting pockets conducive to revegetation. 4. Slash Around Homes. To avoid insects, diseases and wildfire hazards all vegetative residue, slushiness, branches, limbs, stumps, roots, or other such flammable lot -clearing debris shall be removed from all areas of the lot in which such materials are generated or deposited, prior to final building inspection approval. 5. Removal of Debris. Within six months of substantial completion of soil disturbance all brush, stumps and other debris shall be removed from the site. 6. Time Line Plan. Every area disturbed shall have a time line approved for the reclamation of the site approved by the County and a security shall be provided to Garfield County in an amount of $2,500 per disturbed acre to be reclaimed prior to the issuance of a Land Use Change Permit. Staff Comments: The proposed expansion area would require review and approval for a revised Reclamation Permit by the Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining, and Safety. A copy of the current Blue Pit mining permit is in Appendix D along with a sound study. The narrative in Appendix D states that all requirements for the requested SUP amendment, if approved, will be incorporated into a revised 18 mining permit application. The state permit lists the reclamation surety for the current Blue Pit operations. Additional discussion on the mining operation and reclamation is below under the staff comments for Section 7-840. Section 7-100 GENERAL APPROVAL STANDARDS FOR LAND USE CHANGE PERMITS 1. Section 7-101 Compliance with Zone District Use Restrictions Staff Comments: As conditioned, proposed use complies with the development standards of the Rural Zoning District and the development standards of Section 7- 840 of the ULUR. 2. Section 7-102 Compliance with Comprehensive Plan and Intergovernmental Agreements Staff Comments: The property is located in Study Area 1 of the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2000 and is identified as "Resource Extraction" and "Residential Medium 6 to < 10 acres/du" within the current extraction operation and "Residential Medium 6 to < 10 acres/du" in the proposed 64 acre expansion area. The subject property is also located within the Natural Resources mapping as an area with "Sand and Gravel with Ground Water over 20 feet" indicating its importance as a resource. Section III, Goals, Objectives, Policies, and Programs are provided below under Section 11, Gravel Extraction Operations that may help the BOCC inform their decision. GOALS 11.1 Garfield County recognizes that under Colorado law, the surface and mineral interests have certain legal rights and privileges, including the right to extract and develop these interests. Furthermore, private property owners also have certain legal rights, responsibilities and privileges, including the right to have the mineral estate developed in a reasonable manner and to have adverse land use impacts mitigated during extraction as well as requiring responsible reclamation of land after extraction processes are completed. 11.2 Garfield County will encourage a land use pattern that recognizes the environmental sensitivity of the land, does not overburden the physical capacity of the land and is in the best interests of the health, safety and welfare of Garfield County. 11.3 Garfield County will encourage the protection of watersheds, flood plains, river -fronts and riparian areas. 19 11.4 Garfield County will encourage the development of a diversified industrial base for the County which recognizes and addresses the human resources, natural resources and physical location -to -market capabilities of the community, and the social and environmental impacts of industrial uses. 11.5 Garfield County will encourage development and overall land use policies in the County that will affect a municipality to be compatible with future land use objectives of the appropriate municipality. OBJECTIVES 11.0 To ensure that industrial development is compatible with adjacent land uses and mitigate impacts identified during the plan review process. 11.1 Encourage the location of industrial development in areas where visual, noise, air quality and infrastructure impacts are reduced. 11.2 Ensure that the type, size and scope of industrial development is consistent with the long-term land use objectives of the County. 11.3 Ensure that Zoning Regulations addressing Industrial uses reflect the changing land use patterns and demographics of the County and encourage the further diversification of the County's economy. 11.4 Visual corridors are considered an important physical attribute of the County and policies will reflect the need to carefully plan these areas. 11.5 Ensure the compatibility of development proposals with existing farms and ranches and ensure that active agricultural uses and existing residential uses are buffered from higher -intensity adjacent uses. 11.6 Garfield County encourages specific project design to recognize the physical features of the land in a manner that is compatible with the physical environment. 11.7 Garfield County will ensure that specifically identified natural, scenic and ecological resources and critical wildlife habitats are recognized as important assets. 20 11.8 The County will require adequate mitigation to address impacts of mineral extraction on private property owners, without undue burden on the legal rights of mineral owners or lessees. 11.9 The County, through the implementation of the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning and Special Use Permit policies, will address future compatibility issues with current mining operations. 11.10 Garfield County will encourage mineral extraction activities to adequately mitigate adverse affects on the natural environment, including air quality, water quality, wildlife habitat or important visual resources. POLICIES 11.0 The project review process will include the identification and mitigation of transportation impacts related to industrial development. 11.1 Garfield County shall discourage development that cannot be adequately mitigated in areas identified as having severe environmental constraints such as active landslides, debris flows, unstable slopes, bedrock slides, major mudflows, radioactive tailings. 11.2 Natural drainage patterns will be preserved or mitigated so the cumulative impact of public and private land use activities will not cause storm drainage and floodwater patterns to exceed the capacity of natural or constructed drainage ways, or to subject other areas to an increased potential for damage due to flooding, erosion or sedimentation or result in pollution to streams, rivers or other natural bodies of water. 11.3 Garfield County will require development to protect critical wildlife habitat as identified by state and federal agencies. Development within these designations that cannot be designed, constructed and conducted so as to have a minimum adverse impact upon such habitat or these wildlife species, shall be discouraged. 11.4 Garfield County, to the extent legally possible, will require adequate mitigation to address the impacts of mineral extraction on adjacent land owners. These measures may include the following: 21 I. Landscaping and screening; II. Modification of phasing or area to be mined; III. Roadway improvements and signage; IV. Safe and efficient access routes; V. Drainage improvements to protect surface and groundwater. 11.5 Garfield County will require adequate mitigation for dust, odors, and fumes generated by gravel extraction activities. Ultimately, this gravel extraction project is an intense industrial activity with long-term impacts to the land and is not generally compatible with some of the immediate surrounding agricultural and residential uses; however, both the Comprehensive Plan and the ULUR indicate that gravel extraction can be 'compatible' if adequate mitigation is proposed that is acceptable to the BOCC. This mitigation for visual impacts is primarily proposed through a unique "reclaim as you go" program that, in theory, could work; however, the renderings and plan itself need to be modified for the most visually impactive view and not one only half -way up the Wooden Deer subdivision road. Noise mitigation is proposed to retrofit the vehicles on- site with modified back-up beepers, specific hours of operation, and staying within the statutory noise decibel standards in the CRS. Dust mitigation is proposed by a watering plan as well as compliance with CDPHE air emission requirements of state law. 3. Section 7-103 Compatibility Staff Comment: The site is located in an area of residential, irrigated pasture, rangeland, gravel mining, commercial uses, and rural residential uses. The property is hidden from view on the south by a 90 foot high ridge that runs the length of the property along the southern boundary effectively screening mining operations from SR 82. The proposed mining expansion area would impact surrounding property to some degree. Mining activities do generate a certain amount of dust, noise, and vibration. The Blue Pit site has been in operation since 1981 and has obtained all required mining, air emission, and access permits. Each permit, including the approved Special Use Permit issued by Garfield County, have specific requirements to reduce or mitigate nuisance impacts to surrounding property. Letters from neighboring property owners have noted excessive noise and dust which may be from Blue Pit or other adjoining land uses which include mining and agricultural uses. The SUP conditions from Resolution 96-48 remain in force and are included as recommended conditions of approval to reduce and mitigate impacts to surrounding property owners. The proposed expansion of mining area activity, as conditioned, meets the requirements of the ULUR of 2008, as amended. 22 4. Section 7-104 Sufficient Legal and Physical Source of Water Staff Response: The proposed expansion area will not create an additional demand for water. The current Blue Pit operations has an approved augmentation plan for use of ditch water and an approved well for site operations (Appendix J). The proposed expansion area has a historic water usage for irrigation of the pastures. Potable water for the current mining operation is supplied by a private hauler in five gallon containers. 5. Section 7-105 Adequate Water Supply Staff Response: The standard does not apply for the proposed expansion. Potable water for the current mining operation is supplied by a private hauler in five gallon containers. 6. Section 7-106 Adequate Water Distribution and Wastewater Systems Staff Comments: Staff Response: The proposed expansion area will not create an additional demand for water distribution or wastewater systems. Portable toilets are used in the current operations for the Blue Pit. 7. Section 7-107 Adequate Public Utilities Staff Comments: There are no additional public utilities required for the expansion area. There are existing power and telephone services for the Blue Pit. 8. Section 7-108 Access and Roadways Staff Response: The property has public road access via SH -82 with an active access permit issued by the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). Secondary access to the site is through CR 104 connecting to CR 103. The Applicant updated the existing CDOT access permit which includes specific roadway improvements within three years. This new permit also more accurately ties the permit to 77 Design Hourly Volume (which includes passenger car equivalents) rather than based on acreage mined. There are no issues using the current access permit for gravel mining activities. Garfield County Road and Bridge had no issue with the proposed expansion and recommended specific conditions for a stop sign at the entry to CR 104, overweight/oversize permit requirements, and participation in future road maintenance or improvements to the County Road System. A traffic study was prepared by and -Horne (Application Appendix C) did not identify any increase in traffic volumes. 9. Section 7-109 No Significant Risk from Natural Hazards Staff Comments: The Garfield County GIS maps do not identify any areas of natural hazard on the site. 23 Section 7-200 GENERAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STANDARDS FOR LAND USE CHANGE PERMITS 1. Section 7-201 Protection of Agricultural Lands Staff Comment: The use of the site will not adversely affect surrounding agricultural uses. The Garfield County GIS identifies soil at the northeast corner as "Prime, Irrigated" and at the southern boundary of the expansion area as "Irrigated, Not Prime". The majority of the mining impacts will be centrally located with some impact to the northeastern edge and southern boundary. On-site soils will be stockpiled and reused in the final reclamation. 2. Section 7-202 Protection of Wildlife Habitat Areas Staff Comments: A Wildlife and Habitat Assessment was prepared by Environmental Solutions for the proposed expansion area. The report notes that the site consists primarily of irrigated hay with the northeast corner a juniper - pinyon forest on the edge of the hillside slope. No wetland species were found on the site. Deer and elk are the two most affected species that use the site both during the summer and as winter range and that deer make less use of the site than elk. There are no mapped summer range, production areas, or migration routes for elk. The report states that there will be a reduction in habitat area during mining activities but proper reclamation and replanting would enhance the site for wildlife. The report suggests the proposed weed control plan is a mitigating measure and recommends pet restrictions to limit harassment of wildlife. The Garfield County GIS identifies the following fauna habitat on the site; o Black Bear overall range 2006 o Elk overall range 2006 o Mule Deer overall range 2006 o Mt. Lion overall range 2006 o Wild Turkey overall range 2006 (north 2/3) 3. Section 7-203 Protection of Wetlands and Waterbodies Staff Response: The Garfield County Geographic Information System does not identify any designated flood plain, flood hazard area, wetlands or other water bodies on the site. The Basin Ditch runs through the center of the existing mining area and the Spring Ditch is located on the extreme southeast corner of the site. 4. Section 7-204 Protection of Water Quality from Pollutants Staff Comment: The Application includes a Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure Plan (Application Appendix A) prepared by Greg Lewicki and Associates in compliance with the federal regulations. The plan details how spills are handled, emergency response, and training. Site facility includes secondary containment to reduce the chance of groundwater contamination 24 5. Section 7-205 Erosion and Sedimentation Staff Comment: The application contains Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (ESCP) prepared by Greg Lewicki & Associates (Application Appendix D) with Erosion Control Map 1 and 2. Drainage will be directed to constructed features labeled "Catchment Benches" and illustrated in the Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan. All Stormwater originating on the site will be directed to the pit floor. The ESCP Map 1 and 2 show the direction of flow for all stormwater with all runoff contained on site. The Basin Ditch is protected from Erosion and Sedimentation by a "containment berm" located near the wash ponds and is shown on Map 1. 6. Section 7-206 Drainage & Section 7-207 Stormwater Run -Off Staff Comment: The application contains Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (ESCP) prepared by Greg Lewicki & Associates (Application Exhibit D) with Erosion Control Map 1 and 2. Drainage will be directed to constructed features labeled "Catchment Benches" and illustrated in the Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan. All Stormwater originating on the site will be directed to the pit floor. The ESCP Map 1 and 2 show the direction of flow for all stormwater with all runoff contained on site. The Basin Ditch is protected from Erosion and Sedimentation by a "containment berm" located near the wash ponds and is shown on Map 1. 7. Section 7-208 Air Quality Staff Comments: The application includes copies of Construction Permits approved by the CDPHE (Appendix F of the application). The permits address air emissions from the crushing and screening operations and limit emission of particulate matter including PM 10 (particles less than 10 microns in size) to a yearly amount identified in each of the three permits. Compliance with the permits "...shall be demonstrated by maintaining annual records..." and is self monitoring. Emails and letters received from area residents commented (Exhibits L -M) on the dust generated by the mining operations. After discussion with R.K. Hancock of the CDPHE any complaints would be field investigated but cautioned that windy days generate off site dust and a determination of the source is difficult. 8. Section 7-209 Areas Subject to Wildfire Hazards Staff Comments: The site is identified as a "Low Hazard" area on the Garfield County Wildfire Hazard Map. 9. Section 7-210 Areas Subject to Natural Hazards and Geologic Hazards Staff Response: The Garfield County Geographic Information System identifies an area of moderate Soils Related Hazard in the northeast corner of the proposed expansion area which is also noted in the letter from the Colorado Geographic 25 Survey (Exhibit I). There are no other geologic or natural hazard areas identified on the site. 10. Section 7-211 Areas with Archeological, Paleontological or Historical Importance Staff Response: The Application contains a letter from the Colorado Historical Society located in Application Appendix I of the application. The letter does not identify any archeological or historic sites within the project area. 11. Section 7-212 Reclamation Staff Comments: The proposed expansion area would require review and approval for a revised Reclamation Permit by the Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining, and Safety. A copy of the current Blue Pit mining permit is in Application Appendix D. The narrative in Application Appendix D states that all requirements for the requested SUP amendment, if approved, will be incorporated into a revised mining permit application. The state permit lists the reclamation surety for the current Blue Pit operations. Additional discussion on the mining operation and reclamation is below under the staff comments for Section 7-840. Section 7-703 Standards Within View Protection Overlay. Development shall be located in such a manner that minimizes the visual impact of associated structures along the skyline at the crest of the ridge from an established view corridor identified in the Comprehensive Plan. Expansion Area Ezlstit7g'Grave! Operatfbn Visual Corridor 26 Staff Comments: In the map above the Garfield County Geographic Information System identifies the visual corridor along this section of SH 82. The existing and proposed expansion area are well screened from the "view corridor", as identified by the Comprehensive Plan, by a ninety foot high berm running east and west along the southern portion of the property. There are no structures or other mining activities visible from SH 82. Section 7-810 Additional Standards Applicable to Industrial Use A. All fabrication, service and repair operations shall be conducted within an enclosed building or obscured by a fence, natural topography or landscaping. Staff Comments: The existing Blue Pit operations include a fully enclosed maintenance building. No structures are proposed for the expansion area. This requirement is met. B. All operations involving loading and unloading of vehicles shall be conducted on private property and shall not be conducted on a public right-of-way. Staff Comments: This requirement is met. C. All outdoor storage facilities for fuel, raw materials and products shall be screened by natural topography or enclosed by a fence or wall adequate to conceal such facilities from adjacent property. 1. All outside storage abutting or facing a lot in a residential or commercial zone shall be screened by natural topography or enclosed by a site - obscuring fence to obstruct the storage area from view. The fence shall be of material and design that will not detract from adjacent residences. Staff Comments: The request for an expanded mining area does not include any additional buildings or outside storage. All fuel, raw materials, and product are located on Phase I of the permitted Blue Pit. D. All industrial wastes shall be disposed of in a manner consistent with statutes and requirements of CDPHE. Staff Comments: No industrial wastes are proposed with this use. E. The volume of sound generated shall comply with the standards set forth in the Colorado Revised Statutes. Staff Comments: A sound study was prepared by Engineering Dynamics Incorporated and is found in Appendix D of the Application. The study includes an equipment inventory with base sound analysis (Table 1), Maximum Noise Level during Mine Development (Table 2), Processing Plant Noise Analysis (Table 3), and Processing Plant Noise Level (Table 4). On page 10 of the study a list of 27 Conclusions and Recommendations it states in item 2 that during mine development noise emissions to the north and south will be less than 62 dB(A) when the front end loader (equipment with the highest base level at 100 feet) is operating at grade near the property line. During production the sound level will be less than 60 dB (A). The proposal meets the noise standards of CRS 25-12- 103 and sound levels will be monitored during site operations to maintain compliance. F. Every use shall be operated so that the ground vibration inherently and recurrently generated is not perceptible without instruments at any point of any boundary line of the property. Staff Comments: Ground vibration beyond the site boundary is not anticipated. G. Every use shall be so operated that it does not emit heat, glare, radiation or fumes which substantially interfere with the existing use of adjoining property or which constitutes a public nuisance or hazard. Flaring of gases, aircraft warning signal and reflective painting of storage tanks, or other legal requirements for safety or air pollution control measures shall be exempted from this provision. Staff Comments: There are no additional structures proposed for the expansion area and all crushing, screening, and concrete batch operations are contained within Phase I of the Blue Pit. The application includes copies of Construction Permits approved by the CDPHE (Appendix F of the application). The permits address air emissions from the crushing and screening operations and limit emission of particulate matter including PM 10 (particles less than 10 microns in size) to a yearly amount identified in each of the three permits. Compliance with the permits "...shall be demonstrated by maintaining annual records..." and is self monitoring. Section 7-840 Additional Standards Applicable to Gravel Extraction A. Water Quantity & Quality Impacts / Floodplain Impacts Staff Comments: This Section generally applies to site located within a Floodplain but does have other requirements that apply. This site is not located within a designated floodplain and all drainage on-site is directed inwards. The application contains an Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (ESCP) prepared by Greg Lewicki & Associates (Application Exhibit D) with Erosion Control Map 1 and 2. Drainage will be directed to constructed features labeled "Catchment Benches" and illustrated in the Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan. All Stormwater originating on the site will be directed to the pit floor. The ESCP Map 1 and 2 show the direction of flow for all stormwater with all runoff contained on site. The Basin Ditch is protected from Erosion and Sedimentation by a "containment berm" located near the wash ponds and is shown on Map 1. 28 The Application includes a Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure Plan (Application Appendix A) prepared by Greg Lewicki & Associates in compliance with the federal regulations. The plan details how major and minor spills are handled, emergency response, and training. A letter from the Carbondale and Rural Fire Protection District is on page K-7 of Exhibit K and the on-site storage of flammable liquids meets the requirements of the District. A standard in this section states "The proposed operation will be located a sufficient distance from other mining operations so as not to create cumulative impacts to the integrity of the water course. The Board of Commissioners will determine sufficiency of distance" There are no waterbodies or natural surface water on this site. This standard does not apply. The proposed expansion area will not create an additional demand for water. The current Blue Pit operations has an approved augmentation plan for use of ditch water and an approved well for site operations (Application Appendix J) and demonstrated adequate legal and physical water for the mining operations. B. Air Quality Staff Comments: The County regulations do not contain specific air quality standards regarding dust emissions except that opacity shall not exceed 20% which is a operational standard. Instead, they rely on permits from the State Health Department (CDPHE) Air Quality Control Division (APENs / Construction Permits, etc.) Generally, a dust mitigation plan 9als required by CDPHE) is required and has been supplied to mitigate the dust generation. The mining plan is discussed in the Application narrative beginning on page C-2 and proposes a phased mining and reclamation for each phase to mitigate impacts including, fugitive dust from disturbed areas, soil erosion, and visual impacts. The application includes copies of Construction Permits approved by the CDPHE (Appendix F of the application). The permits address air emissions from the crushing and screening operations and limit emission of particulate matter including PM 10 (particles less than 10 microns in size) to a yearly amount identified in each of the three permits. Opacity shall not exceed 20% during normal operations and shall not exceed 30% for any six minute period within 60 minutes. Compliance with the permits "... shall be demonstrated by maintaining annual records..." and is self monitoring. The current Blue Pit operation is approximately .9 miles from the eastward edge of the LaFarge pit at the SR 82/CR 103 intersection and the proposed expansion area would be approximately .45 miles from the same site from the western property line labeled as Mining Areas 4 and 5. 29 C. Noise / Vibration Staff Comments: A detailed sound study was prepared by Engineering Dynamics Incorporated and is found in Appendix D of the Application with a revision in Exhibit FF. Gravel extraction emits significant and constant noise levels. Noise levels related to certain uses in Colorado (as well as is referenced in the County's land use regulations) is governed by state law (CRS 25-12-103). Basically, the law provides that the noise emitter cannot exceed certain noise levels (measured at 25 feet beyond the gravel extraction property line) based on the adjacent receiver property's use. In this case of the Blue Pit there are a variety of uses that surround the subject extraction property including agricultural, residential, and industrial. This noise abatement law also provides that times during "construction", a use can be as loud as the table permits (at 80 db(A)) understanding that this is a short but necessary time frame. The revised noise study provided by the Applicant (Exhibit FF) states that Mine Development (including the surface activity of over burden removal) is considered as "construction". Staff disagrees and finds no reference or evidence that there is any state law or case law that supports that claim. Further, the Mineral Rules and Regulations of the Colorado Land Reclamation Board for the Extraction of Construction Materials defines "Extraction" as "the removal of construction materials and/or overburden from places of natural occurrence to surface locations" and defines "Mining Operation" as "the development or extraction of a construction material from its natural occurrences on affected land." An argument could be made, based on these definitions above, that removal of the overburden is, part of normal mining operations and not part of the construction of the mine. Thus, overburden removal would not allow for the "construction project" exception to the maximum noise levels as contemplated in the noise abatement statute (CRS 25-12-103). But, because there is no direct link (i.e. no case, no statutory reference/incorporation, and no identical language) between "construction projects" under the noise statute and "mining development" and/or "mining operations" under the reclamation statutes, Staff believes that noise levels can be addressed through a resolution condition which (1) defines what the County considers to be mine "construction" and (2) addresses the time periods and specific phases of the gravel mining during which construction will occur and increased noise levels will be permitted. In this way, the BOCC could interpret this to allow for the removal of overburden as a mine development activity which is allowed to go up to the 80 db(A). The BOCC could allow this to occur so long as there is a defined timeframe (phasing) allocated to this more noisy activity so that the residents nearby have an understanding and expectation as to how long that would last in any given phase. 30 This is an issue for the neighboring residents. Emails and letters received from area residents commented on the noise impacts of site operations from back-up alarms on the trucks outside of the permitted hours of 7AM to SPM. The Applicant is also concerned with the noise of back-up alarms and is exploring other types of systems that are both quieter and also meet the safety requirements for their staff (Exhibit P). The conditions of approval from past Resolutions are still valid and can be enforced based on a valid complaint from area residents. Based on all of this information, should the BOCC decide to allow removal of overburden as "mine development / construction" which can be as loud as 80 db(A), then the BOCC should require a timeframe of when this can occur. The Applicant will be prepared to propose a time frame to the BOCC at the public hearing. The Applicant has submitted a revised noise study that essentially indicates that they meet the state noise abatement laws if overburden is exempted to the louder limit. (See Exhibit FF). D. Visual Impacts Staff Comments: The mining plan is discussed in the Application narrative beginning on page C-2 and proposes a phased mining and reclamation for each phase to mitigate impacts including, fugitive dust from disturbed areas, soil erosion, and visual impacts. Mining Plan Map C-2 illustrates the phasing starting with the original Blue Pit as Phase I and the final mined area as Phase 5. The mining activity will follow the numerical sequence shown on the map and also demonstrates overall site layout and the pit design. The Reclamation Plan Map shows the final layout for the entire site. All equipment, crushing operations, and batch plant operations are located at the bottom elevation of the current mining activity in Phase I screening the most intensive uses from surrounding property. A Visual Impact Report analysis is included in the application (Appendix H of the Application with an Addendum as Exhibit GG). The report identifies three visual sensitive areas; Area 1—Highway 82, Area 2 -The Roaring Fork River Valley, and Area 3 - Homes North of the Pit. The analysis states that impacts to Areas 1 and 2 are minimal due to the screening nature of the berm which shields site operations the full length of the existing site and proposed expansion. Emails and letters received from area residents commented on the significant visual impacts from their home sites. The applicant states that visual impacts are reduced significantly due to the natural terrain, phasing plan, "contemporaneous reclamation", and the use of temporary seeding prior to final reclamation. Staff believes the visual analysis needs some work to better mitigate this significant impact. The photo -view proposed by the Applicant should be revised to include the impacted views from all of the residents in Wooden Deer. See the graphic below that illustrates the view impacted is more severe than the picture shows. 31 ULUR 7-840(H) states "Reclamation shall be done to create an aesthetically pleasing site or reclaimed area that will blend with or improve upon the surrounding areas." The plan proposed by the applicant could be improved by adding slope undulation to better meet this criterion. E. Impacts to County Road System Staff Comments: The property has public road access via SH -82 with an active access permit issued by the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). There is no road access to the mining operation through residential or commercial areas. Secondary access to the site is through CR 104 connecting to CR 103. Comments from CDOT stated that the applicant is updating the existing CDOT access permit which may include specific roadway improvements within three years and that there are no issues using the current access permit for gravel mining activities. Garfield County Road and Bridge had no issue with the proposed expansion and recommended specific conditions for a stop sign at the entry to CR 104, overweight/oversize permit requirements, and participation in future road maintenance or improvements to the County Road System. A traffic study was prepared by Kimley-Horne (Application Appendix C) which did not identify any increase in traffic volumes. The applicant has demonstrated its operation will not require a Garfield County access permit and additional insurance is not required. F. Impacts to Wildlife Staff Comments: A Wildlife and Habitat Assessment was prepared by Environmental Solutions for the proposed expansion area. The report notes that the site consists primarily of irrigated hay with the northeast corner a juniper -pinyon forest on the edge of the hillside slope. No wetland species were found on the site. There are no Threatened or Endangered species or critical habitats located on the site. Deer and elk are the two most affected species that use the site both during the summer and as winter range and that deer make less use of the site than elk. There are no mapped summer range, production areas, or migration routes for elk. The report states that there will be a reduction in habitat area during mining activities but proper reclamation and replanting would enhance the site for wildlife. The report suggests the proposed 32 weed control plan is a mitigating measure and suggests that pet restrictions to limit harassment of wildlife. The Garfield County GIS identifies the following fauna habitat on the site; o Black Bear overall range 2006 o Elk overall range 2006 o Mule Deer overall range 2006 o Mt. Lion overall range 2006 o Wild Turkey overall range 2006 (north 2/3) G. Compatibility with Surrounding Land Uses Staff Comment: The site is located in an area of residential, irrigated pasture, rangeland, gravel mining, commercial uses, and rural residential uses. The property is hidden from view on the south by a 90 foot high ridge that runs the length of the property along the southern boundary effectively screening mining operations from SR 82. The proposed mining expansion area would impact surrounding property to varying degrees. Mining activities do generate a certain amount of dust, noise, and vibration. The Blue Pit site has been in operation since 1981 and has obtained all required mining, air emission, and access permits. Each permit, including the approved Special Use Permit issued by Garfield County, have specific requirements to reduce or mitigate nuisance impacts to surrounding property. Letters from neighboring property owners have noted excessive noise and dust which may be from Blue Pit or other adjoining land uses which include mining and agricultural uses. The original SUP conditions remain in force and are included as recommended conditions of approval to reduce and mitigate impacts to surrounding property owners. The current Blue Pit operation is approximately .9 miles from the eastward edge of the LaFarge pit at the SR 82/CR 103 intersection and the proposed expansion area would be approximately .45 miles from the same site from the western property line labeled as Mining Areas 4 and 5. No additional storage, buildings, crushing, or batch plan operations are proposed for the expansion area. All equipment storage areas are more than 300 feet from existing residential dwellings. All loading and unloading of vehicles are conducted on private property and not on any public right-of-way. There are no storage area for uses not associated with natural resources greater than ten (10) acres in size. All site operations must comply with the requirements of the ULUR for lighting, signage, and storage. The original approval restricted mining operations between the hours of 7AM to 5PM, Monday through Saturday. The narrative requests the hours for mining operations be expanded to 7AM - 6PM (page K-4 requests 7AM - 7PM), Monday through Saturday which is consistent with the hours of operation in this section of the ULUR. The original conditions for hours of operation have been restated in the conditions but the Board of County Commissioners may alter the original condition and add an additional hour based on the testimony presented at the public hearing. 