Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 PC Staff Report 10.24.2006Exhibits for Public Hearing held on October 24, 2006 Exhibit Letter (A to Z) Exhibit A Mail Receipts B Proof of Publication C Garfield County Zoning Regulations of 1978, as amended D Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2000 E City of Rifle Comprehensive Plan F Application G Staff Memorandum H Comments from CDOT dated I Comments from CDOW dated 4/28/06 J Comments from Bureau of Reclamation dated 5/1/06 K Comments from County Vegetation Manager dated July 6, 2006 L Letter from Rifle Senior Advisory Board M Letter from Colorado Geologic Survey received May 09, 2006 N Letter from the Division of Water Resources 0 Letter from Mary Jane Mead received 4/28/2006 P Letter from Resource Engineering dated October 18, 2006 Q Resolution of Opposition from the City of Rifle City Council R Resolution proposing the preparation of a river assessment & master plan S Letter from Shanen Weber of Design Architects to Jim Nue 6/21/06 T Letter from Jeff Simonson to City of Rifle City Manager dated 7/5/06 U Letter to Building & Planning from SGM dated 4/17/06 V Letter from Leavenworth & Karp to Building & Planning dated 7/6/06 W Letter from City of Rifle Parks and Rec Advisory Board dated June 26,2006 X Letter from from Lafarge North America to Corps of Engineers dated 8/29/06 Y Letter from CGS to County dated September 5, 2006 Z Letter from US & Wildlife Service dated/8/25/2006 �'tt /Fish N .7 Gu 5)!z, %/t// tLMv '13i fc4 66 —gib, iv vqh., -fi- /ly j), r j4! 8,/1- Z. 14 -Mt PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS TYPE OF REVIEW APPLICANT LOCATION SITE INFORMATION EXISTING ZONING PC 10/24/06 FJ Special Use Permit for 1) "Processing, Storage and Material Handling of Natural Resources" & Special Use Permit for 2) "Development in the Floodplain" Rocks R Us, LLC River's Edge, LLC The subject property is located' mile east of the main interstate intersection of Rifle Colorado between the Colorado River and Interstate 70. (Section 15, Township 6 South, Range 93 West) Approximately 93 acres Agriculture / Industrial (AI) Zoning / Location Scott / Chambers Gravel Pit PC —10/24/06 Page 2 I. REQUEST The Applicant specifically requests a Special Use Permit for "Extraction, Storage, Processing, and Material Handling of Natural Resources" for a Gravel Pit operation on approximately 93 acres. This activity also falls almost entirely within the floodway of the 100 -year floodplain as mapped by FEMA requiring a Floodplain Permit. II. GENERAL LOCATION / SITE DESCRIPTION The subject property is located 1/2 mile east of the main interstate intersection of Rifle Colorado tt between the Colorado River and Interstate 70. (Section 15, Township 6 South, Range 93 West). The eq',ll map on the front page illustrates the location of the proposed gravel pit. The 93 -acre site is a /tn x,r\i relatively flat property in the Colorado River / Valley floor containing mature established riparian \ \ °'� vegetation along the Colorado River, significant established wetlands along an older river corridor^`�i through the site known as the Ox Bow, as well as historically irrigated pasture / grazing fields all of/ which contain stands of mature dense cottonwood stands throughout the property. III. ZONING & ADJACENT USES The property to the east is the active LaFarge Mamm Creek Gravel Pit; the property to the north is the Colorado River with the nearly finished Chambers Gravel Pit on the north bank across the river; the property to the west is vacant undisturbed pasture, and the property to the south is CDOT right- of-way containing the frontage road and east and west bound lanes of Interstate I-70. All of the surrounding adjacent properties are zoned Agricultural / Industrial similar to the subject property. (The map on the front cover of this memorandum illustrates the surrounding zoning.) IV. GENERAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Applicant requests land use approvals for a gravel pit which is located in the FEMA mapped and regulated 100 -year floodplain of the Colorado River. This application is actually an expansion of the existing Chambers Pit on the north side of the river which has an existing Special Use Permit but is nearing completion. The proposed mining operation will occur in three main "areas" covering a total of 63 acres of which each area is further divided into "phases." Mining Area 1 is located on the far western portion of the site nearest to the Rifle Interchange, Mining Area 2 is located inside the Ox Bow in the center of the property, and Mining Area 3 is located on the far eastern portion of the property nearest LaFarge's property. These mining Mining Area 3 Scott / Chambers Gravel Pit PC —10/24/06 Page 3 Areas and Phases are shown in the proposed plan on the previous page. A 100' buffer will be left undisturbed along the Colorado River shore to lessen impact on riparian vegetation, visual impact, and lessen the risk of pit capture. The Application states that the expected raw gravel to be mined is approximately 3,094,634 tons over the 10 year life of the mining operation. The proposed method of mining is to strip the area of vegetation, removal and storage of topsoil and overburden, then begin digging / sifting, and crushing the resource for the desired aggregate. Because of the Ox Box being identified as significant wetlands, the Applicant proposes to place a bridge (rail flatcars) across the water course / wetland band in order to access Mining Area 1. The Applicant intends to mine the Areas in Phases where the previous phase will be reclaimed (earth work only) as mining begins in the next phase. Pits will be dug to approximately 25 feet in depth from grade with expected water table levels reached at elevations of 5,300 to 5,311. The pits will continually be dewatered due to this water table elevation with the water being filtered and then pumped into either the Colorado River of the Ox Bow wetlands by way of sediment ponds that range from approximately 200' x 20' x 4' to 100' x 10' x 4' in size. The mining operation proposes portable structures on site to include an office, scales, fuel storage, and concrete and asphalt batch plants. While this is an expansion of the Division of Minerals and Geology (now known as Division if Reclamation, Mining, and Safety / DRMS) permit for the Chambers Pit across the river, the subject pit will function entirely as a separate operation with all sales, transport, crushing, etc occurring on the subject site. Once aggregate is ready for sale, it will be trucked off site directly onto the CDOT frontage road then into outlying areas for deposit. Proposed hours of operation are from 6:00 AM to 8:00 PM Monday through Saturday and 8:00 to 1:00 on Sundays from March through November. The operating hours from December through February will be 6:00 to 6:00, Monday through Saturday. Occasionally, the Applicant proposes there will be nighttime mining for special public agency projects which would require BOCC approval in a public meeting at least two weeks prior to operations. Once all mining areas have been fully mined, final reclamation will include final earthwork, vegetative planting, and cease dewatering allowing the pits to fill. The pits will have slopes of 2:1 during mining with varied lesser slopes for final reclamation (with up to 10:1 slopes is some areas on the wetland shelves). Once fully reclaimed, the Proposed Red/aniatian / Revegetation Wetland ShelllTdottml Deslgn; ttrew e,lwnu. rnr.l; CflorincM 4'.Jings PI ole Ur ExIstfott Trews Arrived AOw0Ktrrie Litt, r.'norf,a 1op,0':I Ito 6 5Wa,na Fringe i. Iouept taD v Roole Piacee 65 Ples wet or t,lutt 3 Scott/Chambers Gravel Pit PC —10/24/06 Page 4 Application states the property's uses will revert to wildlife habitat and recreation for fishing and boating. The Application states that the life of the mine (based on annual production / demand) will be approximately 10 years and that a total of approximately 3 million tons of raw gravel will be mined from the site. V. AUTHORITY & APPLICABILITY Pursuant to Section 9.03.04 of the Zoning Resolution, an application for a Special Use Permit shall be approved or denied by the Board of County Commissioners after holding a public hearing thereon in conformance with all provisions of the Zoning Resolution. VI. REVIEW AGENCY AND OTHER COMMENTS Comments have been received from the following agencies / community groups and are integrated throughout this memorandum as applicable. 1. Bookcliff Soil Conservation District: No Comments Received 2. City of Rifle: Exhibits Q - W 3. Rifle Fire Protection District: No Comments Received 4. Colorado Department of Transportation: Exhibit H 5. Colorado Division of Wildlife: Exhibit 1 6. Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment: No Comments Received 7. Colorado Division of Water Resources: Exhibit N 8. Colorado Geologic Survey: Exhibit M 9. Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Board: Exhibit J 10. US Army Corps of Engineers: No Comments Received 11. Garfield County Vegetation Management: Exhibit K 12. Resource Engineering: Exhibit P VII. RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The proposed mining activity is located in an area of the County just outside the City of Rifle (the City) which is in the area of urban influence for the City. The County and the City have entered into an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) which agreed that proposed land uses in the County that fell within this area of influence would be required to address the City's Comprehensive Plan for that area. In this case, the City's Comprehensive Plan has napped this area as "Open Space / Agriculture" with categories including 1) wildlife habitat enhancement, 2) environmental education, 3) passive recreation, 4) agriculture, and 5) mine reclamation. Staff discussed this designation with the City of Rifle who indicated that this designation was generally intended to deal with areas already mined. On its face, it would appear the map envisioned a majority of this Colorado River bottom would be 4 Scott/ Chambers Gravel Pit PC —10/24/06 Page 5 mined at some point and that subsequent land uses would be required to reclaim for the above uses. VIII. REVIEW CRITERIA FOR SPECIAL USE PERMITS (SECTION 5:03) Pursuant to Section 5.03, as listed under the Zone District Regulations, special uses shall conform to all requirements listed thereunder and elsewhere in the Zoning Resolution, as well as the following standards: 1. Utilities adequate to provide water and sanitation service based on accepted engineering standards and approved by the Board of County Commissioners shall either be in place or shall be constructed in conjunction with the proposed use. Response The Applicant states that drinking water and portable sanitation facilities will be brought on site for employees. This type of mining near the Colorado River requires digging well below the water table which requires approval from the Division of Water Resources (CDWR) in the form of well permits and substitute water supplies to accommodate filling the ponds after mining. The Application contains approval from CDWR for Gravel Well Permits and a Substitute Water Supply Plan for the gravel operation; however, the augmentation plan has not been approved in water court. Staff referred the Application the Division of Water Resources which responded stating that while permits have been issued, the Division does not necessarily take the position that the water supply plan is valid. (Exhibit N) The proposed life of the gravel extraction is approximately 10 years based on mining rates / demand. The property currently contains a small shop / warehouse and single-family residence which use an existing ISDS (and a domestic water well). It has been the practice of the Board to require more permanent water / sanitation facilities for a use if there are long term employees for the use. In this case, it appears 10 years (to the year 2016) is more permanent and should require more permanent sanitation facilities. 2. Street improvements adequate to accommodate traffic volume generated by the proposed use and to provide safe, convenient access to the use shall either be in place or shall be constructed in conjunction with the proposed use. Response The only vehicle access to the area is provided directly off of an existing CDOT frontage road that dead ends at the subject property. Presently, the road is paved from the I-70 interchange (County Airport Interchange) to the LaFarge Mamm Creek Pit entrance. It is a gravel surface from that point 5 Scott / Chambers Gravel Pit PC —10/24/06 Page 6 to the entrance of the subject property. The photo below shows the view of the frontage road looking east from the access point onto the property. deliveries, and customers. The Application states that the CDOT permit is based on 400 one way trips (200 loads) which will far exceed the expected daily one way trips based on annual average production which is about 150 one-way trips, 15 ton haul trips, 6 days a week, 48 weeks a year resulting in about 55 loads or 110 trips per day. Note, this number is production only and does not reflect total daily employee trips, The frontage road lies within CDOT's jurisdiction. Staff referred the Application to CDOT which stated they had "signed an access permit for 335 daily trips on January 23, 2006. This permit did include highway improvements which primarily include paving the frontage road from the end of the existing pavement at the entrance to LaFarge to the access point for this property. CDOT had not received the Notice to Proceed at this point." Staff has attached the signed permit as well as the list of conditions that have to be met before any mining operation can begin. (Please refer to Exhibit H). While the specific access does not involve Garfield County, the act of hauling gravel on the County's road system does require the Applicant to be aware of heavy haul routes and over sized / weight requirements required by the Road and Bridge Department. Should the Board approve this Special Use Permit, Staff suggests that no mining work / site prep be allowed to begin until the improvements required by CDOT have been installed and approved by CDOT according to their permit. 3. Design of the proposed use is organized to minimize impact on adjacent uses of land through installation of screen fences or landscape materials on the periphery of the lot and by location of intensively utilized areas, access points, lighting and signs in such a manner as to protect established neighborhood character. Response The proposal is to fully remove vegetation cover and mine approximately 63 acres (68%) of a 93 - acre property into three exposed surface gravel pits for a period of at least 10 years (2016). The existing established neighborhood character can be characterized as industrial (gravel mining to the north and east), (mass transit oriented) CDOT highway to the south, and natural riparian river bottom to the west at the entrance to the City of Rifle. The property itself serves as a natural unimproved 6 Scott / Chambers Gravel Pit PC —10/24/06 Page 7 buffer (on the south side of the river) separating the City of Rifle's main entrance from LaFarge's gravel pit operation. The site is highly visible from west -bound traffic on I-70 because it is elevated at least 20 feet above the property. Some of the vegetation (mature cottonwood stands) on the property actually serve as a visual buffer (as well as for sound) between the City and the LaFarge gravel pit. This property also serves as the last and most significant natural / unimproved properties along the river and I-70 corridor as one approaches the City of Rifle from the east. Once this property has been mined, it will significantly change the character of the area as seen primarily from I-70 and from the bridge crossing the Colorado River entering and leaving the City of Rifle. The Applicant proposes that once the mining operation has completed, the resulting land form will be fully reclaimed producing improved wildlife habitat, wetlands, and water ponds used as waterfowl habitat and recreation. As a result, the highly visual impacts created during the 10 year mining life will be entirely eliminated once reclaimed. The slide below illustrates this generic mining life cycle using a "reclaimed" pit from the Chambers Gravel operation to the north of the river. The Applicant proposes to reclaim the mining phases within the mining areas as the operation proceeds by doing much of the earthwork which involves laying back and recontouring slopes. In any event, due to the highly visible location of the property and its low elevation, the mining activity will be highly visually impacting and almost impossible to screen due to its low elevation. To lessen the highly visual impact of the area and to the entrance of the City of Rifle, the Application proposes to leave a 100 -foot riparian buffer along the Colorado River which contains significant stands of mature cottonwoods that will not only serve as a visual buffer between Rifle of and the site but anchor the bank to reduce the risk of pit capture due to overtopping in a flood event. While Staff agrees with this effort, more could be done to reduce the overall / overtime visual impact of the operations such as limiting the percentage of high -wall exposure, limiting the amount of total site disturbance at any one time, and allowing the pits to refill per phase rather than per area so that water would cover pit floors to resemble lakes rather than a dewatered pit floor. 7 Scott/Chambers Gravel Pit PC —10/24/06 Page 8 At the end of the day, the Applicant proposes on-going reclamation as the mining continues but this activity will be highly visually impacting and will permanently change the character of the area and it will eliminate one of the last significant mature vegetative stands along the Colorado River. Staff suggests as a condition of approval that the proposed reclamation plan in the Special Use Permit be resubmitted to the DRMS and becomes the only reclamation plan (tasks / timetables) used by both the County and DRMS. Additionally, a new bond be calculated to cover this plan and secured with DRNS to cover its implementation. Section 5.03.07 (Industrial Operations j Pursuant to Section 5.03.07 of the Zoning Resolution, a permit for Industrial Operations requires the submittal of an impact statement on the proposed use describing its location, scope, design and construction schedule, including an explanation of its operational characteristics. The impact statement is required to address the following: (A) Existing lawful use of water through depletion or pollution of surface run-off, streamflow or ground water. Response The Application states that operational water consumption will require approximately 7,056,000 gallons per year or 21.65 acre feet. This water is used for dust control, cement and asphalt batch plants, and gravel pit evaporation. The mining activity requires a Gravel Well Permit and Augmentation Plan which have been submitted with this Application. Because the operation requires dewatering to occur which will discharge water to either the Colorado River or the on site wetlands, a discharge to groundwater permit is required from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) as well as a Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) which is intended to provide "best management practices" for handling storm water run-off on and from the property. The Application states these have been either approved or filed with the state. The Application does contain a Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan (SPCC) which deals with preventing, containing, and adequately reporting chemical spills on the property and is particularly important due to the proposed fuel storage on site proposed with this plan. City of Rifle Watershed District The subject site is located within the jurisdiction of the City of Rifle's Watershed District. More specifically, the City's water intake from the Colorado River providing drinking water to the City lies directly across the river (on the north side) from the proposed gravel pit. The Applicant has applied for a Watershed Permit but no permit has been issued to date. [As a matter of background, the City of Rifle recently acquired the property through condemnation 8 Scott/Chambers Gravel Pit PC —10/24/06 Page 9 from Rocks -R -Us, LLC in order to construct a new raw water intake facility to serve the City's municipal water supply. The general project description proposed to install a pipe from the Colorado River into a large pond created from a reclaimed gravel pit operation. This pond will serve as a settling pond allowing any solids to settle out as well as reduce the total dissolved solid concentrations in the pond water. Then this water will be pumped from the pond into a pumping facility (672 sq. ft.) at the edge of the pond and sent via an 18" pipeline to the existing City water pump house on the adjacent property approximately 500 linear feet to the west where it is delivered into the existing water supply system.] The Application provides a discussion on the potential impacts to this intake facility which primarily includes "pit capture" and "bank scouring" resulting in the potential for a realignment of the Colorado River. The Application proposes to leave a 100 -foot buffer along the banks of the Colorado on the subject property to reduce the ability of pit capture which also reduces the affect of erosion on the bank with existing vegetation. Additionally, the proposal believes that berming to keep floodwaters out of the pits will only have a detrimental affect by increasing water velocity in the main channel which only increases the scouring affect downstream . The net result is to allow for floodwater to enter into the floodplain so that water velocities can be slowed, sediment can settle out in the ponds. Staff finds the potential alteration of the River may damage the ability for the Rifle water intake to function. The Applicant has not provided enough proof that this will never occur. The mining operation will require a significant amount of dewatering to occur. The mining design proposes to discharge water directly into the Colorado River and through on-site wetlands (old Ox Bow) from the pit dewatering activity during the life of the mining activity. It appears there are three discharge points which will actually discharge below (down river) from the City's old water intake facility. These discharge points and methods are regulated by CDPHE (Water Quality Control Division). Additionally, the SPCC (Spill Prevention, Containment, and Control) plan is intended to control fuel spills on the property. (B) Impacts on adjacent land from the generation of vapor, d� smoke, noise, glare or vibration, or other emanations. Response The proposed gravel mine is a "wet" mining activity which will be constantly dewatering pits as they mine. However, surface gravel mining will produce dust from the act of digging for gravel and large trucks used to haul the resource around the site, crushing the resource and hauling it to construction sites. The County does not have a specific "fugitive dust" regulation except to require that it cannot impact adjacent lands. The Department of Public Health and Environment Air Pollution Control Division (CDPHE) does regulate fugitive dust pursuant to the directive of the federal Clean Air Act. The Application contains an approved "Construction Permit" from CDPHE that requires all activities cannot exceed 20% opacity. 