33 One of the most debated topics at the Planning Commission included long term mining timeframes. In other words, the Planning Commission and the majority of residents and public were concerned that this approval would provide a long term mining use without any future option to review the mining in light of potential more sophisticated mitigation and mining methods in the near future. The proposed expansion of mining area activity, as conditioned, meets the requirements of the ULUR of 2008, as amended. H. Reclamation / Enforcement Staff Comments: The final site reclamation as shown on the Reclamation Plan Map demonstrates final site contours with a flat central basin for both the expansion area and the current mining area. Slopes are proposed at 3:1 for the expansion area with the original (Phase I) Reclamation Plan at 2.5:1 as previously approved by the DRMS. The revegetation plan includes a blend of native grasses, forbs, and shrubs for the rangeland areas and an irrigated pasture seed mix to return a portion of the site to its previous use. Slopes/Wetland Slope Areas: Staff Comments: This section does not apply. Slopes/Dryland Slope Areas: Staff Comments: The final site reclamation as shown on the Reclamation Plan Map demonstrates final site contours with a flat central basin for both the expansion area and the current mining area. Slopes are proposed at 3:1 for the expansion area with the original (Phase I) Reclamation Plan at 2.5:1 as previously approved by the DRMS. The ULUR requires dryland slopes to be 5:lwith at least 85% of the slopes 5:1 or shallower. An applicant may propose an alternate slope plan for a dryland area which modifies the standards to accommodate special needs when: a. The existing terrain slope is steep (greater than 5:1) or; b. Where there is little or no available on-site backfill material; c. Other special needs or uses that may be proposed by the applicant. On page K-4 the applicant states the reasoning to vary the slopes from 5:1 to 3:1 which include creating a useable irritated field at the pit bottom with a 5:1 slope reducing the available land for agricultural production. Modification to the listed standards requires a separate finding for modifying the Dryland Slope standards. A finding has been added for modification of the dryland slope standard. Vegetation/Wetland Criteria Staff Comments: This section does not apply. 34 Vegetation/Dryland Criteria: Staff Comments: The re -vegetation plan is discussed in the Landscape Plan (Exhibit E). The plan identifies re -vegetation to native grasses, forbs, and shrubs, using drill seeding, and shown in the table on page E-3. Irrigation will be used as needed to maintain the rangeland areas during drought years. The pasture areas will be drill seeded into the soil and use a mix of Alfalfa, Orchard Grass, and Meadow Brome to restore the pasture. The previous irrigation system will be reinstalled for long term watering. The plan includes adding straw mulch at 2,000 pounds/acre (pages E-2 and E-3) but the standards of the ULUR require hydro -seeding and hydro -mulching for slopes greater than 5:1. A condition has been added to meet the minimum requirements of the ULUR On page K-4 and K-5 the applicant states the reasoning to vary the slopes and vegetation to create a useable irritated field at the pit bottom to increase available land for agricultural production. Modification to the listed standards requires a separate finding for modifying the Dryland Vegetation standards. A finding has been added for modification of the Dryland Vegetation standard. Lake/Pond Shape and Character: Staff Comments: This section does not apply. Additional Standards (items 4-14 in Section 7-840 (H)) Staff Comments: The remaining portions of Section 7-840 (H) discuss various standards including additional bonding for site restoration, an annual report, site inspections, required state and federal permit submittal, bond release, and compliance with the Garfield County noxious weed control regulations and eradication of invasive species. On page K-5 to K-6 the applicant has acknowledges and agrees to all the requirements of the ULUR for gravel extraction. All required permits have been included with this application. A condition has been added to require a copy of the final DRMS permit and any revised state permits prior to issuance of the Land Use Change Permit. The Garfield County Vegetation Management Department commented (Exhibit J) on the application and requested additional documentation for the location of two specific noxious weeds. A condition has been added to add the requested detail to the weed management plan. ULUR 7-840(H) states "Reclamation shall be done to create an aesthetically pleasing site or reclaimed area that will blend with or improve upon the surrounding areas." The plan proposed by the applicant could be improved by adding slope undulation to better meet this criterion. 35 VII. RECOMMENDED FINDINGS Should the Board of County Commissioners approve the request for a Special Use Permit amendment to expand the Blue Pit through this Major Impact Review, the Planning Commission recommends the following findings: 1. That proper public notice was provided as required for the hearings before the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners. 2. That the hearings before the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners were extensive and complete, that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted or could be submitted and that all interested parties were heard at those meetings. 3. That for the above stated and other reasons, the Land Use Change Permit for an amendment to a Special Use Permit to expand the Gravel Extraction activities in the "Blue Pit" is in the best interest of the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County. 4. The requested modification of Dryland Slope standards from a slope of 5:1 to 3:1 is in conformance with the purpose statement of Section 7-840 and that the modifications create an aesthetically pleasing site that blends with the surrounding area, to provide for wildlife habitat and, to provide for future re -use of the site. 5. It has been determined that the gravel extraction proposal is compatible with the existing zoning and future land use objectives of the Rural Zoning District and The Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2000. 6. That the application, if all conditions are met, can be in conformance with the applicable Sections of the Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008 as amended. VIII. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Applicant has applied for a Land Use Change Permit for an Amendment to an approved Special Use Permit to allow for a 64 acre expansion of the Blue Pit. As conditioned, the request addresses the ULUR requirements for approving an Amendment to an approved Special Use Permit. The Planning Commission forwarded a recommendation of approval with the following conditions: 1. That all representations made by the Applicant in the application, and at the public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners, shall be conditions of approval, unless specifically altered by the Board of County Commissioners. 36 2. That the operation of the facility be done in accordance with all applicable Federal, State, and local regulations governing the operation of this type of facility. 3. The facility shall be operated so that the ground vibration inherently and recurrently generated is not perceptible, without instruments, at any point of any boundary line of the property on which the use is located. 4. Site operations shall not emit heat, glare, radiation, dust or fumes which substantially interfere with the existing use of adjoining property or which constitutes a public nuisance or hazard. 5. All equipment and structures associated with this permit shall be painted with non - reflective paint in neutral colors to reduce glare and mitigate any visual impacts. 6. All lighting associated with the property shall be directed inward and downward towards the interior of the property. 7. The following recommendations of the Garfield County Road and Bridge Department shall become conditions of approval: A. A stop sign shall be required at the entrance to the County Road 104. The sign and installation shall be as required in the MUTCD (Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices). B. All vehicles using CR 103 and CR 104 to access the gravel pit shall abide by Garfield County's oversize/overweight system. All vehicles requiring oversize/overweight permits shall apply for them at Garfield County Road and Bridge Department. 8. The Reclamation Plan and Landscape Plan for the site shall be seeded using hydro - seeding with hydro -mulching using tackifier for all slopes greater than 5:1. 9. The applicant shall submit a revised "Weed Control Plan Map" identifying the locations of Musk Thistle and Plumeless Thistle prior to issuance of a Land Use Change Permit to the County. 10. The applicant shall comply with the following conditions of approval contained in Resolution 96-48; a. Hours of Operation: The gravel pit shall be allowed to operate Monday — Saturday from 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM with crushing, digging, and heavy hauling only occurring between 7:00 AM to 5:00 PM. There shall be no operations on Sunday except emergency maintenance. b. All Trucks operating shall be subject to the following: 37 i. All trucks operating in or out of the pit shall have and maintain stock muffler systems that are performing to original manufacturers specifications. This can be determined and verified by simple visual and auditory inspection of the truck. ii. All trucks ascending or descending the haul route shall not exceed speeds of 10 mph. iii. All trucks descending the haul route or approaching the haul route access on SR 82 shall not use engine Jake Brakes to decelerate. iv. All truck drivers, independent or employed by the applicant shall be briefed on the conditions above and shall agree to operate within the requirements of these stipulations. v. The applicant shall set up a series of progressive consequences for drivers that fail to comply with the above conditions. 11. During periods of operation, all noise generated from the operation shall not exceed the Residential Zone noise standards defined in the CRS such that noise shall not exceed 55 dB(A) from 7:00 AM to 5:00 PM and 55 dB(A) from 5:00 PM to 7:00 AM. 12. The Operator or Property Owner shall submit an annual report to the County Building and Planning Department with GPS measurements shown on a map showing the current disturbance, what areas have been backfilled, where topsoil stockpiles are located, all site structures, what areas have been seeded, mulched, and what is planned for the ensuing 12 months. 13. The County can request a site inspection with 24 hour's notice to the Operator or Property Owner. Full access to any part of the site will be granted. On request, all paperwork must be shown. 14. A full list of all other permits shall be provided to the County within 24 hours of their request. Any person at any time can call the following agencies directly and request an inspection if they believe a condition of that agencies permit is being violated. a. CDPHE Air Quality Control 303-692-3150 b. Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety 303-866-3567 c. CDOT Grand Junction office 970-248-7000 15. The Property Owner and Operator acknowledge that the County has the following performance standards that could lead to revocation of the Land Use Change Permit: A. All fabrication, service and repair operations shall be conducted within an enclosed building or obscured by a fence, natural topography or landscaping. B. All operations involving loading and unloading of vehicles shall be conducted on private property and shall not be conducted on a public right- of-way. 38 C. All industrial wastes shall be disposed of in a manner consistent with statutes and requirements of CDPHE. D. Every use shall be operated so that the ground vibration inherently and recurrently generated is not perceptible without instruments at any point of any boundary line of the property E. Every use shall be operated so that it does not emit heat, glare, radiation or fumes which substantially interfere with the existing use of adjoining property or which constitutes a public nuisance or hazard. Flaring of gases, aircraft warning signal and reflective painting of storage tanks, or other legal requirements for safety or air pollution control measures shall be exempted from this provision. 16. The County shall be invited to any bond release inspection of the State Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety. The County will have the opportunity to demonstrate that any item of the permit has not been complied with and that bond should not be released. Specifically, the Final Reclamation Plan (Reclamation Plan Map) shall include the following components: A. When reclaimed, Mining Areas 2-5 shall be constricted to a 3:1 slope. See the Reclamation Plan Map of the application for the layout of these areas. This shall be required to be shown on the Final Reclamation Plan approved herein and tendered to the DRMS. B. Mining operations shall be allowed to progress so long as the applicant reclaims each successive phase before moving on to the next phase as shown on the Mining Plan. The Applicant shall use "contemporaneous reclamation" as discussed in the application. If the reclamation does not follow the Mining Plan or has not been completed within eighteen (18) months, all mining operations on the property shall be halted until the reclamation / revegetation has occurred to the satisfaction of the County. Completion shall include but not be limited to re -countering, top -soiling, seeding, and mulching. C. The DRMS Final Reclamation Plan shall be resubmitted to Garfield County prior to the issuance of a Land Use Change Permit and shall be the only reclamation plan used by both the County and DRMS. Additionally, a new bond be calculated to cover this plan and secured with DRMS to cover its implementation. Proof of a recalculated bond shall be provided to the County prior to issuance of a LUCP. 39 17. The Applicant shall obtain the appropriate State Highway Access Permit for access onto State Highway 82. All conditions of that permit shall be conditions of this permit. Staff Comment: The Applicant has obtained a new CDOT Permit and this condition is satisfied. See Exhibit EE. 18. The Applicant shall obtain approval from the ditch company for the ditch modifications prior to the issuance of the Land Use Change permit. Staff Comment: The Applicant has obtained a letter of conditjonal approval from the ditch company. See Exhibit CC. 19. The final reclamation plan as submitted, will apply in perpetuity for the life of the pit, and final use of the property shall be agricultural. IX. RECOMMENDED MOTION "I move to approve a Land Use Change Permit through the Major Impact Review process for amendment to a Special Use Permit for the "Blue Pit" to allow expansion of gravel extraction for an additional 64 acres, on property owned by the Dolores B. Blue Revocable Trust and Dee Blue with the recommended findings and conditions of the Planning Commission." 40 Vicinity Map r t top of Ridge/entry looking North Office/Scales/Maintenance Bldg. c 129 R3 .45 0 L X W 0 p N O O c O 0 0 N 0 0. o c 4-10 C (1) CU 0 a)0 c v o L 3 o) a)2 c c'N • all a) 0 N (13 0 co E D 0 0 L) co 0)) (1) 0_ c 0 lig co -c co V (1) 0 To (D c 0_ c0 > ) 0.) co co 2 C alc )(--' w E CL CO o Q N N fU -0 c N a la,N c O • 45 `L O 0 %V N L • X N -o N N (13 0)v N - -O 0t7 L O cL .1 O c c 0 N 0 i N U Q) • C c (o o t3. C7 vu al N 0 co . Q E 1151 EJ c� +�Z3 O O c Q O0 -0O L c n. cut 0 .> O (Li5 La a) a }' U .ff RS ni O N N • 0 0 (0 a) ( § 15°a E Ta.) O E O >, N U 0 S o ( To t c)(3)(X 0o7a) co a) c (n a) (Q a) R3 (U (134-1 L -a 0 m i 0 4) 0 | / 1 1 1 1 |/ vr 1 NOWA II poem tiS 1414 14.1 4.1 4 tf) Lei 444 414 ik61•IV 40) Q) O- O © > c co E ro ro O 0 c U U O L o CU C O a o 5- :U CU � O fi3 _ coc c� "E O . U Co O U ._ rov) L al U � E LE 0 O L 0 o ro --1.O C "ro L 4-0 N -Cfly C • a-' "L O CO > O CO — ro 4, ...-p-CSA t -I CU .N 0 C1O CU bl ro oCU aA C' bA co .0 a) tO 1) N (la U O 4-1 5- O ro 1 cu0 U t/] O 0 U CO 4J 0 L)) 4J 4- 5- 0 - LO 4-0a to CL0) CU 4 -P -P CU 4-1 0 0 4-0U CD N tU _c i!f Q.) co .t--+ 4— a N O ro ro U o o cu "0"aA (13t- ro C 4-10 CU • O . •O O o 0 o .v, b U Q) O - 4 Q) • -1 bA CU O V) CU o a a .O a QJ 5- ( -0 - - to U U .E.� ro ro fl 4-J ro U ro tin CIO en s bA - O area, state, or nation. Visual corridor is based on a L UL ai !4-a) -ci alU cu . := y ik _ Ca Rp 00)0•- 1 a co ai E z3 L 1 (.9Q a°)) N *1 c c a) 0 D � 0 C 0 - 0 .— (g r N ID a) 114 .fit L3 O -2 O N =0 414 � 0 u) Z7 N .— 0 N C C •E c° O in -o al U) 'U a U C 0- 111 O 17;� O +(1) , a c - 141 _. _. , -o a) Q it . _. ,,, 0, Q. ... l 4 4 () C K N 2 E 141 Q 0 0 m - 'L ( 114 '= a) I13 a) +r v) Gn O › c -0 , 111 C '0 AL2 0)al h ,, Q ›, 1 y 4 •a) a) L u) 'a) D O 114 • 0 3' C CCS 4 O _ L (U !11• • w .�o > a7- .>,a) 1tin ::O l 1 EI N a) > "Z3 ‹....64* E Ot— .1 o., O � .co ..c c ' 1 .� t' 0 5 0 0) N- N 0 t� 1 2 f}J, a CO .v) c C 1 O C. 1 . = QA (a 0 • OU 4tl O 0 © O O Ca O N 0 L2. ^i— al o c 17) a) LCU O U_ 7 Q 1 cn c zs a T3 1 L, O C �. p >, in C C t, #' N w 03 0 D ni N •- +- 03 = RT cA 0} 13 2 ma) c U c L :*�' E p 2 .0 LO N a) N a T= a) Main Entrance c 4-I co aJ 4-1cu co 0 SD Wu) cus- O E c� a o 5 tia c. . cu as co 0 tin rci ■ a) .co 4J a) 0) co O O _o 0 0) 00 Q1 OC co tr) E _c a) O a--+ +-1 cn a Co ^, O -To „y 0_ O O .IV 0 .c 8_.c Eo s C c -CD a) -D to L .— � bi LE as .i a V 'E a) L co C O a) 4--J • _c co v)4-1 4-1 a) (1)a 4- VI (0 0 aJ C (1) 'O - :•- c iv M o o coQ .O 4— r 1 x foi U CU-1 as ._` vi L_ 0 T 00 O }' V! 0- a) .— a..+ ell v a oco oc o: O alp o_cu r° c as CO a .1--+ {� 2 ate(.0 -+ 4r1 .4-J < < E a O to .X b Qeo j •- 2 L.L co CU c co 0 o a Q V 0 133 O � •Vi c o_ x eV CU v J tUD _C 5 o CU0 0 0_ (0 C6 o O ca l- 0 © 0) Z O 0 0) s_ ca (r) (13 0 cL 0 aC N E 0 4- -o aJ 4-1 eC L 0 4-+ - a c m a) o ra a C E 4-0 VI O co -a ro U _c aJ _C O -0 '> co al ° n. O co 1-1 -a s c H O O c6 }; .� 4-0 U .'I - E- cs v 5 a E -0 O U C u m c a) 4-4C U 'L 0) aA =s o.7_,, C v ti s VIv _ m C c� iri _ ai 'E TD_ 72 cr= f[3 p co C cc ro 0 O v) a.., a--. C m 0) U CI)" J E rn as s U ((,)) ('-3 -0 R3 r° O C to -o a Q 4= 0 Cs- O ,_cu N 4ro-co a0 all � -0 ( C +-A C = C .0 CO O 73 CO C >. — 0 tU CL n3 E 6 ro cu Q = cr O U cm (U -0 N O_ a) C S C Z3 0_ CC co I— = CO CO 2 7 1 m m .q E ( - 0 • u _. c\I./ v d 0-1 � O 0 « C L C O / J/ i )011;11; 1 b / ifh ALIMAAKIZ) 1.414.8 0. ■ Cto E v) t!) 2 0_ CC O 0 (J) C CU C 4-1 v)V) O W L 0 Z 0 Q El Mining Area 1 permitted for 2.5:1 for reclamation ▪ Mining Areas 2-5 proposed at 3:1 vs. 5:1 O Additional Finding for modification of Slope Standards • Combination of Rangeland and Pasture for Reclamation v v L 4-4 a--; Q f� L 0 a v > E 0 L co r CU 4 IS ro vi l co c -o (/1 s- _0 - CO L _C a L a) V'} h if) co sa Sn 0 0 CU � L X X o .J .� � c ..r p O co 4-1 C " I l V = C a) fid -0 -a cn `N o CO Q.) _ � E (D etA U - to C o tab'Q c -0 v)0CD ©- X c6 Q j c fCi a -Q) s o a)c,n co o Cwt Lool -EL co a.) O -0 cn �� ° ccu cu 0 U -C .. V Q I- N o 0 0 (1 Q v _ 0: 0, - ir\i, _ iOrl 3 0 o oo L_ °o Nom, °' a) u°'0 -0 .c C _. v, n. O ._ ai Q} -I--1 to — c = 1"1710..CO > 0 51 D �C —� o R, E ---r - Q w 0 . 112 a) 15 -0 a v•- ,- +� > • c(13 ru 0 0 41 _ +, D. • �._ c��. EO W a) o - • +� Q) = U) .0 Q - 1 Q(•0� i 00 (D v W -g ,F,- oc° ba CU a� ��� Qi '7) > �3�cu C cn - c-0 taA= coo 4E:u u ErS-2 ___,_a " (-.) -0 z : •cu-,- x 1 cu ,..0 u.) co a.) fp .— _ ell °- _–(0 ' a, -a73 --as— >,-o a.)— C a `3 1:10— a C> ai0 4 C - x .' - cU U c(') c tU�� 4A O .- 4L-,VC4'�CO Qi O'0}' (li co vii . L 2 Q a--+03 V �I— (13 o o e +,pry s" U 4 L° aU cu0 ' ' as + C C c �,..co 7).z o a) 00 co ,c .52 Li_ v iac0aa� 2 (u • a) C V 0 12 O --- E fQ u 1--0ccu v -) o cu 0 o 4-+ El 41 � co 0 14.4 CU CU X LJa U `°o o LAI C CU CI V co N 'CD Le) CU 4-I CU c V co c CY t0• ( 4-1 C 0 colU• 4 Lel C CI e.0 CZ CU -0 _o C C cc) co 4,4 4J .-1 o Via.) C Q k = V U 0 aw (CDPHE Air Quality Contro E 0 (1) 4-7 E cu cL 4-1 0 U c 0 u CaA w CU 0 s0 4 t 0 z 1 u led via water (r) V 0 5- a 4J as tco 0 ed via water spray bars) 0 L Q v1 5- Q1 4+ C6 [0 0 4J 0 4J 0 CU Q) 4J CO CL tan • r1 ) a) 0 2 Ca- .-/' ro tael scrip 0 Mining operation includes a dust control plan (State Law) 0 (13 CU 1JJ Cl - Q >ft. U co -0 a C6 tuD CU t 0 73 CU •— CU 0 0 C CU 4-10 4-1 Cu 0- oU 0 irmagn ]..L (U (1:5n� CLO wW 0 CL CL Cil Er� fV !! v t () VJ c Q O J T co co 4(3 c W E O § Luc OJ 0 -a g4— .0J V 0_ cu VJ W co (13 to -c F- 0 O Z z a) be COC V 1Ln CO •u `) L 0 Q '§ 0 Ln CUc CU +, ca .V 0 a) CU QJ E Q 4 V) 03 m co 2 0 CUD c c O c 73 4Q located on the site. 0 0 El El Deer make less use of the site than elk. mation and replanting would enhance the site for wil U aJ L L 0 0 1 Easeme LZ, N Q 4-1 Q 0 -Q .0 Vi .E E V f0 0 0 44.1 CD E CID -0 C to C 0a � < Q f0 tri 0 . +; 0 ea 0 CL CD 4- 0 recommendation "Extraction" on cL N as m cu 0 co CU 0 a3 OC a.) m CU 0 0 0 a) f6 E Q 9--- 13 co ro +-1 cu 0 co 0 0 0 03 U 9- 0 E 4-1 a 0 i 4- 0 4-1 a) 4-1 co E V) 0 0 Cii `- U M L cul o_ 9--- Q 13) W 4- 0 N Q 0 0 c CO4-1 co0 co cu co a) 4-0 fQ CD U modifications 7-840 and that the Q 0 Q 4-0 co Q co a-+ a 0 4J cu �� .E° n00 a) -0 0cu u 1 }, as as of co E c +-J 4- O w L a -J L `1- _ V)p a O • co c/ = co L p 4A S3 — • ial CO c CD co co O '4_, to .471 .N 00 CU ti (-0 O co Ci 47. Z3 ria 0 k►; L a L � Q. Q 0 L 4-+ O Q3 iZft$. - (U C -1-+ O Q. C • — c O v) 0 R3 0 Q - , C L . Q) ±' . U CZ CC > n . 0 CO - a cr < u Z cr) co w Q 0 n ■ in Resolution 96-48: Q o E < 8 o O L au 4-4 co>. t: � C -0 o () > 0 C CO CU C L 0 v O c o a a U o o co izt CO CU C cn CO c • o • c 0 Q) tao _ O s L ~ " 0 Q E +' _ U o i V) -E- + Q a) v 0 00 2 o a E =ate HOA: Change hours generally from 7 to 5 M -F and 8 to 5 on Saturday Specific rules for all trucks at the facility (Jake Brakes, etc.) standards per CRS 25-12-103 at 0 1 - CLI fLI OJ 0 c c o co CO`-' E 0 C Q -D CU C i -0 Q c as c in Q a) •CO — N cu 03 • — 1 §D Q N 3 •F --I ›- -Q L 63 c C .= E4-1 Q N v a U 0 0 N L GJ R co r CO 0 •> a� ? Q CU Q a C Lf)— _ , L CO 0 Ln s 4 © _C Z N vi �-+ N m of A.p•pvovai list of other permits w/in 24 hours performance 0) cn 2 c0 cc a) o N C C `i D O -0 as U C VI O a� ( CU +_J au a •-- 4-1 O e W Cr ❑ N — o E v Nrof 411 73 4°O ._ L Q o >v' CO au • CU a T3 (0 0 0 �lac > L O >. -0 f0 co (, < = c 0 O 0 V) VJ7 •-_-. i 0 0) 4-1 0) 0_ E O U 0u 4-1 CU 0- u) O V 4-1 .� cv `n 0 0 V 0) [0 0 O 0 Provide approva c0 c CD a +-• Q a) Q c N 0 ca co 0 0 ca E (0 CC c0 W hlz Lei 4- 0 C CU 4-1ro v v 0 0) 9- 4-J 4-1 0 O 0 4-J 0 CO.471 u 0 4-1U .(0 E t C ro a) a) U c 0 0 a) C0 a) v) a) a) 4-1 0 0 L CL a) LE s a) a) c ro a) 0 C0 a) ..'0 +E C ro CL 4 i0 0 0 z c ro V) 0_ L O (0 0 0. 0_ ro 1-J a) s 9- 0 4-1E m 0 4-1 4-' ro V) =1- 0_ 0_ 4--+ 0 0) CO 0 ro >0 • U o. rctro 4-1 rra ro 0- `O0) a) 4 S Q) U 4_ O ro -a roVoll lQ cu 0- 0 ro L ro "0 C C CO -C a) - -'C CU O Ll L ca a) 4.010 U 1) CO -0 ro L (5 0 a= Q 0) •V 0 1) a) ro E ro -0 4-1 a) ro U 0 a) co tn a) L c.) • L co E ai Q 0 4-) O a) 0 C 0 +-1 a) 0 co U U CO 0... 0 E a) a) O m ro a) 4--1 CO v 0 c0 in co E (i) O V C a)= ,.0 ro -0 0 C 3 tn 0 • tn ro • L O O U • ro a) 0 4-1 0 ) a) 4-0 o • a) +� ra o E4-1. E a) N i0 •c_ boa)N E•- a..r _ U 0 O •E 4- � 0 a) O c 4-1 a) 0 O C 0 ro U C CU L O a �, C -0 L E co a, ro � _ 4-1 CU 0 ro'� E L a aj 0) Q 03 a% 0_ a) E cL z3 0 ro a) ro > +� -0 . L a) i L - 17 0 O ..0 4_ v = % ro —i a, 0 CO U E C o C• >, CL a) to, ra `co o- •- ro a) CU vi a) '0. C- = ro a 3 ro cCL srf © X co 73 cu ca) a� ro a aA c •= .n ro a a 0 cu 0. - a)-0 o lajra 4-1 a)za ro C C 0 c 0 o - o cu c L° .2- •— a) a < o 0)) O N 47,1 03 aJ 0. 0 co E O Q) 0 4J 4- 0 s— a3 U a) X 0) 1• 0 ro sl) L 0 r0 L a) 0. 0 0 L ru 0 v s H 0) Cr a) L 0 QJ 4-1 03 L) a3 0 0 0 r0 • cu co b.0 CU • +'• to C 0 •� Q) saj Q U L -0 0 C (n QJ o L .—. E 3 0. Q a-, c tS C C aj UJ Q7 a) +, -0 C c 6 if) t7A a) D a3 U � cco °u c > ro 0) 0 ,t).0 C _ 014- 76 ) 73 Li F- a U 0 L o 0 cr) m to c cu .470 o cu O covl N tipC v •C a3 +, rJ 73 _0 4- V `o • C C13 VI quo c • QJ E c cu t 47 D4 _y _,a (4 a) 0 0 0) O U as-, a7 0. 0 r0 E 0. 73 O ra 4 .� c o© 0 E C 0 0 Z r0 E.L ro 0) U 0) 0) .L L _ c � cu ro U c 4- Q C Z3 -13Q co CO a 121 r0 v — c OL 4-0 4- 0 4-03- 03 r0 0. ft 4-1 w CO co m v a) rO 0 0 0 U 1- 0 0 _ O r0 -C - V) 0 ar .0 V) 0 C O +'0 +, 3 E • ---0 Zij 0If) 0 oQ 0.a) 0. �c a-' 0 co -0 0. U Co c0 a) °r--' `a v - V7 L a-, ra a) 4- O 0) r0 r0 r0 co 0 0) a) 4-, 0 0 CC J c ro 0. 0 u EL) L 0 E 01 S0 0 +, CIF) 10 L 0 0 0 r0 0. 0 d (0 0. a) CO r0 cu 4-0 0 0 i,Ji (01 LLri N s- 0 O a L L -0 +J 0 °' a o V) .' o CO -a 07, 'D O Q) O O., u O to O' 43 ro "' _ QJ Qi L O O = R3 a) Q) fl. 0 _c U .G Vs QJ O Vn • L O O - '47..,Q) ii L O O U Vs u L COco LLaTp U 0 Vs QJ 1 'F, U c ' Q/ ra E 0 r13 0 itj s U CU 46 Q I- O (NI it Q) Q} CU Co +-' U Z� I C t O ?, -0 `L O +' Va .al L cu . 'a L 0 0 0 c= 0 O Q L (U to 3` to �3 O O s_ - LJ. c E 4 4 .� to V) U CO +� s- O O s QJ C C 4-1 vs O O p00 O CO � a Ri Q] O `1 a =® {D ++ m Q3 _c E o 0`�-cto17' cu Ln 0 u110 —.- CO � S! "O 4- L' a Q 0 0 L ;'r w' a"' `0 4- L Q.) ICU C `-' o E4 - CO -CI QJ' .0 E15° 0 0. -C,41 O 4' OL O VI v- CU QJ IA O U U - :r v VOa O $._ ,b.0 L co O QJ O is 0) 00 OC! U a... U„ , 0 it fo 1,31 in the Code Enforcement Lel co c co " Q) _C O O 0 VS O -' 4-0 E Q- .- _C — 4-' CU I- u (!) E c O a--' Vs` QJ OU 01 co CU L 4-; CC c v LE r•i E d. 0 CO su CU v a Q to ro 4-4 CL O C c 2 73 O -o cu co n9 cn >%-. 0- X QJ C 0 co 0 4— s(12 ro do m H Co c) O < t ttOC to X c" ro O Qw f6 E 0 0) .0 X 0) To— _c E Q1 CL 0) t L CO 0) (13 ago O m QJ 2 Q) v ur c) CO 0) vs 0 t LE cu E QJ 0 .o c m (NI QJ Qi O Z GARFIELD COUNTY Building & Planning Department Review Agency Form Date Sent: June 14, 2010 Comments Due: July 6, 2010 Name of application: Blue Pit Expansion Sent to: Garfield County Road & Bridge Department Garfield County requests your comment in review of this project. Please notify the Planning Department in the event you are unable to respond by the deadline. This form may be used for your response, or you may attach your own additional sheets as necessary. Written comments may be mailed, e-mailed, or faxed to: Garfield County Building & Planning Staff Contact: Thomas Veljic 109 8th Street, Suite 301 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Fax: 970-384-3470 Phone: 970-945-8212 General Comments: Garfield County Road and Bridge Department has no objections to this application with the following comments. The existing driveway access onto Cr. 104 is exempt from the driveway access permit requirement. There shall be a stop sign at the entrance to Cr. 104. The sign and installation shall be as required in the MUTCD (Manual on Uniform Traffic Control_ Devices). The stop sign shall be maintained in good visible condition by the owner. The driveway access permit onto Highway 82 is also exempt from the driveway access permit reuirement as it is a CDOT controlled access. As the traffic volume onto Cr. 104 and Cr. 103 is not projected to increase there will not be an impact on the total traffic volume for these two roads. All vehicles using Cr. 103 and Cr. 104 to access the gravel pit shall abide by Garfield_ County's oversize/overweight permit system. All vehicles requiring oversize/overweight permits shall a 1 for them at Garfield Count Road and Bridge De artment. The owners of the gravel pit may at sometime in the future be asked to participate in a road repair or improvement project for Cr. 104 and Cr. 103 down to Highway 82. Name of review agency: Garfield County Road and Bridge Department By: Jake B. Mall Date _June 21, 2010 Revised 3/30/00 From: Jim Rada Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2010 2:30 PM To: Tom Veljic Subject: SUAA 6289 -Blue Pit Expansion Attachments: Jim Rada(jrada@garfield-county.comj.vcf; image001.gif Tom, This application is in good order. It appears that all required state environment permits are in place. One correction to bring to the applicants attention is the Local Health Department contact information in several locations of their SPCC Plan. They can use my contact information below as they do reference contacting Garfield County Environmental Health at least in one spot. Thanks for the opportunity to review this proposal. Jim Kada, KLh5 Environmental Health Manager Garfield County Public Health 195 W 14lh Street Rifle, CO 81650 Phone 970-625-5200 x8113 Cell 970-319-1579 Fax 970-625-8304 Email jrada(@.garfield-county.com Web www.oarfield-county.com 1 EXHIBIT 2 STATE OF COLORh�e�•� COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY --serving the people of Colorado Department of Natural Resources 1313 Sherman Street, Room 715 Denver, CO 80203 Phone: (303) 866-2611 Fax: (303) 866-2461 July 6, 2010 Mr. Thomas Veljic Garfield County Building and Planning 108 8th Street Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 tveljic(rr,garfield-county.com Re: Blue Pit Expansion, CGS GA -10-0009_1 COLORADO )E1'ARTMENTURAL OF NAT RESOURCES Bill Ritter Governor Michael King Executive Director Vincent Matthews Dear Mr. Veljic: Division Director and State Geologist Thank you for the submittal of the above referenced proposal. The proposal is for an expansion of a gravel pit. In total, approximately 146 acres would be included within the permit boundary. The site is adjacent to County Road 104 on the northeast, SH 82 on the south and irrigated pasture on the west. The expansion area is to the west and northwest of the existing pit. The site is underlain by both simple and complex geology. Geologic maps show that the eastern part of the site is underlain by colluviums and sheetwash deposits. Sheetwash deposits are derived from surficial materials that are transported by sheetwash and deposits in or near stream valleys and hillslopes. These areas may be subject to further deposition or mud floods. Such events are not likely to greatly impact mine expansion. The western part of the site contains terrace alluvium deposited by rivers. Wind-blown or loess soil was found capping terrace deposits on the edge of the site. Loess soil is also prone to excessive settlement when loaded or wetted. All of the surficial deposits overlie the Eagle Valley Evaporite. This sequence of evaporitie rocks consists of gypsum, anhydrite, halite, and beds of mudstone, sandstone, shale, limestone, and dolomite. This formation is commonly subject to dissolution -related subsidence or collapse. A subsidence trough called the Crystal Trough traverses the site. This subsidence trough appears to be related to evaporate dissolution and/or flowage of bedrock. The dissolution creates sags in the bedrock that express as depressions in the overlying surficial deposits. Sinkholes, created by piping or collapse of surficial deposits into bedrock caverns, are common in the Eagle Valley. Due to current and. past site disturbances, it is difficult to determine if sinkholes formed in the past. Subsidence or collapse of bedrock near or beneath the site could temporarily impact mining activities or cause slope stability problems. Of greatest concern would be bedrock failures near county roads or drainage structures. However, these hazards exist, regardless of mine's expansion. Removal of overburden and ponding of water in the pit could increase risks to any structures built after mining is completed. Again, there would be risks regardless of gravel mining. In summary, the site does contain geologic hazards that should be considered; however, 1 believe such hazards will not greatly impact mine expansion. Page 2 July 6, 2010 Please contact me if you have any questions or concerns. I can be reached at 303.866.2018 or by email at karen.berry@state.co.us. Sincerely, Karen A. Berry Geological Engineer, PG, AICP, CPESC-SWQ MEMORANDUM To: Thomas Veljic From: Steve Anthony Re: Blue Pit Expansion Date: July 7, 2010 Thanks for the opportunity to comment. In general the application is acceptable, however staff is recommending that the applicant provide more detail in regards to the location of tree county listed noxious weeds: fw0 Musk thistle Plumeless thistle The map provided indicates the species by the general term "WEEDS" and we'd like more information in regards to specific locations of the aforementioned species. Tom Vel'ic From: Fred Jarman Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 7:35 AM To: Tom Veljic; Molly Orkild-Larson; Kathy A. Eastley Subject: FW: West Slope Aggregate, Pit Expansion along Highway 82 FYI From: Doug Dotson[mailto:ddotson@carbondaleco.net] Sent: Monday, July 12, 2010 3:15 PM To: Fred Jarman Subject: West Slope Aggregate, Pit Expansion along Highway 82 Fred: We have looked at this application in some detail. The Town's biggest concern is a possible impact on Town wells in the area. The wells are some distance to the west. Our utilities department did not see an issue as long as the applicant follows the plan which is to stay above the ground water line and that there is a plan for any type of hazardous split, containment and cleanup. Thanks. Doug Dotson Town of Carbondale 1 Tom Veljic From: greg peters [gnpeters@sopris.net] Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2010 12:16 PM To: Tom Veljic Subject: Blue Pit Attachments: Greg N. Peters.vcf Greg and Brenda Peters 5351 County Road 100 Carbondale, Colorado 81623 Garfield County Planning Department Attn: Tom Veljic RE: Blue Pit Dear Tom, Thank you for talking to me the other day. As requested Brenda and 1 are putting down a few words about the proposed expansion of the Blue Pit. Our property extends all the way Southward and down the pinion covered slope to Blue's Ranch. We are on the ridge and together with perhaps 2 or 3 neighbors have the privilege of enjoying our outstanding view of Blue and Cerise ranches and all beyond including Sopris, Capitol and Chair Mountain. Our house is right on the ridge and not tucked back in the trees as others are because of the small flat footprint afforded us by the lay of our land. We have maybe an acre flat and approximately 19 on the slope. Therefore our house literally will be able to observe visually all activity in the new pit. Our time of 20 years here has been truly wonderful and this is indeed our home and we expect to stay many decades. For the most part, Bill Roberts and Dick Casey as respective owners of WSA and Casey Concrete have been very good neighbors. There are only three issues I want to bring up. 1) Hours of Operation- WSA has been allowed to operate from 7 AM until 5 PM with reduced hours on Saturday, as is my understanding. WSA and Earthworks have started and moved around their heavy equipment regularly prior to 7 AM. Simply starting equipment early does not bother us, the moving associated back up alarms do. It would be good to re- state the rules regarding hours to the new applicants. La Farge, although further away from us, has a permit to operate much more liberal hours. Lights, dust, noise and especially the back up alarms could be heard at seemingly any hour when things were busy in the valley. Operating hours outside what WSA currently is permitted would be something we would object to in a rigorous way. 2) Size of the Pit- Does the Northern limit of the pit have to be where it is? We know the Blues have established a conservation easement protecting their ranch. Do they really want to be that close to the mining? 3) La Farge- Word is that LaFarge wants to cross County Road 103 Eastward and mine some of Cerise's ranch. There is the rumor of an asphalt plant too. Again hours of operation, scope of expansion and negative impacts associated with asphalt operations would greatly interest me. This is of course, germane to a LaFarge application. LaFarges plans do however have some bearing on my opinion of the Blue Pit Expansion. We are owners of G.N.Peters Construction Company, LLC and are General Contractors. We own heavy equipment and dumptrucks. As loyal customers of LaFarge, WSA and Casey Concrete, we understand how viable and vital supplies of sand and gravel are to the local economy. Faced with a choice of Sand and Gravel, a dense neighborhood like Blue Lake or a golf course we would likely prefer Sand and Gravel. Asphalt is something else. However, concerns similar to ours from the community should be heard and met or compromised. We suspect that many of our neighbors will agree with this. Sincerely, Greg Peters and family 2 Crystal Springs Coalition Carbondale, CO 81623 July 26, 2010 Fred Jarman Garfield County Building and Planning Department 108 Eighth Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Mr. Jarman, EXHIBIT '1/7 The Crystal Springs Coalition is comprised of residents of the Crystal Springs Road (103), County Road 112 and County Road 100 area of Garfield County. CSC is concerned with the significant impacts that the gravel pit expansions proposed for this area would have on their community. CSC recognizes that at this time Western Slope Aggregates (WSA) has the only expansion application before the Building and Planning Department: However, Lafarge Aggregates and Concrete (Lafarge) also intends to request a permit for a new a gravel pit on to the Cerise ranch adjacent to the Blue property in the near future. Lafarge has made their intentions clear in a public informational meeting (July 22, 2010 in Carbondale). CSC believes that the County must consider these two proposals jointly because their cumulative impacts will be extremely detrimental to the character, health and safety of the surrounding environs and residents. The Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution of 2009 (ULUR) states that gravel pits must be compatible with surrounding land uses and that cumulative impacts must be considered. ULUR Section 7-840. G.7 states that "[t]he proposed [gravel] operation will be located a sufficient distance from other mining operations so as not to create non-mitigatable cumulative impacts to roads, air and water quality, or other resources and amenities.." In responding to subsection 7 in its application, WSA states that the Lafarge gravel operation is "approximately 2,000 feet to the west [of the proposed expansion area] and is nearing final reclamation". This does not take into account the fact that LaFarge plans to expand on to the Cerise property that would be practically adjacent to the proposed WSA expansion after the current operation is shut down. Because of the obvious cumulative impacts of the proposed WSA project and pending LaFarge project, CSC urges the Building and Planning Department to postpone consideration of the WSA application until that time as the LaFarge proposal can be discussed as well. The proposed WSA expansion is NOT compatible with existing land uses as required by the County Code. ULUR Section 7-840.G.6 states that a proposed gravel operation "[s]hall be compatible with surrounding agricultural, residential, and recreational land uses by selection of location and/or mitigation". Responding to this requirement, WSA claims that their activities are compatible with surrounding uses, however they do so by referring only to the existing gravel pit, irrigated land and "old waste dump" in the area. There is no reference in this response to the 20+ residential lots that look directly down upon the proposed expansion site which would not be compatible with the current residential and agricultural tenor of the neighborhood. CSC is very concerned about the proposed the WSA project's impacts on the character of the area, the health of residents and the environment. The current WSA gravel pit creates significant dust that coats houses, cars and people in a larger area, particularly on windy days. The proposed expansion would move operations closer to residences and increase this impact on residents. The full impacts of this dust on air quality in the area is not appropriately understood or monitored by WSA. CSC members have experienced aggravated sinus and allergy issues from dust from the gravel operation despite using multiple air cleaners in their homes. Area residents find the insides of their homes covered in a layer of dust even when their windows are closed. One resident likened working outside his home to being down in the gravel pit from the amount of dust coating his body. South and southwest facing windows in the area are constantly plastered with sand and dirt and are often impossible to see out of. Other residents have noted that the dust clouds from the two gravel operations often make visibility at the County Road 103 and Highway 82 intersection hazardous. Recent studies have shown that "fine particulates pose a greater danger to human health than better known kinds of air pollution such as smog, sulphur dioxide and carbon monoxide. There is incontrovertible evidence that increased PM 10 is related to increases in cardiopulmonary disease, asthma, bronchitis, emphysema, pneumoconiosis and premature death in those with pre-existing conditions. The elderly and the young are most affected. Crystalline silica dust is common from processing sand and gravel and is a known carcinogen."' The exact impacts on the respiratory health of residents in this area is not known but these particulates could logically be harming the health of the closest neighbours. The current WSA operation, and by extension, the proposed project, create significant noise and traffic impacts to the surrounding residential community. Many area 'residents complain of having an "alarm clock" of truck traffic and back up beepers that awakens them every morning at 6:00 am and often continues until 6:00 pm. During the peak construction period of the existing WSA pit, rock crushers could be heard and seen operating under bright floodlights until 7:00 pm every night. As the proposed expansion would bring operations closer to residences, this impact on the community will only increase. The current proposal also calls for access on County Road 104 which is a small ranch road now which sees only minimal residential and agricultural traffic. Allowing WSA traffic along this road would have a substantial noise, nuisance and safety impact on residences adjacent to the expansion and along County Road 103 and 112 which County Road 104 feeds into. CSC understands that gravel is a necessary part of construction activities in the valley but questions the need for further extraction in this already highly impacted area. Why should this group of residents continue to bear so much of the impacts from gravel extraction in the mid -valley region? 1 http://www.gravelwatch.org/dust.htm It is not just the human residents of the area that are being impacted however. The project would also impact area wildlife that currently use the irrigated hay pastures of the Blue property. WSA commissioned a wildlife report that analyzes the impact on three key species that utilize the property - mule deer, elk and bald eagles, that act as indicators of impacts on a multitude of species. According to WSA's report, mule deer and elk use the expansion property throughout the year but particularly in the winter (it is listed by the CDOW as a Winter Concentration Area and Severe Winter Range for mule deer). The property is not mapped as elk habitat by CDOW although observations strongly counter this. The WSA application admits (Exhibit H) that the project will result in a loss of mule deer and elk habitat but claims that this habitat is only marginal. In contrast to these assertions, area residents observe large herds of elk on the Blue Ranch and Cerise Ranch's irrigated fields with upwards of 150 during the fall rut and 50-100 overwintering in the area. In fact they have created an obvious trail from the Cerise and Blue properties to County Road 103 in their daily movements back and forth. Deer appear in smaller numbers but are still very present in the area. Residents also routinely spot bear, bobcats, mountain lions, raccoons, owls, eagles, hawks and wild turkeys in this area. CSC requests that the County postpone a decision on the WSA proposal until both the WSA and Lafarge projects can be considered together. If this is not possible, CSC believes that the WSA project should not be approved because all the facts are not present to fully understand the true impacts of the gravel pit expansion on area residents and wildlife. Because there are still 10 years left on the current WSA permit and WSA has stated it has many years of gravel production still available from its currently existing pit based on past and current demand, CSC sees no reason for the County to rush into a decision that will have such negative long term repercussions. CSC respectfully requests that the County deny the application for an expanded gravel pit on the Blue Ranch. Sincerely, Ernest Kollar On behalf of the Crystal Springs Coalition 2 51 EXHIBIT 38 Stagecoach Circle Carbondale, CO 81623 July 26, 2010 Garfield County Building & Planning Department 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Attn: Thomas Veljic, Senior Planner This letter is regarding the application to amend an approved Special Use Permit which requests expansion of the existing "Blue Pit" (gravel extraction) of an additional 64 acres. We are homeowners at the Ranch at Roaring Fork which is located across Highway 82 from the existing gravel pit. We are protesting the expansion for the following reasons: 1. Life of the Pit: At the present time, the "Blue Pit", operated by Western Slope Aggregrate, has forecast 9 years of reserves under the existing permit. With the additional expansion of 64 acres, the life of this pit could last up to 50 years. We feel that this is excessive, and given the lessening demand for gravel, it could possibly last even longer. 2. Traffic: The pit is now operating from 7:00 a.m. to 8 p.m. Monday through Saturday 12 months/year. We look out of our windows to see trucks of all sizes belching up the hillside, spewing the air with fumes as well as creating much noise. Not a pleasant sight to behold or to listen to. The current level of traffic creates a gridlock at times with trucks turning on or off Highway 82. 3. Air Quality: We have noticed a most definite increase in dust over the past ten years emanating from the many gravel pits along the highway. Rain is so dust laden that it streaks the house windows and covers the cars with every rainstorm. 4. Location of Gravel Pits: As one travels along the Highway 82, you are struck with the vision of one gravel pit after another — not a lovely sight. The area has become rather industrial in appearance with Carbondale becoming "gravel pit central". The "Blue Pit" in particular is bordered by the Wooden Deer homes to the north with their view plane scarred by this excavation and the Ranch at Roaring Fork to the south with over 160 homeowners exposed to the increased traffic, noise and reduced air quality. This really places an unfair burden upon the homeowners in these locations when so many gravel pits are located in one area. Please take our comments under consideration when meeting on August 11. Thank you. Sincerely, John and Nancy Thorpe Gary Hubbell 38 Stagecoach Circle Carbondale, CO 81623 October 23, 1997 Mark Bean Garfield County Planner 109 8`h Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Mr. Bean: 1 `.:..00T 2_ .7. 199. 7; 40 i ...-•.,,...,-,...,--.:f:::',_,_-.; )U'N .f EXHIBIT After enduring the "Summer of Dump Trucks," I am writing to tell you how it was. In short, it was awful. After the Garfield County Commissioners illegally granted the special use permittee, .arthwo .s Construction. to access Highway 82 across from the Ranch a anng Fork, we were told in public meetings to "just get used to" the excess noise, dust, glare, smoke and vibration caused by up to 300 dump trucks a day. I have not "gotten used to it." The dump trucks on the access road to the Blue Gravel Pit are significantly noisier than the traffic on Highway 82, which was already at or near state maximum noise levels. The stench of diesel fumes often pervades our living environment. It is common to see dump trucks belching large plumes of smoke. The noise is almost constant: grinding, whining, roaring truck noise that has significantly deteriorated our quality of life. The vibration from constantly moving heavy equipment is penetrating in our home environment. In fact, I can hear trucks grinding down the road even when I'm in the shower! Congratulations, Garfield County, this citizen and taxpayer thanks you for the shower music! In addition to the violations of the Special Use Code that were "perrnirted" by Garfield County, there are other violations occurring on an almost daily basis that were specifically excluded from the permittee's operations: 1. The trucks decelerating from Highway 82 often use their fake brakes, in violation of the permit. It is a common occurrence to see trucks idling in front of the gate to the gravel pit in advance of the opening of the pit (I have photos to prove this.) At one time this summer, I photographed 5 trucks waiting in front of the pit. 3. Truckers are careless when accessing the highway. My wife and children were almost involved in a collision involving a dump truck crossing into highway traffic. 4. Truckers are careless about their loads. Spilled gravel is a common sight on the highway right-of-way at the gravel pit entrance, no doubt costing county taxpayers thousands of dollars in broken windshields. 5. Speeding is a common occurrence on the access road. One can judge a truck moving ten miles an hour to be about as fast as a man can run comfonably, yet most of the trucks on the road are moving, in my estimation, much, much faster— about 25-30 miles an hour. The Casey's Concrete trucks are the worst offenders. 6. Passenger cars regularly access the road to subdivisions above. 7. Hours of the pit have not been observed. On July 25 this summer, there were five trucks, most of them from Harry's Heavy Haulers, on the road at 6:25 a.m. I suggest that the special use permit be reviewed in the next three months with an independent noise and traffic study, to be conducted by an independent contractor to be chosen by the Ranch at Roaring Fork. The study will be conducted at the bidding of the Ranch at Roaring Fork without notice to the permittee, with all costs to be paid by the permittee. That seems to be the only fair way CO evaluate the illegal noise produced by the dump trucks accessing the Blue Gravel Pit. Sincerely, December 1,1997 Mark Bean Memo Re Blue Gravel Pit Three site visits have been performed, including one on this day at 6:30 A.M. approximately. No "Jake Brakes" have been heard. No gravel has been observed spilled on the highway. Skid marks made by tandem axel trucks were apparent only in the left turn/deceleration lane on South Bound Highway 82. Understandably it would be difficult to decelerate in the 300 foot long lane from typical highway speeds on highway 82. It appears as though the 10 mile per hour speed limit is not being observed. Traffic appears to move at 20 to 25 miles per hour, based on my speedometer reading as l followed trucks down to Highway 82. The road is well signed with information about "10 M.P.H.", "No Noise", and "No Jake Brakes". The road is being used to access an apparently new dirt road that serves some residential dwellings above and behind the gravel pit. Trucking Companies observed using the road are Harrys Heavy Haulers, Condon Construction, Aspen Earthworks, Dorais Excavating and Western Slope Aggregates. Steve Hackett Tom Veljic From: Sean Mello [smello@ew-construct.comj Sent: Monday, July 26, 2010 9:18 AM To: Tom Veljic Cc: Sean Mello Subject: back up alarms Attachments: 3317_001.pdf Tom, Attached are 2 brochures on new back up alarm we are looking at to put on the loaders at the pit to reduce noise. Call with ant questions, thank you, Sean Sean Mello Vice President Earthworks Construction, LLC 0304 Highway 133 Carbondale, CO 81623 970.963.2296 (Office) 970.963.2412 (Fax) 970.379.0427 (Mobile) smello@ew-construct,com From: EARTH WORKS CONST [mailto:gpelland@comcast,net] Sent: Monday, July 26, 2010 9:10 AM To: Sean Mello Subject: Attached Image 1 Broadband sound back-up alarms and movement alarms Introducing bbs-tek, a sound solution in reversing safety • improved safety • noise reduction • reduced hearing damage Back-up alarms need to provide a sense of urgency and clearly locate which vehicle is reversing, but conventional 'bleep' alarms have limited effectiveness. Conventional alarms breed complacency as the sound is not localised to the danger zone. And confusion is caused as the vehicle that is reversing is not instantly identifiable. They also cause a nuisance, through noise pollution. But there's a revolutionary new answer to reversing safety'that: uses _:broadband sound technology and instantly removes the'drawbacks associated.withthe conventional. alarm. The bbs-tek alarm •uses broadband* sound instead of t e traditional•narrow bani sound. Broadband sound is localised in' zone, and is locatable, which means tbargapps busy environments, you can tell where ti sobitd>as coming from and, therefore, whictyVelliClOskr v Many operators have already'experien9ed;tlj j hiyue .l..t _. .syn. benefits of the bbs-tek back -up -alar m. eisuii fetor use on all types of vehicles from rgad:,trucks to garbage vehicles, fork lifts to earth. maving_equipment. Bbs-tek is the safe solution.::. Can you tell which vehicle is reversing? Shh .1 Shh...Shh,.. reduces noise pollution • less complaints Broadband sound dissipates much quicker and, thanks to its localised nature, reduces noise pollution. Bbs-tek's broadband multi -frequency range spans 400Hz to 10,000Hz and dissipates sound at twice the rate of narrow -band `pure -tone' sound, eliminating complaints. Furthermore, because it is detected much more easily than pure tones, the bbs-tek alarm is equally effective at lower decibel ratings making it even less likely to cause any noise complaints. Equally important is the fact that broadband sound is `gentler on the ear'. Research has indicated that long -tern exposure to conventional back- up alarms can cause hearing damage. If, as is the case with broadband sound back-up alarms, the sound is only heard in the danger zone, then the potential for hearing damage is greatly reduced. Winner of the AS SEEN AND APPROVED BY THE NOISE ABATEMENT SOCIETY ahcInternational Environmental excellence in transportation award bbg shh...shh... Small NOISE,. BIG sound - Safety all round! 7 bbs-tek® Broadband Sound Back-up alarms am vital for safety yet can cause noise nuisance and Irritation to workers and to local nsklenls. The bbs-tek back-up alar emits a unique sound which solves this problem. 11s world-wide palented'Shh...shh...shh..." broadband sound (also known as 'while sound) is multi -frequency, replacing the narrow frequency band of convembnal alarms. The new bis-tek back-up than • eliminates noise nuisance -the sound is easy on the ear and dissipates fast • Is safer - the sound is locatable so you can tel which vehicle Is reversing - the sound is directional, concentrating the warning within the danger zone. This increases people% response to the alarm and diminishes the chance of it being Ignored. Winner of the AS SEEN AND APPROVED BY THE NOISf ABATEMENT SOCIETY NsiseAbal�l`P7y QIIHUG International Emlronmental excellence In transportation award Heavy Duty -a reaus FRS Ideal for dump bucks bulldozers, loading shovels and an heavy earthmoving machinery. • Conform to SAE J994 enMronmental standards • Tough, durable, guaranteed waterproof 0P68) • Solid-state, spark -free electronis, •posy -sealed against mud, water and vibration • Can be steam -cleaned and pressure -hosed • CC and '•' marked (EMC) COBE MODEL Y00 W�detm FREQUENCY CUA UNIT ) CENTHOLE RES (mm) A0899 885-107 24 107 Mule 1.0 4ker 171:80065 152 A0898 885-102 24 102 MA 1.0 Driver 1734095 152 Medium Duty IOW ank Orf Idea/ for bucks, buses and coaches. eght mobile pard, forklift bucks and industrial vehicles. • Conor to SAE J894 envkonmental standards • Tough, durable, guaranteed waterproof OMB) • Solid -slate. spark -free demonic*, epoxy -sealed against mud, water and vibration • Can be steam -cleaned and pressure -hosed • CE end '•' marked (ENCU STOCK CODE MODEL VORS DC SOUND LEVEL & 01m FREQUENCY KRZ CURRENT AMPS SOUNDER LIME SRE mm PitD) HOLE CENTRES (on) ARYL` A0834 BBS -97 888.92 1234 12-24 97 92 &full Multi OS 05 Speaker Speaker 127x65x76 12745x76 98-101 9-106 Light Duty EN I 406 Ideal for forklift bucks Oght commercial vehicles, MPVs and Cars. • Confonn to SAE J994 envkonmenlal standards • Tough, durable, guaranteed waterproof 19.68) • Solid -stn spark -fee electronics. epsxy-sealed agalnsl mud, water and vibration • Can be steam -cleaned and pressure -hosed • CE and'e' marked (EMC) �E .MOS OC SOUND LEYa tie FREQUENCY C AIMS SOUNDER SQE arch "4WD) HOLE CLNTRESfaa) A0897 88597 1234 87 MUIU OS Sparer 90x4949 76 A0896 86582 12-24 82 MuN OS Speaker 90x4949 76 A1397 885-77 12-24 77 Mdh' 03 Speaker 90x4949 76 Electric Forklift Truck Medium Duty ISI • Conform to SAE J994 environmental standards • Tough, durable, guaranteed waterproof OP68) • Solid -slate. spark -(tea electronics, epoxy -sealed against mud, water and vitiation • Can be steam -cleaned and pressure -hosed • CE and' e' marked (EMC) STOCK CODE NOM. VOUS DC LEVEL FREQUENCY KFQ CURRENT UNIT S A1313 A1322 BeS87NN 88S-83/11/ 3610 36-80 87 82 Mai Md8 015 0.15Speaker Spam SIZE mm 1 HOLE fWxHx% 'CENTRES(m) 1278E608 98-108 127865x76 990-108 bbs-tek® BACKCHAT® Speaking Back-up Alarms estil The back-up aid the speaks for Medi *Stihl Stand well dear, veh ole reversing_." Produces real speech with unrivalled quality and clarity. The voice Is directional and commands attention, especially from children. • Sorid-state spark -free electronics, epoxy -sealed against mud, water and vibration • Dust/waterproof to N68 • Can be steamcleaned and pressure -hosed • CE and •••• marked (Mktg STOCK CODE MODEL. MSS DC SOUND LEVELd%AJ Ofm CURRENT AMPS SOUNDER UNIT SLIImm Amore) HOLE CENTRES (nm) 813% BBS -BC -01 12.21 90 0A Speaker 1224140 102 Constant Tone Alarms - Ideal as Forward Horns, In -Cab Warnings and other specialist applications. Medium Duty I rI II eph deal for use as forward horn or other warning on a wide variety of specialist velddes, forklift tracks and erectile vehicles. Safer than a conventional hom, end eliminates noise nuisance and complaints Confoml to SAE J994 environmental standards Tough, durable, guaranteed waterproof (P66) Sold -state, spark free elect -chic; epoxy -sealed against mud, water and vexation • Can be steam -cleaned and premium -hosed CE and 'e' narked (EMO) STOCK CODE MODEL VOLTS DC SOUND LEVELdB(A,IO1m FREQUENCY 102 CURRENT AMPS SOUNDER UNIT SIZE mm (WdMD) HOLE CETTRES(mnd A1393 A1392 CT -BBS -97 CFBSS-n 12-24 12-24 97 92 KM Mini 03 03 Speaks Speaker 127265x76 127)'65x76 96.108 98-108 HIGH VOLTAGE FORKLIFT TRUCK P1395 A1394 CT-BBS-97HV CliBB698N 3640 36-60 97 82 Mutt 03 MuIU 0.3 Speaker Speaker 12705x76 127x85276 98-108 98.108 Broadband sound explained Why is the bbs-tek alarm heard at lower source sound pressure levels than a conventional nanow-band alarm? AA complex sound (broadband sound) produces a larger stimulus in the brain than a narrow -band sound - accentuated by the pulsed sound of the back-up alarm. Our threshold response to broadband sound is lower than to narrow -band tones and thus lower levels of broadband sound are detected more easily. CIWhy does bbs-tek broadband sound 'dissipate' more quickly (with increasing distance) than narrow -band tones at a similar decibel rating? AFor the same reason as there are 'No stilettos please' signs in rooms with wooden floors - because the woman's weight is concentrated on a tiny surface area and dents the floor. With platform heels the women's weight is distributed over a surface area perhaps 100 times greater - result: 100 times less pressure Q A bb6 MEM 7 for the same downward force. Similarly, narrow -band frequency (pure tone) sound is penetrating and painful to the ear whilst multi- frequency (broadband) sound is dissipated and gentle on the ear. Both the stiletto and the platform support the woman's weight; one painfully, the other acceptably. Why is the bbs-tek broadband sound back-up alarm safer than an equivalent narrow -band back-up alarm? Two main reasons; firstly, the sound is instantly loacatable so you can tell which vehicle is reversing; secondly, a narrow -band tone back-up alarm can usually be heard well outside the danger zone, leading to the risk that people will disregard it - even when in real danger. The bbs-tek broadband sound alarm is both directional and localisable, concentrating the sound within the immediate danger zone. This increases people's response to the alarm, and diminishes the chance of it being ignored. N\ • The normal operating practise at our plant is to have haul trucks bring blasted rock from the quarry to the plant's crusher during the day and have a loader feed the crusher at night from a stockpile. The crusher is located close to the edge of a plateau that overlooks a bay. Across the bay from the plant are a lot of very nice waterfront homes. The night-time operation has been a source of numerous noise complaints over the years. Previous procedure was to have the backup alarm turn off. Barricades were then placed to block access to the area so that the loader could work without the protection of a backup alarm. This procedure, though simple, was a nuisance as the batteries on the flashing warning lights had to be changed or a barricade would get damage when moving them in or moving them out of the way. Recently, a Brigade bbs-tek' EBS -107 Backalarm was installed on the loader that was regularly used in the job and it ran for quite a period without any complaints. Recently though, we received a noise complaint regarding this job. Upon review of the events, it was found that the regular loader for this job was out of service and another loader was used. This loader was equipped with a `beeper' style of backup alarm. Needless to say, it has now been retro- fitted with a Brigade bbs-telrbbs-107. Things are now quiet again and the barricades have found a new home. Kevin Maylin, Quarry Supervisor Essroc Italcementi Group - Ficton Plant. Aggregate Industries plc, the UK based internation alaggregate and building materials group, fitted its entire fleet with the bbs-tee reversing alarm from Brigade Electronics. This amounts to 450 vehicles across 250 sites nationwide. Following a series of complaints from local residents about noise being made by conventional bleeping alarms, Aggregate Industries trialed bbs-tee. The trial was a success! "We have chosen to retrofit all of our vehicles with the bbs-tek' as we feet this will help us to maintain a good relationship with surrounding communities. Our sites start work very early in the morning, so the less intrusive we are to our neighbours the better. We did have a history of complaints with the bleepers that were previously being used but these stopped when we switched to the bbs-tek°." Dr Miles Watkins Head of Quality and Environment at Aggregate Industries plc. Thank you for the opportunity to evaluate your product. We have completed our testing of your product and find that it exceeds our expectations. Your bbs-tek' bbs-102 was evaluated on a CAT' 980G at our Hayden Facility from April 15, 2005 to May 1, 2005. This quarry is in a canyon and one of the quarries that neighbors often complain about the noise of old backup alarms. We operate from this quarry from 6;OOam to 8:00pm Monday to Saturday, with Saturday mornings being especially problematic. During this time we received no complaints during the testing period. In situations where noise would be a concern, your product would be the perfect product for those environments. We found that the bbs-teks bbs-102 was also a perfect direct replacement for the existing alarm and easy to install. Thank you again for this unique opportunity to try your product. Donald Leamon Operations Manager, Westside Rock LLD. bli/ 15/ ZU115 110:1i1 JAUK WU(i11621CN I'AUE 02 'Noiseless' back-up alarms 08/19/2009 10:02 48422" `i BB WH ITE SCDUND Introducing WhiteSound#, the next generation of back-up safety! JACK WOSINRICH PAGE 03 Back-up alarms are vital for vehicle safety, yet their very use can cause noise nuisance, irritating workers and neighbors, especially when used out of norma! working hours. The WhiteSound alarm emits a unique uniqueshh...shh.. 'sound which solves the problem. These bbs-teff alarms ernit multi -frequency broadband sound, replacing the narrow frequency band of tonal beepers. It Is direalonal, concentrating the sound in the danger area, thus reducing noise nuisance. Also, it is much safer than tonal beepers; its sound is instantly locatable so you immediately know which vehicle is reversing and where it is coming from. Broadband sound also dissipates more quickly beyond the danger zone, so it is much less of a nuisance to focal residents and is less likely to be ignored by workers due to over exposure of tonal beepers. Many major commercial organizations and government bodies have already recognized the dual benefits of fitting WhiteSound to their public service vehicles, mobile plant and trucks. Available as heavy & medium duty back-up alarms, movement indicators, and constant tone alarms. ikXA2 ni^..dc: pittivCng While$unkited in the NeviYdk city code. Zee 1:t Ii f.5;#:Re04rfl&w York Chive, 28-d7w+Nv CrnwpnioI? ..M. Sce Brigade! if:nmeWWu!anty'e:ns end Conddoni Tonal Alarm Nuisance Area Tonal Alarm Nuisance Area I Tonal Alarm Nuisance Area f For4alesemail:sales@brigade-inc.com Forgeneralinformation email: into@brrgodednc.com ELECTRONICS INC 7011 free: 7 888-7881G40E (888-727-4423) Phone: 610-826-7870 Fax: 484-229-0088 www.brigade-inc.com Brigade Electronics Inc 202 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1, Palmerton, PA 78071 08/19/2069 10:02 48422^'988 JACK WOGINRICH PAGE 04 BBS-tek — The Benefits SAFETY — Much Greater Safety • Their sound is locatable The location of a broadband sound source is instantly and unambiguously recognisable and reveals immediately which vehicle or machine is backing -up. Narrowband sound is liable to give false directional clues due to reflection off surfaces such as buildings, quarry faces etc. sometimes with fatal results - Sound is localised within hazard area Familiarity with unneeded warning alarms heard outside the hazard area breeds general contempt for them — very dangerous when real need is. Audible through Ear Defenders The lower frequencies of their broad frequency spectrum penetrate ear defenders more readily than the higher frequencies of narrowband alarms ++ End to intentional disconnects Operators and site workers, driven mad by old narrowband alarms, are very happy to work with broadband and appreciate its safety value ENVIRONMENT — End To Noise Complaints Rapid Sound Dissipation Broadband sound dissipates much faster than narrowband. This results in its warning sound being confined to the hazard area. • Less Irritating Psychoacoustically, broadband sound is tolerable whereas pulsed narrowband sound disturbs and irritate workers and householders far from the hazard area. • Less decibels Broadband sound is equally audible at lower Sound Pressure Levels than narrowband. HEALTH — Reduce Hearing Damage & "Startle" Reduced risk of Hearing Damage Lower sound -pressure levels spread across a broad frequency -band diminish the hearing - damage hazard of high narrowband frequencies (the stiletto heel effect) to- Heart risk due to "startle" Sudden burst of loud narrowband sound nearby can cause severe heart stress due to the "startle" factor NOISE - The 21ST Century Pollutant "Calling noise a nuisance is like calling smog an inconvenience", Dr William N. Stewart, former Surgeon General of USA "Noise is any loud, discordant or disagreeable sound or sound? Webster's New Woropld Dictionary Broadband back-up alarms are "noiseless"— their sound is neither loud, discordant nor disagreeable. Traditional, old narrowband alarms are intrinsically unsafe, noisy, irritating, disagreeable, injurious to health, cause stress and are frequently sabotaged. They are now obsolete. For more information contact; sales@brigade-electroncis.com S0 39Vd HDI& I90M NOW r 88006ZZ686 Z0:0T 600/6T/80 BBS -107 - White Sound (t dband sound) Reversing Alarm - Brigadi :ctronics Page 1 of 2 Vehicle safety systems - Tel. +44(0)1322 420300 Product Info Home Contact Us Products What is bbs-tek? Applications Exhibitions Testimonials Awards Downloads Standards & Certifications Warranty Info Cvocste Custom search Products News Contact tis Tech Support Products products > product, types > Reversing Alarms > White sound reversing alarms BBS -107 bbs-tek®O White Sound (Broadband Sound) Reversing Alarm. Heavy Duty ileal for dump trucks, bulldozers. loading shovels and all heavy earthmoving machinery. • Conform to SAE J994 environmental standards • Tough • durable • guaranteed waterproof (1P88) • Solid-state • spark -tree electronics • epoxy -sealed against mud • water and vibration • can be steam -cleaned and pressure hosed • CE and' e' marked (EMC) Power Supply: Storage Temperature: # Weight: Marketing Flyer. SAE J994: SAE J994 JIS 0203: Y 200 Fours Tested: Y Humidity Temperature Test: Y Vibration: 10G IP Rating: 68 Image Size: Light Sensitivity: Image Switching: Camara Inputs: Watts: Light Pattern: Item Size: Voltage: Working Amperes: 1 Over Voltage Testing: Y Frequency: Broadband Waterproof Rating: N/A View Large Image Hem CE ROHS Power Consumption: Operating Temperature: -40°C to+85°C Dimensions: N/A CE Mark: Y IEC 61000: IEC -61000-4-4 JIS 1601: Y In Rush Test: Y Image Switching: Y Mechanical Shock: 100G DB Rating: 107 dB Picture Elements: Infrared LEDS: View Angle: Power Input Bulb Type: Ballast Unit: Housing Material: Voltage Range: 24Vdc Reverse Polarity Test Y Surge Protection: Y Operating Temperature: -40°C to +85°C Audio: About us Brigade Eleorodcs BACKSCAN range of paring sensors are suitable for most vehsle types including cars. vans, trucks. busts, coaches, mobile pent and refuse vehicles. Using proven ultrasonic technology BACKSCAN parking sensors Inlorn the driver of the distance Estween the vehicle and any obstacle at the rear. As soon as the reverse gear is engaged. The parldng sensors sten scanning the rew of the vehicle and gives a 3 stage audible and visual warning to the driver. Brigade's parking sensors Incorporate dynamic scanning memory (USM) that prevents false Esteems from low bare, rear mounted tyres and any auxiliary equipment Thal Intrudes in the parking sensors detections zone. Brigade Electronics plc has pioneered the development of innovative broadband sound reversing alarms and camera systems that provides clearer more accurate sound than traditional reversing alarms. Unlike traditions! narrowband reversing alarms. Brigade's bbs-teh uses broadband sound which is instantly and unambiguously locatable. If you have any comments or questions about parking sensors or our bbs-tek systems or just the content of this website please do not hesitate to contact us. Brigade reversing camera systems - Backscan Parking sensors - What is while sound? http://www-reverseinsafety,co.uk/products/product_types/alatms/bbs/BBS-107/1/nameasce..