9 Scott / Chambers Gravel Pit PC -10/24/06 Page 10 Vapor / emissions will be generated primarily from the concrete and asphalt batch plants, and Large trucks and machinery used to extract and haul the resource. Noise and vibration will be generated from the crusher, concrete and asphalt batch plants, and large machinery digging and hauling the resource. Lastly, glare will be created from the three ponds covering approximately 63 acres of the site once fully reclaimed which may or may not have any additional visual impact on aircraft trajectories used by aircraft using the County Airport or for vehicle traffic traveling I-70 with respect to the severe low angle western evening and eastern morning sun for commuters to and from the western parts of the County. The mining activity will not occur on the whole property at once. It is to occur in three main areas over a series of phases in each area. The Applicant proposes fugitive dust control by using water. Further, the Application states that all emissions are controlled by various State, Federal, and County agencies. Also, the Application does not propose blasting to occur on site which would eliminate the issue of vibration. Regarding noise, state statute states "Sound levels of noise radiating from a property line at a distance of 25 feet or more there from in excess of the dB(A) established for the following time periods and zones shall constitute (prema facia) evidence that such noise is a public nuisance." The table below shows the zones and dB(A) acceptable for each zone and particular time. Zone 7 am to 7 pm 7 pm to 7 am Residential 55 dB(A) 50 dB(A) Commercial 60 dB(A) 55 dB(A) Light Industrial 65 dB(A) 70 dB(A) Industrial 80 dB(A) 75 dB(A) Since the standard requires that the "volume of sound generated shall comply with the standards set forth in the Colorado Revised Statutes at the time any new application is made. The Application proposes hours of operation from 6:00 AM to 8:00 PM effectively six days a week with additional mining activities through the night on occasion. Staff suggests, should the Board approve the SUP requests, the hours of operation be similar to what the Board required for the recently approved "Glen Pit" which are as follows: The gravel pit hours of operation will be 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday and 8:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.nt. on Sundays from March throughNovernber. The operating hours during the December through February period will be 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.tn. Monday through Saturday. Overnight operation of an asphalt batch plant for public agency projects requiring such activity, may be allowed subject to approval of the Board of County Commissioners in a public meeting at least two weeks in advance of any proposed night time activity. The 10 Scott / Chambers Gravel Pit PC —10/24/06 Page 11 Applicant shall notify all adjacent property owners of such meeting by return -receipt mail at least 10 days prior to the meeting and present the receipts at the meeting. Staff finds that the noise generated from this mining activity will not significantly impact surrounding uses due to the existing ambient noise generated from the Lafarge gravel pit, Interstate I- 70, and the County Airport. As you are aware, the County does not have noise standards and defaults to the Colorado Revised Statutes for the state's guidelines shown above which shall govern noise emanating from the site. (C) Impacts on wildlife and domestic animals through the creation of hazardous attractions, alteration of existing native vegetation, blockade of migration routes, use patterns or other disruptions. Response Staff finds that the gravel mining will have significant impacts to wildlife and habitat on and near the subject property in the form of alteration (removal of 68%) of existing native vegetation and disruption and potential harassment of a nearby active Bald Eagle nest. The property presently serves as a rich upland and wetland habitat with dense mature stands of cottonwoods throughout the site serving as valuable riparian habitat as well as delineated wetlands throughout the site mainly located in the Ox Bow of the Colorado River. All of this varied vegetation provides valuable habitat for numerous birds including raptors, aquatic species, and mammals (elk and deer) which are all identified in the Application as well as in the comments provided by the Division of Wildlife (DOW). The Application states that while there are impacts, they should be viewed as temporary because the reclaimed pits / mining site will provide a high quality / diverse wetland and riparian area once fully established. Staff referred the Application the Division of Wildlife (DOW) which provided the following comments as contained in Exhibit I. According to thc mining plan and maps there will be a 100' buffer between thc mining operation and the river. This will definitely be an advantage for the species that utilize the shoreline of the river. The plan also leaves the old river oxbow out of the mining operation. This will provide some good habitat and wetland during and after the operation. There are several mature cotton wood trees that arc to be left undisturbed as well as some willows. These trees will be an asset to the bird population for nesting and raptor hunting perches. 11 would be of great advantage to the wildlife if these undisturbed areas are implemented according to the plan. It would also be an advantage to create visual and noise buffers between the mining operation and the 100' river buffer and oxbow. Buffers could consist of earthen berms or woody vegetation. The top soil that will be removed and saved for later reclamation could be positioned as a 11 Scott / Chambers Gravel Pit PC —10/24/06 Page 12 This gravel extraction operation will have negative impacts on the habitat and the wildlife that utilizes it. The impact will stan with the displacement ol'the wildlife which will be followed by the conversion of habitat into disturbed areas. These areas often see an infestation of non-native and noxious weeds. Structures that are not wildlife friendly such as steep banked ponds and gravel hills void of top soil are often created. During the mining operation human presence, activities and noise will have obvious adverse effects on the wildlife. The DOW notes the presence of an established Bald Eagle nest on the adjacent LaFarge property. The nest is approximately 340 yards (1020 feet) from the eastern property line of the subject property and approximately 160 yards north of Interstate I-70. It has been in place for at least 4 years and has successfully reared young over those years with the most active nesting period being from January 15th to July 31st of each year. The DOW made the following comments regarding the Bald Eagle. The following is an excerpt from the DOW's letter: All who are involved with this proposal realize that one of the biggest wildlife issues particular to this site is the existing Bald Eagle nest to the east of the property. The nest is approximately 340 yards from the property line. Bald Eagles are a federally protected species. As such they are protected by the Endangered Species Act from any activities that are thus defined: "harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct." "Harass" is fiuther defined by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to include an intentional or negligent act or omission which creates the likelihood of injury to wildlife by annoying it to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavioral patterns which include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering. The Division of Wildlife usually recommends a buffer zone around a Bald Eagle nest of 1a mile free from disturbance with a buffer of 'A mile during breeding and nesting season. This particular pair of eagles usually starts nesting activity after the middle ofJanuary and continues through the end of July. They have now successfully raised young from that nest for the last two years. They started nest building and breeding activities three years ago. This pair seems to be more tolerant of disturbance. Interstate 70, the Lafarge Maim Creek Gravel Pit, and a residence/small business all occur within several hundred yards of the nest. However, there is usually a threshold of disturbance that these species will "put up with." Once that threshold is crossed they will probably abandon the nest and any eggs or young present at the time. ht order to avoid that circumstance, the Division recommends that mining operations in Mining Arca 3 (Mine Plan Map) be started after July 31" of any given year. If the operation cannot be postponed at the following January 15a1, at least the operation is in existence and the eagles can determine if they want to nest there as opposed to being disturbed in the middle of nesting. There was some language in the plan saving that the residence existing on the east property boundary would be demolished "if" that area was detemnined to be mimed. If it is therefore possible to leave a buffer along the cast botwdary it would be highly advantageous as far as the eagle's nest is concerned. Staff finds while the interstate represents a nearby obnoxious use, the addition of a gravel mining pit approximately 1020 feet from the nest only adds to the potential harassment of the nest and may force the Eagles to abandon the nest. The US Fish & Wildlife regulates federally protected species such as the American Bald Eagle by the Endangered Species Act. As stated in the DOW letter, the US Fish & Wildlife as well as DOW typically recommend a 'A mile non disturbance zone around a nest which grows to''/ mile during nesting and breeding season. 12 Scott / Chambers Gravel Pit PC —10/24/06 Page 13 In this case, the existing nest is located approximately 1,020 linear feet from the mining area 3 on the site plan. This is 300 feet short of the 'A mile distance needed for non -disturbance. Actually, as scaled on the plans, the 'A mile distance puts the buffer somewhere in the middle of Mining Area 3 (the eastern pit). The' mile buffer from the nest extends to cover approximately 'h of Mining Area 2 (the middle pit) shown to the left. As the DOW letter points out, the DOW recommends that no mining activity start in Mining Area 2 until after July 3151 of any given year. Further, if the mining activity cannot be postponed at the next January 15th, then at least the eagles can determine if they want to nest there as opposed to being disturbed during nesting. Staff finds this recommendation a bit perplexing. Again, the USFW definition of "harassment" is an intentional or negligent act or omission which creates the likelihood of injury to wildlife by annoying it to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavioral patterns which include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering. In Staff's opinion, if the eagles choose not to return to this established nest because mining was underway the next January 15th, one could reasonably assume the new use (gravel mining activity) was the cause of abandonment directly resulting in harassment. Staff raises the question: How is this not "harassment?" As mentioned above, the nest tree is on the neighboring Lafarge property which has mining activity occurring in Cell 3 which has its western most portion falling 200 feet within the 'A mile buffer. USFS has allowed the mining of this cell to continue so long as the eagles are not there. Once the eagles return, all activity must cease. With this as an exception Lafarge committed to maintaining the recommended 'A mile offset from the nest while the eagles are not nesting as well as respecting the 1/2 mile offset when the eagles are actively nesting. (See Exhibit X) Note, the importance of protecting the bald eagle (via the Bald and Golden Eagle Act and Migratory Bird Treaty Act) as well as the dense mature cottonwood gallery along the Colorado River was reinforced by the USFS in their letter to the County dated August 25, 2006. (See Exhibit Z) Based on the forgoing, should the Board approve the SUP, Staff recommends a condition of approval be required that "no mining activity, operations staging (batch plant / office / scales / sales / etc.), or reclamation shall be allowed in Mining Area 3 (eastern most pit) where it lies within the 1/4 mile 13 Scott / Chambers Gravel Pit PC —10/24/06 Page 14 buffer zone. The pit configuration shall be redesigned to acknowledge this buffer. Additionally, no mining activity, operations staging (batch plant / office / scales / sales / etc.), or reclamation shall be allowed in any mining area that lies within the 1/2 mile buffer area until after July 31st of any given year and subsequently all such activity shall stop prior to January 15th of any given year." Lastly, Staff finds the final pond configurations should be amended to add additional undulation / variation in the shoreline to enhance protective characteristics of wildlife habitat as well as visual interest. This comports with suggestions by the DOW that suggest typical engineered pond configurations add little in the way of shoreline protection for rearing waterfowl / and aquatic wildlife. (D) Affirmatively show the impacts of truck and automobile traffic to and from such uses and their impacts to areas in the County. Response The Application states that "all traffic will occur along the Mamm Creek Frontage Road" which is a CDOT controlled roadway. Staff assumes gravel transport will actually go beyond this road and into the County on the County's road system. A CDOT access permit was sought and approved for access onto this road as attached as Exhibit H to this memorandum which approved 335 daily trips. The Application states that the CDOT permit is based on 400 one way trips (200 loads) which will far exceed the expected daily one way trips based on annual average production which is about 140 one- way trips, 15 ton haul trips, 6 days a week, 48 weeks a year resulting in about 55 loads or 110 trips per day. Note, this number is production only and does not reflect total daily employee trips, deliveries, and customers. The frontage road lies within CDOT's jurisdiction. Staff referred the Application to CDOT which stated they had "signed an access permit for 335 daily trips on January 23, 2006. This permit did include highway improvements which includes paving the frontage road to the access. CDOT had not received the Notice to Proceed at this point." Staff has attached the signed permit as well as the list of conditions that have to be met before any mining operation can begin. (Please refer to Exhibit H). Regarding traffic generation and associated impacts, Staff notes these heavy trucks will impact the County road system. The Applicant shall be made aware of the over weight / size regulations administered by the Road and Bridge Department and well as preferred heavy haul routes through the County. Additionally, the traffic numbers used for the CDOT permit appear to deal primarily with production only and do not reflect total daily employee trips, deliveries, and customers. 14 Scott / Chambers Gravel Pit PC —10/24/06 Page 15 (E) That sufficient distances shall separate such use from abutting property which might otherwise be damaged by operations of the proposed use(s). Response The Application does propose a 100 -foot buffer separating the mining activity from the Colorado River; however, all three Mining Areas are basically proposed at the very edges of the property leaving only limited setbacks of 10-20 feet from the adjoining properties on the east, west, and southern property boundaries. This places the mining activity within 250 feet from I-70 in some cases. The Application states that the CDMG permit requires engineer certified proof that the mining activity will not cause impact outside the permit boundary. Exhibit U in the Application goes on to state that no structures outside the permit boundary will be impacted by this activity. No such "engineered proof" was submitted to support these statements. Resource Engineering concurred, on behalf of the County, that the Applicant should submit the certified engineer proof with this application. The Applicant should describe the setbacks to adjacent properties, adjacent property uses, fencing, screening, lighting, etc. and should affirmatively state, sufficient separation from abutting property is provided. City of Rifle Watershed District The subject site is located within the jurisdiction of the City of Rifle's Watershed District. More specifically, the City's water intake from the Colorado River providing drinking water to the City lies directly across the river (on the north side) from the proposed gravel pit. The Applicant has applied for a Watershed Permit but no permit has been issued to date. The Application provides a discussion on the potential impacts to this intake facility which primarily includes "pit capture" and "bank scouring" resulting in the potential for a realignment of the Colorado River. The Application proposes to leave a 100 -foot buffer along the banks of the Colorado on the subject property to reduce the ability of pit capture which also reduces the affect of erosion on the bank with existing vegetation. Additionally, the proposal believes that berming to keep floodwaters out of the pits will only have a detrimental affect by increasing water velocity in the main channel which only increases the scouring affect downstream . The net result is to allow for floodwater to enter into the floodplain so that water velocities can be slowed, sediment can settle out in the ponds. Staff finds the potential alteration of the River may damage the ability for the Rifle water intake to function. The Application states that "pit capture" remains the primary concern for the City of Rifle. The City's Engineer has suggested to the Applicant that significantly reducing the slopes of the above water areas, the native cobble will serve as rip -rap protection. The Applicant has added this program 15 Scott / Chambers Gravel Pit PC —10/24/06 Page 16 will have the added benefit that these mild slopes add variation to the final reclaimed appearance of the lake. Again, should the Board approve the proposed activity, Staff suggests that no activity begin until the City of Rifle issues a Watershed Permit. (F) Mitigation measures proposed for all of the foregoing impacts identified and for the standards identified in Section 5.03.08 of this Resolution Generally speaking, the most significant / concerning component of this activity relates to how well the pits are reclaimed. The Application states that the DMG permit requires a "high standard" for reclamation. The Application does propose a fairly detailed reclamation plan which includes details for final slope recontouring, shoreline undulation, wetland / upland revegetation planting type and amount, and a timetable for pit re -flooding which are all intended to occur as mining has completed in certain areas and as operations move into new areas. Additionally, the Applicant is required by state law to provide bonding to the DRMS but has also committed to providing Garfield County with security as well. Even with all of the benefits that gravel affords the community from a development perspective, Staff finds there will be impacts that cannot be totally mitigated primarily including 1) permanently displaced wildlife (Elk and Deer), 2) visual impacts during mining and during reclamation for ten+ years on the community and visitors to the County, 3) occasional dust clouds that may exceed 20% opacity that may have a detrimental affect on traffic on I-70 at times, and 4) possible unknown detrimental affects on the Colorado River due to the loss of integrity of the 100 -year floodplain to adequately handle a flood event. (2) Special Use Permits may be granted for those uses with provisions that provide adequate mitigation for the following: (A) A plan for site rehabilitation must be approved by the County Commissioners before a permit for conditional or special use will be issued; Response The Applicant proposes to reclaim the mining phases within the mining areas as the operation proceeds by doing much of the earthwork which involves laying back and recontouring slopes as mining continues in other phases. Due to the highly visible location of the property and its low elevation, the mining activity will be highly visually impacting and almost impossible to screen due to its low elevation. The Application contains a detailed reclamation plan which involves earthwork (recontouring of pit walls to acceptable slopes) occurring at the completion of each phase within a mining area, with the majority of reclamation which includes final grading, recontouring of slopes, filling with water, and 16 Scott / Chambers Gravel Pit PC —10/24/06 Page 17 replanting occurring only until after a mining area has been mined. Once fully reclaimed, the site will contain three large lakes (with a combined surface acreage of approximately 65 acres) with the existing Ox Bow wetland remaining as it presently exists, limited dry land areas between the lakes, and the 100 -foot riparian buffer along the river. The Application states that wetlands created by way of the reclamation plan far exceed wetlands disturbed in the mining activities. To lessen the highly visual impact of the area and to the entrance of the City of Rifle, the Application proposes to leave a 100 -foot riparian buffer along the Colorado River which contains significant stands of mature cottonwoods that will not only serve as a visual buffer between Rifle of and the site but anchor the bank to reduce the risk of pit capture due to overtopping in a flood event. While Staff agrees with this effort, more could be done to reduce the overall / overtime visual impact of the operations such as 1) limiting the percentage of high -wall exposure at any one time, 2) limiting the amount of total site disturbance at any one time, and 3) allowing the pits to refill per phase rather than per area so that water would cover pit floors to resemble lakes rather than a dewatered pit floor. These are all methods currently in practice by other operators in Routt County. As a major component to the mining site plan, the Applicant proposes on-going reclamation as the mining continues but this activity will be highly visually impacting and will permanently change the character of the area and it will eliminate one of the last significant mature vegetative stands along the Colorado River. Staff suggests as a condition of approval that the proposed reclamation plan in the Special Use Permit be resubmitted to the DRMS to become the only reclamation plan (tasks / timetables) used by both the County and DRMS. Additionally, a new bond shall need to be calculated to cover this plan and secured with DRMS to cover its implementation. Staff finds the reclamation plan will improve the site from its post mining condition; however, should the Board approve the SUP, Staff suggests, to minimize the significant visual impact to the area, the mining areas should be fully reclaimed once they have been mined. To accommodate the mining progress, Staff also suggests that mining in a new pit could commence while the previous pit was being reclaimed / revegetated with a six month reclamation deadline provision. More specifically, Staff suggests that mining operations could continue so long as the previous pit was reclaimed within 6 months after the commencement of the new pit mining operation. If the reclamation has not fully occurred in six months, all mining operations on the property shall stop until the reclamation / revegetation has occurred to the satisfaction of the County. Staff also notes, the Applicant did not submit an ongoing monitoring plan for the established wetland areas around the lakes which would include timelines, measures of success, etc. The Application suggests using NRCS office in this task if they would agree to participate. Staff finds the ultimate benefits to be gained from "reclaiming as you go" include 1) significant reduction in visual impact of the site on the community and traveling public throughout the life of the mining operation, 2) continual reclamation monitoring of the reclaimed lakes by the operator (on 17 Scott / Chambers Gravel Pit PC —10/24/06 Page 18 site responsible party) who would still be on site as they mined the other portions to ensure good success, 3) not put off the establishment of the vegetation and habitat creation for ten years so that a good portion of the site would be "reclaimed" at the eventual end of the mining operation as a concession to already displaced wildlife from the site, and 4) the potential for a reduction in required security (bonding requirements) or earlier release of those funds at the end of the project. In any event, the physical characteristic of the Ox Bow on the property separates the mining areas into three separate pits that can be reclaimed individually and do not rely on each other to remain unreclaimed until the whole property is mined. As such, Staff recommends the pits be reclaimed as they are mined. The County Vegetation Manager reviewed the proposal and forwarded the following comments on noxious weed management: A. Mapping and inventory Staff requests that the applicant provide a noxious weed inventory and map with their application. Exhibit J alludes to knapweed and tamarisk and vegetation boundaries are on Map C-1. The map does not indicate noxious weeds, instead it refers to the vegetation that may occur in specific soil types. Once the inventory is provided the applicant shall develop a weed management plan that addresses all county listed noxious weeds found on site. This includes the weedy trees, Russian olive and tamarisk and Russian knapweed. B. Management The weed management plan should provide for im nediate treatment of the aforementioned species in areas where haul truck activity is prevalent The applicant shall also address long term management of Russian olive and tamarisk along the reclaimed ponds. We continue to see a proliferation of Russian olive and tamarisk along the shorelines of the newly reclaimed ponds in fornzer gravel pits. The applicant needs to address a strategy for Russian olive and tamarisk management. (13) The County Commissioners may require security before a permit for special or conditional use is issued, if required. The applicant shall furnish evidence of a bank commitment of credit, bond, certified check or other security deemed acceptable by the County Commissioners in the amount calculated by the County Commissioners to secure the execution of the site rehabilitation plan in workmanlike manner and in accordance with the specifications and construction schedule established or approved by the County Commissioners. Such commitments, bonds or check shall be payable to and held by the County Commissioners; 18 Scott / Chambers Gravel Pit PC —10/24/06 Page 19 Response The Application (Exhibit L) contains a "Bonding" section that details the needed improvements and their associated costs to reclaim the property pursuant to the plan. The net result is a cost of $212,000.00. This is what the Applicant is required to submit in the form of a reclamation bond to the Divisions of Minerals and Geology. The Board recently required a revegetation security be submitted to the County in addition to the security submitted to the DMG. The County Vegetation Manager reviewed the Cost analysis and found it to be a bit low in the reseeding category. Resource Engineering commented that since the Applicant has previously indicated that the County cannot be a named beneficiary of the CDMG reclamation bond, a separate (revegetation) bond should be provided to the County. Recent projects have required $1,000 per acre. Such bond could include control of noxious weeds. The County Vegetation Manager reviewed the proposal and provided the following comments regarding reclamation: A. Phasing of Reclamation Staff recommends that after each area is mined that reclamation be initiated on that area, this would include all earthmoving, recontouring, soil preparation, seeding, planting and any other associated activities. This will benefit erosion control, dust control, water quality, and aesthetics. If the new vegetation does not get established after seeding or planting in an area then steps may be taken to address this after each phase is complete, this is preferable to waiting until all areas are mined then initiating reclamation activities. B. Costs Revegetation costs have gone up considerably in the past year. 1 recommend a cost per acre of $2000 for the drier sites (an increase of $1200 from the applicant's estimate of $800 per acre and a cost per acre of $2500 for the wetland fringes (an increase of $1500 per acre from the applicant's estimate of $1000 per acre. Based on the applicant's estimates of 39.57 acres of dry site reseeding, it is reconnnended that we increase the bond amount by $47,484 (39.57 acres x $1200 increase) for the drier sites. For the wetland fringes which are 3.19 acres, it is suggested to increase the bond by $4,785 (3.19 acres x $1500 increase). The total increased bond amount would then $52,269 ($47,484 + $4,785). As a result, the total revegetation security to be provided to the County would be $87,115.00. Recognize, this dollar figure deals with 2006 costs and does not have the same value in 2016 when the actually spending would be required. This figure should contain a contingency or be discounted out so that it can accomplish what it is intended to do in 2016. 19 Scott / Chambers Gravel Pit PC —10/24/06 Page 20 The Application commits to submitting a bond in the amount of $61,350 ($1,000 per acre of disturbance for revegetation) to the County in addition to the bond required by DRMS. Staff suggests that the County is not adequately capable of calculating and managing an additional security for reclamation which has been suggested that it does not comport with state law. More specifically, State and Federal agencies can preempt local regulations. In Colorado, the DRMS has preempted local regulations specifically regarding reclamation and security for reclamation. This is largely driven by / manifested in the State Statutes. For example, the statute that gives the state preemptive authority over reclamation standards is CRS 34-32.5-109(3). It is common understanding in the industry that local government cannot, as a result of this statute, impose reclamation standards at variance, greater or lesser, than those approved in the state permit. Here it is: "No governmental office of the state, other than the [Mined Land Reclamation Board], nor any political subdivision of the state shall have the authority to issue a reclamation permit pursuant to this article, to require reclamation standards different than those established by this article, or to require any performance or financial warranty of any kind for mining operations. The operator shall be responsible for assuring that the mining operation and the postmining land use comply with city, town, county, or city and county land use regulations and any master plan for extraction adopted pursuant to section 34-1-304 unless a prior declaration of intent to change or waive the prohibition is obtained by the applicant from the affected political subdivisions. Any mining operator subject to this article shall also be subject to zoning and land use authority and regulation by political subdivisions as provided by law." This statute basically says the County has no authority to require any different reclamation standards than the DRMS or to require any additional reclamation security. [Note, the County has required this of a recently approved gravel pit operation and the applicant did provide such an additional security for "revegetation" as opposed to reclamation.] Staffs suggests not requiring an additional bond for the County and instead rely on the DRMS bond calculation and management to ensure reclamation. Please note however, Staff has suggested requiring the Applicant to submit the proposed reclamation plan in this Special Use Permit application to DRMS so that 1) it will be the only reclamation plan used by both DRMS and the County to ensure reclamation has occurred to the County's specifications and 2) a new bond calculation shall occur and be submitted and held by DRMS to secure that proper reclamation can occur. This is a practice that is in place in Routt County which appears to work well. Staff also adds that the calculation of the bond and ability to manage its partial releases is something that DRMS does very well. Note, the County would be invited to participate in any "release" hearings to ensure that reclamation has occurred to the satisfaction of the County. 20 Scott/Chambers Gravel Pit PC —10/24/06 Page 21 Section 5.03.08 [Industrial Performance Standards) Pursuant to section 5.03.08 of the Zoning Resolution, all Industrial Operations in the County shall comply with applicable County, State, and Federal regulations regulating water, air and noise pollution and shall not be conducted in a manner constituting a public nuisance or hazard. Operations shall be conducted in such a manner as to minimize heat, dust, smoke, vibration, glare and odor and all other undesirable environmental effects beyond the boundaries of the property in which such uses are located, in accord with the following standards set below. Staff and Resource Engineering both find that the submittal indicates that the project will comply with the Industrial Performance Standards set forth in Section 5.03.08. (1) Volume of sound generated shall comply with the standards set forth in the Colorado Revised Statutes at the time any new application is made. (2) Vibration generated: every use shall be so operated 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. (3) Emissions of smoke and particulate matter: every use shall be operated so as to comply with all Federal, State and County air quality laws, regulations and standards. (4) Emission of heat, glare, radiation and fumes: 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 signals, reflective painting of storage tanks, or other such operations which may be required by law as safety or air pollution control measures shall be exempted from this provision. Response The mining activity will generate noise from bulldozers, large haul trucks, the concrete and asphalt batch plants, and rock crusher which is proposed to run continuously for 14 hours at a time. No noise study was submitted with the Application to demonstrate that the mining activity will not exceed state statute levels for noise which are included earlier in this memorandum. The requirement above states the "Volume of sound generated shall comply with the standards set forth in the Colorado Revised Statutes at the time any new application is made." This is a new Application, yet no evidence of noise generation was submitted that demonstrates these state standards can be met. The Application states no blasting will be used in the mining of rock. As a result, no detectable vibration will occur as a result of the mining activity beyond the property boundaries. Staff would agree with this so long as the rock crusher remains in the middle of the mined areas and is not moved to the edge of the property. 21 Scott / Chambers Gravel Pit PC —10/24/06 Page 22 The mining operation will generate emissions and particular matter also known as PM10 (airborne dust) from the machinery used on site including the large trucks that grind up dirt under tires resulting in PM10 which affect air quality which is measured by a percentage of opacity. The Application states that these emissions will be controlled by federal, state, and county regulations. Staff finds the potential for glare to be a potential issue which needs some analysis. Glare will be created from the three lakes covering approximately 63 acres of the site once fully reclaimed which may or may not have any additional visual impact on 1) aircraft trajectories used by aircraft using the County Airport or 2) for vehicle traffic traveling I-70 with respect to the severe low angle western evening and eastern morning sun for commuters to and from the western parts of the County. Staff finds this issue needs to be analyzed prior to any approval. (5) Storage area, salvage yard, sanitary landfill and mineral waste disposal areas: (A) Storage of flammable or explosive solids or gases shall be in accordance with accepted standards and laws and shall comply with the national, state and local fire codes and written recommendations / comments from the appropriate local protection district regarding compliance with the appropriate codes; Response The Application states that no explosives will be stored on-site except fuel. The mining operation plans to establish a "Fuel Farm" on the property to store fuel for trucks and machinery. The tank is expected to contain 5,000 gallons of fuel, made of steel with an integrated internal secondary containment system. Staff referred the Application to the Rifle Fire Protection District which did not respond to the referral. The Application did submit a SPCC plan that contains an emergency contact list with appropriate phone numbers. (B) At the discretion of the County Commissioners, all outdoor storage facilities may be required to be enclosed by fence, landscaping or wall adequate to conceal such facilities from adjacent property; Response The Application responds to this criterion by acknowledging the visual impact of the property clue to its elevation being lower than I-70 and that no berming, fencing, or landscaping will mitigate these visual impacts. Staff agrees with this statement. The mining operation requires the outdoor storage of all equipment as the activity is an outdoor affair. This standard does not contemplate placing the batch / concrete plants indoors or the trucks / scales / sales offices, etc. 22 Scott / Chambers Gravel Pit PC -10/24/06 Page 23 (C) No materials or wastes shall be deposited upon a property in such form or manner that they may be transferred off the property by any reasonably foreseeable natural causes or forces; Response The Applicant committed to the storage of topsoil and overburden outside of the floodplain. The details of this issue are discussed in the context of the Floodplain Permit review. (D) Storage of Heavy Equipment will only be allowed subject to (A) and (C) above and the following standards: 1. The minimum lot size is five (5) acres and is not a platted subdivision. Response The property is larger than 5 acres and is not located in a platted subdivision. 2. The equipment storage area is not placed any closer than 300 ft. from any existing residential dwelling. Response The Application states the mining site is more than 'A mile from the nearest residence. 3. All equipment storage will be enclosed in an area with screening at least eight (8) feet in height and obscured from view at the same elevation or lower. Screening may include berming, landscaping, sight obscuring fencing or a combination of any of these methods. Response The screening of equipment storage is proposed to be the pit itself. Staff finds that the pits are 25 -feet deep and will be highly visible from I-70 due to its elevation above the property. No screening is proposed to obscure the equipment. 