- 8/20/2009 -a a a -, ... .�.. .. . ��'°�s`-�u.� �'�'~3.3�,�.�ims ,ftwawirei>�"f=�".hic.�=S�3w�,a,:" �3 x x". --4v m ,a mac OF COLORADO County of airfield ( 55. Al. a. K• sM.l:•a.r - m cling of the Board of County Commissioners for Garfield County, Colorado, held et the Court House in Glenwood Springs on MOX1Sl::.Y Ow 2.1.5.t. day of I)t)ct.at1l)t.'c - A. D.101 , there were present: 1,arr.....Volasqp . k F1gvor} J. Cerise Eugene Drinkhouse Earl G. Rhodes Leanne Cleland, Deputy when the following proceedings, among others were had and done, to•wlt: RESOLUTION NO. 81-384 A RESOLUTION CONCERNED WITH THE APPROVAL OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION BY . JEAN AND DEE BLUE AND ZEMLOCK AND SONS, INC. WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County has received an application from Jean and Dee Blue and Zemlock and Sons, Inc., for a special use permit for extraction of natural resources; specifically, an open pit sand and gravel mine, on thc, following described tract of land: The following described lands in Sections 25 and 36 T75, RBBW of the 6th P.M. Those portions of lots 8, 9, 10, 15, and 16 Section 25 lying in the Si of SI of Section 25 and lots 2 and 3 in Section 36 excepting any part of the above named lots in Sections 25 and 36 lying southerly of the northerly ROW of State Highway 82 and excepting any part of the above named lots in Section 25 lying within•the parcel of land described in the quit Claire Deed document number 288920, Book 516, Page 393. Also, excepting that portion of lot 16 -in Section 25 lying southerly of the centerline of the Basin Ditch. WHEREAS, pursuant to required public notice, the Board conducted a public hearing on the 30th day of November, 1981, upon the question of whether the above described special use permit should be granted or denied, at which heariin the public and interested persons were given the opportunity to express their opinions regarding the issuance of said special use permit; and WHEREAS, the Board on the basis of the evidence produced at the aforementioned hearing, has made the following determinations of fact: 1. The proposed use is compatible with the uses existing and permitted in the district in which it is to be located, provided that.certain hereinafter contained conditions be complied with. 2 That neither the impact on traffic volume and safety or on utilities, or any other impact of the special use will be injurious to the established neighborhood or zone district in which the special use is to be located, provided that certain hereinafter contained conditions be complied with. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Commissioners of Garfield County, that a special use permit be and hereby is authorized permitting the use of the above described tract of land for extraction of natural resources; specifically, an open pit sand and gravel mine, upon the following specific conditions: 1. That the use of the tract of land comply with all present and future regulations of Garfield County relating to extraction of natural resources in the zone district in which the property is now or may later be located; 2, That; prior to the issuance of the authorized special use permit, the above described tract of land shall be severed from any other tract of land upon which there may exist a principal use, unless such other .such principal use has been terminated at the time of the issuance of the special use permit; 3. That mining area #5, as designated in the application, shall be entirely eliminated From the approved project area, and no mining activity shall occur south of a survey line, which line is described in Exhibit "A", which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. , Commissioner Chairman , Commissioner ComMisooner , County Attorney , Clerk of the Board b a EXHIBIT f 7• eu X%1_,a,� _hC ,L.p / /0 "/y-8/ 4. That water shall be used as a dust suppressant in the pit area, and applied in a frequency and manner sufficient to mitigate any adverse impact from dust; 5. That the hours of extractive operations be limited from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. daily; That access to the proposed project area from Highway 82 shall be by the Crystal Springs Road (County Road 103); 7. That the applicant shall make improvements to the Crystal Springs Road (County Road 103) from its intersection with Colorado Highway 82 to its intersection with Road 104, which improvements shall be paid for by the applicant and shall be to the satisfaction of the Board of County Commis- sioners upon the recommendation of the County Road Supervisor; 8. That the applicant shall make improvements to the intersection of Road 104 and County Road 103 to the satisfaction of the Board of County Commissioners upon the recommendation of the County Road Supervisor; 9. That the access route for the project shall access directly onto Road 104 instead of through the adjoining sawrn ij.;property; and that the access route shall be kept a minimum of Foe feet away from the adjoining property owners fence line; 10. That the applicant shall make improvements to Road 104 extending to the pit site to bring it in compliance with County Road Specifications; specifically, that a 24 foot driving surface be created, that a chip • and seal mat surface be put in place and be adequately maintained by the applicant for the life of the project; as determined by the Board of County Commissioners, upon the recommendation of the County Road Supervisor. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS GARFiELD COUNTY, COLORADO s .. c.i ((( 4 2 L.. Deuty Clerk of the Board Upon motion duly made and seconded the foregoing Resolution was adopted by the following vote: Larry Velasquez Aye Flaven J.. Cerise Aye Eucjene nrinkhouse Aye Commissioners STATE OF COLORADO County of Garfield h County Clerk and ex•olficio Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners In and for the County and State aforesaid do hereby certify that the annexed and foregoing Order is truly copied from the Records of Die proceedings of the Board of County Commissioners for seed Garfield County, now in my oNice. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, 1 have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said County, at Glenwood Springs, this day of A. D. 19 County Clerk and ex-officlo Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners. - /Y RECORDED AT Y:.92— O'CLOCK /1.M. JUN 2 3 1993 REC # 448366 MILDRED ALSDZRF, COUNTY CLERK 1 STATE OF COLORADO ) )ss County of Garfield ) soox 8661=586 �, 586 At a regular meeting of the Board of County Commissioners for Garfield County, Colorado, held in the Commissioners' Meeting Room, Garfield County Courthouse, in Glenwood Springs on Tuesday , the 15th day of June A.D. 19 93 , there were present: Elmer (Buckey) Arbaney Marian I. Smith Arnold L. Rackley Don DeFord Mildred Alsdorf Chuck Deschenes , Commissioner Chairman , Commissioner , Commissioner , County Attorney , Clerk of the Board , County Administrator when the following proceedings, among others were had and done, to -wit: RESOLUTION NO 93-051 A RESOLUTION CONCERNED WITH THE APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR THE WESTERN SLOPE AGGREGATES. WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County, Colorado, has received application from Western Slope Aggregates to amendment Resolution 81-384 on the following described tracts of land: See Attachment A (in the State of Colorado and the County of Garfield); and WHEREAS, the Board held a public hearing on the 3rd day of June 1993, upon the question of whether the above-described Special Use Permit should be granted or denied, at which hearing the public and interested persons were given the opportunity to express their opinions regarding the issuance of said Special Use Permit; and WHEREAS, the Board on the basis of substantial competent evidence produced at the aforementioned hearing, has made the following determination of fact: 1. That proper publication and public notice was provided as required by law for the hearing before the Board of County Commissioners. 2, That the hearing before the Board of County Commissioners was extensive and complete, that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted and that all interested parties were heard at that hearing. 800K 866rAc;.587 That the application is in compliance with the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended. 4. For the above stated and other reasons, the proposed use is in the best interest of the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County, Colorado, that the Amendment of the Special Use Permit be and hereby is authorized permitting the use of the above described tract of land for a guest house, upon the following specific conditions: 1. All proposals of the applicant shall be considered conditions of approval unless stated otherwise by the Board of County Commissioners. 2. That the amendment is valid from June 4th, 1993 to November 1st, 1993. Following expiration of the temporary access, County Road 103 and 104 will be used to arrrss the pit and haul product. If the applicants wish to continue to directly access SH 82, an amendment to the SUP would be necessary. 3. Dust will be controlled by frequent watering and the application of magnesium chloride, as needed. Jake brakes will not be used, if safety is not compromised. 5. All other conditions of approval contained in Resolution 81-384 must be complied with by the applicant. Violation of these conditions could result in revocation of the existing SUP. 6. No Sunday hauling for the 5E1 82 project would be allowed. Dated this 15th day of June A.D. 19 ATTEST: LelA v -di Clerk/of the Board vote: GARFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO Upon motion duly made and seconded the foregoing Resolution was adopted by the following Elmer (Buckey) Arbaney Marian I. Smith Aye Arnold L. Mackley Aye Aye BOOK 866:1.ci 588 STATE OF COLORADO ) )ss County of Garfield ) 1, , County Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners in and for the County and State aforesaid do hereby certify that the annexed and foregoing Resolution is truly copied from the Records of the Proceeding of the Board of County Commissioners for said Garfield County, now in my office. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said County, at Glenwood Springs, this day of , A.D. 19 . County Clerk and ex-ollicio Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners iSiFl S, E Q�1-1P-E6te, iGS AT [Qc11M�Nr L\ 1 La-?QL.I�LPI1or{ The following described lauds In Sections 25 and 36 T75, R0041 of the 6th P.M. Those portions of lots 0, 9, 10, 15, and 16 Section 25 lying In the 5! of 5! of Section 25 and lots 2 and 3 In Section 36 excepting any part of the above named lots in Sections 25 and 36 lying southerly of the northerly 0041 of State Highway 02 and excepting any part of the above named lots in Section 25 lying withiu.lhe parcel of laud described iu the quit claim Deed document number 2110920, nook 516, Page 393. Also, excepting that portion of lot 16. in Sectio; 25 lying southerly of the centerline of the Basin Ditch. BOOK 8b., G.Gi 589 496866 9-988 P-140 08/06/96 01:29P PG 1 OF 4 REC DOC NOT MILDRED ALSDORF GARFIELD COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER 0.00 STATE OF COLORADO ) )ss County of Garfield ) At a rQgiti Z a r meeting of the Board of County Commissioners for Garfield County, Colorado, held in the Commissioners' Meeting Room, Garfield County Courthouse, in Glenwood Springs on Monday , the 3rd _ day of June A.D. 19 96 , there were present: Marian I. Smith , Commissioner Chairman Arnold L. Mackley Commissioner Elmer (Buckey) Arbaney , Commissioner Doh DeFord , County Attorney Mildred Alsdorf , Clerk of the Board Chuck Deschenes , County Administrator when the following proceedings, among others were had and done, to -wit: RESOLUTION NO. 96-48 A RESOLUTION CONCERNED WITH THE APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR THE WESTERN SLOPE AGGREGATES. WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County, Colorado, has received application from Western Slope Aggregates to amend Resolution 81-384 on the following described tracts of land See Attachment A (in the State of Colorado and the County of Garfield); and WHEREAS, the Board held a public hearing on the 15th day of April 1996, and continued the hearing to the 3rd day of June 1996, upon the question of whether the above-described amendment to a Special Use Permit should be granted or denied, at which hearing the public and interested persons were given the opportunity to express their opinions regarding the issuance of said amended Special Use Permit; and WHEREAS, the Board on the basis of substantial competent evidence produced at the aforementioned hearing, has made the following determination of fact: 1. That proper publication and public notice was provided as required by law for the hearing before the Board of County Commissioners. 2. That the hearing before the Board of County Commissioners was extensive and complete, that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted and that all interested parties were heard at that hearing. EXHIBIT 496866 B-988 P-141 08/06/96 01: BG 2 OF 4 3. That the application is in compliance with the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended. 4. For the above stated and other reasons, the proposed use is in the best interest of the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Geld County, Colorado, that the Amendment of the Special Use Permit be and hereby is authorized permitting the use of the above described tract of land for a guest house, upon the following specific conditions: 1. Alt proposals of the applicant shall be considered conditions of approval unless stated otherwise by the Board of County Commissioners. 2. All truck operating shall be subject to the following: a. All trucks operating in or out of the pit shall have and maintain stock muffler systems, that are performing to original manufacturers specifications. This can be determined and verified by simple visual and auditory inspection of the truck. b. All trucks ascending or descending the haul route shall not exceed speeds of 10 mph. c. All truck descending the haul route or approaching the haul route access on SH 82 shall not use engine jake Brakes to decelerate. d. All truck drivers, independent or employed by the applicant shall be briefed as the conditions 2a. -c. above and shall agree to operate within the requirement of these stipulations. e. The applicant shall set up a series of progressive consequences for drivers that fail to comply with conditions 2a. -d.. 3. Hauling hours for the Highway 82 access will be limited to 7 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday thru Saturday, and the access to County Road 104 will be gated before and after those hours. Additionally, no trucks will be allowed to stand idle on the highway or access road prior to the opening of the gate to the pit. 4. All other conditions of approval contained in Resolution 81-384 must be complied with by the applicant. Violation of these conditions could result in revocation of the existing SUP. 5. That the application be subject to one annual review, with public notice as required by the regulations in place at the time of the review, to determine compliance with the conditions of approval and the need for subsequent reviews would be determined at that review.. 6. The revegetation plan submitted at the hearing shall be maintained as proposed and any trees or vegetation that dies, will be replaced. 7, Thehard surface of the haul road- shall. bemaintained. ina rut anddust free. condition. 496866 B-988 P-142 08/06/96 O. P PG 3 OF 4 Dated this 5th day of August ATTEST: 172-/-14-4-44 Clerk ofthe-Board vote: A.D. 19 96 GARFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO Chairman Upon motion duly made and seconded the foregoing Resolution was adopted by the following Marian I. Smith Arnold L. Mackley Elmer (Buckey) Arbaney STATE OF COLORADO ) )ss County of Garfield ) Aye Aye Aye I, County Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners in and for the County and State aforesaid do hereby certify that the annexed and foregoing Resolution is truly copied from the Records of the Proceeding of the Board of County Commissioners for said Garfield County, now in my office. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said County, at Glenwood Springs, this day of , A.D. 19 County Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners 496866 11-988 P-143 08/06/96 O1:29P PG 4 OF 4 The following described lands in Sections. 25 and 36 T7S, 0088 of the 6th P.M. Those portions of lots 8, 9, 10, 15, and 16 Section 25 lying in the S1 of SJ of Section 25 and lots 2 and 3 in Section 36 excepting any part of the above named lots in Sections 25 and 36 lying southerly of the northerly R0W of State highway 82 and excepting any part of the above named lots in Section 25 lying within the parcel of land described iii the (suit Claim Deed document number 280920, Book 516, Page 393. Also, excepting that portion of lot 16- in Section 25 lying southerly of the centerline of the Basin Ditch. Tom Veljic From: Roussin, Daniel[Daniel.Roussin@DOT.STATE.CO.US] Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2010 4:52 PM To: Tom Veljic Subject: Blue Pit on SH 82 Thank you for the opportunity to review Blue Pit application on SH 82. This project will expand existing gravel operation to another part of the Blue property. The existing access for this project is on SH 82. The applicant has been working with CDOT. The applicant has provides an access permit application to update the old access permit. The applicant has provided a traffic study with application. At this time, CDOT is reviewing the traffic study. Conceptually, CDOT has no issue using the existing access for the gravel pit operation. CDOT will require the applicant to improve the auxiliary lanes to CDOT standards. They agreed to do this within 3 years. Long-term, once the gravel pit operation is completed, the applicant has agreed to close the access and use County Road network to access the property. We will keep the County posted on this application. Thanks Dan Roussin Region 3 Permit Unit Manager 222 South 6th Street, Room 100 Grand Junction, CO 81501 970-683-6284 Office 970-683-6291 Fax 1 RECEIVED AUG 02 2010 GARFIE .) COUNTY BUILDING & PLANNING July 29, 2010 Planning Department Garfield County 108 Eighth Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: Western Slope Aggregates, Inc. proposal To Whom It May Concern: 3 2 EXHIBIT Permanently preserving open lands for agriculture, wildlife, scenic enjoyment and recreation Aspen Valley Land Trust holds a conservation easement on approximately 165 acres adjacent to the area proposed for a gravel pit expansion on Sunnyside Ranch (Blue property) by Western Slope Aggregate. While the conserved land itself will not be disturbed by activity on adjacent lands, AVLT would ask that the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners consider potential off-site impacts to some of the important conservation values on the Blue property. The southeast portion of the conservation easement, like the proposed expansion area, consists of irrigated hayfields, which are productive agricultural lands in the summer and seasonal habitat for both deer and elk. The wooded hillside portion of the easement north of the proposed expansion is part of greater winter range, severe winter range and winter concentration areas for both elk and mule deer, as designated by the Colorado Division of Wildlife. The same mix of agricultural land and native habitat also supports nine wildlife species known or likely to occur on the property, which are designated as having special status as threatened or endangered species on a statewide or global ranking system. Thank you for the notice of application and your consideration of the long-term protection of adjacent agricultural and habitat lands in your deliberations. Sincerely, /44fr Martha Cochran Executive Director Aspen Walley Land Trust 320 Main Street • Suite 204 • Carbondale, Colorado 81623 • 970.963.8440 phone • 970.963.8441 fax www.avlt.org ■ ■ ■ ■ :ROM : ASPEN GLENRIDGE CORP PHONE NO. : 970 963 3928 Aug. 23 ; Barbara Tunicli(fi? 12694 Hwy 82 Carbondale, Colo. 81623 Ph 963 2561 Fax 963 3928 Aug 22 2010 Tresi Houpt Garfield County Commissioner rw� 929. 9!°'+ Tresi, EXHIBIT Unfortunately, 1 was unable to be at the August 11 meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission to voice my opinion regarding the proposed two gravel pits and asphalt plant in Crystal Springs. From all accounts it seerns that the planning and zoning had already made up the minds to grant permission before the meeting. . The County Commissioners, it appears have the last word. Since neither Lafarge or Western Slope Aggregates could show there is an immediate need for such a Targe operation, in what 1 think is a residential area, I see no reason to rush this. There is 10 years of gravel in the existing gravel pit, and I do not believe for one moment that they will shut that down when the two pits start operating! Surely they could be made to re submit their application in five years down the road, when the economy changes, as non of us know what will happen in the future. The cumulative impact on wildlife, and humans is not measurable until after the fact.., Let these two companies slow down, as things may change. Sin:-ly f W ara Tunnicli PS Of course I will be more than pleased to display your political advertisements. Crystal Springs Coalition Membership as of August 11, 2010 -j a1 Kirk and Susan Alexander Steve Avery 504 Gracefand Dr. Carbondale Gwen Ballard 0389 Stagecoach Ln Carbondale Clare Bastable Greystone Drive Carbondale George and Marti Clemons 980 Wooden Deer Carbondale Sue and Chris Coyle 501 Wooden Deer Rd Carbondale Bruce and Jaren Ducker 328 Surrey Street Carbondale Jane Ogden Bill Emmerson 3714 County Road 103 Carbondale Manuel & Gisela Epelbaum 5359 County Road 100 Carbondale Jon and Lucie Fitch 104 Wooden Deer Rd Carbondale Mike & Barbara Gerber 85 Stagecoach Ln Carbondale Peter & Mike Gilbert 4480 County Road 100 Carbondale Leslie Eustis Hallowell c/o LeeAnn Eustis PO Box 2 Carbondale Michael and Lenore Hammes 5363 CR 100 Carbondale Caroline and Peter Hanson 470 Wooden Deer Rd Carbondale Glenn and Susan Harris 319 CR 104 Carbondale Rick & Denise Hayes 468 County Road 112 Carbondale Tom and Marilyn Hays 593 Wooden Deer Rd Carbondale Katherine Hubbard 550 Wooden Deer Rd Carbondale Kip & Robyn Hubbard 2110 CR 112 Carbondale Dan and Mimi Jervis 276 Wooden Deer Rd Carbondale Randy and Pam Johnson 3059 CR103 Carbondale Janet & Arvid Johnson 0471 CR 112 Carbondale Janet Early Katie Soden 2366 CR 112 Road Carbondale Susan & Richard Kirk 0525 Cactus Flats Rd Carbondale Ernie and Barb Kollar 746 Wooden Deer Rd Carbondale Calvin Lee 811 Blake Ave Glenwood Springs James Suris Charmaine Locke 7455 CR 100 Carbondale Laurie Loeb 318 Garfield Ave Carbondale Dick and Connie McCrudden 499 Wooden Deer Rd Carbondale Alleghany and Jill Meadows 0073 Rocky Road Carbondale Shannon & Dave Meyer 1493 County Road 106 Carbondale Bob and Ashley Naegele 1104 County Road 112 Carbondale Susan Proctor 3755 County Road 103 Carbondale Robert & Joyce Rankin 773 County Road 112 Carbondale Gary and Ester Skibowski 699 Wooden Deer Rd Carbondale Kit & Mike Strang 0393 County Road 100 Carbondale Mark Kavasch Susan Lau 152 Wooden Deer Rd Carbondale John & Nancy Thorpe 38 Stagecoach Circle Carbondale Gene and Christine Upperstrom 650 Wooden Deer Rd Carbondale Gordon & Dale Viberg County Road 103 Carbondale EXHIBIT 11 OLD ORCHARD ROAD Carbondale Chuck and Linda Vidal 855 Wooden Deer Rd Carbondale Sarah Gary William Burggraf 805 Wooden Deer Rd Carbondale Carolyn & Greg Williams Morrison Dr. Carbondale EXHIBIT' Fred Jarman From: Tresi Houpt Sent: Monday, August 30, 2010 11:28 AM To: pburke@sopris.net; Fred Jarman Subject: RE: Gravel Pits at the bottom of Crystal Springs Road Thank you very much for sharing your concerns. I am forwarding your email to our Planning Director Fred Jarman, so that your comments can be included in the application packets. Tresi Haupt From: Patrick Burke [mailto:pburke@sopris.net] Sent: Tue 8/24/2010 9:47 AM To: Mike Samson; Tresi Houpt; John Martin Subject: Gravel Pits at the bottom of Crystal Springs Road Garfield County Board of County Commissioners Mike Samson Tresi Houpt John Martin 8/24/10 Commissioners, I am the property owner of 0483 County Road 112 and have 40 acres of land that has been in my family for over 25+ years. I grew up and now own this land and have seen the valley change in many ways. Expanding both of the proposed pits without regard to the local environment and those who live and plan to live in the valley for the years ahead seems at odds with the very nature of the beautiful area I am proud to call home. Specifically I am concerned with the following: the pits are not being considered in conjunction with one another, wildlife will clearly be impacted in and adverse way, truck traffic will increase on 82 and 103 making the turn onto 82 more dangerous than it already is, and the noise and dust pollution from the pits which is already an issue for those of us living in the area will only get worse most likely dramatically so. I urge you to please protect the area from the expansion of both of these Pits. If you need to contact me please email at these address pburke@sopris.net, sopris.net, my cell phone is 917-488-9221, and my mailing address is PO BOX 235, Carbondale, CO 81623. Many thanks for your attention to the above matter and your continued service to an area this is truly unique and that we are all fortunate to call home. Patrick T. Burke 0483 County Road 112 Carbondale, CO 1 Fred Jarman From: Tresi Houpt Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2010 9:13 AM To: oldouzel@q.com Cc: Fred Jarman Subject: FW: more gravel pits? Thank you for sharing your comments. I am forwarding this message on to our Planning Director Fred Jarman, so that he may add your email to the packet that will come before us. My Best, Tresi From: Bruce Ducker [mailto:oldouzel@q.com] Sent: Sat 8/7/2010 12:51 PM To: Mike Samson; Tresi Houpt; John Martin Subject: more gravel pits? Dear Garfield Commissioners: 1 write to express my hope that you will oppose the proposal for new gravel pits at the end of Crystal Springs Road. My wife and 1 own a home directly opposite the LaFarge Operations, and 1 can promise you their presence is a disruption, and the traffic presents a growing safety hazard. By supporting this you would be conferring an economic benefit on the few (LaFarge and WSA), at the cost of all of the home owners in the area, since it will result in a decline of property values. And the dust and the noise and the traffic ---these are not economic damages, but are real factors that contribute to the decline of the way of life here in our county. Thanks for your consideration. Jaren and Bruce Ducker 328 Surrey St. Carbondale CO 1 August 18, 2010 Garfield County Commissioner Houpt Garfield County Board of Commissioners 108 8th Street Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Dear Garfield County Commissioner Houpt: K. U. Hubs 0550 Wooden Deer Carbondale, CO 81623 EXHIBIT I wish to express my concerns regarding the expansion plans of the "Blue Pit" gravel mine managed by Western Slope Aggregates on Highway 82, Carbondale, Colorado, and ask that you refuse to grant them permission for this expansion. There does not at this time seem to be any immediate need for this expansion. They have stated that they already have permission to mine more that what they estimate to be the next ten years worth of demand. Enlarging their operations beyond what they already have permission to mine would not be compatible with the residential nature of this beautiful area, and the visual impact appalling. Noise and dust are already a problem, and this will only get worse as they operate closer to homes. Late fall, winter and spring the hayfields that will be devoured have been home to upwards of one hundred elk. Where will they go ... to the shoulders of 82? This area is also home to mule deer, bear, raccoons, bobcats, mountain lions, wild turkeys, eagles, hawks and owls. Please do not let their home and ours become an industrial wasteland! Thank you for your consideration. Very truly yours, Kdtherine U. Hubbard October 8, 2010 EXHIBIT 1A4 Dear Garfield County Board of Commissioners & Garfield County Planning Commissioners; I am writing to ask that you consider heavily your decision regarding the Blue Gravel Pit expansion (to be leased to Western Slope Aggregates) as well as the creation of the Cerise Gravel Pit (to be leased to LaFarge). Do valley residents want more scarring of our beautiful ranch lands? You represent our citizens, you have the power to preserve our valley, to keep it pristine. I urge you to ask everyone you know how they feel about destroying our ranch lands? I drive by the Bair Chase development off Highway 82 and see the scar of that land and hope some day that parcel will be worked to bring grazing habitat for our wildlife, and enjoyment and beauty to our community. If the Blue Gravel Pit expansion and Cerise Pit are approved, we will all see more scarring of our pastoral lands. What does that say about who we are to the thousands of tourists who come to this area of the country because it is so magnificent? It says that we don't value the land. Very few places in the world have views like those of the Roaring Fork Valley and Mount Sopris. In the developing Garfield County Comprehensive Plan this area is coded as Important Farm Land (see Atlas Map 16, Appendix 3, page 18). Do we want to remove important farm land from our community? We need these lands. The effect of the expansion of the Blue Pit and the creation of the Cerise Pit will decrease the value of neighboring properties. Please have this confirmed by the Garfield County Assessor. These pits will be visible from County Road 103 and their activity will impact the property values and quality of life of not just the residents directly upslope from the pits, but many more in Missouri Heights and also The Ranch at Roaring Fork community as well as the Bailey Ranch. I encourage you and every person I meet to drive up Highway 82 to County Road 103 (just past the existing LaFarge Gravel Pit) and then turn right onto Blue Road, (County Road 104) take a look at the gorgeous views across the green meadow and Mt. Sopris beyond! It's heavenly up there! Please also keep in mind that LaFarge is a foreign owned company. Is it prudent to allow a foreign company to dominate our local economy? My guess is that the people of France got tired of LaFarge building gravel pits so they decided to come to the US to take over and become one of the top four US producers of aggregate. When both of the existing gravel pits were originally approved it was for a specified area. If Western Slope and LaFarge had applied for the Special Use Permit for such a vast area, they would have been denied. I urge you to consider the scope of the total area, not just the expansion. The reasoning shouldn't be: 'Well, there are 2 gravel pits there now, 2 more can't hurt." The damage is too severe. Who wants to look at a big hole in the ground? Perhaps these projects should not come before the Board until their existing gravel pits are reclaimed. If the operators do a good job in the reclamation then and only then should they even be allowed to apply for another Special Use Permit. What is best for the County and our residents as a whole? We have a duty to ensure that these existing pits are restored when they 121 Stagecoach Drive • Carbondale Colorado • 81623 • 970-963-7363 are at their life's end. If you grant approval for expansion, you have delayed the reclamation as well as the motivation to do a good job with the reclamation. How many more gravel pits do we need? The Blue Gravel Pit I've heard has 10+ years of productivity and LaFarge still has their pit on County Road 109. Wouldn't it be better to wait until there is a need for more gravel before we ruin our land? The thought of seeing all that topsoil stripped and then waiting for another building boom makes my feel sick. That land will never be used as farm land again. Yes the owners of that land own it, but should you allow them to ruin it? They own it now, but in truth they are stealing it, because no one will ever be able to farm that land in the future. In essence they will have stripped it of all value for themselves, while leaving wasted land behind and at the same time destroying the value of the land around them. It's up to you to serve the greater good. Sincerely, Christie Jensen Carbondale 121 Stagecoach Drive • Carbondale Colorado • 81623 • 970-963-7363 Commissioner John Martin Garfield County Board of Commissioners 108 8(h Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Jonathan Fitch 0104 Wooden Deer Road Carbondale, CO 81623 Dear Commissioner Martin: The subject is gravel pits. The theme is NEED vs. GREED. As a resident of the Wooden Deer subdivision in Carbondale, and a member of the Crystal Springs Coalition, some 100 members strong and growing, I stand to lose a lot should the permit application for Western Slope Aggregate (WSA/Blue Pit), before the Board of Commissioners on 18, October 2010, be approved in full. Even more is at stake when the Lafarge/Cerise Mine permit application for a brand new gravel pit, located cheek by jowl to the WSA/Blue Pit, wends its way through the process later this year. It seems to me unwise for the Board to make a decision on the WSA application without full knowledge and consideration of the Cerise Mine application and the effects that mine would have on all interested parties. Bill Roberts, who claims to own 100% of the mineral rights to the WSAIB1ue Pit, is asking for an immense 64 -acre expansion of the existing pit. The use of the term GREED in the theme of this letter focuses on Bill Roberts and to a lesser extent the Blue and Cerise families. A very small group of people stand to benefit from the expanded/new pits on the backs of a larger group of land and homeowners, whose quality of life and property values are bound to be affected adversely as the projects build out. Bill Roberts and his consultants appraised the Wooden Deer Association (which has become more inclusive of other interested parties as the Crystal Springs Coalition) of his plans earlier in the year. He seems like a pleasant fellow, and has been described to me as an excellent pit operator and the consummate "good old boy"; someone I might like at my back in a firefight. Nevertheless, it seems clear this application is Bill Roberts' swan song, that the probability is high he will either cash in his chips altogether by way of sale or clip coupons long into the future and his family even beyond that future. Various promises were made to us about how the permit will play out, how it will be mined in four sections, totally hidden from view and completely reclaimed as mining moves from one section to another, first across our view plane and then directly toward us. It is fair to say, I think, that the people (highly paid consultants) making these claims and promises to us will most likely fade from the scene in relatively short order and we, as a coalition, will be stuck only with the language in the governing documents to ensure