4. Any repair and maintenance activity requiring the use of equipment that will generate noise, odors or glare beyond the property boundaries will be conducted within a building or outdoors during the hours of 8 a.rn. to 6 p.m., Mon. -Fri. 5. Loading and unloading of vehicles shall be conducted on private property and may not be conducted on any public right-of-way. (E) Any storage area for uses not associated with natural resources, shall not exceed ten (10) acres in size. 23 Scott / Chambers Gravel Pit PC —10/24/06 Page 24 Response The entire operation involves natural resource extraction. (F) Any lighting of storage area shall be pointed downward and inward to the property center and shaded to prevent direct reflection on adjacent property. Response No lighting plan was provided with the Application. The Application proposes nighttime mining activity from time to time which will require lighting. Any nighttime activity shall use lighting that meets this standard: "Any lighting of storage area shall be pointed downward and inward to the property center and shaded to prevent direct reflection on adjacent property. (6) Water pollution: in a case in which potential hazards exist, it shall be necessary to install safeguards designed to comply with the Regulations of the Environmental Protection Agency before operation of the facilities may begin. All percolation tests or ground water resource tests as may be required by local or State Health Officers must be met before operation of the facilities may begin. Response The mining activity requires substantial amounts of process water to be discharged. Additionally, the site needs to be of a design to handle stormwater discharge. Both will physically be sent to either into the on-site wetlands or into the Colorado River. The water that is pumped from the pits via dewatering will be filtered through a gravel screen prior to pumping then be sent into specifically designed detention / settlement ponds prior to being sent to wetlands or the Colorado River. The Application states that the water normally sent to the river or wetlands is usually much less turbid (total suspended solids) than the existing river water with a milligrams per litter ratio 35 — 70. This requires a discharge to surface water by way of a NDPES permit which also includes a stormwater management plan. Neither the NDPES permit nor SWMP has been submitted with the Application to demonstrate meeting these EPA requirements. Section 9.03.05 (Periodic Review of SUFI Pursuant to section 9.03.05 of the Zoning Resolution: Any Special Use Permits may be made subject to a periodic review not less than every six (6) months if required by the County Commissioners. The purpose of such review shall be to determine compliance or noncompliance with any performance requirements associated with the granting of the Special Use Permit The County Commissioners shall indicate that such a review is required and shall establish the time periods at the time of issuance of a Special Use Permit. Such review shall be conducted in such manner and by such persons as the County Commissioners deem appropriate to make the review effective and meaningful. Upon the completion of each review, the Commissioners may determine that the permit operations are in 24 Scott/Chambers Gravel Pit PC —10/24/06 Page 25 compliance and continue the permit, or determine the operations are not in compliance and either suspend the permit or require the permittee to bring the operation into compliance by a certain specified date. Such periodic review shall be limited to those performance requirements and conditions imposed at the time of the original issuance of the Special Use Permit. IX. FLOODPLAIN PERMIT (Section 6.00) Resource Engineering conducted a review of the Floodplain Permit Application on behalf of the County and the results of that review are contained here as well as in Exhibit P attached to this memorandum. Virtually the entire property, except a small portion in the southeast corner is located in the 100 -year floodplain. Additionally, most of the property in the floodplain is actually in the floodway portion of the floodplain which the most restrictive area with respect to any kind of development. As a result, a Floodplain Permit is required. Note, the map above shows the boundaries of the property with the darker shaded area illustrating the floodplain. The area in white is not in the floodplain. Most generally, development needs to be carefully reviewed if proposed in the floodplain so that it does not inhibit the very purpose of the floodplain to properly manage waters during a 100 -year event. If improperly mitigated, development in the floodplain could seriously affect life and property up stream and downstream of the development. SPECIAL USES AND STANDARDS FOR FLOODWAY The most critical standard is found in Section 6.09.01(A) which prohibits encroachments including fill and new construction unless a technical evaluation demonstrates that such encroachments shall not result in any increase in flood levels during the occurrence of the base flood discharge. Resource Engineering reviewed the Application and provided the following comments: 25 Scott / Chambers Gravel Pit PC —10/24/06 Page 26 The submittal includes a detailed HEC -RAS hydraulic znodeling analysis for the Colorado River. The analysis shows several rises in the base flood elevation and cannot demonstrate compliance with the County Floodplain Regulations. We met with the applicant's engineer, Greg Lewicki, and provided comments on the model which we believed were incorrect approaches in the model. The model was revised and all of the rises in the flood elevation were removed, except one. Therefore, theproject has still not demonstrated compliance with the Regulation. We therefore recommend denial for non-compliance with Section 6, Floodplain Regulations of the GARCO Zoning Resolution. Section 6.09.01(E) prohibits any obstruction that would adversely affect the efficiency of or restrict the flow capacity so as to cause foreseeable damage to others. The proposed bridges are within the floodway, subject to overtopping, restrict the main conveyance of the river, and are debris collectors and/or debris producers that could damage other structures or create more critical obstructions downstream. This illustration above is meant to show the areas of the property that are constrained primarily by the by the floodway portion of the floodplain as well as showing the constraints of the 'A mile no disturbance buffer from the bald eagle nest on the Lafarge property to the east. Ultimately, it shows how little of the property can be placed into gravel production without approval from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 26 Scott / Chambers Gravel Pit PC —10/24/06 Page 27 Standards For Floodway Section 6.09.01(A) prohibits encroachments including fill and new construction unless a technical evaluation demonstrates that such encroachments shall not result in any increase in flood levels during the occurrence of the base flood discharge. The analysis presented in the application and revised modeling show a rise in the flood levels. Section 6.09.01(E) prohibits any obstruction that would adversely affect the efficiency of or restrict the flow capacity so as to cause foreseeable damage to others. The proposed bridges are within the floodwav, subject to overtopping, restrict the main conveyance of the river and are debris collectors and/or debris producers that could damage other structures or create more critical obstructions downstream. The Applicant has proposed removal of the structures during times of potential flooding. They have also verbally indicated the idea of also securing the bridge with an anchored tie line as a back up measure to prevent the bridge from becoming flood debris in a flood. Such measures could be acceptable if there is compliance with Section 6.09.01(1)A above. Standards for Flood Fringe Section 6.09.02(4) prohibits construction in the floodplain that alone or cumulatively would cause or result in the danger of substantial solid debris being carried downstream by floodwaters. The construction of the two bridges results in such danger. Mitigation measures described above could be accepted on conditions. Section 6.09.02(B) - The fuel bunker and office must remain outside of the floodplain. Mining activities in Phase 4 of Mining Area 3 would eliminate any non floodplain area. If this area is to be mined, a plan for locating the fuel bunker and office outside of the floodplain must be presented. Otherwise mining in this area should not be allowed. Section 6.09.02(D) — See comments for Section 6.08.01(E). Any changes in floodplain elevation will require a Letter of Map Revision approval from FEMA. Such approval should be required prior to any approval of a Floodplain Permit. X. STAFF REVIEW SUMMARY As a result of the Staff review (including all the referral agency and Departmental comments), the Application has been found to be deficient primarily with respect to 1) the proposed activity will result in a rise in the 100 -year floodplain base flood elevation which cannot be approved without a Letter of Map Revision approval from FEMA, 2) the inability to mitigate the significant visual impacts of the activity, and 3) the apparent conflict between proposed mining areas 2 and 3 with the 27 Scott / Chambers Gravel Pit PC —10/24/06 Page 28 r/a and r mile buffers intended to protect a federally protected bald eagle on Lafarge property. Regarding the zoning of the area, the land area located along the Colorado River bottom between Rifle & Silt was originally zoned Agricultural / Industrial (AI) in part because that is the physical location of the gravel resource. As a result, gravel mining was contemplated as an allowed use (by review) in that zone district. It appears to be a matter of Euclidean Zoning directed by the land form (location of the resource) which is very different than typical zoning which governs transferable / movable surface uses that can be conducted on almost any location. Staff understands that this is where the resource is which is why, in large part, the ground is zoned AI. Staff also understands, the City of Rifle's Comprehensive Plan Map shows this area as "mine reclamation" & "habitat enhancement" understanding that gravel mining was to occur but would encourage the end result to be reclaimed as bets as possible. Staff understands the economic value of the high quality of this resource and its extremely important role in the local development economy. Garfield County has not taken the position that it is the government's role to dictate the free market such that this high quality gravel should be used for high quality product rather than used for well pad / road construction for the oil and gas industry. There have been many requests by County citizens for the County to evaluate the greater impact additional gravel pits will have on the Colorado River basin mainly between Rifle and Silt. Presently, the Board of County Commissioners has not directed its Staff to initiate this effort. The only significant analysis conducted to date has been a study commissioned by the Board in 2002 by Colorado Geologic Survey whose sole purpose was to simply identify and describe the gravel resources along the Colorado River. It is not a study that discussed land use or broad hydrologic impacts. That said, a larger analysis could certainly prove beneficial. XI. STAFF RECOMMENDED FINDINGS 1. Proper posting and public notice was provided as required for the meeting before the Planning Commission. 2. The meeting before the Planning Commission was not extensive or complete, that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were not submitted and that all interested parties were not heard at that meeting. 3. The above stated and other reasons, the proposed Special Use Permit has been determined not to be in the best interest of the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County. 4. The application has not adequately met the following requirements of the Garfield County 28 Scott/Chambers Gravel Pit PC —10/24/06 Page 29 Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended: ➢ 5.03(3) Design of the proposed use is organized to minimize impact on adjacent uses of land through installation of screen fences or landscape materials on the periphery of the lot and by location of intensively utilized areas, access points, lighting and signs in such a manner as to protect established neighborhood character. ➢ 5.03.07(C) Impacts on wildlife and domestic animals through the creation of hazardous attractions, alteration of existing native vegetation, blockade of migration routes, use patterns or other disruptions. ➢ 6.09.01(A) prohibits encroachments including fill and new construction unless a technical evaluation demonstrates that such encroachments shall not result in any increase in flood levels during the occurrence of the base flood discharge. XII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation of Denial to the Board of County Commissioners for the Special Use Permit for 1) development in the floodplain and 2) extraction, processing, storage and material handling of natural resources" for River's Edge, LLC and Rocks R Us, LLC. 29 RE: Scott Pit on SH 6 mp 94.E" Fred Jarman From: Roussin, Daniel[Daniel.Roussin@DOT.STATE.CO.US] Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 9:12 AM To: Roussin, Daniel; Fred Jarman Cc: Drayton, Devin Subject: RE: Scott Pit on SH 6 mp 94.67 Attachments: Permit 305272.pdf EXHIBIT Fred - Thank you for the opportunity to review Scott Pit on SH 6 at mile post 94.67. CDOT has received an access application. We have signed the permit on January 23, 2006. This permit did include highway improvements which includes paving the frontage road to the access. We have not received the Notice to Proceed at this point. I have enclosed the signed permit. If you have any questions, please let me know. «Permit 305272.pdf» Dan Roussin Colorado Department of Transportation Region 3 Permit Unit Manager 222 South 6th, Suite 100 Grand Junction, Co 81501 970-248-7230 970-248-7294 FAX 6/29/2006 apy nistnbu n: Required: 1.Region 2Applicant 3.Statf Access Section Make copies as decessary for: Local Authority Inspector MTCE Patrol Traffic Engineer Previous editions are obsolEte and may not be used COOT Form 4101 8198 COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTA 1 STATE HIGHWAY ACCESS PERMIT CDOT Permit No. 305272 Lit 1 i lr "y, [, `' t V. .: State Highway No/Mp)Sid 070A/091.820tL Permit fee 300,00 Date of Transmittal 01104/2006 RegiantSection!Patrol 03/02/10 Local Jurisdiction Garfield County The Permittee(s); Applicant; Ref No. 05-228 Bill Bailey Brent Kerr River's Edge, LLC (Manan Creek) United Companies PO Box 1556 2273 River Road Rifle, CO 81650 Gand Junction, CO 81502 970-625-3738 970-243-4900 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 State Highway Access Cade and any attachments, terms, conditions and exhibits. This permit may be revoked by the issuing authority it 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 he held harmless against any action for personal injury or property damage sustained by reason of the exercise of the permit. Location: Located on the north side of 1-70 Frontage, a distance of 961 feet west of RP 92. This access is located at the very west end of the frontage road. Access to Provide Service to: Gravel Pit 335 Daily'Trips 100,00 % Other terms and conditions: * See Attached Pages 2 and 3 and Other Enclosures for Additional Tenn s and Conditions. MUNICIPALITY OR COUNTY APPROVAL Required only when the appropriate local authority retains issuing authority. By (x) Dale Title 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 Brian Killian with the Colorado Department of Transportation in Grand Junction at 970- 248-7293 at least 48 hours prior to commencing construction within the State Highway right-of-way, The person signing as the penmttee must be the owner or legal representative of the property served by the permitted access and have hill authority to accept the permit and its terms and eendilions. Permittee - i' (x) Date This permit is not valid until signed by a duly authorized representative of the Department. COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION By 7 A By (x) .f—%,4 4tir iM Dater issue) hr. Yy .>ri; , i tl , _ Title 77 / ii n-,/1 ,, r. �--s... apy nistnbu n: Required: 1.Region 2Applicant 3.Statf Access Section Make copies as decessary for: Local Authority Inspector MTCE Patrol Traffic Engineer Previous editions are obsolEte and may not be used COOT Form 4101 8198 STATE HIGHWAY ACCESS PERMIT 305272 Located on I -70A Frontage near RP 91.818 Left Issued to Rivers Edge, LLC TERMS AND CONDITIONS January 4, 2005 1. This permit replaces any and all additional highway access permits that may be in existence for this location. 2. The Frontage Road shall be paved from the current frontage road edge of pavement to this access, approx. one third of a mile in length. The construction and design shall be in accordance with Section 4.7 of the Access Code. Department Specifications, and the Region Materials Engineer. 3. The Permittee shall provide a performance bond that will insure completion of the required highway and all related intersection improvernents in conformance with all Department standards and specifications. The bond must be at least 110% of the estimated total highway construction cost arid 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. 4. The access shall be constructed with radii to accommodate the minimum turning radius of the largest vehicle or 50 -foot, whichever is greater. 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. 5. 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. 6. 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. Where the hard surface is to abut existing pavement, the existing pavement shall he saw cut and removed a minimum of one foot hack 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. 7. This permitted access is only for the use and purpose staled 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. 8. The perrnittee 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/DesienSuoporU then click on Design Bulletins. STATE HIGHWAY ACCESS PERMIT 305272 Located ori I -70A Frontage near RP 91.818 Left Issued to Rivers Edge, LLC January 4, 2005 TERMS AND CONDITIONS (cont.) 9. A pre -design meeting is required prior to construction design. Required personnel for this meeting are: Engineer of Record, Design Engineer, and Permittee. Please contact Skip Hudson 970-248-7076 for scheduling this pre -design meeting. 10. 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)(1) 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) Prior to the issuance of any Notice to Proceed, the applicant shall schedule a pre - construction rneeting including but not limited to applicant, Engineer of Record, Construction Inspector, construction personnel, permittee (if other than applicant), CDOT representative and Traffic Control Supervisor. (h) A construction schedule will be required at the pre -construction meeting. 11. 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. 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. 12. A 24 -inch minimum culvert with protective end treatments may be required for this access. The culvert shall be kept free of blockage to maintain proper flow and drainage. 13. 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. 14. 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. 15. 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, STATE HIGHWAY ACCESS PERMIT 305272 Located on I -70A Frontage near RP 91.818 Left Issued to Rivers Edge, LLC January 4, 2005 TERMS AND CONDITIONS (cont.) 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. 16. 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. 17. Access construction shall nol negatively impact other properties or the State Highway ROW. 18. A signed and approved temporary lease agreement is required if construction trailers are to be located on CDOT ROW during construction, 19. The Permittee shall provide accessibility features to accommodate all pedestrians including persons with disabilities for all pathways during and after construction. 20. During access construction no construction personnel vehicles will be permitted to park in the state highway right-of-way. 21. 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. 22. 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. 23. 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. 24. Any mud or other material tracked or otherwise deposited on the roadway shall be rernoved 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 is found in the M & S Standards Plan No. M-208-1. 25. 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 other construction requirement may result in the immediate suspension of work by order of the Department inspector or the issuing authority. 26. 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. STATE HIGHWAY ACCESS PERMIT 305272 Located on I -70A Frontage near RP 91.818 Left Issued to Rivers Edge, LLC January 4, 2005 TERMS AND CONDITIONS (cont.) 27: 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. 