that promises become reality and to give us clear recourse as to enforcement. To that end, we are hopeful the Board of Commissioners will ensure that what may be approved is state of the art as to the methodology for enforcing persuasive claims made to win the permit as these claims relate to decibel levels, dust clouds, wildlife impacts, hours of operation, crusher operations, placement of crushers, use of temporary asphalt plants, transportation levels, ongoing reclamation claims and final reclamation plans; this list not necessarily being all-inclusive. Concession should be made that the GREED factor involved here is understandable as a predictable quality of human nature as it affects the profit motive of the pit families and the equally predictable corollary; that of total disregard for the neighbors adversely affected. The NEED aspect of Page 1 of 4 the expanding WSA/Blue Pit and the proposed new Lafarge/Cerise mine holds a much more telling and important set of considerations for the board. The board may feel it's important to initiate a study as to future CountyNalley NEED going out 50 to 100 years (more on that to follow). To that end, the board may decide to table the WSA/Blue application and any other applications pending such a review. The coalition favors that notion. Currently four gravel pits exist in the Roaring Fork Valley, with a fifth seeking a permit. For this discussion, all the gravel pits in Silt and environs are not noted. Should the board initiate a comprehensive study about future NEED versus existing supply, the existing holdings in these pits, which are truly considerable, would be added to the supply factor I will now describe. First: The ELAM pit in the Woody Creek area of Pitkin County recently received a 20 year extension on their lease. The manager of that plant, Dave Hiberger, told me they have enough gravel to supply the ENTIRE valley for the next 20 years. In addition, he said they have a non-mobile asphalt plant there that can produce 300 tons an hour, 6 days a week. He said the Siever pit near Aspen Glen has an identical plant. Neither plant, even in robust times, has ever operated at full capacity. He scoffed at the need for a third asphalt plant, which the Cerise mine is planning for and which should be rejected outright if the entire application is not rejected altogether, an outcome the Crystal Valley Coalition favors unanimously. Second: The Sievers pit, located near Aspen Glen and owned by Lafarge, has 10 to 15 years of production left and a lease lasting 80 years. As mentioned, the other non-mobile asphalt plant in the valley is located there. This is Lafarge's headquarters on the Western slope. Third: The Lafarge/Powers pit is located on Rout 82 in Carbondale at the edge of County 103 road. This pit is scheduled to wind down and undergo the reclaiming process over the next two years. Word has it that Mrs. Powers is being petitioned by Lafarge to allow for some equipment storage there and perhaps a truck turnaround associated with their pending application to develop the Cerise Ranch as a NEW gravel pit located just across County 103 Road. I cannot resist the temptation to scold the County for allowing this pit to be one of the biggest polluters in the valley and certainly the worst eyesore bar none. Directly across Route 82, Tom Bailey screened his entire Iron Rose ranch with trees that cost no more than $5 to $10 each, according to Bob O'Brien, who was responsible for the planting and much of the ranch construction. Lafarge did not pick up on the example and, as far as I know, the County never formally requested Lafarge to erect screening. Even if screening was never contemplated in the origins of the pit, I am confident Lafarge would have complied looking ahead to future applications before the board; a green opportunity lost, it seems to me. For the record, Lafarge is a French company and trades on the New York Stock Exchange. Fourth: The WSA/Blue Pit is located across from the Ranch at Roaring Fork on Highway 82, leased from the Blue family and just east of the proposed Lafarge/Cerise mine. Indeed, if WSA gets the new permit, their operations will, in time, be separated from the Lafarge/Cerise mine by a matter of yards. The families living above these lands will be faced with a horizon of wall-to-wall gravel pit. WSA/Blue is capable of producing 450,000 tons of gravel a year. Currently, the production level is 50,000 tons, 119th of capacity. Under their current permit, WSA has admitted to a supply lasting 8 years AT FULL CAPCITY. If current production levels persisted forever, then the supply would last for 72 years. The truth is in the middle. It seems realistic if not conservative, to place the years left under the existing permit at 16-20 years, certainly plenty of time to table the application and other applications in favor of a comprehensive study and review about the NEED side of the equation. There is absolutely no case for rushing to judgement other than accommodating a few families Page 2 of 4 wishing to assure their financial future against the wishes of a growing coterie of neighbors. An interesting statistic put forward by Bill Roberts is that approximately 60% of WSA/Blue production goes to projects in Pitkin County. If WSA/Blue gets all the permitting requested, given the current levels of production, then supply involved would last over 100 years into the future. Should the Board of Commissioners reject the suggestion for a comprehensive study as to need versus supply, then the coalition requests the following: 1. Grant WSA/Blue on 50% of the requested permit. 2. Confine that permit to the southern and western half of the proposed 64 -acre expansion. A Lafarge representative told me that the abundance and quality of stone increases the closer to the river it is located. 3. Coupled with the estimated life of 16-20 years of supply under the current permit, this would give WSA/Blue 50 to 100 years of supply and prevent the movement of the mining northward towards the adversely affected and very worried residents. 4. This partial grant would give the County ample time to gauge the future NEED for the use of gravel in construction projects and provide more flexibility than granting 100% of all applications should technological advancements in construction make the use of gravel needed less or outmoded entirely. 5. By granting 50% of the WSA/Blue request, the board would be in a much more justifiable position to completely turn down the Lafarge/Cerise application because it piles on capacity to a valley and county clearly over -capacitated already as the 1/9 current production at WSA/Blue shows. 6. The Lafarge/Cerise mine application, which will reach the board later this year or early next, should be totally rejected as a clear case of overkill. Besides the usual arguments of added noise, added pollution, added unsightly mess, wildlife dislocations, and the proposed asphalt plant (this intention was presented by Lafarge to the coalition this summer at a meeting in the Carbondale Town Hall), the increased truck tonnage on County Road 103 will be permanent and change the rural nature and safety on that road for the life of the mine. Given the probable production levels over the immediate future, the Cerise mine will last way, way beyond the 15 years Lafarge is selling. They know it, the Coalition knows it, and we hope the board realizes that the Lafarge/Cerise mine could be around for 135 years based on the current 50,000 -ton annual output of WSA/Blue. The NEED could be that low. Your diligence in reading this far is appreciated. I have heard from a lot of people that these mine extensions/creation applications are done deals, that the Garfield County Commissioners have always granted approval, and that the subsequent policy of the written agreements has been essentially toothless in holding the operators to promises made in the heat and frenzy of gaining approvals. Perhaps the time has come for the board to change perceptions and realities. The current application of WSA/Blue and the approaching application of Lafarge/Cerise offers the perfect chance for the board to signal a change in the "business as usual" mantra. By granting WSA/Blue 50% of their request and taking an active roll in assuring their written agreements protect the residents and have enforcement teeth, such a signal would be loud and clear. Perhaps it is time for the board to appoint a Garfield County agency available to Garfield County residents to file complaints and to facilitate following and enforcing remediation of violations. Page 3 of 4 By turning down the pending Lafarge/Cerise application in total, an additional signal would be sent that the board is sensitive to not creating over -capacity versus the disruption of the lifestyle of many tax -paying residents and to the utter chaos constant trucking would create on County Road 103. By turning away from business as usual, the county will demonstrate it has the power and will to create time for itself to investigate future NEED and to put forth rules on gravel pit creation and operation that it can enforce. I just got off the phone with someone associated with the Lafarge/Cerise application who told me, "Colorado is a right to mine state. The county can't do a thing about it." I hope the Board of Commissioners rules against that horrific notion. Respectfully submitted, Jonathan Fitch Member, Crystal Springs Coalition Jolufitch'cUr�optonline.net Cc: Mike Samson, Garfield County Board of Commissioners Tresi Haupt, Garfield County Board of Commissioners �� Various Interested Parties Page 4 of 4 Residents of the Roaring Fork Valley-- and anyone who cares about preserving our beautiful valley-- should be aware that there could soon be TWO gravel pits at the bottom of County Road 103, also known as Crystal Springs Road. Western Slope Aggregate (WSA) and Lafarge intend to move their current operations to the irrigated pastures just east of Crystal Springs Road. If both companies are successful in being permitted, it would mean almost 160 acres of contiguous gravel pits in this small areal The Crystal Springs Coalition (CSC) is a rapidly -growing group of residents who are deeply concerned about these proposals and the impacts they would have on our environment and our community. You can reach us by emailing crystalspringscoalition@gmail.com. WSA proposes to expand an additional 64 acres, even though it has an estimated 10 years of production left at its present site. Lafarge wants to lease an additional 100 acres adjacent to the new WSA site and use CR 103 as its ingress/ egress road. For those not familiar with CR 103, it is a narrow, winding county road used by local residents, bikers and school buses. The increased volume (meaning both noise level and number of vehicles) will not only be a nuisance to local residents, but it will also create considerably more congestion on 103 and at the intersection of 103 and Highway 82. Why should you care? What can ou do? 160 acres of gravel operations, including a "temporary" asphalt plant at Lafarge, are NOT compatible with the residential and agricultural character of the Crystal Springs area. • Noise from truck traffic, back-up beepers, rock crushers and other mechanized equipment will be an even greater disturbance than it currently is. • Fine particulate matter from gravel operations are linked to health hazards including cardiopulmonary disease, asthma, bronchitis, and emphysema, particularly among the elderly and the young. Crystalline silica dust is a common by-product of gravel processing and is a known carcinogen. • Wildlife will be negatively impacted. These fields are the habitat for large herds of elk in the fall and winter as well as many other forms of wildlife year-round, including mule deer, eagles, hawks, coyotes, wild turkeys and many more. • Dust from gravel operations, already a far-reaching nuisance, will only increase as it covers houses, cars, windows, and infiltrates the air we breathe, • JOIN the Crystal Springs Coalition and receive email/ phone updates about the latest developments. • ENCOURAGE your neighbors to join. • WRITE OR EMAIL your County Commissioners John Martin, Tresi Houpt and Mike Samson. • WRITE LETTERS to our local newspapers. • STAY INVOLVED! There will be more public meetings, and we need many voices to be heard! If CSC has your contact information, you will be notified of all hearings. As residents of this beautiful Roaring Fork Valley, we have the right to protect the amenities that drew us here as well as the values of our homes and our community. _ (•, crystalspringscoalition @gmail. com more information: www.nomorepits.weebly.com EXHIBIT C� September 13, 2010 Mr. Sean Mello Western Slope Aggregate 304 Highway 133 Carbondale, Co 81623 Re: Western Slope Aggregate / Carbondale 'Blue Pit' Proposed Siphon @ Basin Ditch Dear Sean, Per your meeting on Wednesday September 8th with the Basin Ditch Board, we agree in principal to the Schematic Design of the Siphon Pipe proposed for the Basin Ditch on the Blue Pit property. Final acceptance will be contingent upon approved engineering drawings. The plan reviewed was titled `Western Slope Aggregate — Blue Pit — Map C-2 - Mine Pian Map' by Greg Lewicki and Associates dated 12/14/09. Sincerely, Ja -s R. Pitts Press 4 ent Basin Ditch Company Region 3 Traffic Section 222 S. Sixth St., Room 100 Grand Junction, Colorado 81501 (970) 683-6284 Fax:(970) 683-6290 September 29, 2010 ATTN: Sean Mello Western Slope Aggregate 0304 Hwy 133 Carbondale, CO 81623 STATE OF COLO r m ��� DITARTMEtii OF TRANSPORTA71ON RE: State Highway Access Permit No. 310112, Located on Highway 082, Milepost 14.66, in Garfield County. Dear Permittee or Applicant: The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) has received your signed permit and application fee. A copy of the issued permit is enclosed. The next step in the CDOT access permitting process is for you (Applicant) to obtain a Notice to Proceed (NTP). Failure to obtain an approved Notice to Proceed prior to any construction will be a violation of the State Highway Access Code (2 CCR 601.-1,"the Code") § 2.4. Notice to Proceed Information Well in advance of construction, the Applicant shall request a NTP in writing along with submitting other items, such as construction drawings, specifications, and other required documents to CDOT. The Applicant must submit a complete packet of this information to CDOT with their written request. If the Applicant chooses not to request the NTP, the permit expires pursuant to subsection 2.3(11)(d). CDOT has seven days to determine if the NTP submittal is complete for review and then notify the applicant of any deficiencies. If complete, CDOT will review and comment on the submitted information within 30 -days. If CDOT determines the information is unacceptable, missing, or in need of correction, the Applicant shall con-ect their submittal and resubmit the complete request for NTP. Once resubmitted, CDOT will review the revised NTP documents within 10 -days. If the revised documents are satisfactory, CDOT will issue a NTP. If further corrections are necessary, the cycle of submittal, review and comments will repeat itself until approval is granted and the NTP is issued. The request for NTP shall include the following documents, along with any other items specified in the Terms and Conditions of your permit: 1) Cover Letter Requesting a NTP 2) Traffic Control Plan The traffic control plan must be: A. Consistent with CDOT Standard Plans Manual for Maintenance and Signing B. Consistent with the MUTCD C. Prepared by individual with American Traffic Safety Services Association (ATSSA) or Colorado Contractors Association certification — or sealed (stamped) by a Colorado registered professional engineer D. Acceptable to CDOT prior to any construction within the right-of-way E. Presented in a manner that provides a method of handling traffic (MHT) for each different phase of construction. The MHT will describe proposed construction phasing and will include dimensioned diagrams of work zone elements. The final traffic control plan must be submitted a minimum of three working days in advance of construction. Such plans may be revised as necessary with CDOT concurrence. 3) Insurance Liability Certification The Applicant or contractor shall be required to provide a comprehensive general liability and property damage insurance naming CDOT as an additional insured party, in the amounts of not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence and automobile liability insurance of $1,000,000 combined single limit bodily injury and property damage for each accident, during the period of access construction. 4) Complete Construction Plans The Applicant shall provide ten copies of construction plans and specifications for the proposed improvements. The plans shall: A. Address, as applicable, geometry, drainage, striping, signing, and signalization B. Include, but not limited to, layout of the access, highway improvements, utility locations, present and proposed drainage, present and proposed right-of-way lines, present and proposed traffic control devices, and clear zone analysis C. Sealed by a Colorado Professional Engineer in accordance with CRS 12-25-117 D. Conform to the requirement of the permit terms and conditions E. Include the following statement on the cover page of the plans: "This design is in full compliance with Section 4 of the State Highway Access Code, 2 CCR 601-1 except for the following approved design waivers:" 5) Construction Progress Schedule The Applicant shall provide a construction progress schedule that identifies all critical path items including but not limited to excavation, embankment, surfacing, culvert installation, traffic control placement and removal, and access construction completion. 6) Notice to Proceed Checklist The Applicant shall provide a completed NTP Checklist. The Engineer Design Certificate shall be completed, signed, and sealed by the Engineer of Record (See page 13). Complete and provide all required items marked with an "X" on this checklist and then mark an "X" of in the provided column. This Checklist and associated plans and specifications will be included as exhibits to the NTP. 7) Signed and Sealed Drainage Report or Narrative 8) Performance Bonds The performance bond must be at least 110% of the estimated total highway construction costs. Bonding agency must be licensed to do business in the State of Colorado. A cost estimate, sealed by a Colorado registered professional engineer, and a draft of each bond must be provided and approved by CDOT, prior to issuing a NTP. 9) Pre -construction Meeting Meeting shall be scheduled between, but not limited to, Applicant, a CDOT representative, construction personnel, Traffic Control Supervisor, and Permittee (if other than Applicant). 10) A construction schedule will be required at the pre -construction meeting Please call to schedule a pre -design meeting with a CDOT engineer at (970) 683-6284. This meeting will go over all items that shall need to be submitted with the NTP. Respectfully, Com- Rig +M Dan Roussin Region 3 Access Manager CC F;�„ COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Environmental Clearances Information Summary PURPOSE - This summary is intended to inform entities external to CDOT that may be entering the state highway right-of-way to perform work related to their own facilities (such as Utility, Special Use or Access Permittees), about some of the more commonly encountered environmental permits/clearances that may apply to their activities. This listing is not all-inclusive - additional environmental or cultural resource permits/clearances may be required in certain instances. Appropriate local, state and federal agencies should be contacted for additional information if there is any uncertainty about what permits/clearances are required for a specific activity. IMPORTANT - Please Review The Following Information Carefully - Failure to Comply With Regulatory Requirements May Result In Suspension or Revocation of Your CDOT Permit, Or Enforcement Actions By Other Agencies CLEARANCE CONTACTS - As indicated in the permit/clearance descriptions listed below, the following individuals or agencies may be contacted for additional information: • Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) - General Information - (303) 692-2035 Water Quality Control Division (WQCD) (303) 692-3500 Environmental Permitting Website http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/permits.asp. • CDOT Water Quality Program Manager; Rick Willard (303) 757-9343 • CDOT Asbestos Project Manager; Julia Horn (303) 512-5519 • Colorado Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation: (303) 866-3395 • U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, District Regulatory Offices Omaha District (NE Colorado), Denver Office (303) 979-4120 http://www.nwo.usace.armv.mil/html/od-tl/tri-lakes.html Sacramento Dist. (Western CO), Grand Junction Office (970) 243-1199 http://www.spk.usace.armv.mil/cespk-co/requlatory/ Albuquerque District (SE Colorado), Pueblo Reg. Office (719)-543-6915 http://www.spa.usace.armv.mil/req/ • CDOT Utilities, Special Use and Access Permitting: (303) 757-9654 http://www.dot.state.co.us/Permits/ Ecological Resources - Disturbance of wildlife shall be avoided to the maximum extent practicable. Entry into areas of known or suspected threatened or endangered species habitat will require special authorization from the CDOT permitting office. If any threatened or endangered species are encountered during the progress of the permitted work, work in the subject area shall be halted and the CDOT Regional Permitting Office and Regional Planning and Environmental Manager shall be contacted immediately. Authorization must be provided by CDOT prior to the continuation of work. Information about threatened or endangered species may be obtained from the CDOT website http://www.dot.state.co.us/environmental,wildlife/Guidelines.asp or the Colorado Division of Wildlife website http://wildlife.state.co.us,WIdlifeSpecies/SpeciesOfConcern/. Additional guidance may be provided by the Regional Permitting Office in the Permit Special Provisions. Cultural Resources - The applicant must request a file search of the permit area through the Colorado Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (OAHP), Denver, to ascertain if historic or archaeological resources have previously been identified. Inventory of the permit area by a qualified cultural resources specialist may be necessary, per the recommendation of OAHP and/or CDOT. If archaeological or historical artifacts are encountered during the progress of the permitted work, work in the subject area shall be halted and the CDOT Regional Permitting Office and Regional Planning and Environmental Manager shall be contacted immediately. Authorization must be provided by CDOT prior to the continuation of work. Additional guidance may be provided by the Regional Permitting Office in the Permit Special Provisions. Contact Information Contact the OAHP at (303) 866-3395. General Prohibition - Discharges - All discharges are subject to the provisions of the Colorado Water Quality Control Act and the Colorado Discharge Permit Regulations. Prohibited discharges include substances such as wash water, paint, automotive fluids, solvents, oils or soaps. Contact Information: Contact the CDOT Water Quality Program Manager at (303) 757-9343, or the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Water Quality Control Division (WQCD) at (303) 692-3500. General Authorization - Allowable Non-Stormwater Discharges - Unless otherwise identified by CDOT or the WQCD as significant sources of pollutants to the waters of the State, the following discharges to stormwater systems are allowed without a Colorado Discharge Permit System permit: landscape irrigation, diverted stream flows, uncontaminated ground water infiltration to separate storm sewers, discharges from potable water sources, foundation drains, air conditioning condensation, irrigation water, springs, footing drains; water line flushing, flows from riparian habitats and wetlands, and flow from fire fighting activities. Contact Information: The CDOT Water Quality Program Manager or the CDPHE Water Quality Control Division (telephone #'s listed above). '- Hazardous Materials, Solid Waste - The Solid Wastes Disposal Sites and Facilities Act C.R.S. 30-20-100, et al, and Regulations Pertaining to Solid Waste Disposal Sites and Facilities (6 CCR 1007-2), prohibit solid waste disposal without an approved Certificate of Designation (a landfill permit). The Colorado Hazardous Waste Act C.R.S. 25-15-301 et al, and the Colorado Hazardous Waste Regulations (6 CCR 1007-3) prohibit the transfer, storage or disposal (TSD) of hazardous waste except at permitted TSD sites. There are no permitted landfills or TSD sites within the State Highway Right of Way. Therefore, all solid or hazardous wastes that might be generated by the activities of entities entering the State Highway Right of Way must be removed from the ROW and disposed of at a permitted facility or designated collection point (e.g., for solid waste, a utility or construction company's own dumpster). If pre-existing solid waste or hazardous materials contamination (including oil or gasoline contaminated soil, asbestos, chemicals, mine tailings, etc.) is encountered during the performance of work, the permittee shall halt work in the affected area and immediately contact the CDOT Regional Permitting Office for direction as to how to proceed. Contact Info: Contact the CDOT/CDPHE Liaison at (303)757-9787. • Environmental Clearances Information Summary Page 1 of 3 Colorado Department of Transportation November '07 Asbestos Containing Materials, Asbestos Contaminated Soil — All work on asbestos containing materials (ACM) must comply with the applicable requirements of the CDPHE Air Pollution Control Division's (APCD) Regulation 8. Disposal of ACM, and work done in asbestos -contaminated soil, must comply with the CDHPE Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division's (HMWMD) Solid Waste Regulations. The application for any CDOT permit must specifically identify any ACM involved in the work for which authorization is being requested. Additional guidance or requirements may be specified in the permit special provisions. Contact Info: CDPHE APCD and HMWMD Regulations can be accessed via the CDPHE Environmental Permitting Website listed above. Additional information concerning clearance on CDOT proiects is available from Julia Horn, CDOT Asbestos Project Manager (303) 512-5519, or Theresa Santangelo-Dreiling, Property Management Supervisor (303) 512-5524. Construction Stormwater Permit; Stormwater Discharge From Industrial Facilities - Discharges of stormwater runoff from construction sites disturbing one acre or more - or certain types of industrial facilities - requires a CDPS Stormwater Permit. Contact Information: For Utility/Special Use activities being performed in conjunction and coordination with a CDOT highway construction contract, please contact the CDOT Water Quality Program Manager at (303) 757-9343. Otherwise, contact the CDPHE Water Quality Control Division at (303) 692-3500. Website: http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/wq/PermitsUnit/wacdpmt.html Construction Dewaterinq (Discharge or Infiltration) — Discharges of water encountered during excavation or work in wet areas may require a Construction Dewatering Discharge Permit. Contact Information: For Construction Dewatering Discharge Permits, contact the CDPHE WQCD at (303) 692-3500. Website:htt.://www.cdphe.state.co.us/w./PermitsUnit/wgcdpmt.html Minimal Industrial Discharge Permit — Discharges of small quantities of wastewater or wastewater requiring minimal treatment, such as that resulting from hydrostatic testing or certain wash waters, may require a Minimal Industrial Discharge Permit ("MINDI"). Contact Info: Contact the CDPHE WQCD at (303) 692-3500. Website: http://www.cd.he.state.co.us/wq/PermitsUnit/wgcdpmt.html. Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Discharge Permit — Discharges from the storm sewer systems of larger municipalities, and from the CDOT highway drainage system that lies within those municipalities, are subject to MS4 Permits issued by the CDPHE WQCD. For facilities that lie within the boundaries of a municipality that is subject to a MS4 permit, the owner of such facility should contact the municipality regarding stormwater related clearances that may have been established under that municipality's MS4 permit. All discharges to the CDOT highway drainage system must comply with the applicable provisions of the Colorado Water Quality Control Act and the Colorado Discharge Permit Regulations, and are subject to inspection by the CDOT and the CDHPE. Contact Information: Contact the CDPHE Water Quality Control Division at (303) 692-3500 for a listing of municipalities required to obtain MS -4 Permits, or go to http://www.cd.he.state.co.us/wq/PermitsUnit/w/ cd.mt.html#MunicipalFormsGuidance. Discharge of Dredged or Fill Material — 404 Permits Administered By the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and Section 401 Water Quality Certifications Issued by the CDPHE WQCD - Corps of Engineers 404 Permits are required for the discharge of dredged or fill materials into waters of the United States, including wetlands. There are various types of 404 Permits, including Nationwide Permits, which are issued for activities with relatively minor impacts. For example, there is a Nationwide Permit for Utility Line Activities (NWP #12). However, depending upon the specific circumstances, it is possible that either a "General" or "Individual" 404 permit would be required. If an Individual 404 Permit is required, Section 401 water quality certification from the CDPHE WQCD is also required. Contact Information: Contact the appropriate Corps District Regulatory Office for information about what type of 404 permit may be required (information provided at top of ECIS). Contact the CDPHE Water Quality Control Division at (303) 692-3500. Erosion and Sediment Control Practices - For activities requiring a Construction Stormwater Permit, erosion control requirements will be specified through that permit. In those situations where a stormwater permit is not required, all reasonable measures should be taken in order to minimize erosion and sedimentation. In either case, the CDOT Stormwater Quality and Erosion Control Guide (2002) should be used to design erosion controls. Contact Information: The CDOT Stormwater Quality and Erosion Control Guide may be obtained from the Bid Plans Office at (303) 757-9313 or from: http://www.dot.state.co.us/environmental/envWaterQual/wams4.ase Disposal of Drilling Fluids - Drilling fluids used in operations such as Horizontal Directional Drilling may be classified as "discharges" or "solid wastes", and in general, should be pumped or vacuumed from the construction area, removed from the State Highway Right of Way, and disposed of at permitted facilities that specifically accept such wastes. Disposal of drilling fluids into storm drains, storm sewers, roadside ditches or any other type of man-made or natural waterway is prohibited by Water Quality Control and/or Solid Waste regulations. Small quantities of drilling fluid solids (less than 1 cubic yard of solids) may be left on-site after either being separated from fluids or after infiltration of the water, provided: 1) the drilling fluid consists of only water and bentonite clay, or, if required for proper drilling properties, small quantities of polymer additives that are approved for use in drinking water well drilling; 2) the solids are fully contained in a pit, and are not likely to pose a nuisance to future work in the area, 3) the solids are covered and the area restored as required by CDOT permit requirements (Utility, Special Use, or Access Permits, etc.). Contact Information: Contact the CDOT / CDPHE Liaison or CDOT Water Quality Program Manager. Concrete Washout - Waste generated from concrete activities shall NOT be allowed to flow into the drainage ways, inlets, receiving waters, or in the CDOT ROW. Concrete waste shall be placed in a temporary concrete washout facility. Concrete washout shall only be performed as specified by the CDOT Environmental Program and shall be in accordance to CDOT specifications and guidelines. Contact Information: Contact the CDOT Water Quality Program Manager at (303) 757=9343. Spill Reporting - Spills shall be contained and cleaned up as soon as possible. Spills shall NOT be washed down into the storm drain or buried. All spills shall be reported to the CDOT Illicit Discharge Hotline at (303) 512-4446 (4H20), as well as the Regional Permitting Office and Regional Maintenance Supervisor. Spills on highways, into waterways, or that may otherwise present an Environmental Clearances Information Summary Page 2 of 3 Colorado Department of Transportation November' 07 immediate danger to the public shall be reported by calling 911, and shall also be reported to the CDPHE at 1-(877)-518-5608. Transportation of Hazardous Materials - No person may offer or accept a hazardous material for transportation in commerce unless that person is registered in conformance with the United States Department of Transportation regulations at 49 CFR, Part 171. The hazardous material must be properly classed, described, packaged, marked, labeled, and in condition for shipment as required or authorized by applicable requirements, or an exemption, approval or registration has been issued. Vehicles requiring a placard, must obtain authorization and a State HAZMAT Permit from the Colorado Public Utilities Commission. Contact Information: For authorization and more info call the Federal Motor Safety Carrier Administration, US DOT for inter- and intra -state HAZMAT Registration (303) 969-6748. Colorado Public Utilities Commission: (303) 894-2868. Paleontology - The applicant must request a fossil locality file search through the University of Colorado Museum, Boulder, and the Denver Museum of Nature and Science to ascertain if paleontological resources have been previously identified. Inventory of the permit area by a qualified paleontologist may be necessary, per the recommendation of CDOT. If fossils are encountered during the permitted work, all work in the subject area shall be halted and the CDOT Regional Permitting Office and Regional Planning and Environmental Manager shall be contacted immediately. Authorization must be provided by CDOT prior to the continuation of work. Additional guidance may be provided by the Regional Permitting Office in the Permit Special Provisions. Contact Information: Contact the CDOT Paleontologist at (303) 757-9632. Working on or in any stream or its bank - In order to protect and preserve the state's fish and wildlife resources from actions that may obstruct, diminish, destroy, change, modify, or vary a natural existing stream or its banks or tributaries, it may be necessary to obtain a Senate Bill 40 certification from the Colorado Department of Natural Resources. A stream is defined as 1) represented by a solid blue line on USGS 7.5' quadrangle maps; and/or 2) intermittent streams providing live water beneficial to fish and wildlife; and/or 3) segments of streams supporting 25% or more cover within 100 yards upstream or downstream of the project; and/or 4) segments of streams having wetlands present within 200 yards upstream or downstream of the project. The Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) application, as per guidelines agreed upon by CDOT and CDOW, can be accessed at www.dot.state.co. us/environmental/wildlife/permitapplication.asp. About This Form - Questions or comments about this Information Summary may be directed to Dahir Egal, CDOT Safety & Traffic Engineering, Utilities Unit, at (303) 757-9344 dahiregalAdotstate.co.us Environmental Clearances Information Summary Page 3 of 3 Colorado Department of Transportation • November' 07 COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION STATE HIGHWAY ACCESS PERMIT COOT Permit No. 310112 Sta 1 \T 08 EXHIBIT Permit tee $300.00 Date of transmittal 8/20/2010 Region/Section/Patrol 3 / 02 /16-2 Flnyd st ager Lo Ga The Permittee(s); Applicant: Dolores B. Blue Revocable Trust & Dee Blue Western Slope Aggregate Dee Blue Sean Mello 404 County Road 104 0304 Hwy 133 Carbondale, CO 81623 Carbondale, CO 81623 970-963-2653 970-963-2296 is hereby granted permission to have an access to the state highway at the location noted below. The access shall be constructed, maintained and used in accordance with this permit, including the Slate Highway Access Cede and any attachments, terms, conditions and exhibits. This permit may be revoked by the issuing authority if at any time the permitted access and its use violate any parts of this permit, The issuing authority, the Department and their duly appointed agents and employees shall be held harmless against any action for personal injury or property damage sustained by reason of the exorcise of the permit. Location: Located on the north side of Hwy 082A a distance of 3485' east of mile post 14. Access to Provide Service to: (Land Use Code:) (Size or Count) (Units) 991 - Gravel Pit and Concrete Batch Plant 77 DHV Additional Information: The traffic volume includes PCE's. MUNICIPALITY OR COUNTY APPROVAL Required only when the appropriate local authority retains issuing authority. Signature Print Name Tide t3ato Upon the signing of this permit the permittee agrees to the terms and conditions and referenced attachments contained herein. All construction shall be completed in an expeditious and safe manner and shall be finished within 45 days from Initiation. The permitted access shall be completed in accordance with the terms and conditions of the permit prior to being used. The permittee shall notify Les Stanton with the Colorado Department of Transportation in Grand Junction, Colorado at (970) 384-3357, at least 48 hours prior to commencing aonstrut ion within the State Highway tight -of -way. The person signing as the permittee must be the owner or legal representative of the property sewed by the permitted access and have full authority to accept the permit and its farms and conditions. Pe eeSjgna1ure 1, �/ /„ Print Name f Date C/f' LCLLf�- This permit is not valid until signed by a duly authorized representative of the Department. CtORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION -- Si.n tore Print Name Tile Date (of issue) Copy Otatrtbutron: Required: 1 hellion 2.Appticant Make copies as necessary tor: 3.Steff Access Suction Local Authority Inspector 4.Central Files MTCE Petrol Traffic Eregfneer Previous atLltlon5 are obsolete and may not be used Page 1 of 3 CDOT Form #1 51 5Ip7 State Highway Access Permit Form 101, Page 2 The following paragraphs are excerpts of the State Highway Access Code. These are provided for your convenience but do not alleviate compliance with all sections of the Access Code. A copy of the State Highway Access Code is available from your local issuing authority (local government) or the Colorado Department of Transportation (Department). When this permit was issued, the issuing authority made its decision based in part on information submitted by the applicant, on the access category which is assigned to the highway, what alternative access to other public roads and streets is available, and safety and design standards. Changes in use or design not approved by the permit or the issuing authority may cause the revocation or suspension of the permit. APPEALS 1. Should the permittee or applicant object to the denial of a permit application by the Department or object to any of the terms or conditions of a permit placed there by the Department, the applicant and permittee (appellant) have a right to appeal the decision to the [Transportation] Commission [of Colorado]. Td appeal a decision, submit a request for administrative hearing to the Transportation Commission of Colorado within 60 days of transmittal of notice of denial or transmittal of the permit for signature. Submit the request to the Transportation Commission of Colorado, 4201 East Arkansas Avenue, Denver, Colorado 80222-3400. The request shall include reasons for the appeal and may include changes, revisions, or conditions that would be acceptable to the permittee or applicant. 