28. 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, rnulching, and re -seeding. Construction Completion & Final Acceptance 29. Upon the completion of the access and 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. 30. 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 arid final as -built survey shall he 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. 31. 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 accordance with all applicable Department Standards and Specifications approx. 2 years after initial acceptance. STATE OF COLORADO Bill Owens, Governor DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF WILDLIFE AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Bruce McCloskey, Director 6060 Broadway Denver, Colorado 80216 Telephone: (303) 297-1192 April 28, 2006 Fred Jarman Garfield County Building and Planning Department 108 8th Street, Suite 401, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 (970) 945-8212 R J, VED MAY 0 2 2006 r. Zi„, , JI4 TY PLANNING For Wildlife - For People RE: Old Castle SW Group Inc./Chambers Pit Dear Mr. Jarman: The Division of Wildlife offers the following comments in regard to the above proposed gravel pit extension: District Wildlife Manager, Will Spence, has had the opportunity to review the referral information provided and is familiar with the area in question. He has made a visit to the site to determine impacts to wildlife that will occur as a result of this operation. The proposed gravel mining will take place along the Colorado River and will impact the lowland riparian habitat. This is the most diverse of any habitat type and is valuable to a large variety of wildlife. Species that utilize this area include mule deer, coyote, beaver, cottontail rabbit, weasel, raccoon, red fox, and a host of smaller mammals. It is also important habitat to a large variety of birds including Wild Turkey, Great Blue Heron, Canada Geese, Bald Eagle, several other raptor species and an array of songbird species. The raptors are attracted to the quantity of available prey with the small mammal population and, for Bald Eagles, the ability to fish the river. The river itself contains fish species including trout, native suckers, and several other important aquatic animals including amphibian, reptile, and aquatic insects. An established bald eagle nest can be found approximately 340 yards east of the project area. This nest is, of course, an important site to the eagles but is also a favorite attraction to the citizens of Rifle. This gravel extraction operation will have negative impacts on the habitat and the wildlife that utilizes it. The impact will start with the displacement of the wildlife which will be followed by the conversion of habitat into disturbed areas. These areas often see an infestation of non-native and noxious weeds. Structures that are not wildlife friendly such as steep banked ponds and gravel hills void of top soil are often created. During the mining operation human presence, activities and noise will have obvious adverse effects on the wildlife. According to the mining plan and maps there will be a 100' buffer between the mining operation and the river. This will definitely be an advantage for the species that utilize the shoreline of the river. The plan also leaves the old river oxbow out of the mining operation. This will provide some good habitat and wetland during and after the operation. There are several mature cotton wood trees that are to be left undisturbed as well as some willows. These trees will be an asset to the bird population for nesting and raptor hunting perches. It would be of great advantage to the wildlife if these undisturbed areas are implemented according to the plan. It would also be an advantage to create visual and noise buffers between the mining operation and the 100' river buffer and oxbow. Buffers could consist of earthen berms or woody vegetation. The top soil that will be removed and saved for later reclamation could be positioned as a DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, Russell George, Executive Director WILDLIFE COMMISSION, Jeffrey Crawford, Chair • Tom Burke, Vice Chair • Claire O'Neal, Secretary Members, Robert Bray • Rick Enstrom • Philip James • Richard Ray • Robert Shoemaker • Ken Torres Ex Officio Members, Russell George and Don Ament buffer. Cottonwood and willow plantings will grow quickly and provide a screen for the wildlife. Buffers may decrease the number of wildlife that abandons the area due to machinery noise and human activity. This proposal comes with an extensive reclamation plan (exhibit E and accompanying maps) that is well thought out and will address many of the impacts to the area upon the conclusion of the mining operation. If the plan is followed, very favorable habitat will result as well as an opportunity for recreation. The plan describes creation of nearly 60 acres of lakes, undisturbed areas (oxbow, river channel and buffer), and wetland shelves and fringe wetland. It calls for lake slopes of 3H:1 V, shallow ramps of 7H:1 V, a 5' fringe wetland around the lakes, and shelf wetland. Top soil will be saved and redistributed 12" deep. There is a good plan for revegetation and weed management is said to be being planned. These are very good ideas and with their implementation an area favorable to wildlife will be created. When the lakes are built it would help to use a meandering shore line. This creates more shallows space and cover for shorebirds and waterfowl. Several small islands would also provide good cover and nesting habitat for waterfowl. The Division of Wildlife would appreciate the opportunity to work with the landowners and applicants in regards to the stocking of fish (some species would be detrimental to the federally listed native species inhabiting the river). All who are involved with this proposal realize that one of the biggest wildlife issues particular to this site is the existing Bald Eagle nest to the east of the property. The nest is approximately 340 yards from the property line. Bald Eagles are a federally protected species. As such they are protected by the Endangered Species Act from any activities that are thus defined: "harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct." "Harass" is further defined by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to include an intentional or negligent act or omission which creates the likelihood of injury to wildlife by annoying it to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavioral patterns which include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering. The Division of Wildlife usually recommends a buffer zone around a Bald Eagle nest of 1/2 mile free from disturbance with a buffer of %Z mile during breeding and nesting season. This particular pair of eagles usually starts nesting activity after the middle of January and continues through the end of July. They have now successfully raised young from that nest for the last two years. They started nest building and breeding activities three years ago. This pair seems to be more tolerant of disturbance. Interstate 70, the Lafarge Mamm Creek Gravel Pit, and a residence/small business all occur within several hundred yards of the nest. However, there is usually a threshold of disturbance that these species will "put up with." Once that threshold is crossed they will probably abandon the nest and any eggs or young present at the time. In order to avoid that circumstance, the Division recommends that mining operations in Mining Area 3 (Mine Plan Map) be started after July 3151 of any given year. If the operation cannot be postponed at the following January 15111, at least the operation is in existence and the eagles can determine if they want to nest there as opposed to being disturbed in the middle of nesting. There was some language in the plan saying that the residence existing on the east property boundary would be demolished "if" that area was determined to be mined. If it is therefore possible to leave a buffer along the east boundary it would be highly advantageous as far as the eagle's nest is concerned. The Colorado Division of Wildlife would appreciate the opportunity to work with the landowners and applicants to develop a public hunting or fishing easement on the property once mining operations are concluded. As the reclamation plan describes, this property could provide waterfowl hunting, fishing, and fishing access to the river. Providing this kind of opportunity for youths is critical to the recruitment of future anglers and hunters. This property could assist the Division of Wildlife with its long term goal of providing opportunities for youths and other sportsmen and women. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on this important land use issue. If you have any questions please contact District Wildlife Manager, Will Spence. Sincerely, Dean Riggs Area Wildlife Manager 2 Fred Jarman From: Alan Schroeder [ASCHROEDER@uc.usbr.gov] Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 11:58 AM To: Fred Jarman Cc: Kathleen Ozga Subject: Old Castle SW Group, Inc.; Chambers Pit Extension Fred, �i EXHIBIT a = Thank you for the opportunity to review the subject proposal. Reclamation has no facilities or interests in the area of the pit, therefore, we have no issues or concerns regarding the proposal. Alan M. Schroeder Natural Resource Specialist Bureau of Reclamation Western Colorado Area Office 2764 Compass Drive, Suite 106 Grand Junction, CO 81506 970-248-0692 aschroeder@uc.usbr.gov 5/3/2006 MEMORANDUM To: Fred Jarman From: Steve Anthony Re: Old Castle SW GroupChambers Pit/United Companies Date: July 5, 2006 Noxious weeds Mapping and inventory: Staff requests that the applicant provide a noxious weed inventory and map with their application. Exhibit J alludes to knapweed and tamarisk and vegetation boundaries are on Map C-1. The map does not indicate noxious weeds, instead it refers to the vegetation that may occur in specific soil types. Once the inventory is provided the applicant shall develop a weed management plan that addresses all county listed noxious weeds found on site. This includes the weedy trees, Russian olive and tamarisk and Russian knapweed. Management: The weed management plan should provide for immediate treatment of the aforementioned species in areas where haul truck activity is prevalent The applicant shall also address long term management of Russian olive and tamarisk along the reclaimed ponds. We continue to see a proliferation of Russian olive and tamarisk along the shorelines of the newly reclaimed ponds in former gravel pits. The applicant needs to address a strategy for Russian olive and tamarisk management. Reclamation Phasing of reclamation: Staff recommends that after each area is mined that reclamation be initiated on that area, this would include all earthmoving, recontouring, soil preparation, seeding, planting and any other associated activities. This will benefit erosion control, dust control, water quality, and aesthetics. If the new vegetation does not get established after seeding or planting in an area then steps may be taken to address this after each phase is complete, this is preferable to waiting until all areas are mined then initiating reclamation activities. Costs: Revegetation costs have gone up considerably in the past year. I recommend a cost per acre of $2000 for the drier sites (an increase of $1200 from the applicant's estimate of $800 per acre and a cost per acre of $2500 for the wetland fringes (an increase of $1500 per acre from the applicant's estimate of $1000 per acre. Based on the applicant's estimates of 39.57 acres of dry site reseeding, it is recommended that we increase the bond amount by $47,484 (39.57 acres x $1200 increase) for the drier sites. For the wetland fringes which are 3.19 acres, it is suggested to increase the bond by$4,785 (3.19 acres x $1500 increase). The total increased bond amount would then $52,269 ($47,484 + $4,785). Pefro' ,_ Gz 4,i;i<</y arta CJ%f«<l- 8/630 97U 62-3- 1877 Garfield County Commissioners 108 8t11 St. Glenwood Springs, Co 81601 Attn: John Martin Dear Mr. Martin, There is a problem which has recently been brought to our attention and being very concerned residents of Rifle and surrounding communities, we felt it necessary to voice our opposition to a proposal that will definitely affect our town and how visitors will perceive this area. The subject in question is a "Gravel Pit" in the area between Wal Mart and the Colorado River. Not only this particular site, but, the other 12 or 14 "Gravel Pits" that are being planned between Rifle and Silt. This in a space of only seven miles!! To say we are extremely opposed to this ugly scar along I-70 , Rte. 6 and the Colorado River would be putting it mildly.... It is pleasant now to drive and see green pastures , horses and cattle grazing and the buffalo too. But, this scene is disrupted by the Snyder Pit and we really do not want more of the same. At present there is the "Snyder Gravel Pit" next to I-70 near the Airport Exit and going west . It is quite extensive and an undesirable eyesore and is at the entrance to the city of Rifle from the east. It is usually people who do not live in any area where there are plans to disrupt the natural beauty and quality of life for the residents and wild life. What will be the impact on the residents, wild life, vegetation, air quality, flooding, etc.... When the wind blows, so blows the dust! At present there is a new hotel in Rifle, the owners must have found something desirable about Rifle or why would they build here? They have put up a very attractive building and must be looking at this area for tourism.. Granted, some of the structures that are in the Rifle Industrial area are not nearly as attractive, but, they are not dumps or neglected. A gravel pit is not attractive or desired. We do get very tired of the old excuse that it is "progress." Developers keep building homes and malls and have encroached into the natural habitat of the wild animals and who suffers. ??? The buyers then complain about bears on their decks and patios and even invading their homes! Some of the animals are destroyed because, God forbid, because they bother people..... This letter is not the only protest we will mount.. We believe there are many residents between Rifle and Silt who are not aware of plans for gravel pits, and we plan on advising everyone who cares about their community to protest the pits. Pits is a very appropriate name.. Sincerely, 4_te �� J , fl Shirley J. Ro Cc: Larry Cown John Martin Tresi Houpt COLORADO GEOLOGICAL Department of Natural Resources 1313 Sherman Street, Room 715 Denver, CO 80203 Phone: (303) 866-2611 Fax: (303) 866-2461 SUR11( Gilskv1�:�-G p�NN NG gVIl.17�NG &91.01141.14G � 20 ESTATE OF COL May 2, 2006 Mr. Fred Jarman Garfield County Planning 108 86 St Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re: Scott Gravel Pit CGS Review No. GA -06-0009 Dear Mr. Jarman: NE 15 T6S R92W C otPulri NATURAL RESOURCES Bill Owens Governor Russell George Executive Director Vincent Matthews Division Director and State Geologist In response to your request I visited this property to review the development plans. The referral included a permit amendment application to the Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Division prepared by Greg Lewicki and Associates (2/28/06). The site consists of about 50 acres south of the Colorado River near Rifle and is a permit expansion of the Chambers Pit, which is north of the river and which has been mined out. Mining plan. The area to be mined lies within the floodplain of the Colorado River. The applicant includes a detailed discussion on how flooding would affect the site: Berms around the pits would be low and would allow storm water to flow into the pits. This would cause an overall decrease in the velocity of the river, would limit scour, and would allow sedimentation within the pits. This plan for the Scott Pit would not employ high levees or armoring of berms to resist flood waters, which could ultimately increase the velocity of flood waters and promote scour. As long as the facility tanks are designed to withstand flooding or are housed in acceptable containment areas, the impact of the Scott Pit on the general area would be low. Mining concerns. There is no development in the area other than gravel operations. However, the water intake for the city of Rifle is located on the north side of the river, downstream of part of the Scott Pit. The slowing of velocity as flood waters enter the oxbow around the pit, and then the pit itself, would help protect the intake from sedimentation. We were told that the Rifle plans to move its primary intake farther upstream. Mining at the Scott Pit should not affect the new location. Documentation of changes. If any Base Flood Elevations (BFEs) are changed as a result of the proposed activity, the applicant, working with the local government, should submit the information to FEMA and apply for a Letter of Map Revision. This is an important step so that information related to BFEs in the vicinity remains current and so that future projects utilize the correct data in hydrologic calculations. The Colorado Water Conservation Board, a division of the Department of Natural Resources, could assist with this process, if necessary. JUTS ruly, toc6rima Geologist 303-866-2811 celia.greenman@state.co.us OFFICE OF THE STATE EN INEEV. I__FA' Division of Water Resourc4-51 •fid. ` Department of Natural Redo '.,. A3L 1313 Sherman Street, Room 81RpR 2 4 2006 Denver, Colorado 80203 r' Phone (303) 866-3581 FAX (303) 866-3589 www.water.state.co.us STATE OF COLI N April 21, 2006 Fred Jarman Garfield County Building and Planning Department 108 8th St., Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Fred: Bill Owens Governor Russell George Executive Director Hal D. Simpson, P.E. State Engineer Re: Scott Expansion to the Chambers Pit Speciai Use Permit Section 15, T6S, R93W, 6th PM Water Division 5, Water District 45 The above -referenced submittal requests a special use permit for the Scott Expansion to the Chambers Pit. As stated in the State Engineer's March 4, 2005 memorandum to county planning directors, this office has no statutory responsibility to review land use actions that do not include the subdivision of land as defined in Section 30-28-101(10)(a), C.R.S. This referral does not appear to qualify as a "subdivision". We previously performed a cursory review, and our comments from August 30, 2005 still apply and are repeated below. Permit No. 62558-F was issued for the Scott Expansion to the Chambers Pit on May 3, 2005. The use of ground water, in addition to evaporation, is limited to dust control and product moisture losses from gravel mining activities. This permit is included in a substitute water supply plan, which is currently valid until May 3, 2007. The average annual amount of ground water to be appropriated shall not exceed 57.87 acre-feet with the total surface area of the proposed ground water ponds limited to 55.52 acres. Note that this office does not necessarily.take the position that the water supply plan is valid. If you or the applicant has any questions concerning this matter, please contact me for assistance. Sincerely, Cynthia J. Love Water Resource Engineer CJL/Scott Expansion to Chambers Pit ii.doc cc: Alan Martellaro, Division Engineer James Lemon, Water Commissioner, District 45 ,„ Nai'41 RECEIY APR 2 8 2006 'GARFIELD COUNTY BUILDING & PLANNING a EXHIBIT 0 .27 gelo4 Y. -Al.ze;vz.) ,,„ & .A IIHEIRESOURCE ■.■.■ ■■■■■ E N G I N E E R I N G I N C. Fred Jarman Garfield County Building and Planning Dept 108 8th Street, Suite 201 Glenwood Springs CO 81601 RE: United Companies — Scott Pit Revised Special Use Permit and Floodplain Application oi, F 1 8 2006 C EXHIBIT 1 October 18, 2006 1 Dear Fred: •-•,-:0 COUNTY •:' a PLANNING At the request of Garfield County, Resource Engineering, Inc. (RESOURCE) has reviewed the revised Special Use Permit Application and Floodplain Permit Application submitted by United Companies of Mesa County for the Scott Pit project located along the Colorado River near Rifle. The submittal is a three ring binder entitled, United Companies Scott Pit County Special Use Permit and Floodplain Special Use Permit dated July, 2006. It is noted that the Scott Pit would be an independent operation isolated from the Chambers Pit and is no longer considered an expansion of the Chambers Pit. Our comments on each permit application are outlined below. SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION Summary The proposed Special Use Permit appears to generally meet all of the technical criteria for the Special Use general requirements in Section 5.03, the specific requirements in Section 5.03.07, and the standards in Section 5.03.08 of the Garfield County Zoning regulations as outlined below. However, there are some issues to be clarified and/or made conditions of any permit approval. Special Use General Requirements The general requirements for any special use permit include providing adequate water and wastewater service and adequate road improvements and/or access for the proposed use. The application states that potable water will be provided by bottled water and sanitary facilities will be provided by portable toilets. The application includes a State approved Substitute Water Supply Plan and gravel pit well permits have been obtained. The project site will be accessed from the 1-70 north frontage road, west of the 1-70 Airport/Mamm Creek interchange. CDOT Access Permit No. 305272 has been obtained and allows for up to 335 daily trips. All provisions of the CDOT permit should be conditions of any special use permit, including paving of the access road. The application is unclear as to whether Phase 4 of Mining Area 3 will be mined. The Phase 4 area is the high ground outside of the floodplain. This is the area designated for the fuel bunker, batch plants, office, scales, and crushing/screening plant. Any approval must specify no mining of the Mining Area 3 Phase 4 area, unless the fuel bunker and office are located on land elevated above the 100 year flood plain. Consulting Engineers and Hydrologists 909 Colorado Avenue ■ Glenwood Springs, CO 81 901 ■ [970) 945-9777 ■ Fax (970) 945-1137 Fred Jarman Page 2 INDUSTRIAL OPERATIONS REQUIREMENTS October 18, 2006 Section 5.03.07 of the County Regulation outlines additional specific criteria for industrial operation. The criteria require that the applicant prepare and submit an impact statement of the proposed use. The application presents a paragraph by paragraph response to Section 5.03.07 which addresses impacts and mitigation measures. The responses primarily rely on the requirements of CDMG to meet County regulations and are lacking detail. Comments on specific subparagraphs of the regulations are given below. 5.03.07.1 (E) — The Applicant should describe be the setbacks to adjacent properties, adjacent property uses, fencing, screening, lighting, etc. and should affirmatively state, sufficient separation from abutting property is provided. 5.03.07.2(A) — Applicant shall comply with applicable County Noxious Weed Regulation. 5.03.07.2(B) - Since applicant has previously indicated that the County cannot be a named beneficiary of the CDMG reclamation bond, a separate bond should be provided to the County. Recent projects have required $1,000 per acre. Such bond would include control of noxious weeds. INDUSTRIAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS The submittal indicates that the project will comply with the Industrial Performance Standards set forth in Section 5.03.08. Storage of equipment and facilities must also meet the County Floodplain Regulations. FLOODPLAIN PERMIT Almost all of the project site and activity are within the 100 year floodplain and most of that area is also within the floodway. Therefore, a Floodplain Permit is required. The submittal includes a detailed HEC -RAS hydraulic modeling analysis for the Colorado River. The analysis shows several rises in the base flood elevation and cannot demonstrate compliance with the County Floodplain Regulations. We met with the applicant's engineer, Greg Lewicki, and provided comments on the model which we believed were incorrect approaches in the model. The model was revised and all of the rises in the flood elevation were removed, except one. Therefore, the project has still not demonstrated compliance with the Regulation. We therefore recommend denial for non-compliance with Section 6, Floodplain Regulations of the GARCO Zoning Resolution. Special Uses And Standards For Floodway Section 6.09.01(A) prohibits encroachments including fill and new construction unless a technical evaluation demonstrates that such encroachments shall not result in any increase in flood levels during the occurrence of the base flood discharge. The analysis presented in the application and revised modeling show a rise in the flood levels. RESOURCE _ N C I N E E R I N C I N C. Fred Jarman Page 3 October 18, 2006 Section 6.09.01(E) prohibits any obstruction that would adversely affect the efficiency of or restrict the flow capacity so as to cause foreseeable damage to others. The proposed bridges are within the floodway, subject to overtopping, restrict the main conveyance of the river, and are debris collectors and/or debris producers that could damage other structures or create more critical obstructions downstream. The Applicant has proposed removal of the structures during times of potential flooding. They have also verbally indicated the idea of also securing the bridge with an anchored tie line as a back up measure to prevent the bridge from becoming flood debris in a flood. Such measures could be acceptable if there is compliance with Section 6.09.01(I)A above. Flood Fringe Section 6.09.02(A) prohibits construction in the floodplain that alone or cumulatively would cause or result in the danger of substantial solid debris being carried downstream by floodwaters. The construction of the two bridges results in such danger. Mitigation measures described above could be accepted on conditions. Section 6.09.02(B) - The fuel bunker and office must remain outside of the floodplain. Mining activities in Phase 4 of Mining Area 3 would eliminate any non floodplain area. If this area is to be mined, a plan for locating the fuel bunker and office outside of the floodplain must be presented. Otherwise mining in this area should not be allowed. Section 6.09.02(D) — See comments for Section 6.08.01(E). Any changes in floodplain elevation will require a Letter of Map Revision approval from FEMA. Such approval should be required prior to any approval of a Floodplain Permit. Please call if you have any questions or need additional information. Sincerely, RESOURCE N' ERI N9, INC. Michael `/` rion, P.E. Water resources Engineer MJE/mmm 885-36.0 K:1Clients1885 GARC0136.0 Glen's Pit\Tj special use review 885.doc RESOURCE ENGINEERING INC 07/06/06 11:04 FAX 970 625 0 CITY OF RIFLE LEAVENIVORTH CITY OF RIFLE, COLORADO RESOLUTION NO. 34 SERIES OF 2006 EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION OF TRE CITY COUNCIL OF T1 -IE CITY OF RIFLE, COLORADO, OPPOSING THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION FOR UNITED COMPANIES, SCOTT EXPANSION TO THE CHAMBERS PIT AND REQUESTING GARFIELD COUNTY TO DENY THE APPLICATION. WHEREAS, in February 2006, United Companies filed a Special Use Permit application with Garfield County, which application proposes to extract gravel from a site, known as the Scott Expansion to the Chambers Pit, adjacent to the Colorado River and essentially surrounded on three sides by the corporate boundaries of the City of Rifle (the "City"); and WHEREAS, the proposed Scott Expansion Pit will mine approximately 64 acres of land located near Exit 90 of Interstate - 70, which is the primary entrance to the City, and will substantially impair the visual experience of approaching and entering the City from the east; and WHEREAS, numerous gravel pits along the Colorado River corridor from New Castle to Rifle are currently permitted by Garfield County and the Colorado Division of Minerals and Geology; and WHEREAS, the gravel mining applications are being approved without the benefit of a comprehensive study of the cumulative impacts of such operations on wildlife and on riparian and wildlife habitat, water quality, hydrology, and the flood plain along the Colorado River corridor; and WHEREAS, taken together, the current and prospective gravel operation sites represent an unprecedented growth rate in the local gravel industry occurring largely on the New Castle—Rifle corridor's most highly valued and sensitive landscapes; and WHEREAS, the Rifle City Council is concerned that the unchecked proliferation of such gravel operations, including the proposed Scott Expansion which immediately encroaches on the City's boundaries, will deter economic development and economic diversity in the community, including tourism and an improved and progressive image for the City; and WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 31, Series of 2006, the City called upon the Garfield County Board of County Commissioners, the Colorado Division of Minerals and Geology, and all other appropriate governmental agencies and entities to collectively prepare and participate in the costs of a Colorado River Corridor Environmental Impact Assessment, which Assessment shall examine the cumulative impacts of gravel mining operations in order to create an appropriate Colorado Rive Corridor Gravel Mining Master Plan; and WHEREAS, in light of these activities and the City' s duty to its residents to protect its irnam. and entrance to the City, the City Council must oppose the Scott Expansion and request that Garfield County deny the Scott Expansion Special Use Permit application. 07/06/06 11:04 FAX 970 625 City of Rifle, Colorado Resolution No. 34, Series of 2006 Page 2 of 2 CITY OF RIFLE LEAVENWORTH 1005 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RIFLE, COLORADO, THAT: 1. The aforementioned recitals are hereby fully incorporated herein and adopted as findings and determinations by the City Council. 2. The City of Rifle hereby calls upon the Garfield County Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners for Garfield County to respect the City of Rifle's interest in protecting the entrance to Rifle and deny the Special Use Permit application for the Scott Expansion to the Chambers Pit THIS RESOLUTION was read, passed, and adopted by the Rifle City Council at a regular meeting held this 5th day of July, 2006. By CITY OF RIFLE, COLORADO 07/06/06 11:04 FAX 970 625 0 CITY OF RIFLE LEAVENWORTH CITY OF RIFLE, COLORADO RESOLUTION NO. 31 SERIES OF 2006 EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RIFLE COLORADO, PROPOSING THE PREPARATION OF A COLORADO RIVER CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT AND THE CREATION OF A MASTER PLAN THEREFORE_ WHEREAS, numerous gravel pits along the Colorado River corridor from New Castle to Rifle are currently permitted by Garfield County and the Colorado Division of Minerals and Geology; and WHEREAS, several additional gravel mining applications are currently pending before the County and the Division of Minerals and Geology; and WHEREAS, taken together, the current and prospective gravel operation sites represent an unprecedented growth rate in the local gravel industry occurring largely on the New Castle—Rifle corridor's most highly valued and sensitive landscapes; and WHEREAS, the gravel mining applications are being approved without the benefit of a comprehensive study of the cumulative impacts of such operations on wildlife and wildlife habitat, water quality, hydrology, and the flood plain along the Colorado River condor; and WHEREAS, economic development and growth, including the tourism industry, in the New Castle—Rifle Colorado River corridor are also impacted by the image and industrial appearance of current and expanding gravel pit operations; and WHEREAS, a comprehensive study should also address long-range conservation planning for regional gravel pit operations with the goal of managing gravel pit development to ensure sufficient resources will be available in the future to maintain regional development and growth; and WHEREAS, the Rifle City Council finds and determines that the best interests of the citizens of Rifle will be served by working cooperatively with neighboring municipalities, Garfield County, the Division of Minerals and Geology, and other governmental agencies and entities to prepare a Colorado River Corridor Environmental Impact Assessment, thereby collecting data and information for effective long-range regional planning. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RIFLE, COLORADO, THAT: 1. The aforementioned recitals are hereby fully incorporated herein and adopted as findings and determinations by the City Council. U.IRPSINS1 as I,�d 07/06/06 11:04 FAX 970 625 .0 City of Rifle, Colorado Resolution No. 31, Series of 2006 Page 2 of 2 CITY OF RIFLE 'LEAVENWORTH 0 003 2. The City of Rifle hereby calls upon the Garfield County Board of County Commissioners, the Colorado Division of Minerals and Geology, and all other appropriate governmental agencies and entities to collectively prepare and participate in the costs of a Colorado River Corridor Environmental Impact Assessment, which Assessment shall examine the cumulative impacts ofgravel mining operations in order to create an appropriate Colorado River Corridor Gravel Mining Master Plan. THIS RESOLUTION was read, passed, and adopted by the Rifle City Council at a regular meeting held this 5'h day of July, 2006. By ATTEST: VmmimMcacaliw CITY OF RIFLE, COLORADO 211 North Public Rd. Suite 200 Lafayette, CO 80026 tel. 303.664.5301 fax 303.664.5313 EXHIBIT 5 I)ESIGNUC0NCE! T S L June 21, 2006 Jim Neu Rifle City Attorney Leavenworth & Karp, P.C. 201 14th Street, Suite 200 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 Dear Jim, This letter is in regards to the Scott Property (Rifle Gravel Ponds) located along the north side of Interstate 70 approximately one mile east of the Highway 6 Exit and the main entrance into Rifle, Colorado in Garfield County. The Colorado River borders the northern edge of the property and a variety of existing wildlife such as bald eagles, blue heron, deer; fox and other animals are present on this site. An oxbow also meanders through the site. This property consists of 53 acres and is proposed to be mined for grave] in a 10-15 year time span. After mining is complete, the proposed design consists of three ponds or gravel pits that engulf most of the site. Design Concepts is a Landscape Architecture firm with extensive knowledge and experience in working on and designing reclaimed mining projects similar to the Scott Property. These projects include Thornton Gravel Lakes, Sprat Platte Lake, Eagle Claw Fishing Facility and Fort Morgan Riverside Park fishing ponds. In each of these projects, we provided extensive design services to enhance these sites for passive recreational and educational uses such as fishing, wildlife viewing, hiking and picnicking. In designing a public park there are many items to consider in creating a successful park. The park needs to be functional, as well as, aesthetically pleasing for all the users. The proposed Scott Property has many items of concern that Design Concepts recommends should be addressed prior to final acceptance. ❑ A majority of the site is proposed to be water in the form of three ponds. Design Concepts recommends smaller ponds and more land for aesthetics, environmental considerations, human interactions and adequate site access. More space is needed for trails, parking, crossings, shade shelters, seating areas, picnic areas, wildlife observation, interpretive signage and water play. The proposed access road along the I-70 edge needs special consideration. Space is needed to meander the access road away from the Interstate. ❑ Design more naturalistic/organic shaped ponds. The ponds should not have any long straight edges. Consider landforms within the ponds or pond shores such as coves, enclaves, beaches, peninsulas and isolated islands for wildlife. ❑ Vary the pond edge slopes. All proposed slopes are consistent 3:1 slopes. Provide areas with 7:1 slopes for gentler access into the water in some places. Provide random spots of 4:1, 5:1, and 6:1 or more on slopes of all pond edges by leaving some existing resources in place. Provide level areas within slopes for benches along the water edge. ❑ Preserve more existing mature vegetation than proposed. By making the ponds smaller and reconfiguring the shape, more vegetation, particularly the mature cottonwoods, could be saved. ❑ Provide more vegetation between the south property line and access road to buffer/screen I-70. Provide more trees along pond edges for shade. ❑ Provide a 20' trail easement on the south edge of the property. The Scott Property has the potential and is a great opportunity to become a very successful amenity for public use. Mining for a natural resource and planning for a passive recreational park can coincide if appropriately planned. On behalf of the City of Rifle, Design Concepts recommends the proposed design of the Scott Property be resubmitted with the above concerns and recommendations addressed. Sincerely, Shanen Weber Associate Landscape Architect st:r•, !.!Farrr :,ormor: f 1FYFR TO: MEMORANDUM John Hier, City Manager City of Rifle 202 Railroad Avenue Rifle, Colorado 81650 FROM: Jefferey S. Simonson, P.E. DATE: July 5, 2006 SUBJ: United Companies Scott Pit Special Use Permit Review and Floodplain Special Use Permit Review Garfield County, Colorado John, EXHIBIT The purpose of this memorandum is to update you, other staff members and Council as to the City's review of the applications for the Scott Pit Special Use Permit and the Floodplain Special Use Permit currently under review and consideration for the Garfield County Planning and Zoning Commission meeting of July 12, 2006. As you are aware, City staff has been discussing the application at length with the applicant. The applicant has submitted additional information as recently as mid -last week and we continue to review the application based upon its technical merits that centered on the technical concerns that we have previously discussed with staff. Our latest pieces of information come in the form of an e-mail that transmitted responses to technical questions that we had relative to receipt of floodplain calculations for the Colorado River. We received that information on last Wednesday. Although we have made considerable strides towards addressing our technical concerns as they relate to addressing identifiable impacts to the City's water intake structures on the Colorado River, we have not been in receipt of a revised application to Garfield County that indicates that the plan has been modified to address such issues. We expect, based upon our discussions with the applicants engineer, that the applicant will be able to mitigate impacts that we expect will result from the proposed mining activities. The primary impact of concern is modification of the river alignment as a result of pit -capture occurring. By verbally committing to providing erosion protection to vulnerable areas, the pit capture concern can be mitigated. Again, we are not in receipt of a revised mining plan that reflects this modification for the County submittal. During mining, the applicant has expressed their willingness to address the pit capture by committing to provide the resources necessary to re-establish the main stem of the river if pit capture occurs. The acceptability of this mitigation technique would be one subject of discussion during the watershed permit hearing. 118 W. 61h Street, Suite 200 Schmueser Gordon Meyer, Inc. (970)945-1004 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 (970)945-5948 FAX 7.5.06 Menlo fu John Owned IVerfnesdavJuly 05. 2006 02:51 PM During mining, we are not certain as to the specific mining plan revisions necessary to assure that the issues related to the County's Floodplain Development Permit can be properly addressed. Because of these various issues, we would recommend that Council, at minimum suggest to the County that they continue the hearing until the plan can be modified to reflect the various modifications discussed of recent and until the City Staff can be provided more time to work with the applicant's engineer to address the remaining technical issues. Thank you. Jeff Simonson I:\ 1999\99055x\287\corresp\7-05-06 memo to john.doc 118 W. 611' Street, Suite 200 Schmueser Cordon Meyer, Inc. (970)945-1004 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 (970)945-5948 FAX 71-06 Mama er Jah Oen nv/ IVarl rerclnv.mh' 05, RIO! 02.31 PSN 07x° SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER E N G I N E E R S SURVEYORS April 17. 