2. Any appeal by the applicant or permittee of action by a local issuing authority shall be filed with the local authority and be consistent with the appeal procedures of the local authority. 3. In submitting the request for administrative hearing, the appellant has the option of including within the appeal a request for a review by the Department's internal administrative review committee pursuant to [Code] subsection 2.10. When such committee review is requested, processing of the appeal for formal administrative hearing, 2.9(5) and (6), shall be suspended until the appellant notifies the Commission to proceed with the administrative hearing, or the appellant submits a request to the Commission or the administrative law judge to withdraw the appeal. The two administrative processes, the internal administrative review committee, and the administrative hearing, may not run concurrently. 4. Regardless of any communications, meetings, administrative reviews or negotiations with the Department or the internal administrative review Committee regarding revisions or objections to the permit or a denial, if the permittee or applicant wishes to appeal the Department's decision to the Commission for a hearing, the appeal must be brought to the Commission within 60 days of transmittal of notice of denial or transmittal of the permit. PERMIT EXPIRATION 1. A permit shall be considered expired if the access is not under construction within one year of the permit issue date or before the expiration of any authorized extension. When the permittee is unable to commence construction within one year after the permit issue date, the permittee may request a one year extension from the issuing authority. No more than two one-year extensions may be granted under any circumstances. If the access is not under construction within three years from date of issue the permit will be considered expired. Any request for an extension must be in writing and submitted to the issuing authority before the permit expires. The request should state the reasons why the extension is necessary, when construction is anticipated, and include a copy of page 1 (face of permit) of the access permit. Extension approvals shall be in writing. The local issuing authority shall obtain the concurrence of the Department prior to the approval of an extension, and shall notify the Department of all denied extensions within ten days. Any person wishing to reestablish an access permit that has expired may begin again with the application procedures. An approved Notice to Proceed, automatically renews the access permit for the period of the Notice to Proceed. CONSTRUCTION 1. Construction may not begin until a Notice to Proceed is approved. (Code subsection 2.4] 2. The construction of the access and its appurtenances as required by the terms and conditions of the permit shall be completed at the expense of the permittee except as provided in subsection 2.14. All materials used in the construction of the access within the highway right-of-way or on permanent easements, become public property. Any materials removed from the highway right-of-way will be disposed of only as directed by the Department. All fencing, guard rail, traffic control devices and other equipment and materials removed in the course of access construction shall be given to the Department unless otherwise instructed by the permit or the Department inspector. 3. The permittee shall notify the individual or the office specified on the permit or Notice to Proceed at least two working days prior to any construction within state highway right-of-way. Construction of the access shall not proceed until both the access permit and the Notice to Proceed are issued. The access shall be completed in an expeditious and safe manner and shall be finished within 45 days from initiation of construction within the highway right-of-way. A construction time extension not to exceed 30 working days may be requested from the individual or office specified on the permit. 4. The issuing authority and the Department may inspect the access during construction and upon completion of the access to ensure that all terms and conditions of the permit are met. Inspectors are authorized to enforce the conditions of the permit during construction and to halt any activities within state right-of-way that do not comply with the provisions of the permit, that conflict with concurrent highway construction or maintenance work, that endanger State Highway Access Permit Form 101, Page 3 highway property, natural or cultural resources protected by law, or the health and safety of workers or the public. 5. Prior to using the access, the permittee is required to complete the construction according to the terms and conditions of the permit. Failure by the permittee to abide by all permit terms and conditions shall be sufficient cause for the Department or issuing authority to initiate action to suspend or revoke the permit and close the access. If in the determination of the Department or issuing authority the failure to comply with or complete the construction requirements of the permit create a highway safety hazard, such shall be sufficient cause for the summary suspension of the permit. If the permittee wishes to use the access prior to completion, arrangements must be approved by the issuing authority and Department and included in the permit. The Department or issuing authority may order a halt to any unauthorized use of the access pursuant to statutory and regulatory powers. Reconstruction or improvement of the access may be required when the permittee has failed to meet required specifications of design or materials. If any construction element fails within two years due to improper construction or material specifications, the permittee shall be responsible for all repairs. Failure to make such repairs may result in suspension of the permit and closure of the access. 6. The permittee shall provide construction traffic control devices at all times during access construction, in conformance with the M.U.T.C.D. as required by section 42-4-104, C.R.S., as amended. 7. A utility permit shall be obtained for any utility work within highway right-of-way. Where necessary to remove, relocate, or repair a traffic control device or public or private utilities for the construction of a permitted access, the relocation, removal or repair shall be accomplished by the permittee without cost to the Department or issuing authority, and at the direction of the Department or utility company. Any damage to the state highway or other public right-of-way beyond that which is allowed in the permit shall be repaired immediately. The permittee is responsible for the repair of any utility damaged in the course of access construction, reconstruction or repair. 8. In the event it becomes necessary to remove any right-of- way fence, the posts on either side of the access shall be securely braced with an approved end post before the fence is cut to prevent any slacking of the remaining fence. All posts and wire removed are Department property and shall be turned over to a representative of the Department. 9. The permittee shall ensure that a copy of the permit is available for review at the construction site at all times. The permit may require the contractor to notify the individual or office specified on the permit at any specified phases in construction to allow the field inspector to inspect various aspects of construction such as concrete forms, subbase, base course compaction, and materials specifications. Minor changes and additions may be ordered by the Department or local authority field inspector to meet unanticipated site conditions. 10. Each access shall be constructed in a manner that shall not cause water to enter onto the roadway or shoulder, and shall not interfere with the existing drainage system on the right-of- way or any adopted municipal system and drainage plan. or clearances required for construction of the access. Issuance of this access permit does not constitute verification of the above required actions by the Permittee. By accepting the permit, the permittee stipulates and agrees to fully protect, save, defend, indemnify, and hold harmless, to the extent allowed by law, the issuing Authority, and each of the Authority's directors, officers, employees, agents and representatives, from and against any and all claims, costs (including but not limited to all reasonable fees and charges of engineers, architects, attorneys, and other professionals or expert witnesses and all court or other dispute resolution costs directly incurred by reason of claims directly brought against the Authority), losses, damages, pre- or post- judgment interest, causes of action, suits, or liability of any nature whatsoever by reason of liability imposed due to Permittee's failure to obtain, or disregard of, any applicable federal, state or local environmental permits, approvals, authorizations, or clearances, or in meeting or complying with any applicable federal, state or local environmental law, regulation, condition or requirements in connection with any activities authorized by this Access Permit. CHANGES IN ACCESS USE AND PERMIT VIOLATIONS 1. It is the responsibility of the property owner and permittee to ensure that the use of the access to the property is not in violation of the Code, permit terms and conditions or the Act. The terms and conditions of any permit are binding upon all assigns, successors -in -interest, heirs and occupants. If any significant changes are made or will be made in the use of the property which will affect access operation, traffic volume and or vehicle type, the permittee or property owner shall contact the local issuing authority or the Department to determine if a new access permit and modifications to the access are required. 2. When an access is constructed or used in violation of the Code, section 43-2-147(5)(c), C.R.S., of the Act applies. The Department or issuing authority may summarily suspend an access permit and immediately order closure of the access when its continued use presents an immediate threat to public health, welfare or safety. Summary suspension shall comply with article 4 of title 24, C.R.S. MAINTENANCE 1. The permittee, his or her heirs, successors -in -interest, assigns, and occupants of the property serviced by the access shall be responsible for meeting the terms and conditions of the permit, the repair and maintenance of the access beyond the edge of the roadway including any cattle guard and gate, and the removal or clearance of snow or ice upon the access even though deposited on the access in the course of Department snow removal operations. Within unincorporated areas the Department will keep access culverts clean as part of maintenance of the highway drainage system. However, the permittee is responsible for the repair and replacement of any access -related culverts within the right-of-way. Within incorporated areas, drainage responsibilities for municipalities are determined by statute and local ordinance. The Department will maintain the roadway including auxiliary lanes and shoulders, except in those cases where the access installation has failed due to improper access construction and/or failure to follow permit requirements and specifications in which case the permittee shall be responsible for such repair. Any significant repairs such as culvert replacement, resurfacing, or changes in design or specifications, requires authorization from the Department. 11. The Permittee is responsible for obtaining any necessary additional Federal, State and/or City/County permits Form 101, Page 3 STATE HIGHWAY ACCESS PERMIT 310112 Located on Highway 82A Frontage Road near MP 14.66 Left Issued to Dolores B. Blue Revocable Trust and Dee Blue TERMS AND CONDITIONS August 20, 2010 1. This permitted access is only for the use and purpose stated in the Application and Permit. This Permit is issued in accordance with the State Highway Access Code (2 CCR 601-1), and is based in part upon the information submitted by the Permittee. Any subsequent relocation, reconstruction, or modifications to the access or changes in the traffic volume or traffic nature using the access shall be requested for by means of a new application. Any changes causing non-compliance with the Access Code may render this permit void, requiring a new permit. 2. The permit is a temporary access permit that will allow the use of the gravel operation and the batch plant operation. The permit will expire October 31, 2013 if the recommended improvements by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. dated July 27, 2010 are not constructed. 3. If the recommended improvements are constructed with in the three year time frame, then the permit will become a permanent permit that will allow gravel pit operation and the batch plant operations. 4. The access permit recognizes that State Highway 82 is Expressway in accordance with the Code. Therefore, after the life of the gravel operation and patch plant operation, the access shall be closed to the highway and the access shall be off Garfield County Road 103. 5. The access closure shall include removing all asphalt; bring drainage back to its original condition, re -vegetation of all disturbed areas to its natural vegetation, and the restoration of the right of way fence. 6. The Westbound right turn deceleration lane shall be constructed to meet the requirements of the SHAG. 7. The Westbound right turn acceleration lane shall be constructed to meet the requirements of the SHAG. 8. The Eastbound left turn deceleration lane shall be constructed to meet the SHAC with 30 feet of storage. 9. The Eastbound left turn acceleration lane shall be constructed to meet the SHAG. 10. The traffic volume shall be 77 DHV. The traffic volume is based upon PCE's. The use is a gravel pit operation which includes a batch plant. 11. A full width 2 -inch minimum depth overlay of the entire length of highway improvements may be required in accordance with section 4.7(6) of the Access Code. This shall be decided at the pre -design meeting at the discretion of Department. 12. This access shall be constructed 25-40 feet wide. This access shall be constructed with turning radii to accommodate an AASHTO WB -50 turning radius. The turning radius shall be measured from the white line on the Hwy to the edge of the driveway. A drawing of the design vehicle turning template for the largest vehicle entering/exiting site will be required to ensure proper radius and lane widths. 13. The access shall be constructed perpendicular to the travel lanes of the State Highway for a minimum distance of 40 feet from the edge of roadway. Side slopes shall be at a 4:1 slope on the roadway and at 6:1 to the approach. The driveway shall slope away from the highway at a -2% grade for the first 20 feet of driveway. This design shall be in conformance with section 4 of the State Highway Access Code, 2CCR 601-1. STATE HIGHWAY ACCESS PERMIT 310112 Located on Highway 82A Frontage Road near MP 14.66 Left Issued to Dolores B. Blue Revocable Trust and Dee Blue August 20, 2010 14. The access shall be surfaced in accordance with Section 4.7 of the Access Code immediately upon completion of earthwork construction and prior to use. This access shall be hard surfaced in accordance with Section 4.7 of the Access Code a minimum distance of 50 feet from the traveled way or to the CDOT Right -of -Way. Where the hard surface is to abut existing pavement, the existing pavement shall be saw cut and removed a minimum of one foot back from the existing edge for bituminous, or until an acceptable existing cross slope is achieved. Surfacing shall meet the Department's specifications with minimum surfacing to be equal to or greater than existing highway conditions. 15. The Permittee shall provide a performance bond that will insure completion of the required highway and all related intersection improvements in conformance with all Department standards and specifications. The bond must be at least 110% of the estimated total highway construction cost and the bonding agency must be surety licensed to do business in the State of Colorado. A thorough Construction Cost Estimate sealed by a Colorado Registered Professional Engineer and a draft of the bond must be provided and approved by Department before acceptance of the final bond and before construction is approved to commence. 16. This permit replaces permit # 396055 and any and ail additional access permits that may be in existence for this access. 17. A pre -design meeting is required prior to construction design. Required personnel for this meeting are: Professional Engineer of Record (i.e., the person who shall sign and seal the plan set), Design Engineer, and Permittee. Please contact Devin Drayton 970-683-6286 for scheduling this pre -design meeting. 18. A Notice to Proceed, CDOT Form 1265 is required before beginning the construction of the access or any activity within the highway right-of-way. To receive the Notice to Proceed the applicant shall submit a complete packet to CDOT with the following items: (a) A cover letter requesting a Notice to Proceed. (b) Certificate of Insurance Liability as per Section 2.3(11)(i) of the State Highway Access Code. (c) A certified Traffic Control Plan in accordance with Section 2.4(6) of the Access Code. The Traffic Control Plan shall provide accessibility features to accommodate all pedestrians including persons with disabilities for all pathways during construction. (d) Ten copies of Construction Plans Stamped (11"x 17" with a minimum scale of 1" = 50') by a Colorado Registered Professional Engineer in full compliance with the State Highway Access Code. (e) Signed and sealed Notice to Proceed Checklist. (f) Signed and Approved Performance Bond. (g) Signed and sealed Drainage Report or narrative. (h) Prior to the issuance of any Notice to Proceed, the applicant shall schedule a pre - construction meeting including but not limited to applicant, Engineer of Record, Construction Inspector, construction personnel, Permittee (if other than applicant), CDOT representative and Traffic Control Supervisor. (i) A construction schedule will be required at the pre -construction meeting. 19. No drainage from this site shall enter onto the State Highway travel lanes. The Permittee is required to maintain all drainage in excess of historical flows and time of concentration on site. STATE HIGHWAY ACCESS PERMIT 310112 Located on Highway 82A Frontage Road near MP 14.66 Left Issued to Dolores B. Blue Revocable Trust and Dee Blue August 20, 2010 All existing drainage structures shall be extended, modified or upgraded, as applicable, to accommodate all new construction and safety standards, in accordance with the Department's standard specifications. 20. All materials, equipment, installation and construction within the State Highway ROW shall be in accordance with the latest edition of the following standard references as applicable: A. CDOT Materials Manual B. CDOT Construction Manual C. CDOT Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction, latest edition D. CDOT Standard Special Provisions, as applicable to project E. CDOT Standard Plans (M&S Standards) FHWA Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) for Streets and Highways and the Colorado Supplement thereto F. AASHTO Roadside Design Guide 21. A new culvert may be required for this access. The drainage study will be used to size all culverts. As a minimum, an 18 -inch culvert with protective end treatments will be required. The culvert shall be kept free of blockage to maintain proper flow and drainage. 22. Open cuts, which are at least 4 inches in depth, within 30 feet of the edge of the State Highway traveled way, will not be left open at night, on weekends, or on holidays, or shall be protected with a suitable barrier per State and Federal Standards. 23. The Permittee is responsible for obtaining any necessary additional Federal, State and/or City/County permits or clearances required for construction of the access. Approval of this access permit does not constitute verification of this action by the Permittee. Permittee is also responsible for obtaining all necessary utility permits in addition to this access permit. 24. All workers within the State Highway right of way shall comply with their employer's safety and health policies/procedures, and all applicable U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations - including, but not limited to the applicable sections of 29 CFR Part 1910 - Occupational Safety and Health Standards and 29 CFR Part 1926 - Safety and Health Regulations for Construction. Personal protective equipment (e.g. head protection, footwear, high visibility apparel, safety glasses, hearing protection, respirators, gloves, etc.) shall be worn as appropriate for the work being performed, and as specified in regulation. 25. The Permittee is required to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG) that have been adopted by the U.S. Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (Access Board), and incorporated by the U.S. Attorney General as a federal standard. These guidelines provide requirements for design and construction. The current Standards Plans and can be found on the Design and Construction Project Support web page at: http://www.dot.state.co.us/DesignSupport/ then click on Design Bulletins. 26. CDOT requires submission of SWMP plans on any projects where the area of CDOT ROW impacted exceeds one acre. 27. On all CDOT access permit projects where the developers are required to apply and obtain a CSP (Construction Storm Water Permit) from the respective regulatory agency, "The Permittee/Applicant is required to include the portion of CDOT Rights of Way to be impacted by the construction of the access within their Construction Storm Water Permit (CSP). A notice to proceed will not be issued until the Permittee/applicant provides CDOT region permit office with the proof of such inclusion on the developer's CSP. STATE HIGHWAY ACCESS PERMIT 310112 Located on Highway 82A Frontage Road near MP 14.66 Left Issued to Dolores B. Blue Revocable Trust and Dee Blue August 20, 2010 28. It is the responsibility of the Permittee/applicant to determine which environmental clearances and/or regulations apply to the project, and to obtain any clearances that are required directly from the appropriate agency. Please refer to or request a copy of the "CDOT Environmental Clearance Information Summary" for details. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS MAY RESULT IN SUSPENSION OR REVOCATION OF YOUR CDOT PERMIT, OR ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS BY OTHER AGENCIES. • ALL discharges are subject to the provisions of the Colorado Water Quality Control Act and the Colorado Discharge Permit Regulations. Prohibited discharges include substances such as: wash water, paint, automotive fluids, solvents, oils or soaps. • Unless otherwise identified by CDOT or the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) Water Quality Control Division (WQCD) as significant sources of pollutants to the waters of the State, the following discharges to storm water systems are allowed without a Colorado Discharge Permit System permit: landscape irrigation, diverted stream flows, uncontaminated ground water infiltration to separate storm sewers, discharges from potable water sources, foundation drains, air conditioning condensation, irrigation water, springs, footing drains; water line flushing, flows from riparian habitats and wetlands, and flow from fire fighting activities. However, construction activities may require a Construction Stormwater Permit. Contact the CDOT Water Quality Program Manager at 303-757-9343. • ANY OTHER DISCHARGES may require Colorado Discharge Permit(s) or separate permits from CDPHE or the appropriate agency before work begins. For additional information and forms, go to the CDPHE website at: http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/wq/PermitsUnits/wqcdpmt.html. 29. Nothing in this permit shall prohibit the chief engineer from exercising the right granted in CRS 43-3-102 Including but not limited to restricting left hand turns by construction of physical medial separations. 30. A signed and approved temporary lease agreement is required if construction trailers are to be located on CDOT ROW during construction. 31. During access construction no construction personal vehicles will be permitted to park in the state highway right-of-way. 32. The access shall be completed in an expeditious and safe manner and shall be completed within 45 days from initiation of construction within State Highway right-of-way or in accordance with written concurrence of the Access Manager. All construction shall be completed in a single season. 33. All costs associated with any type of utility work will be at the sole responsibility and cost of the Permittee and at no cost to CDOT. 34. Any damage to present highway facilities including traffic control devices shall be repaired immediately at no cost to the Department and prior to continuing other work. 35. Any mud or other material tracked or otherwise deposited on the roadway shall be removed daily or as ordered by the Department inspector. If mud is obvious condition during site construction, it is recommended that the contractor build a Stabilized Construction Entrance or Scrubber Pad at the intended construction access to aid in the removal of mud and debris from vehicle tires. The details of the Stabilized Construction Entrance are found in the M & S Standards Plan No. M-208-1. 36. A fully executed complete copy of this permit and the Notice to Proceed must be on the job site with the contractor at all times during the construction. Failure to comply with this or any STATE HIGHWAY ACCESS PERMIT 310112 Located on Highway 82A Frontage Road near MP 14.66 Left Issued to Dolores B. Blue Revocable Trust and Dee Blue August 20, 2010 other construction requirement may result in the immediate suspension of work by order of the Department inspector or the issuing authority. 37. All construction and inspection work must be under the direction of a Colorado Registered Professional Engineer. The PE's responsibilities include, but are not limited to: (a) The PE shall evaluate compliance with plans and specifications with regard to the roadway improvements within the State right-of-way. The PE shall carefully monitor the contractor's compliance on all aspects of construction, including construction zone traffic control. (b) Engineering Certification: After inspection and before final acceptance, the Engineer shall certify to CDOT in writing that all inspections, materials, materials testing, and construction methods conform to the plans, specifications and purpose of design. Upon completion of the work, that responsible Engineer shall submit an "As Built" plans, showing in detail all approved construction changes, modification. 38. No work will be allowed at night, Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays without prior authorization from the Department. The Department may also restrict work within the State Highway right-of-way during adverse weather conditions. 39. Areas of roadway and/or right-of-way disturbed during this installation shall be restored to their original conditions to insure proper strength and stability, drainage and erosion control. Restoration shall meet the Department's standard specifications for topsoil, fertilization, mulching, and re -seeding. Construction Completion & Final Acceptance 40. The Permittee shall construct all improvements stated on this permit prior to any use as allowed by this permit. The Permittee shall notify the Permit Manager by certified mail within 10 working days to request a final inspection. This request shall include signed and sealed certification that all materials and construction have been completed in accordance with all applicable Department Standards and Specifications; and that the access is constructed in conformance with the State Highway Access Code, 2 CCR 601-1, and the terms and conditions included in this permit. The engineer of record shall be present for this inspection. The access serviced by this permit may not be opened to traffic until the CDOT Access Manager provides written initial approval. 41. Following the final inspection, CDOT will prepare an Access Construction Inspection Summary Letter and send it to the applicant, Permittee, and engineer of record. If additional items are required to complete the access construction, a list of these items will be part of the access construction inspection summary letter. All required items and final as -built survey shall be completed within 30 days from receiving the Access Construction Summary Letter. The access serviced by this permit may not be opened to traffic until written approval has been given from the CDOT Access Manager. If all work appears to have been done in general close conformity with the above named permit, an initial acceptance letter will be sent to the Permittee and this access may be opened for traffic. 42. The 2 year warrantee period will begin when the initial acceptance letter is issued. In accordance with section 2.5(6) of the State Highway Access Code, if any construction element fails within two -years due to improper construction or material specifications, the Permittee shall be responsible for all repairs. Failure to make such repairs may result in suspension of the permit and closure of the access. The letter of final acceptance will be issued once the access has been inspected and is found to comply with all material and construction in STATE HIGHWAY ACCESS PERMIT 310112 Located on Highway 82A Frontage Road near MP 14.66 Left Issued to Dolores B. Blue Revocable Trust and Dee Blue August 20, 2010 accordance with all applicable Department Standards and Specifications approx. 2 years after initial acceptance. Greg Lewicki And Associates 11541 Warrington Court Parker, CO USA 80138 October 13, 2010 Fred Jarmin Garfield County Planning Department 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: Noise Addendum for the Blue Pit Expansion. Fred, EXHIBIT Phone (303) 346-5196 Fax: (303)-346-6934 E -Mall: info@l ewicki .bi z Engineering Dynamics Inc. was the engineering company that evaluated the noise for the Blue Pit expansion and has produced an addendum to clarify the noise values at 25 feet past the property boundary both during development and during production. Western Slope Aggregate agrees to meet the residential standard in all directions at 25 feet past the property boundary. The main item of concern is the mobile equipment used to get the gravel from the mining face to the pit floor where the crusher is. The reason this is of concern is because the higher this piece of equipment is the less shielding will be accomplished by the in bank material. In the attached addendum, Howard McGregor addresses the noise values at 25 feet past the property boundary during the worst case which would be when the equipment is on the top of the mining slope. Howard also included ways to reduce the noise below the residential level. The choice that we will go with is keeping the equipment at least 20 feet below the edge of the excavation. This will be accomplished by the upper 20 feet being mined by equipment sitting 20 feet below the natural grade (loader or excavator not a dozer). This 20 feet below grade will be maintained in Mining Areas 2-5 even though it is only required when approaching the western and southern mining limits. Since this upper portion of the gravel being removed from below the surface, the Blue Pit Expansion will meet the residential standard at 25 feet past the property boundary on all sides no matter what the actual current use of that land may be. Please give me a call if there are any questions or additional information needed. Sincerely Ryan Ellis, Greg Lewicki and Associates (303) 880-6690 EXHIBIT eamcorpor NOISE ASSESSMENT BLUE PIT EXPANSION WESTERN SLOPE AGGREGATES, Inc. GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO ADDENDUM No. 1 NOISE LEVELS at 25 ft. BEYOND THE PROPERTY BOUNDARY October 2010 Prepared by: Howard N. McGregor Registered Professional Engineer State of Colorado, # 3928 E. D. I. Job # 3785 Page 1 of 7 3925 south kalamath street • englewood, coloredo 80110 • 303.761.4367 • Fax 303.761.4379 engineering -dynamics e ,incorporated INTRODUCTION The addendum addresses the noise levels that will occur at a distance of 25 ft. beyond the Dee Blue Property Boundary. This property is made up of several contiguous parcels as shown on the attached map. The 25 ft. distance is the requirement set forth in CRS -25-12-103§ (1). Attached to this addendum are Figures 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 which show cross sections of specific Mining Areas, distances and equipment used. These figures show a cross section that is the worst case condition with respect to noise. That is, when the excavator is at the top bench and the dozer is just below the bench as will be explained later on in this report. The Property Boundaries for each mining area are: Mining Area 1 North, Sunnyside Ranch conservation easement, 1450' from permit boundary to property line South, CDOT right of way then residential, 110' from mining to property line East, abandoned land fill (Carbondale Dump), 10' from mining to property line West, abuts to Mining Areas 2 and 3 Mining Area 2 North abuts to Mining Area 3 South, un -mined pit property; CDOT right of way then residential, 10' from mining to property line East, abuts to Mining Area 1 West, abuts to Mining Area 4 Mining Area 3 North, Conservation easement, undeveloped agricultural, (owned by Dee Blue) approximately 1200' from mining to Property Boundary South, abuts to Mining Area 2, 860' to Property Boundary East, temporary wash plant and stockpile area, farm road, 1936' to Property Boundary West, abuts to mining area 5, 1348' Property Boundary Mining Area 4 North, abuts to Mining Area 5 South, CDOT right of way then residential, 10' from mining to Property Boundary East, abuts to Mining Area 2 West, undeveloped agricultural, Cerise Clifford Ranch Properties - 64' from mining to Property Boundary, Mining Area 5 North, conservation easement, undeveloped agricultural, (Owned by Dee Blue) approximately 1200' from mining to property South, abuts to Mining Area 4 East, abuts to Mining Area 2 West, undeveloped agricultural, Cerise Clifford Ranch Properties - 64' from mining to Property Boundary. A berm of approximately 5 ft. in height and meeting MSHA requirements will be in place at the top of all excavations. The noise emission levels from mobile and stationary equipment was addressed in the report, "Noise Assessment, Blue Pit Expansion, Western Slope Aggregate, Inc., Garfield County, Colorado, January 2010" and will be referred to in this addendum for convenience as the "Original Report". E. D. I. Job # 3785 Page 2 of 7 3925 south kalamath street • englewood, colorado 80110. 303.761.4367 • Fax 303.761.4379 edt engineering dynamics Also, the Caterpillar D10 dozer has been replaced with a Caterpillar Model D7 which is 3 dB(A) quieter than the CAT D10 (81 dB(A)) as compared to Caterpillar Model D7 (78 dB(A)) at 100 ft. A 3 dB(A) reduction pulls in the noise foot print diameter to 70% of the original value. Also, the Hitachi 450 excavator (see Table 1 of the original report) has been replaced with a Hitachi Model 600 tracked excavator, which has the same noise emission level as the CAT 450. This was verified by engineering data provided to E. D. I. by the Hitachi Denver sales office. The excavator will replace the usage of the dozer because the excavator can extend its reach to almost 30 ft. above grade level. Thus, it can work more than 30 ft. below the top of the mine face, which the dozer cannot do. E. D. I. Job # 3785 Page 3 of 7 3925 south kalamath street • englewood, colorado 80110 • 303.761.4367 • Fax 303.761.4379 ■ engineering e �mics incordporoted II. ANALYSIS OF NOISE EMISSION AT 25 FT. BEYOND MINE BOUNDARY AND AT RESIDENCES TO THE SOUTH ACROSS HWY 82 A. Mine Development Mine development also referred to as construction in CRS 25-12-103 § (5) would include: • Access road construction or improvement • Installation of public utilities and services • Removal of top soil and over burden • Transportation and temporary storage of top soil and over burden • Reclamation including relocation of top soil and over burden storage piles • Revegetation • Environmental compliance. 1. Mining Area 1 At the eastern edge of Mining Area 1, there is a stockpile consisting of over burden material which during mine reclamation will be removed. Reclamation is considered as part of mine development and the 80 dB(A) noise level limit at 25 ft. beyond the Property Boundary is applicable. Because of the close proximity of the stockpile to the Property Boundary, the material will be moved with a CAT 936 loader which is 3 dB(A) quieter than the CAT 980 loader that will be used in other areas of the mine. The CAT 936 produces 73 dB(A) at 100 ft. and will produce 77 dB(A) at 25 ft. beyond the eastern Property Boundary, see Figure 5. 2. Mining Area 2 To the south of Mining Areas 2 and 4, there is a drop-off of about 64 ft to the residential area across Hwy 82. This drop-off breaks the line of sight because the mobile equipment especially the dozer will be about 200 ft. to the north of the drop-off. This drop-off will reduce the noise at the residences by at least 14 dB(A) and the resulting noise level of a CAT D7 dozer will be 64 dB(A). As the dozer or other mobile equipment moves to the north and away from the drop off the noise level will decrease due to both distance and the drop off, To the west, the distance to the Property Boundary is 1300 ft and the direct line -of -sight noise level for a CAT Model D7 dozer would be 56 dB(A). Also, as the equipment moves to the north, there will be an additional reduction due to distance. To the north the distance to the Property Boundary is about 1800 ft. and the direct line -of -sight noise level for a CAT Model D7 dozer would be 53 dB(A). 3. Mining Area 3 To the west Mining Area 3 has the same noise emission levels as Mining Area 2 and would produce a noise level of 56 dB(A) at the western Property Boundary when there is an unobstructed line -of -sight, which is the case during mine development. To the north, the distance to the Property Boundary is 1200 ft. and the noise level of a CAT Model D7 dozer would be 56 dB(A) as compared to the 53 dB(A) from Mining Area 2. 4. Mining Area 4 Mining Area 4 will have the same noise emission levels to the south and north as Mining Area 2, that is 56 dB(A) to the south and 53 dB(A) to the north. However, to the west there is only a distance of 64 ft. to the Cerise Clifford Ranch Properties, which includes the width of the Farm Road Detour that will be constructed. A motor grader such a CAT 130 which produces 76 dB(A) at 100 ft. will be used for the construction and grading of the Farm Road and its noise level at 25 ft. beyond the Property Boundary will be less than 80 dB(A). The noise levels to the south would be the same as those from Mining Area 2. E. D. I. Job # 3785 Page 4 of 7 3925 south kalamath street • englewood, coloredo 80110 • 303.761.4367 • Fax 303.761.4379 ■ engineering incorporated Mining Area 5 To the north the noise emissions during mine development are the same as Mining Area 3 and to the west and south the noise emissions are the same as Mining Area 4 including the construction of the Farm Road. All of the noise emissions presented for Mining Areas 2, 3, 4 and 5 are for the worst case conditions when the noise source is at grade level and as close as possible to the Property Boundary. It is important that the reader of this report understand that the noise emissions are not continuous noise contours but rather a circular and moving noise foot print. Also, all of the dB(A) values presented in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 above are based upon the dB(A) levels of a CAT Model D7 which would be the noisiest piece of mobile equipment used during mine development. B. Mine Production, General Mine production involves the extraction of material, preparation into a usable product and distributing or selling the end product. At the Blue Pit this would involve the following: • Excavating the rock and sand from mine • Hauling of mined material to crusher or storage piles • Crushing and screening • Conveying and stacking • Washing • Loading of highway haul trucks • Feeding concrete plant • Loading trucks with concrete • Site and access road maintenance. During mine production, removing and storage of over burden and top soil will be on a continuing process in Mining Areas 2, 3, 4 and 5. These activities are considered mine development and the appropriate noise limits are applicable. Mining Area 1 has already been developed and any additional overburden removal and storage will be minimal, C. Mine Production, Mining Area 1 Material will be extracted and moved, starting at the face of the pit wall of Mining Area 1 using the Hitachi Model Z Axis 600 excavator rather than the Caterpillar Model D7 dozer. The reason for this change in the operational scenario during mining production in all areas is that the excavator can, because of its vertical reach of more than 30 ft. work from a bench located below the top of the pit wall and take advantage of the noise reduction provided by the pit face. With this 30 ft. reach the excavator can extract and dump the material to a lower level where the dozer can then push the material down hill to where the front end loader can scoop up the material and transport it to the Processing Plant Area. This excavation process will in general be used in all of the mining areas except Mining Area 2. At the southern pit wall of Mining Area 1, the excavator will initially be at an elevation of 6120 ft. and so will the dozer. The line -of -sight between the excavator and the residences to the south, located on the other side of Hwy 82, will be broken by the pit wall. This natural noise barrier plus the noise reduction due to distance will reduce the noise of the excavator when the excavator at the initial position at the top bench but still about 30 ft. below the top of the pit. The resulting noise level at the residences will, during this mining condition, be less than 45 dB(A) and lower when the excavator and dozer are at lower benches. To the north and west of Mining Area 1, the noise level will be lower due to the greater distances to the Property Boundary and the below grade operations. The abandoned land fill to the east of Mining Area 1 can be considered industrial zoning, CRS 25-12-103 § 4(a) and the noise limit for that zoning is 80 dB(A) at 25 ft. beyond the Property Boundary. However, the maximum noise level during production will be 51 dB(A) at 25 ft. beyond the Property Boundary. E. D. I. Job # 3785 Page 5 of 7 3925 south kalamath street • englewood, colorado 80110 • 303.761.4367 • Fax 303.761.4379 . engineering d e I dynamics incorporated D. Mine Production, Mining Area 2 Material extraction in Mining Area 2 will be different then mining in Areas 3, 4 and 5. In this situation mining will start from Mining Area 1 and into Mining Area 2 via the existing service road. Use of the dozer will not be required because the CAT 600 excavator can dump the material directly into a 30 ton haul truck, which will then go down the service road and to the processing plant in Mining Area 1. During the initial cut and when the excavation is at the most southern edge of Mining Area 2 both the excavator and haul truck will be, at a minimum, 30 ft. below grade level. The combined noise level of the excavator and haul truck will be 79 dB(A) at 100 ft. The resulting noise level at 25 ft beyond the southern CDOT Property Boundary will be 50 dB(A) under this worst case condition. The important factor to recognize is the reduction due to distance from the excavator and haul truck to the 25 ft point beyond the CDOT Property Boundary is by itself 14 dB(A)., as the cut is made deeper, the noise to the south will decrease. What this means is that the noise from the mine will initially be very close to the existing ambient noise level in the residential area to the south and less than the ambient noise level during the morning and evening rush hour traffic on Hwy 82. E. Mine Production, Mining Area 3 The combined noise level of the Hitachi 600 excavator and the CAT Model D7 dozer is 80 dB(A) at 100 ft. When located at the30 ft. below on -grade ground, there will be a reduction because the line -of -sight is broken. The distance to the southern Property Boundary and the 30 ft. depth will result in a noise level of less than 53 dB(A) at the southern Property Boundary. In the other directions, north, east and west, the minimum reduction due to distance and the bench depth of 30 ft. below original ground is 26 dB(A) resulting in a maximum noise level of 50 dB(A). As mining in Mining Area 3 progresses the noise level at the Property Boundary will continue to decrease. After the first cut is completed the noise in the residential areas to the south will be inaudible. F. Mine Production, Mining Area 4 When mining the pit face in any of the Mining Areas the operation of the excavator and dozer will not be at the same location. The excavator will first remove material from the mine face and then rotate almost 180 degrees and dump the material down the slope, as much as 30 ft. below original ground. Once sufficient material has been moved by the excavator, the excavator will then move horizontally along the bench about 30 ft. and repeat the excavation process. Meanwhile, the dozer will be working below the bench level by at least 30ft. and will be pushing the material down the slope. Placing the dozer 30ft. below the top bench will increase the noise reduction due to the added terrain obstruction and a slight increase in distance and will result in a dozer noise level of 51 dB(A) at 25 ft beyond the Property Boundary under these operating conditions. It is important for the reader to understand that the situation described above is when mining is taking place only to within 100 ft. of the final edge of the mine face. When mining gets to within the remaining 100 ft. to the west of Mining Areas 4 and 5, there will be a change in the mining method. First, the Hitachi Model Z Axis 600 will be replaced with a Caterpillar Model 325 excavator. The CAT 325 has an engine of 177 hp as compared to the Hitachi Model 600 which has an engine off 370 hp. Based on engine power, the CAT 325 should be 3.2 dB(A) quieter, which corresponds to a noise level of 71 dB(A) at 100 ft. When mining is at the Property Boundary, the noise level at 25 ft. beyond the Property Boundary from the excavator at 30 ft. below grade and the loader and primary crusher at 90 ft. also below grade, will be 49 dB(A). Moving further back beyond that distance will result in lower noise levels. G. Mine Production, Mining Area 5 The noise levels to the north and south of Mining Area 5 will be the same as Mining Area 3, that is; 53 dB(A) to the south and to the north less than 50 dB(A). To the west, the noise levels will be the same as Mining Area 4 and to the east also the same as Mining Area 4. E. D. I. Job # 3785 Page 6 of 7 3925 south kalamath street • englewood, colorado 80110 • 303.761.4367 • Fax 303.761.4379 engineering dynemr'cs e diincorporated 111. SUMMARY Based upon the change in equipment and mining operations, for example, using a CAT 325 Excavator instead of a CAT 980 Loader to lower the worst case noise levels are presented in Table 1 below. Under all of the excavation operations the excavator will be at the upper bench and the dozer will always be lower. The exception is in Mining Area 2 where the dozer will be replaced with a haul truck. Table 1 Directions Mining Areas Mining Equipment Noise Level North 1, 3, and 5 Hitachi 600 Excavator, CAT D7 Dozer, CAT 980 Loader, Processing Plant Maximum of 50 dB(A) South 1, 2 and 4 CAT 600 Excavator, Haul Truck, CAT 980 Loader, Processing Plant 50 dB(A) East 1 CAT 600 Excavator, Haul Truck, CAT 980 Loader, Processing Plant Maximum of 53 dB(A) West 4 and 5 Hitachi 600 Excavator, CAT D7 Dozer, CAT 980 Loader 51 dB(A) West, 100 ft. 4 and 5 CAT 325 Excavator, CAT D7 Dozer 49 dB(A) E. D. I. Job # 3785 Page 7of7 3925 south kalamath street • englewood, colorado 80110 • 303.761.4367 • Fax 303.761,4379 A 6200 6190 6180 6170 6160 6150• 25' Past Property Boundary And 5 Feet Above the Ground Measurement Point 55 dB(A) standard West Property Boundary Figure 1 West Noise Cross Section Blue Pit 100 feet from the edge of mining Excavator Working in the Area Mining Areas 4 and 5 5 ' Tall MSHA Berm 6140 6130 Topsoil 6120 6110 6100 6090 6080 6070 6060 0+00 Overburden 164' 11-00 Track Excavator Hitachi 600 30' Minimum Depth Below Original Grund 6200 6190 6180 6170 6160 Excavator Removing Upper Portion of Gravel 45' 2+00 3+00 4+00 119' 980 Loader Primary Crusher 6150 6140 6130 6120 6110 6100 6090 6080 6070 6060 5+00 6+00 7+00 25' Past Property Boundary And 5 Feet Above the Ground 6200 Measurement Point 55 dE3(A) standard 6190 6180 6170 6160 6150 6140 6130 6120 6110 Overburden 6100 6090 6080 6070 6060 Figure 2 West Noise Cross Section Blue Pit 100 feet from the edge of mining Dozer Working in the Area Mining Areas 4 and 5 West Property Boundary 5 ' Tall MSHA Berm i 0-7 Dozer 30' Minimum Depth Below Original Ground Topsoil 0+00 1+00 164' 2+00 Excavator Removing Upper Portion of Gravel 45' 3+00 Gravel Pushed to the 980 Loader by the D-7 4+00 150' 980 Loader Primary Crusher 6200 6190 6180 6170 6160 6-757— Topsoil 50 6140 6130 6120 6110 6100 6090 6080 6070 6060 +00 6+00 7+00 6200 6190 6180 6170 6160 6150• 6140 6130 6120 6110 6100 6090 6080 6070 6060 25' Past Property Boundary And 5 Feet Above the Ground Measurement Point 55 dB(A) standard Topsoil 0+00 Overburden West Property Boundary 5 ' Tall MSHA Berm i Figure 3 West Noise Cross Section Blue Pit Mining Areas 4 and 5 Track Excavator Cat 325 30' Minimum Depth Below Original Grund Gravel Deposited by Excavator Removing Upper Portion of Gravel 980 Loader Mined Out Temporary Slope 1.5:1 1+00 2+00 Primary Crusher 6200 6190 6180 6170 6160 6150 6140 6130 6120 6110 6100 6090 6080 6070 6060 3+00 4+00 5+00 6+00 7+00 25' Past Property Boundary And 5 Feet Above the Ground Measurement Point 6200 55 dB A) standard 6190 6180 6170 6160 6150 6140 Topsoil 6130 6120 6110 6100 6090 6080 1222' 6070 6 060 7+00 8+00 9+00 Figure 4 North Noise Cross Section Blue Pit Mining Areas 3 and 5 North Permit Boundary 5 ' Tall MSHA Berm Track Excavator Hitachi 600 30' Minimum Depth Below Original Grund Overburden 80' Gravel Deposited by Excavator Removing Upper Portion of Gravel Mined Out Temporary Slope 1.5:1 10+00 11+00 12+00 980 Loader Primary Crusher 13+00 14+00 Figure 5 East Noise Cross Section - Blue Pit Mining Area 1 936 Loader 4+00 West Last Portion of Easter Topsoil Stockpile 15+00 16+00 East 41' Property Boundary 25' Past Property Boundary At 5' Height Measurement Point 80 dB(A) standard 17+00 6300 6290 6280 6270 6260 6250 6240 6230 6220 6210 6200 6190 6180 6170 6160 18+00 19+00 6200 6190 6180 6160 6150 6140 6130 6120 6100 6090 6080 6070 6060 Figure 6 South Noise Cross Section - Blue Pit Mining Area 2 30ton Haul Truck Will Haul The Material to the Processing Plant Located In Mining Area 1 15+00 North Hitachgi 600 Track Excavator 5 ' Tall MSHA Berm Bottom of Machine 20' Minimum Depth below original surface 16+00 Mined Final Cut 1 Tnr)Soil H:1V Slope During Permit Boundary Overburden Natural Slope 17+10 18+00 19+00 South 4381 CDOT Property Highway 82 25' Past CDOT Property Boundary At 5' Height Measurement Point — 55 dB(A) standard 20±00 21+00 A 6200 6190 6180 6170 6160 6150 6140 6130 6120 6110 6100 6090 6080 6070 6060 2 +00 Western Slope Aggregate Blue Pit Visual Impact Report Addendum Garfield County, Colorado October 2010 Greg Lewicki And Associates, PLLC 11541 Warrington Court Phone: (303) 346-5196 Fax (303)-346-6934 Parker, CO USA 80138 E -Mail: info@lewieki.biz The original Visual Impact Report prepared for the Blue Pit Expansion dated December 2009 did not discuss the impacts of the safety berms required by the Mining Safety and Health Administration (MSHA). These berms of 5 feet in height are required at the top of all excavations to prevent the largest piece of equipment on site from accidentally traveling down the slope of the excavation. Theses berms will be moved as the excavation and topsoil stripping moves through the expansion area. These berms will be constructed out of topsoil as the topsoil is being stripped in front of the gravel extraction. As the berms are created they will be seeded with the rangeland reclamation seed mix. The vegetation will establish quickly with the aid of supplemental irrigation. The berms will not significantly change the view from the Wooden Deer Community from what was presented in the original report. These MSHA berms will remain in place for long period of time and will be revegetated once created. The amount of newly created MSHA berm each year is expected to be less than 1,000 linear feet which would result in less than 0.5 acres of berm footprint. This acreage is incorporated into the area that has been shown to be visible during topsoil stripping. The attached image shows the location of the revegetated berms and the berms that are newly created when the mining operation is in Mining Area 2 Phase 4. The revegetated berms will blend into the surrounding vegetation, but are shown in the image with different colors to illustrate the location of the berms. Fred Jarman From: Tresi Houpt Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2010 3:43 PM To: bsgaddis a@sopris.net; Fred Jarman Subject: FW: WSA and LaFarge gravel pit Thank you very much for sharing your concerns. I am forwarding your email to our Planning Director Fred Jarman so that it will be incorporated into the application packet. My Best, Tresi Houpt From: Brian Gaddis [mailto:bsgaddis@sopris,net] Sent: Thu 10/7/2010 1:15 PM To: Tresi Houpt Subject: WSA and LaFarge gravel pit Dear Ms. Houpt - We are owners of a lot in the Wooden Deer Subdivision and full time working (and voting) residents in the Roaring Fork Valley for over thirty years. We purchased the lot with the intention of building our retirement home there. Wooden Deer has the location, views of Mount Sopris and the ranch land below that we desired. We are very much concerned about the expansion of the WSA gravel pit and the potential for LaFarge to open a second gravel pit adjacent to WSA's facility. It seems as if both these expansion plans are based on the economic growth of this valley from the boom construction years and not the reality of the past two years. I have been in the construction trades since 1976 and was laid off this year due to the economic slow down. The projection for the existing gravel pit is another eight to ten years of use. As we understand it, that projection is based upon the output from the heavy construction years. It would seem to be more prudent to postpone expansion while we see what the construction industry is going to do in the valley for the next few years. The LaFarge proposal is completely unnecessary with the existing WSA pit and the potential for its expansion. The incorporation of an asphalt plant at this location is contrary to the nature of the area. The smell and increased pollution from an asphalt plant will be noticeable. The increased traffic on County Road 103 is a serious safety matter to the residents and bikers who use this road. Who will pay for the increased maintenance costs when the LaFarge trucks deteriorate the paving to the point it will constantly need to be patched and repaved? The noise and pollution from the pit machinery and the trucks already impact the quality of life around the gravel pits. With the proposed expansion, it will only get worse. The health and safety of the local residents and wild life will be endangered. Please carefully consider your decision on this matter. The legacy of your decision will affect the quality of life in our valley for many years to come. Sincerely, Brian and Sandra Gaddis 1 EXHIBIT October 14, 2010 Garfield County Commissioners 108 8th Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re: Western Slope Aggregates, Inc. (Blue Pit) Gravel Extraction, Application to amend an approved Special Use Permit, October 18, 2010 Hearing To Commissioners: John Martin, Mike Samson, Tresi Houpt Please consider the following comments related to the October 18th, hearing of the application for the expansion of the "Blue Pit" by Western Slope Aggregates, Inc. (WSA). Periodic Review The application would allow 15 million tons of gravel extraction in 5 sequential mining areas. Approving the application would mean the gravel pit would continue to be in operation for 75 years based on a "post economic downturn" rate of extraction of 200,000 tons per year. Even based on the WSA "pre economic downturn" rate of 450,000 tons per year, the gravel pit would exist for another 33 years. It would be irresponsible for the Board of County Commissioners to approve a pit with such duration without any means of occasional review. Technology is changing faster than ever and health and mitigation standards are constantly being improved. Closing the door on these potential developments would not be prudent. Periodic reviews should occur annually, every 10 years, or even upon completion of each of the five sequential mining areas. Need for Mitigation Per the applicant, 60% of the gravel extracted by WSA is exported up - valley, out of Garfield County. Although Garfield County has a resource map, it appears the planning department has made no attempt to estimate the current and future needs of gravel extraction for Garfield County, much less the needs of our up -valley neighbors who prefer to push the negative impacts of gravel extraction down -valley. Although the applicant is "local", the operation of WSA will actually be turned over (if not already) to an out- of-state (Pennsylvanian) company. While it may not be appropriate to control who operates the pit and where the materials are shipped to, the application should not be permitted without taking proper steps toward reducing the negative impacts to the surrounding neighbors, who will pay the price. After all, ULUR 7-840-G states gravel extraction "shall be compatible with surrounding agricultural, residential, and recreational land uses by selection of location and/or mitigation". Neither the 2000 Comprehensive Plan nor the proposed 2030 plan identify future gravel extraction at the proposed location. There is currently 4.5 million tons of gravel remaining in the existing application. The BOCC should not feel as though they are stifling the local economy by delaying the decision until all mitigation concerns have been properly addressed. There is no reason to rush a decision. Commissioners who go beyond simply reacting to development requests, but instead consider the health, assets, and quality of life of ordinary citizens, have my respect. 2 Mitigation Agreement WSA, has taken commendable and appreciated steps toward considering the impacts to the Wooden Deer Subdivision. It was discussed during the P&Z Meeting that mitigation concerns be incorporated into a legal binding agreement. Preferably, this agreement will be made directly between the Wooden Deer HOA and the applicant. At the time of this writing, negotiations are still under way, but I am hopeful our concerns will be addressed. Mitigation expectations include: planting trees to shield the operations, using "white noise" technology for back up alarms, specifying the allowable location of crushers, installing sound walls at strategic locations, irregular shaped reclamation contours, periodic performance review and the opportunity for additional mitigation as technology and new standards develop. Reclamation Contours The ULUR requires dryland pits to be reclaimed using irregular shaped contours with 85% of the slopes less than 5:1. ULUR 2008 7-212 (B) uses language such as "disturbed areas shall be restored as natural -appearing landforms that blend in with adjacent undisturbed topography" and "abrupt angular transitions and linear placement...shall be avoided". The planning department ignored its own requirements by allowing uniform contours that follow the property lines. They also justified 3:1 slopes and claim in the staff report that "the modifications create an aesthetically pleasing site that blends with the surrounding area". The argument used by the applicant was that more irrigated pasturelands would be created, but it is obvious the real 3 reason was to maximize gravel extraction. What is the point in having a ULUR if it is not followed? The applicant claims the color of the reclaimed seeded slopes will blend in with the adjacent pasture lands; however, shadow effects from the sun and snow accumulation on steeper north facing slopes will cause the uniform reclaimed contours to stand out from the existing pastures. I suggest the reclamation plan be adjusted to include irregular shaped contours with slopes that vary between 5:1 and 3:1 so the slopes appear more like the surrounding hillsides. Cumulative Impacts You are probably aware Lafarge is proposing a new pit on the Cerise property immediately adjacent to the WSA expansion site. Due to the proposed pit location relative to prevailing winds, the need for Lafarge to access 103 Road, as well as other concerns, the proposed Lafarge pit would have much greater negative impacts to the Wooden Deer Subdivision and Missouri Height residents using 103 Road. Approving the Lafarge Pit would be disastrous; however, the WSA, Blue Pit expansion would be manageable if the above concerns are addressed. Thank you for your consideration as well as your ongoing community service. Sincerely, Ernest Kollar 0746 Wooden Deer Road Carbondale, CO 81623 4 REAL ESTATE AFFILIATES Incorporated October 12, 2010 Garfield County commissioners 108 8th Street Glenwood Springs CO 81601 Dear Garfield County Commissioners. EXHIBIT In reference to the gravel pit expansion permit requested by the Western Slope Aggregates and the Blues. Based on the amount of estimated gravel in their existing pit and existing permitted area (and projected demand, the existing pit will last for approximately 15 years). Again based upon their projected demand and estimated gravel in the new permitted area the life of the pit, and therefore the permit, would probably exceed 60 years. To permit an operation such as this for such a extended time (60+ years) appears excessive and possibly irresponsible. Adjacent land uses will change, state of the art of extraction and mitigation will change, demand will change, competition will change, so it seems reasonable to cut the permit area in half and take another look at the operation in 20 to 30 years. It may be appropriate to take a new look every 10 years. The gravel will always be there and the lease with the Blue family precludes other uses if in fact it is appropriate in the future. I appreciate your consider.. -.'n of the above. Sinc C.A. Vidal P.O. Box 2914 Basalt, Colorado 81621 Telephone/Fax: (970) 925-4530 2 EXHIBIT October 12, 2010 Garfield County Commissioners 108 8th Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Garfield County Commissioners, Referring to the application from Western Slope Aggregates and the Blue Family for expansion of their existing gravel operation I would like you to consider the following: 1. Even though they will be considered separately, you have to be aware that the LaFarge company has also submitted an application for a new pit adjacent to the Blue pit and LaFarge plans to continue operating their existing pit. Given the above; the cumulative impacts of these three possible operations on adjacent properties, traffic congestion on Hiway 82 and County road 103, noise, dust and particulate issues, as well as visual impact must be apparent and taken into consideration for each application. 3. You have approved residential projects which now exist adjacent to these areas (Wooden Deer, Ranch at the Roaring Fork, Callicotte Ranch, Pinyon Peaks and Adobe Pines) that would be significantly impacted by the expansion of existing and new pit operations, especially traffic congestion on County Road 103, including significant school bus traffic. Given the projected demand and projected supply of these operations, if permitted, these operation would be able to exist for at least 100 years. It would be reasonable and appropriate to grant permits for shorter time periods, 10 to 20 year (less permitted area) and take another look at that time; conditions will have no doubt changed. Sincerely, (L/1 Linda Vidal lld41111 `vi( as . 855 woollen deer . C&rL➢ondallcg colorat 0 8162:71, . 