2006 Mr. Mark Bean. Director of Building and Planning Garfield County 108 8`" Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: United Companies Scott Pit Special Use Permit Floodplain Special Use Permit Review Garfield County, Colorado Dear Mark: O_O;N`.1'000 SPRING_ AST'EN CRE 118 W. 6TH, SUITE 200 P.O. 80% 2155 P.O. GLENWOOD SPRINGS. CO 81 601 ASPEN, CO 81612 CRESTED BUTTE. CO 81 224 970-945-1004 970.925.6727 970-349-5355 FX: 970.845-5948 FX: 970.925.4 157 ,x: 970-349-5358 The purpose of this letter is to provide comment on behalf of the City of Rifle to the Garfield County Planning and Zoning commission and the County Commissioners transmitting the City of Rifle's concerns relative to the proposed gravel pit to be known as the Scott Pit and to be mined by United Companies. As you are aware, the proposed Scott Pit is located east of the City of Rifle just south of the city's raw water intake between the Colorado River and Interstate 70. The proposed mining activity falls within the City's Watershed District and therefore is subject to procuring a watershed permit from the City of Rifle. Additionally, it is subject to receiving a special use permit from Garfield County as well as a Floodplain Special Use Permit from the County acting as the Floodplain Administrator for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) towards administering the National Flood Insurance Program in Garfield County. Colorado. In order to conduct this review, we are in receipt of the 112 Permit Amendment Application to the CMLRD dated February 28, 2006 as prepared by Greg Lewicki and Associates of Parker, CO. Greg Lewicki and Associates is acting as the applicant's agent for this application. The true applicant for this project is Old Castle SW Group Inc. doing business as United Companies. This 112 Permit Amendment Application is to amend the Chambers Pit Permit. CMLRD Permit #M-79-205. In addition to our review of the aforementioned information, we've also reviewed Section 6 of the Garfield County land use code entitled, "Flood Plain Regulations". Finally, we have reviewed Appendix E of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) for the National Flood Insurance Program: 44 CFR Parts 59, 60, 65 and 70. The primary concerns the City of Rifle has with this particular land use activity that will be addressed by this letter relates to those impacts that would be generally associated with the floodplain/floodway of the Colorado River, the City's Intake structure (s) the City's waterworks facilities (pump stations and settling ponds) and adjacent transportation facilities that are contiguous with the proposed activity. Given our review of the information please note the following comments and/or concerns: Item 1: All of the pit lakes proposed for the Scott Expansion lie within the 100 -year flood plain of the Colorado River. Item2: The pit lakes also will lie within or near the ten-year flood plain of the Colorado. River. This means that there will be a ten percent chance in any given year that the river will interact with the pits. Given this fact, there is also a high potential for pit capture to occur which ultimately would result in a realignment of the Colorado River 199e'I '055A1^S7lwl resole -13061d 1D Mark Bean dce Given the significant chance for the interaction between the Colorado River and the pits to occur, there is also a significant chance for the equilibrium profile of the streambed to be altered. It will be altered through a local steepening of the energy and hydraulic profile of the stream. A locally steeper gradient is created upon flood waters entering the pit at the upstream end of the pit. This over -steepened nic point (with its increased stream power) commonly erodes upstream in a process known as headcutting. In addition to the headcutting, gravel pits (at the downstream end) will also trap much of the incoming bedload sediment which will pass sediment hungry water downstream. This characteristic of the water will typically erode the downstream channel bed and banks to regain part of its sediment load lost in the gravel pit. Thus, pit capturing commonly results in an incision of the stream, both up and downstream of the pit. The application is silent on the anticipated limits of this "incision in the stream bed". Obviously, as the incision is created, and water recedes, there is a high risk that the city's intake structures may be without water. Item 3: The primary form of mitigation proposed by the applicant to avoid pit capture has been in the form of providing a 100 -foot wide minimum buffer between the main channel of the Colorado River and the pit excavations. The applicant identifies that this minimizes the potential for pit capture of which the City could concur however; the proposal does not mitigate the potential for pit capture. It is our opinion that the City of Rifle cannot allow a use (that does not presently exist) that will knowingly have a high risk of harming the City's ability to maintain access to its water. It is the opinion of the City that the applicant needs to develop a plan that mitigates the risk of pit capture altogether. Presently, the applicant notes that the risk of its pits and the river interacting is at ten percent. Other than proposing a "buffer" the applicant proposes nothing to armor the banks or the buffer area towards mitigating the potential for pit capture and head cutting to occur. The buffer area proposed to mitigate pit capture is only located between the main channel and the proposed pits. There is virtually no buffer area proposed between the pits and the "ox bow" channel. Item 4: The applicant identified a concern over potential bank scour and potential impact to the City's intake structure. The bank scour would be created as a result of introducing fill in the flood plain/floodway for the alternative purpose of protecting the mining activities from flooding on the Colorado River. As is obvious, this fill would create additional velocity in the main channel of the river which would also increase the potential for bank scour. Accordingly, the applicant then recommends that the Colorado River be allowed to utilize its "historic" flood plain to carry the flood waters with no additional protection provided to the mining activities. Obviously, this recreates the concern over the potential for pit capture and the concern that there's a 10% risk of pit capture occurring as a result of the 10% chance of the interaction between the river and the pits in any given year. Item 5: Regarding Page SP -1 of the application, water issues, has the applicant dealt with the water rights issues associated with the project? Item 6: The County's land use code states that a mine site may not cause impact outside the permit boundary. Impacts have not been thoroughly defined as a result of the analysis provided to date. Even though the applicant has provided a basic analysis showing that the pits will cause reduced water surface elevation immediate to the pit, the applicant is changing the energy gradient and admits that they will (change) drop the water surface in the flood plain of the river. The applicant needs to perform a step back water analysis incorporating the proposed mining activities to determine where elevation impacts exist as a result of mining. It is common practice to observe that these types of activities will have elevation impacts upstream and downstream of the proposed activities for as much as 500 to 1000 feet. Since the application is silent on identifying the extent and impact from a water surface elevation standpoint, the application is incomplete in this regard. Item 7: The City and County should be in receipt of a copy of the Change of Access Permit for the 1-70 frontage road. Obviously, this information will be valuable when determining impacts on adjacent roadways and will help the City and County to understand conditions of approvals that may be granted through this application process. For example, is the applicant going to "pave" the frontage road to mitigate dust from mining traffic (as LaFarge has done) or is the applicant going to provide frequent applications of dust palliatives? !'.19aBIDO055A:287:conaso\4.13.06!" to Mark Bean dot Item 8: On Page SP -2: there is a code reference of 5.0, 3.0, 7.1 (E) which identifies that the CDMG requires engineer certified proof that the mining operation will not cause impacts outside of the permit boundary. Currently, the applicant has not provided any "certified proof' that there will not be impacts outside of the permit boundary. Additionally, the applicant's proposal is identifying that there are potential impacts as a result of the proposed mining activities. Additionally, the applicant has proposed buffer areas and darn pit excavations to allow for premature filling of pit excavations during flood events to lessen the potential for pit capture. The applicant further has not provided sufficient analysis (or technical evaluations) that would identify the extent of impacts in the elevations of the Colorado River upstream and downstream of the proposed permit boundary. Item 9: On Page SP -2, the applicant responds to code reference 5.03.08.4 in stating that all portable plants will be located in the pit bottom or away from 1-70. As a majority of the activity is proposed to be located in a mapped floodway, this, by county floodplain regulations, is a prohibited activity unless a technical evaluation can demonstrate that the encroachment will not result in any increase in the flood levels during the occurrence of the base flood discharge. The current evaluation does not address water surface elevations nor is it a recognized standard of practice for determining water surface elevations in Riverine situations. Such methods of determining elevations are HEC -2, HEC -RAS and WSPRO. These are among the accepted methods of determining water surface elevations utilizing step backwater computations. Item 10: Page D-1 of the application identifies that the pre -mining work will include the provision of an isolation berm being constructed. This berm does not appear in any of the drawings nor does it appear to have been modeled in the evaluation submitted. This encroachment "fill" in the floodplain/floodway is required to be supported by a technical evaluation using standard engineering practice. Item 11: On Page D-1, two truck traffic bridges are identified as being proposed in the mining activities. Again, no evaluation has been submitted indicating whether or not the existence of these traffic bridges will create an impact in the floodplain. Per the floodplain regulations, a technical evaluation is required to be submitted that demonstrates that the encroachment shall not result in any increase in flood levels during the occurrence of the base flood discharge. Item 12: On Page D-2: the first statement for the storrn water and sediment control states that "berms will isolate the site from the surrounding area". Where are the berms located and have they, being fill, been modeled for their impact in the floodway of the Colorado River? Item 13: On Page D-4, the application states that stockpiling and crushing will occur within the pit bottom once a mining area has been opened up. However, along with the initial phasing of a mining area, the adjacent phase may be stripped to provide a processing and staging area until room is available on the pit bottom. Again, the stated use is contrary to what is allowed in the floodway. No analysis exists which supports that the uses can exist in the floodway. Additionally, no certification for flood proofing exists for the uses. Item 14: Page D-4 states "an increased volume access permit from CDOT is currently pending approval". The city needs to be in receipt of a copy of the increased volume access permit, complete with the conditions of approval. • Item 15: On Page D-8, there appears to be a misleading statement wherein it is stated "it should be also noted that the local traffic will not see an increase." From our reading of the statement, this is in reference to the Chambers Pit losing the traffic that now accesses 6 & 24 on the north side of the Colorado River. This traffic is lost to the mining activities that wit be amended to the Chambers Pit permit with the Scott Pit mining activities. With the traffic moving from the north side of the river (access to Highway 6 & 24) the traffic will now be moved to the south side of the river to the 1-70 frontage road and eventually to the Mamm Creek Interchange. State, county and city roadways will see increase industrial related traffic as related to this use in the 1-70 and Airport Road corridors accordingly. 1'. 1999199055Fd87,co,,eso\4.13.061h to Mark Bean Ex Item 16: For revegetation of disturbed areas, the application is silent on how the dryland seed mix will be started. is there irrigation proposed? As is common knowledge, even the dryland seed mix will not "take" unless it is irrigated. Once the vegetation is mature, then it is common practice to abandon the inigation due to the nature and use of the dryland seed mix. Item 17 The wildlife information submitted in the application carne directly from the Mamm Creek Sand and Gravel Permit application. Has wildlife been specifically addressed for this application? Is it sufficient that this application utilize information from a neighboring pit to complete their submittal requirements? Item 18: As related to the floodplain development permit, the following comments are being provided: A. A large portion of the proposed activities are proposed to exist, not only in the floodplain, but also in the floodway. These activities are summarized as follows: 1. Fill (topsoil, product, over burden, berthing). 2. Encroachments 3. New construction (bridges, roads) 4. Stock piles storage (topsoil, overburden, and product piles) 5. Portable plants will be located in pit bottoms 6. Temporary water and sewer facilities? 7. Temporary fuel storage? (i.e., equipment: crushing/screening, excavation, loading, etc.) h. None of these uses or activities are allowed to exist unless a technical evaluation demonstrates that encroachments shall not result in any increase in flood levels during the occurrence of the base flood discharge (section 6.09.01(1)(A) c. None of the bullet points 5, 6, or 7 above would be allowed in the floodway (Section 6.09.01 (1) (B). d. None of the bullets 1 or 6 would be allowed in the floodway (Section 6.09.01(1)(C) e. None of the bullets 3, 5 or 6 above would be allowed in the floodway (Section 6.09.01(1)(D) f. None of the bullets 1-7 above would be allowed in the floodway if a technical evaluation cannot support their existence. The technical evaluation provided does not model such nor is a recognized "standard of practice". g. If the technical evaluation can be provided to demonstrate that the encroachments will not result in any increase in flood levels during the occurrence of the base flood discharge, then all improvements are required to meet the performance standards set forth in Section 6.09.02(3). h. Section 6.09.02(3)(B) states that all new construction or substantial improvements shall be reasonably sate from flooding. Given the location of the proposed mining activities, it should be noted that this item is not particularly met since a 10% chance exists for flooding in any given year. i. Section 6.09.02(3)(C) states, for this applicable case, "that the uses shall provide flood proofing...evidence shall be submitted and certified by a registered professional engineer or 1199959055E\?3Tcorreso 4.i3.061tr to Mark Bean doc architect that flood proofing meets the standards as set forth herein". Such evidence and certification does not appear in the application packets. j. From the Code of Federal Regulations, 44CFR Section 60.3 (B)(5) and (c)(4) require the community to obtain and maintain a Registered Professional Engineer's certification that a non- residential building was properly flood proofed. (This would be commonly known as a flood proofing certificate). This information has not been provided in the application. k. The county's flood plain regulations require that flood plains be free of encroachments that will cause an increase in flood levels. In a floodway, it needs to be documented that the project will not cause an increase in flood heights. This is not just for the immediate area of the project, but for the community as a whole. The technical evaluation needs to be extended far enough upstream and downstream to assure that the elevation changes as a result of the project will not show impact. The county should receive a no rise certification from a registered engineer along with the supporting engineering analysis prior issuing any permits. The engineering or no rise certification must be supported by the technical data and signed by a registered professional engineer. The supporting technical data should be based upon the standard step back water computer model used to develop the original 100 -year flood way shown on the FIRM and FBFM in the flood insurance study. For the Colorado River, HEC -2 was used, however, FEMA is now allowing HEC -RAS as a substitute for this requirement. I. Depending upon the results of the HEC -RAS model for the purpose of modeling the proposed impacts as a result of the mining activities, it may be determined that flood plain elevations will be impacted adjacent to and upstream and or downstream of the proposed activities. If this is the case, then the need to obtain a conditional letter of map revision may be required as a result of the proposed activity. Subsequent to obtaining a conditional letter of map revision and subsequent to performing the actual mining activities, a map revision may be required further in the future. Given the number of concerns and or comments that the City has relative to the application submitted and relative to the applicant procuring a county special use permit along with a county floodplain development permit, the city would request that Garfield County either deny the applications or continue the hearings for each of the permits being requested on the basis of needing additional analysis in defining all impacts and the means by which to mitigate those impacts. We thank you for your patience in reviewing the City's concerns in this regard and would request any supporting information that is received on the behalf of this application in the future. Upon your receipt and review of this letter, if you have any questions or comments, please don't hesitate to call. Sincerely, SCON MEYER, INC. Je Co n, P.E.. C.F.M. ineer I \ff09\95o55A4'BTcorreso1S41 O61tr to MaM Bean da LOYAL E. LEAVENWORTH SANDER N. KARP JAMES S. NEU KARL J. HANLON SUSAN W. LAATSCH ANNA S. ITENBERG MICHAEL J. SAWYER CASSIA R. FURMAN BETH E. KINNE CASSIE L. COLEMAN LAURA M. WASSMUTH LEAVENWORTH & KARP, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 201 14f11 STREET, SUITE 200 P. O. DRAWER 2030 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81602 Telephone: (970) 945-2261 Facsimile: (970) 945-7336 RE J EIO@Iklawfirm.com ILII. 0 ( 2000 July 6, 2006 GARFIEL[D COUNTY BUILDING & PLANNING Fred Jarman, Senior Planner Garfield County Building & Planning Department 108 8`11• Suite 201 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 EXHIBIT DENVER OFFICE:* 700 WASHINGTON ST. STE 702 DENVER, COLORADO 80203 Telephone: (303) 825-3995 *(Please direct all correspondence to our Glenwood Springs Office) Re: City of Rifle Comments on Scott Expansion to the Chambers Application Dear Fred: As you know, we represent the City of Rifle. The City appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Special Use Permit Application for United Companies Scott Expansion to the Chambers Pit. Rifle is extremely interested in this application because of its proximity to the City. The Scott Pit proposes to mine 64 acres along Interstate 70 adjacent to Rifle's primary eastern entrance. This is a very sensitive area for the City as it lies directly across from the City's Colorado River Raw Water Intake that supplies 90% of the City's water. In addition, the City is very concerned with the appearance of a gravel pit operation and its post reclamation impact. This industrial activity at the City's doorstep will hinder the City's efforts at diversifying its economy and attracting new businesses based on its natural assets. The City's strategic plan to pursue such economic opportunities will benefit the entire County and region, but this Application, if approved, will make such attempts more difficult. The City has numerous technical concerns with this activity's impact on the flood plain and to the City's water intake structure. Jeff Simonson, P.E. of Schmueser Gordon Meyer, the City's Engineer, has submitted two comment letters on the Application. The first dated April 17, 2006 provides general comments on the Application and its potential impacts to the flood plain. Since that letter was drafted, the City has met with the Applicant to resolve some of the concerns the City has regarding its water intake structure and ensuring the activities do not negatively impact the City's primary water source on the Colorado River. As you know, the Applicant must receive a City of Rifle Watershed District Permit prior to the commencement of any of its proposed mining activities. It is our understanding that the County will require a Watershed District Permit as a condition of a Special Use Permit issued by the County, if it is approved. The second letter dated July 5, 2006 discusses some of the progress the City made with the Applicant, but indicates that there are remaining deficiencies and questions that need to be answered. The City Council at its meeting on July 5, 2006 passed City of Rifle Resolution No. 34, Series of 2006, officially opposing the Application and requesting that Garfield County deny the I: NM1liclients,Ailk• 1.b197'.Lellers JamanSeuttPn.x,d LEAVENWORTH & KARP, P.C. Page 2 July 6, 2006 Application, a copy of that Resolution is enclosed. The City has again worked with the Applicant regarding reclamation issues, and the City appreciates the Applicants willingness to meet with the City to discuss these matters. Unfortunately, as discussions progressed, it became apparent that the Applicant's need to extract 100% of the gravel resource left little room to address some of the City's concerns. Therefore, from a public policy standpoint, the City Council felt it had a duty to oppose the Application in full. One post reclamation use the City desired for the Property to have was a park -like appearance. Even if public access was never granted on the Property, the City believed the appearance of a park would mitigate the visual impact of the mined Property. Enclosed is a letter from Shanen Weber with Design Concepts that reviewed the Application from that perspective. We understand a park is not a post -mining use of the Property; however, we thought the County might benefit from Ms. Weber's comments. Finally, we have included other comments provided by City organizations and commissions regarding this Application, and City of Rifle Resolution No. 31, Series of 2006 calling for an environmental assessment on the cumulative impacts of the numerous gravel mining operations in the Colorado River Corridor between New Castle and Rifle, and the creation of a Master Plan to address those impacts. We will attend the hearing in front of the Planning Commission to provide further details and request additional mitigation if this Application is approved. Thank you for your time and consideration. Please let me know if you have any questions or need anything from the City prior to the meeting. JSN: Enclosure cc: John Flier (w/o enc.) Matt Sturgeon (w/o enc.) City Council (w/o enc.) 1. 