970/70A -995D 7 Oc Commissioner John Martin Garfield County Board of Commissioners 108 8th Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 EXHIBIT a LL Jonathan Fitch 0104 Wooden Deer Road Carbondale, CO 81623 Dear Commissioner Martin: The subject is gravel pits. The theme is NEED vs. GREED. As a resident of the Wooden Deer subdivision in Carbondale, and a member of the Crystal Springs Coalition, some 100 members strong and growing, I stand to lose a lot should the permit application for Western Slope Aggregate (WSA/Blue Pit), before the Board of Commissioners on 18, October 2010, be approved in full. Even more is at stake when the Lafarge/Cerise Mine permit application for a brand new gravel pit, located cheek by jowl to the WSABIue Pit, wends its way through the process later this year. It seems to me unwise for the Board to make a decision on the WSA application without full knowledge and consideration of the Cerise Mine application and the effects that mine would have on all interested parties. Bill Roberts, who claims to own 100% of the mineral rights to the WSAB1ue Pit, is asking for an immense 64 -acre expansion of the existing pit. The use of the term GREED in the theme of this letter focuses on Bill Roberts and to a lesser extent the Blue and Cerise families. A very small group of people stand to benefit from the expanded/new pits on the backs of a larger group of land and homeowners, whose quality of life and property values are bound to be affected adversely as the projects build out. Bill Roberts and his consultants appraised the Wooden Deer Association (which has become more inclusive of other interested parties as the Crystal Springs Coalition) of his plans earlier in the year. He seems like a pleasant fellow, and has been described to me as an excellent pit operator and the consummate "good old boy"; someone I might like at my back in a firelight. Nevertheless, it seems clear this application is Bill Roberts' swan song, that the probability is high he will either cash in his chips altogether by way of sale or clip coupons long into the future and his family even beyond that future. Various promises were made to us about how the permit will play out, how it will be mined in four sections, totally hidden from view and completely reclaimed as mining moves from one section to another, first across our view plane and then directly toward us. It is fair to say, I think, that the people (highly paid consultants) making these claims and promises to us will most likely fade from the scene in relatively short order and we, as a coalition, will be stuck only with the language in the governing documents to ensure that promises become reality and to give us clear recourse as to enforcement. To that end, we are hopeful the Board of Commissioners will ensure that what may be approved is state of the art as to the methodology for enforcing persuasive claims made to win the permit as these claims relate to decibel levels, dust clouds, wildlife impacts, hours of operation, crusher operations, placement of crushers, use of temporary asphalt plants, transportation levels, ongoing reclamation claims and final reclamation plans; this list not necessarily being all-inclusive. Concession should be made that the GREED factor involved here is understandable as a predictable quality of human nature as it affects the profit motive of the pit families and the equally predictable corollary; that of total disregard for the neighbors adversely affected. The NEED aspect of Page 1 of 4 the expanding WSA/Blue Pit and the proposed new Lafarge/Cerise mine holds a much more telling and important set of considerations for the board. The board may feel it's important to initiate a study as to future CountyNalley NEED going out 50 to 100 years (more on that to follow). To that end, the board may decide to table the WSA/Blue application and any other applications pending such a review. The coalition favors that notion. Currently four gravel pits exist in the Roaring Fork Valley, with a fifth seeking a permit. For this discussion, all the gravel pits in Silt and environs are not noted. Should the board initiate a comprehensive study about future NEED versus existing supply, the existing holdings in these pits, which are truly considerable, would be added to the supply factor I will now describe. First: The ELAM pit in the Woody Creek area of Pitkin County recently received a 20 year extension on their lease. The manager of that plant, Dave Hiberger, told me they have enough gravel to supply the ENTIRE valley for the next 20 years. In addition, he said they have a non-mobile asphalt plant there that can produce 300 tons an hour, 6 days a week. He said the Siever pit near Aspen Glen has an identical plant. Neither plant, even in robust times, has ever operated at full capacity. He scoffed at the need for a third asphalt plant, which the Cerise mine is planning for and which should be rejected outright if the entire application is not rejected altogether, an outcome the Crystal Valley Coalition favors unanimously. Second: The Sievers pit, located near Aspen Glen and owned by Lafarge, has 10 to 15 years of production left and a lease lasting 80 years. As mentioned, the other non-mobile asphalt plant in the valley is located there. This is Lafarge's headquarters on the Western slope. Third: The Lafarge/Powers pit is located on Rout 82 in Carbondale at the edge of County 103 road. This pit is scheduled to wind down and undergo the reclaiming process over the next two years. Word has it that Mrs. Powers is being petitioned by Lafarge to allow for some equipment storage there and perhaps a truck turnaround associated with their pending application to develop the Cerise Ranch as a NEW gravel pit located just across County 103 Road. I cannot resist the temptation to scold the County for allowing this pit to be one of the biggest polluters in the valley and certainly the worst eyesore bar none. Directly across Route 82, Tom Bailey screened his entire Iron Rose ranch with trees that cost no more than $5 to $10 each, according to Bob O'Brien, who was responsible for the planting and much of the ranch construction. Lafarge did not pick up on the example and, as far as I know, the County never formally requested Lafarge to erect screening. Even if screening was never contemplated in the origins of the pit, I am confident Lafarge would have complied looking ahead to future applications before the board; a green opportunity lost, it seems to me. For the record, Lafarge is a French company and trades on the New York Stock Exchange. Fourth: The WSA/Blue Pit is located across from the Ranch at Roaring Fork on Highway 82, leased from the Blue family and just east of the proposed Lafarge/Cerise mine. Indeed, if WSA gets the new permit, their operations will, in time, be separated from the Lafarge/Cerise mine by a matter of yards. The families living above these lands will be faced with a horizon of wall-to-wall gravel pit. WSA/Blue is capable of producing 450,000 tons of gravel a year. Currently, the production level is 50,000 tons, 1/9' of capacity. Under their current permit, WSA has admitted to a supply lasting 8 years AT FULL CAPCITY. If current production levels persisted forever, then the supply would last for 72 years. The truth is in the middle. It seems realistic if not conservative, to place the years left under the existing permit at 16-20 years, certainly plenty of time to table the application and other applications in favor of a comprehensive study and review about the NEED side of the equation. There is absolutely no case for rushing to judgement other than accommodating a few families Page 2 of 4 wishing to assure their financial future against the wishes of a growing coterie of neighbors. An interesting statistic put forward by Bill Roberts is that approximately 60% of WSA/Blue production goes to projects in Pitkin County. If WSA/Blue gets all the permitting requested, given the current levels of production, then supply involved would last over 100 years into the future. Should the Board of Commissioners reject the suggestion for a comprehensive study as to need versus supply, then the coalition requests the following: 1. Grant WSA/Blue on 50% of the requested permit. 2. Confine that permit to the southern and western half of the proposed 64 -acre expansion. A Lafarge representative told me that the abundance and quality of stone increases the closer to the river it is located. 3. Coupled with the estimated life of 16-20 years of supply under the current permit, this would give WSA/Blue 50 to 100 years of supply and prevent the movement of the mining northward towards the adversely affected and very worried residents. 4. This partial grant would give the County ample time to gauge the future NEED for the use of gravel in construction projects and provide more flexibility than granting 100% of all applications should technological advancements in construction make the use of gravel needed less or outmoded entirely. 5. By granting 50% of the WSA/Blue request, the board would be in a much more justifiable position to completely tum down the Lafarge/Cerise application because it piles on capacity to a valley and county clearly over -capacitated already as the 1/9 current production at WSA/Blue shows. 6. The Lafarge/Cerise mine application, which will reach the board later this year or early next, should be totally rejected as a clear case of overkill. Besides the usual arguments of added noise, added pollution, added unsightly mess, wildlife dislocations, and the proposed asphalt plant (this intention was presented by Lafarge to the coalition this summer at a meeting in the Carbondale Town Hall), the increased truck tonnage on County Road 103 will be permanent and change the rural nature and safety on that road for the life of the mine. Given the probable production levels over the immediate future, the Cerise mine will last way, way beyond the 15 years Lafarge is selling. They know it, the Coalition knows it, and we hope the board realizes that the Lafarge/Cerise mine could be around for 135 years based on the current 50,000 -ton annual output of WSA/Blue. The NEED could be that low. Your diligence in reading this far is appreciated. I have heard from a lot of people that these mine extensions/creation applications are done deals, that the Garfield County Commissioners have always granted approval, and that the subsequent policy of the written agreements has been essentially toothless in holding the operators to promises made in the heat and frenzy of gaining approvals. Perhaps the time has come for the board to change perceptions and realities. The current application of WSA/Blue and the approaching application of Lafarge/Cerise offers the perfect chance for the board to signal a change in the "business as usual" mantra. By granting WSA/Blue 50% of their request and taking an active roll in assuring their written agreements protect the residents and have enforcement teeth, such a signal would be loud and clear. Perhaps it is time for the board to appoint a Garfield County agency available to Garfield County residents to file complaints and to facilitate following and enforcing remediation of violations. Page 3 of 4 By turning down the pending Lafarge/Cerise application in total, an additional signal would be sent that the board is sensitive to not creating over -capacity versus the disruption of the lifestyle of many tax -paying residents and to the utter chaos constant trucking would create on County Road 103. By turning away from business as usual, the county will demonstrate it has the power and will to create time for itself to investigate future NEED and to put forth rules on gravel pit creation and operation that it can enforce. I just got off the phone with someone associated with the Lafarge/Cerise application who told me, "Colorado is a right to mine state. The county can't do a thing about it." I hope the Board of Commissioners rules against that horrific notion. Respectfully submitted, -onNTLLti R Jonathan Fitch Member, Crystal Springs Coalition JolufitchAoptonline.net Cc: Mike Samson, Garfield County Board of Commissioners Tresi Houpt, Garfield County Board of Commissioners Various Interested Parties Page 4 of 4 Fred Jarman From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Fred: ernie kollar [erniekollar.woodendeer@gmail.com] Tuesday, November 02, 2010 4:39 PM Fred Jarman Jody Edwards WSA Application Proposed Reclamation Contours. PDF ULUR 7-840 H states "Reclamation shall be done to create an aesthetically pleasing site or reclaimed area that will blend with or improve upon the surrounding areas." The attached marked -up plan does a much better job of this. The plan proposed by the applicant does not meet the established criteria. Please consider. Thank you, Ernie Ernest Kollar, President Wooden Deer HOA 963-3223 erniekollar.woodendeer@gmail.com 1 m n Et) E rn c 0' 0 amac o m o c m m U N N rc That allConditions of Approval 1. All representations made by the Applicant in the application, and at the public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners, shall be conditions of approval, unless specifically altered by the Board of County Commissioners. 2. That thcThe operation of the facility shall be --Bone in accordance with all applicable Federal, State, and local regulations governing the operation of this type of facility. 3. The facility shall be operated so that the ground vibration inherently and recurrently generated is not perceptible, without instruments, at any point of any boundary line of the property on which the use is located. EXHIBIT NW { Style Definition: Default Paragraph Font f Formatted: left: 1", Right: 1" 4. Site operations shall not emit heat, glare, radiation, dust or fumes which substantially interfere with the existing use of adjoining and nearby property or which constitutes a-pulalie nuisance or hazard. 5. All equipment and structures associated with this permit shall be painted with non -reflective paint in neutral colors to reduce glare and mitigate any visual impacts. 6. All lighting associated with the property shall be directed inward and downward towards the interior of the property. 7. The following recommendations of the Garfield County Road and Bridge Department shall become conditions of approval: A. A stop sign shall be required at the entrance to the County Road 104. The sign and installation shall be as required in the MUTCD (Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices). B. The owners of the gravel pit may be asked in the future to contribute to a road repair or improvement project for CR 104 and CR 103 to SR 82. C. All vehicles using CR 103 and CR 104 to access the gravel pit shall abide by Garfield County's oversize/overweight system. All vehicles requiring oversize/overweight permits shall apply for them at Garfield County Road and Bridge Department. 8. The Reclamation Plan and Landscape Plan for the site shall be seeded using hydro -seeding with hydro -mulching using tackifier for all slopes greater than 5:1 as required by Section 7-840 of the ULUR. 9. The applicant shall submit a revised "Weed Control Plan Map" identifying the locations of Musk Thistle and Plumeless Thistle prior to issuance of a Land Use Change Permit. All noxious weeds as listed by County Vegetation Management shall be controlled in any areas of the property not being actively mined at that time, including top soil piles and areas where mining has been discontinued for more than 30 days. 10. The applicant shall comply with the following provisions which are incorporated herein as conditions of approval contained in Resolution 96 48;_ a. Hours of Operation: The gravel pit shall be allowed to operate Monday - Saturday -from 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM, with crushing, digging and heavy hauling only occurring between 7:00 AM to 5:00 PM: Monday through Friday; heavy hauling from 7:00AM to 5:OOPM on Saturday; and crushing and digging from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM on Saturday. There shall be no operations on Sunday except in the ease of an emergency or for standard maintenance purposes. b. All Trucks operating in the Pit (including third -party trucks not operated by the Owner or Operator, shall be subject to the following: i. All trucks operating in or out of the pit shall have and maintain stock muffler systems that are performing to original manufacturercmanufacturer's specifications. This can be determined and verified by simple visual and auditory inspection of the truck. ii. All trucks ascending or descending the haul route shall not exceed speeds of 10 mph. iii. All trucks descending the haul route or approaching the haul route access on SR 82 shall not use engine Jake Brakes to decelerate. iv. All truck drivers, independent or employed by the applicant shall be briefed on the conditions above and shall agree to operate within the requirements of these stipulations. v. The applicant shall set up a series of progressive consequences for drivers that fail to comply with the above conditions: after three violations any trucker shall be prohibited from entering the pit for a time period of not less than one year. 11. All noise generated from the operation shall not exceed the IndustrialResidential Zone noise standards defined in the CRS such that noise shall not exceed 8055 dB(A) from 7:00 AM to 5:00 PM and 7550 dB(A) from 5:00 PM to 7:00 AM when measured 25 feet outside of the Property Boundary. 12. The Owner or Operator or Property Owncrr, shall submit an annual report to the County Building and Planning Department with GPS measurements shown on a map showing the current disturbance, what areas have been backfilled, where topsoil stockpiles are located, all site structures, what areas have been seeded, mulched, and what is planned for the ensuing 12 months. This annual report shall also include: 1) an updated estimate of gravel reserves remaining within the permitted boundaries and within each Mining Area Phase; and 2) the implementation of any and all technology within the Pit to mitigate or otherwise reduce noise, dust or other impacts to surrounding properties. The Owner or Operator shall, within one year prior to comment' g--nfirttzi-g pe tions within any Mining Phase or ten years since the most re • nt public meetin , whichevetis sooner, schedule before the BOCC a public eeting to revtw the status of mining and processing operations and to provide e citizens of Garfield County the opportunity to comment upon such operations. 13. The County can request a site inspection with 24 hour's notice to the Operator or Property Owner. Full access to any part of the site will be granted. On request, all paperwork must be shown. 14. A full list of all other permits shall be provided to the County within 24 hours of thcira request.- by the County. Any person at any time can call the following agencies directly and request an inspection if they believe a condition of that agencicsagency's permit is being violated. a. CDPHE Air Quality Control 303-692-3150 b. Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety 303-866-3567 c. CDOT Grand Junction office 970-248-7000 A. When reclaimed, Mining Areas 2-5 shall be constricted to a 3:1 slope. See the Reclamation Plan Map of the application for the layout of these areas. This shall be required to be shown on the Final Reclamation Plan approved herein and tendered to the DRMS. B. Mining Operations shall be allowed to progress so long as the applicant reclaims each successive phase before moving on to the next phase as shown on the Mining Plan. The Applicant shall use "contemporaneous reclamation" as discussed in the application. If the reclamation does not follow the Mining Plan or has not been completed within eighteen (18) months, all mining operations on the property shall be halted until the reclamation # revegetationand re -vegetation has occurred to the satisfaction of the County. Completion shall include but not be limited to recountering, top -soiling, seeding, and mulching. The DRMS Final Reclamation Plan shall be resubmitted to Garfield - County prior to the issuance of a Land Use Change Permit and shall be the only reclamation plan used by both the County and DRMS. Additionally, a new bond will be calculated to cover this plan and secured with DRMS to cover its implementation. Proof of a recalculated bond shall be provided to the County prior to issuance of a LUCP, Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.5', No bullets or numbering { Formatted: Font: 12 pt 17. The Concrete Plant shall remain in its current location in the bottom of the pit on the eastern end of Mining Area 1. No Asphalt Plant shall be allowed anywhere within the Property unless the same is separately approved by Garfield County pursuant to amendement of the within approval or pursuant to separate application. 18. Owner or Operator agrees to remove all stockpiled gravel and all facilities necessary for such removal located in Mining Areas 2, 3 , 4 or 5 within three hundred and sixty (360) days of the termination of this approval. 19. Primary Crusher: a. The primary jaw crusher shall be located at all times on the pit floor and as close as is practicable to the northern -most slope. If the primary jaw crusher cannot be located adjacent to the toe of the northern slope, then. sound shall be mitigated with a 30 feet berrn of material left in place or a sound wall system; and ,J. Lv b. Owner or Operator shall use reasonable efforts and implementable technology to minimize sound emanating from the primary crusher. 20. All in -pit haul trucks and excavating equipment used by Owner or Operator IL w/ instant to mining operations shall be equipped with "white noise" or similar backup alarms or no less effective alarm equipment. Standard backup alarms, as to the above identified equipment shall not be utilized. 21. Secondary Crusher, Stackers and Conveyors: The Secondary Crusher and Stackers shall remain within the Phase 1 Mining A ea. 22, The Owner or Operator shall not exceed 4ugic .meter of dust under normal N+ operating conditions. All haulage roads within the pit shall be watered four (4) times per day unless due to inclement weather, snow or ice, such watering is not required. 23. Screening of Administration Building, Maintenance Buildings and Equipment. All buildings and equipment shall be screened or obscured from view of the Wooden Deer Subdivision by — of '-c_m and planting of trees (cottonwood, pine or their equivilents) which trees, at the time of planting, shall be at least ten (10) feet in height and spaced upon ten (10) foot centers. 24. Visual Impacts. Mining operations shall be conducted in strict conformity with the Visual Impact Study presented by the Applicant to the BOCC at its hearing of November 08, 2010. A copy of the representative photographs (modified to show anticipated visual impacts) shall remain available to the public for visual inspection at the Garfield County Planning Office and by this reference are incorporated herein as a material part of this approval. 25. In order to be more com.iiant with ULUR • 7-840H the Reclamation Plan shal be modified as shown on the attached plan. VBased upon the public meeting described in condition No. 12 above, Board shall have the power upon good cause being shown, to revoke or to modify the permit: to require certain corrective measures to be taken; to direct the County staff or its agents to enter upon the premises and to take corrective measures required by the Board; to impose new or additional conditions, standards or restrictions to address environmental concerns or neighborhood concerns, especially as required for considerations of public health, safety and welfare or to achieve the objectives and purposes of the original permit or to bring the permit into compliance with other laws or regulations regulating permits to or uses of 04 the site. The costs of any required corrective measures shall be assessed against the Operator. (") 27. Area of Expansion. The area of expansion approved by this Resolution shall be limited to the areas labeled Mining Area 2 (18.49 acres) and Mining Area 4 (22.05 acres) which are the two southern mining areas furthest away from any residential development. Further, this Permit shall expire on November 7, 2030. No mining is permitted within those areas labeled Mining Area 3 or Mining Area 5. { Formatted: Font: ZapfCalligr BT, 12 pt Formatted: Justified, Space After: 0 pt, Line spacing: singe --.)I/44; I- 00 Conditions of Approval 1. All representations made by the Applicant in the application, and at the public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners, shall be conditions of approval, unless specifically altered by the Board of County Commissioners. 2. The operation of the facility shall be in accordance with all applicable Federal, State, and local regulations governing the operation of this type of facility. 3. The facility shall be operated so that the ground vibration inherently and recurrently generated is not perceptible, without instruments, at any point of any boundary line of the property on which the use is located. 4. Site operations shall not emit heat, glare, radiation, dust or fumes which substantially interfere with the existing use of adjoining and nearby property or which constitutes a nuisance or hazard. 5. All equipment and structures associated with this permit shall be painted with non -reflective paint in neutral colors to reduce glare and mitigate any visual impacts. 6. All lighting associated with the property shall be directed inward and downward towards the interior of the property. 7. The following recommendations of the Garfield County Road and Bridge Department shall become conditions of approval: A. A stop sign shall be required at the entrance to the County Road 104. The sign and installation shall be as required in the MUTCD (Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices). B. The owners of the gravel pit may be asked in the future to contribute to a road repair or improvement project for CR 104 and CR 103 to SR 82. C. All vehicles using CR 103 and CR 104 to access the gravel pit shall abide by Garfield County's oversize/overweight system. All vehicles requiring oversize/overweight permits shall apply for them at Garfield County Road and Bridge Department. 8. The Reclamation Plan and Landscape Plan for the site shall be seeded using hydro -seeding with hydro -mulching using tackifier for all slopes greater than 5:1 as required by Section 7-840 of the ULUR. 9. The applicant shall submit a revised "Weed Control Plan Map" identifying the locations of Musk Thistle and Plumeless Thistle prior to issuance of a Land Use Change Permit. All noxious weeds as listed by County Vegetation Management shall be controlled in any areas of the property not being actively mined at that time, including top soil piles and areas where mining has been discontinued for more than 30 days. 10. The applicant shall comply with the following provisions which are incorporated herein as conditions of approval: a. Hours of Operation: The gravel pit shall be allowed to operate Monday — Saturday, with crushing, digging and heavy hauling only occurring between 7:00 AM to 5:00 PM Monday through Friday; heavy hauling from 7:OOAM to 5:OOPM on Saturday; and crushing and digging from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM on Saturday. There shall be no operations on Sunday except in the case of an emergency or for standard maintenance purposes. b. All Trucks operating in the Pit (including third -party trucks not operated by the Owner or Operator, shall be subject to the following: i. All trucks shall have and maintain stock muffler systems that are performing to original manufacturer's specifications. This can be determined and verified by simple visual and auditory inspection of the truck. ii. All trucks ascending or descending the haul route shall not exceed speeds of 10 mph. iii. All trucks descending the haul route or approaching the haul route access on SR 82 shall not use engine Jake Brakes to decelerate. iv. All truck drivers, independent or employed by the applicant shall be briefed on the conditions above and shall agree to operate within the requirements of these stipulations. v. The applicant shall set up a series of progressive consequences for drivers that fail to comply with the above conditions: after three violations any trucker shall be prohibited from entering the pit for a time period of not less than one year. 11. All noise generated from the operation shall not exceed the Residential Zone noise standards defined in the CRS such that noise shall not exceed 55 dB(A) from 7:00 AM to 5:00 PM and 50 dB(A) from 5:00 PM to 7:00 AM when measured 25 feet outside of the Property Boundary. 12. The Owner or Operator shall submit an annual report to the County Building and Planning Department with GPS measurements shown on a map showing the current disturbance, what areas have been backfilled, where topsoil stockpiles are located, all site structures, what areas have been seeded, mulched, and what is planned for the ensuing 12 months. This annual report shall also include: 1) an updated estimate of gravel reserves remaining within the permitted boundaries and within each Mining Area Area; and 2) the implementation of any and all technology within the Pit to mitigate or otherwise reduce noise, dust or other impacts to surrounding properties. The Owner or Operator shall, within one year prior to commencing mining operations within any Mining Phase or ten years since the most recent public meeting, whichever is sooner, schedule before the BOCC a public meeting to review the status of mining and processing operations and to provide the citizens of Garfield County the opportunity to comment upon such operations. 13. The County can request a site inspection with 24 hour's notice to the Operator or Property Owner. Full access to any part of the site will be granted. On request, all paperwork must be shown. 14. A full list of all other permits shall be provided to the County within 24 hours of a request by the County. Any person at any time can call the following agencies directly and request an inspection if they believe a condition of that agency's permit is being violated. a. CDPHE Air Quality Control 303-692-3150 b. Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety 303-866-3567. c. CDOT Grand Junction office 970-248-7000 15. The Property Owner and Operator acknowledge that the ,County has the following performance standards that could lead to revocation of the Land Use Change Permit: A. All fabrication, service and repair operations shall be conducted within an enclosed building or obscured by a fence, natural topography or landscaping. B. All operations involving loading and unloading of vehicles shall be conducted on private property and shall not be conducted on a public right-of-way. C. All industrial wastes shall be disposed of in a manner consistent with statutes and requirements of CDPHE. D. Every use shall be operated so that the ground vibration inherently and recurrently generated is not perceptible without instruments at any point of any boundary line of the property. E. Every use shall be operated so that it does not emit heat, glare, radiation or fumes which substantially interfere with the existing use of adjoining or nearby property or which constitutes a nuisance or hazard. Flaring of gases, aircraft warning signal and reflective painting of storage tanks, or other legal requirements for safety or air pollution control measures shall be exempted from this provision. 16. The County acknowledges that the State Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety ("DRMS") will require a reclamation bond for the operation. So as not to require a duplicate bond, the County will not as a part of this approval require a separate bond; however, the County reserves the right to require a bond in the future in the event the County determines the bond held by DRMS is inadequate or has been released prior to completion of adequate reclamation. The County shall be invited to any bond release inspection of the State Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety. The County will have the opportunity to demonstrate that any item of the permit has not been complied with and that bond should not be released. Specifically, the Final Reclamation Plan (Reclamation Plan Map) shall include the following components: A. When reclaimed, Mining Areas 2-5 shall be constricted to a 3:1 slope. See the Reclamation Plan Map of the application for the layout of these areas. This shall be required to be shown on the Final Reclamation Plan approved herein and tendered to the DRMS. B. Mining Operations shall be allowed to progress so long as the applicant reclaims each successive phase before moving on to the next phase as shown on the Mining Plan. The Applicant shall use "contemporaneous reclamation" as discussed in the application. If the reclamation does not follow the Mining Plan or has not been completed within eighteen (18) months, all mining operations on the property shall be halted until the reclamation and re - vegetation has occurred to the satisfaction of the County. Completion shall include but not be limited to recountering, top -soiling, seeding, and mulching. The DRMS Final Reclamation Plan shall be resubmitted to Garfield County prior to the issuance of a Land Use Change Permit and shall be the only reclamation plan used by both the County and DRMS. Additionally, a new bond will be calculated to cover this plan and secured with DRMS to cover its implementation. Proof of a recalculated bond shall be provided to the County prior to issuance of a LUCP. 17. The Concrete Plant shall remain in its current location in the bottom of the pit on the eastern end of Mining Area 1. No Asphalt Plant shall be allowed anywhere within the Property unless the same is separately approved by Garfield County pursuant to amendement of the within approval or pursuant to separate application. 18. Owner or Operator agrees to remove all stockpiled gravel and all facilities necessary for such removal located in Mining Areas 2, 3 , 4 or 5 within three hundred and sixty (360) days of the termination of this approval. 19. Primary Crusher: a. The primary jaw crusher shall be located at all times on the pit floor and as close as is practicable to the northern -most slope. If the primary jaw crusher cannot be located adjacent to the toe of the northern slope, then sound shall be mitigated with a 30 feet berm of material left in place or a sound wall system; and b. Owner or Operator shall use reasonable efforts and implementable technology to minimize sound emanating from the primary crusher. 20. All in -pit haul trucks and excavating equipment used by Owner or Operator instant to mining operations shall be equipped with "white noise" or similar backup alarms or no less effective alarm equipment. Standard backup alarms, as to the above identified equipment shall not be utilized. 21. Secondary Crusher: The Secondary Crusher shall remain within the Phase 1 Mining Area. 22. All haulage roads within the pit shall be watered four (4) times per day unless due to inclement weather, snow or ice, such watering is not required. 23. Screening of Administration Building, Maintenance Buildings and Equipment. All buildings and equipment shall be screened or obscured from view of the Wooden Deer Subdivision by planting of trees (cottonwood, pine or their equivilents) which trees, at the time of planting, shall be at least ten (10) feet in height and spaced upon ten (10) foot centers. 24. Visual Impacts. Mining operations shall be conducted in strict conformity with the Visual Impact Study presented by the Applicant to the BOCC at its hearing of November 08, 2010. A copy of the representative photographs (modified to show anticipated visual impacts) shall remain available to the public for visual inspection at the Garfield County Planning Office and by this reference are incorporated herein as a material part of this approval. • (e/rivm Jock,/ Table 4-502.0 f1) Minim s Area and Quantities Mining Area Acreage Topsoil (C.Y) Overburden SG.Y.) Gravel (Tons) Year to Complete Mining Area 1 46.14 7,444 29,776 913,171 • 2.0 Mining Area 2 18.49 29831 119,322 3,542,271 7.9 Mining Area 3 18.28 29,492 117,967 3,190,812 7.1 Mining Area 4 22.05 35,574 142,296 4,158,195 9.2 Mining Area 5 18.63 30,056 120,226 3,204,577 7.1 --I Total 123.59 132,397 529,586 15,009,026 33.4 The material volumes described in Table 4-502.C(1) are approximate but are based on the current operation and exploration drilling conducted in the area. The Years to Complete column is based on an average annual production of 450,000 tons per year. This has been the average over the past few years but sales are always dependent on demand. Additional information on the phasing of the operation and the method of mining are included in the Visual Impact Report because it was the basis of the sequencing. The Visual Impact Report is located in Appendix G. B. Mine Facilities and Operation The mine facilities and operation will continue into the expansion area as it does now. The shop and stockpile area will remain in its current location near the access entrance until ample room is available on the pit floor. The fuel tank area will stay in its current location over the life of the pit, immediately southeast of the shop building. The wash plant and associated stockpiles is currently located north of the shop building. As mining progresses to the west, this facility will initially move to the area north of the current wash pond location north of the mining area and will eventually be moved to the pit floor. Both the intermediate and final locations are better visually than the existing location for the homes located north of the pit. Equipment parking is located east of the concrete plant and immediately south of the shop. These locations will be maintained for the life of the pit. All current facilities are shown on Map C-1. The concrete plant is permitted without an expiration date which means that it will stay at its current location after the mining operation has exhausted all its reserves. Water from the Basin Ditch will continue to be used for dust control. As the mining operation moves to the expansion area the processing equipment (crushing and screening plant) may move with the active mining face to reduce pit haul traffic. The processing equipment will be placed in a location close to the northern slope to prevent nuisances to the home owners to the north of the pit. C. Topsoil, Overburden and Wash Fines Handling An existing topsoil stockpile is located at the eastern edge of the current disturbance area, as shown on Maps C-1 and C-2. This pile contains approximately 104,000 cubic yards. This material will be used to reclaim Mining Area 1 once final grade is achieved. Mining Area 1 requires 86,000 cubic yards of topsoil for reclamation based on the restored thickness of 12 inches. The excess will be used in other areas. Blue Pit - February 2010 C-3 7/. 1 (3.9 8.Z.' 43.9 299,,70