20110.11tents.Rillc I.1•I97.1.cttervJarnxtn,kotiPit.u7M Very truly yours, l i "Enhancing the quat,., cif life for Rifle residents through positive recreational activities". June 26, 2006 LETTER TO THE EDITOR: EXHIBIT 4./ The Rifle Parks and Recreation Advisory Board has unanimously voted to approve the resolution below concerning the proposed gravel pit to be built at the entrance to the City of Rifle. Be it resolved that the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board opposes the pending Special Use Permit application for the United Companies (Scott Pit) and urges the Board of County Commissioners to deny it because: 1. There are insufficient safeguards to assure responsible reclamation of the property after the work has been completed. 2. The lack of visual screening will very substantially impact the view of Rifle's main entrance from I-70. 3. The gravel pit may well endanger the City water intake facilities. 4. The impacts upon wildlife will be substantial. 5. The application does not address the need for conserving quality gravel resources for future development. Sincerely, Rifle Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Steve Carter — Chair Jim Boone Mildred Whitt Rich Carter — Vice -chair Kelly Bina -- Secretary Mark I,apka Betsy Rice Ed Weiss CITY OF RIFLE 202 RAILROAD AVENUE • P.O. BOX 1908 • RIFLE, CO 81650 WWW . R I F L E C O. O R G (970) 625-2151 Phone • (970) 625-6285 Fax • Recreation(a rifleco.orq c9 ?v J' y awn/ JO Case gSe. 970- 623- /877 Garfield County Commissioners 108 8th St. Glenwood Springs, Co 81601 Dear Commissioners, There is a problem which has recently been brought to our attention and being very concerned residents of Rifle and surrounding communities, we felt it necessary to voice our opposition to a proposal that will definitely affect •ur town and how visitors will perceive this area. The subject in question is a "Gravel Pit" in the area between Wal Mart d the Colorado River. Not only this particular site, but, the other 12 or 14 "Gr. ve! Pits" that are being planned between Rifle and Silt. This in a space of o v seven miles!! To say we are extremely opposed to this ugly scar along I-70 , Rte. 6 an the Colorado River would be putting it mildly.... It is pleasant now to driv - and see green pastures , horses and cattle grazing and the buffalo too. But, scene is disrupted by the Snyder Pit and we really do not want more of the e. At present there is the "Snyder Gravel Pit" next to I-70 near the Airpo Exit and going west . It is quite extensive and an undesirable eyesore and is at entrance to the city of Rifle from the east. It is usually people who do n. t live in any area where there are plans to disrupt the natural beauty and quality . f life for the residents and wild life. What will be the impact on the residents wild life, vegetation, air quality, flooding, etc.... When the wind blows, so bl .ws the dust! At present there is a new hotel in Rifle, the owners must have found so. - g desirable about Rifle or why would they build here? They have put up , very attractive building and must be looking at this area for tourism.. Grant • a, some of the structures that are in the Rifle Industrial area are not nearly as a_ .: : ve, but, they are not dumps or neglectecl_A gravel pit is nota .. ., • We do get very tired of the old excuse that it is "progress." Developers k building homes and malls and have encroached into the natural habitat of khe wild animals and who suffers. ??? The buyers then complain about bears their decks and patios and even invading their homes! Some of the destroyed because, God forbid, because they bother people..... This letter is not the only protest we will mount.. We believe there are m v residents between Rifle and Silt who are not aware of plans for gravel pits, and we plan on advising everyone who cares about their community to protes the pits. Pits is a very appropriate name.. Sincerely, Shiiley J. Roth Cc: Larry Cown John Martin Tresi Houpt • L n •- - I �� 09/01/06 14:44 FAX 97024569' fFARG E NORTH AMERICA AGGREGATES, CONCRETE & ASPHALT August 29, 2006 Ken Jacobson Y.J.S. Army Corp of Engineers Sacramento District 402 Rood Avenue, Room 142 Grand Junction, CO 81501 USFWS GND JCT L SES01 2008 GRAND JUNCTION, CO RE — Eagle Resolution, Corps File No. 200175036 Dear Mr_ Jacobson, Lafarge representatives met on site at the Mamm Creek facility on August 24, 2006 with Kevin Ellis and Rick Krueger of the US Fish and Wildlife Service to discuss how Lafarge can proceed with mining on the western portions of the property in light of the eagle nest. During this meeting with Mr. Krueger and Mr. Ellis, it was determined that Lafarge can proceed with mining all of Cell 3 (see enclosed map) while the. eagles are not actively nesting. While the western portion of this cell is approximately 200 -feet within the quarter -mile off -set from the nest tree recommended when the eagles are not nesting, Lafarge received verbal approval from the USFWS during this meeting to proceed with mining the entire cell, with mining to cease if and when the eagles take up residence in the nest tree again later this year. Lafarge also received verbal approval during this meeting to allow Elam's Hot -Mix Asphalt plant to reside within a quarter -mile of the nest until the eagle's return this fall, at which point they will leave the site. With the small exceptions outlined above, Lafarge will maintain the recommended quarter -mile off -set from the nest while the eagles are not actively nesting, one-half mile off -set from the nest when the eagles are actively nesting_ As such, the USFWS indicated they would support Lafarge with a "may impact though not likely to affect" determination with no requirement for a biological opinion. It should be noted that Lafarge is not the only tenant leasing access to the Mamm Creek property_ Antero Oil leases a portion of the area Lafarge refers to as Phase IV and is drilling a well within the 'A mile buffer of the eagle nest Lafarge has no control over Antero's operations at the site as their lease is with the landowner. As such, any questions regarding the drilling activities at the site should be directed to Antero Oil directly. Lafarge believes this submittal shall close the eagle issue associated with the Marnrn Creek .USACE permit. If you have any questions or concerns with this submittal, please contact me at 303-657-4148. Thank you for your assistance with this matter_ S P cerely, Me MNulty Di cto of Environment Cc Steve Wood, Steve Compton, Mike Prehm, Mark Vigil, Lafarge ;R .4.:Kzgeg6r, Kevin Ellis, USFWS Mark Gilfillari, USACE File LAFARGE NORTH AMERICA INC. - Lafarge Construction Materials 10170 Church Ranch Way,.Suite 200, Westminster, Colorado 80021 Y'elonhnna- !4(1411 7.4nnn Farclmifa- (4(141 A57 -4(M7 09/01/06 14:44 FAX 97024569' USFVVS GND JCT Z003 BALD EAGLE NEST TREE CASEY CONCRETE PLANT AND AGG PIT 1150 FT COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Department of Natural Resources 1313 Sherman Street, Room 715 Denver, CO 80203 Phone: (303) 866-2611 Fax: (303) 866-2461 Mr. Fred Jarman Garfield County Planning 108 8th St Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 STATE OF COT September 5, 2006 Re: Scott Gravel Pit CGS Review No. GA -06-0009 Dear Mr. Jarman: NE 15 T6S R92W RECEIVED SEP 1 2 2006 �.�.1 COUNTY LsUILDING & PLANNING DEPARTMENT OF RAL RESOURCES Bit Owens Governor Russell George Executive Director Vincent Matthews Division Director and State Geologist CGS received the revised Special Use Permit and Floodplain Special Use Permit for the Scott Pit, prepared by Greg Lewicki and Associates (July 2006). The floodplain study includes updated survey information and a HEC RAS model. The reclamation plan will include shallower slopes of 10h:ly, which would reduce erosion potential. CGS has no objections to the plan as it is proposed. It would be useful for Map F-1, the Reclamation Plan, to show the designations listed on page E-1, Reclamation Areas, and to better distinguish the old wetlands from the new. Yours truly elia Gree P an Geologist 303-866-2811 celia.greenman@state.co.us ;s EXHIBIT BUILDING & PLANNING United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Ecological Services 764 Horizon Drive, Building B Grand Junction, Colorado 81506-3946 IN REPLY REFER TO: ES-CO/Garfield County TAILS 65413-2006-P-0100 August 25, 2006 Fred Jarman Staff Planner Garfield County Planning and Building Department 108 8th Street, Suitd01 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Dear Mr. Jarman: Recently it was brought to our attention that a permit is being sought by Old Castle Mining Corp. (formerly United Sand and Gravel) at a location just East of Rifle on property owned by Baily Scott, also referred to as the Scott expansion of the Chambers Pit. From the information we have received this pit would be located within the 100 year flood plain of the Colorado River in an area that currently has an extensive stand of mature cottonwood trees and significant riparian vegetation. As you may or may not be aware, there is an active bald eagle nest (federally protected species that is listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act) just east of this location. The cottonwood gallery that has formed in this portion of the Colorado River, stretching from Rifle upstream to the town of Silt, is important nesting, feeding and roosting habitat for a number of bald eagles, including this nesting pair. Bald eagles are considered migratory birds and in addition to being a threatened species are also protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Disturbance of these large cottonwood trees and mining within the 100 year floodplain could adversely impact the federally protected bald eagles that utilize this reach of the river, a potential violation of the aforementioned Acts. The Service would like to go on record stating that protection of the cottonwood trees and riparian habitat within the 100 -year floodplain should be considered in any permits issued by the county. The floodplain in this reach is very active and may also provide habitat for federally listed endangered fish. The critical habitat designation for the federally listed razorback sucker and Colorado pikeminnow extends upstream to the Highway 13 bridge in Rifle. However, it is not uncommon for fish to utilize habitat outside of that which is legally designated critical for their survival. Similarly, protection of floodplains is generally beneficial to the community as it provides relief from catastrophic damage during natural periods of high flow. By protecting the 100 year floodplain from development you provide the river an opportunity to function under natural conditions and protect the largest percentage of Colorado's wildlife species. It is estimated that rivers, streams and their floodplains are the most important habitat for wildlife in western Colorado. Riparian areas in Garfield County provide some of the most valuable wildlife habitat in the state. Less than 1.5% of Colorado's wildlife habitat is riparian, yet 90% of Colorado's 800 species of wildlife depend on riparian habitat for their survival. Low elevation cottonwood/willow habitat is considered to be the most productive bird habitat in the State. We hope that when you consider the permitting of new gravel permits within the county you take into account the value of the floodplain and riparian habitat to the wildlife species that depend upon it. In addition, we support the City of Rifle's two recently adopted Resolutions, No. 31, proposing the preparation of a Colorado River Assessment and Master plan to examine the cumulative impacts of gravel mining operations in the Colorado River corridor and, No. 34, opposing the Scott expansion pit (until the aforementioned issues are addressed). Preparation of such a plan would address the protection of wildlife habitat while also addressing the needs of the community for gravel resources while maintaining a healthy riparian/riverine environment. If you have any questions concerning our comments please feel free to give me a call at 970-243-2778 extension 29 or Rick Krueger at extension 17. Sincerely; Allan Pfister Western Colorado Supervisor Cc: Rifle City Council, 202 Railroad Ave., P.O. Box 1908, Rifle, CO 81650 FWS/LE: Attn. Kevin Ellis CDOW: Grand Junction and Glenwood Springs -2 October 23, 2006 Mr. Lee Estes 29979 Hwy 6 Rifle, co 81650 OPEN LETTER TO GARFIELD CO PLANNING AND ZONING.txt ATTN: Mr. Fred Jarmin Planning and Zoning Committee Garfield, County RE: Mine Application Permit for Colorado River's Edge and Rocks -R -Us Dear Mr. Jarman: EXHIBIT pan My name is Lee Estes and I live at 29979 Hwy 6, Rifle, Colorado. I am approximately 3.2 miles east of Rifle, just on the north side of Hwy 6. we live in an area that could be called the "front line" of all the new drilling and gravel mining activity in Garfield Country. This area used to be a much more desirable place to live and I hope I will be able to explain why in this letter. I have voiced my concerns at all the previous hearings held in Glenwood and Rifle, concerning applications for various permits in my backyard. I have been quoted in the local newspapers, talked to every County Commissioner, and tried very hard to raise awareness of the destruction of our once beautiful river bottom. when I drive west into Rifle, and look at what is happening to the river and the surrounding land just south of my home, it makes me ill. It looks like a war zone, where heavy bombing has taken place. it does not even resemble what it used to look like, just a short time ago. I've learned over the past few months that no one has much control, or maybe has much of a concern, about the enforcement of the regulations concerning reclamation and mining imposed by the Colorado Division of Minerals and Geology. This has become a problem that needs to be addressed immediately by someone. All of the heavy acitivity in the region has drastically inmpacted our air quality and visibility. when I get up in the mornings and look toward the mountains, all I see is pollution, due to the dust and smoke created by the removal of the top soil, grass and trees. I have pictures of the dust created by the crushers, numerous dirt roads with no soil stability, and drilling pads. we can hear the crushers constant rumblings, the ever present back-up alarms on the equipment, various and loud engine noises, and much, much more highway traffic, created by these activities. when the wind blows from the west, it looks like a gigantic dust bowl across the entire Colorado River Valley. I've seen the dust so heavy on Highway 6 going into Rifle, that traffic is slowed due to the poor visibility. The area this application pertains to is the only area left that remains untouched by development, and is heavily wooded by old growth cottonwoods, among other species. Bald eagles and other raptors depend on these trees for their continued survivability in this valley. It is the only remaining area between the Mamm Creek exit and RIfle that remains unspoiled by rapid and continuous commercial development. It would be devastating to see this only remaining area become a series of deep pits in the earth, along with invading weeds and tamarisk trees, due to disturbance and disruptance of the top soil. Once the mining process is complete, we have deep holes and ponds, void of any kinds of vegetation. No bird life. No animal life. Nothing but tamerisk and invasive weeds. There is little chance that a significant recovery can be made by the land, once mining operations cease. Page 1 OPEN LETTER TO GARFIELD CO PLANNING AND.ZONING.tXt The mining activity would not only cause a significant loss to native plant and animal habitat. The crushing, hauling, drilling, construction of pipelines, etc., in this small river bottom will be felt by every person who lives in the lower valley. Major and drastic impacts are already being felt by the constant and ever increasing activity right now. I want you to come see what is becoming of this river bottom area and take a walk through the only remaining unmined area that is between Antlers and Rifle. Then compare this to the areas that are currently being used for aggregate purposes. I desperately urge you to deny appication of the permit that will be ruled on Tuesday, october 24th. The entire Estes family and the many families that live here really need your help. Could you please provide copies of this letter to all of the Garfield county Commissioners, and any other intersted parties? Especially the ones that will be voting on this proposal. once again, please consider all of the issues that I have discussed before voting on this permit. Sincerely, Lee Estes and Family Page 2 EXHIBIT MEMORANDUM To: Fred Jarman From: Steve Anthony Re: Scott Expansion Chambers Pit/United Companies Date: October 20, 2006 Noxious weeds Mapping and inventory: The applicant has updated the weed maps per staff's request of July 2006. Management: This has been addressed in the plan update. Reclamation Staff will seek direction from the BoCC regarding the double bonding issue. For informational purposes, bond recommendations from the July review are excerpted below. From staff's July 2006 memo: Costs: Revegetation costs have gone up considerably in the past year. 1 recommend a cost per acre of $2000 for the drier sites (an increase of $1200 from the applicant's estimate of $800 per acre and a cost per acre of $2500 for the wetland fringes (an increase of $1500 per acre from the applicant's estimate of $1000 per acre. Based on the applicant's estimates of 39.57 acres of dry site reseeding, it is recommended that we increase the bond amount by $47,484 (39.57 acres x $1200 increase) for the drier sites. For the wetland fringes which are 3.19 acres, it is suggested to increase the bond by$4,785 (3.19 acres x $1500 increase). The total increased bond amount would then be $52,269 ($47,484 + $4,785). Owner: Representative: Property Location: Property Size: Zoning: Access: Current Use: Proposed Use: Proposal Rivers Edge, LLC & Rocks R Us. LLC Greg Lewicki & Associates East of Rifle / South of Colorado River 93.46 acres (63 ac) Agricultural / Industrial (AI) HW 6 & 24 and I-70 frontage Pasture & SUP (Porta -john Storage) Sand & Gravel Extraction Hours of Operation Noise life of Mining Activity / Staging Dust lighting Fumes / Odors Vibration Affects on Wildlife Loss of Habitat Vegetation Water Quality Impacts Loss of Floodplain integrity General Visual Impact to area 4_ Traffic / access local Watershed Impacts �,� Reclamation / Reregetation •r"'y'. Mining & Concrete Batch Plant: Impacts Scott Expansion to the Chambers Gravel Pit Special Use Permit Extraction & Material Handling of Natural Resources & Development in 100 -Year Floodplain Planning Commission October 24, 2006 6:30 PM PAPIANATlnN and and Fa.ti • Historic wad aadpa.H gwaum a lava pal PP, Sample Sw.tiuo uJoambm Lj Canary 1-11.46 Pwmti.l Caltsory 2. Goad Pmmuat r1 Cats, J-Mohvs PasmiJ LI Ca...pry., Low PmnYa1 Rtmmce ar hi•by moat - S P. of lea.l,iad-Ho.. uA) Gravel Resource Mae 1 2 3 Proposed Site plan Map Generalized Cross - Section of an Alluvial Gravel Deposit . ;real dC.e.va�e,ea l ad obtlu xq.m sM, dryad.161 WW Teeek, General Project Description Phasing Plan: 3 Main Mining Areas with 4 to 5 phases in areas area ranging from 26 to 30 feet deep Will need to "dewater" the pits during extraction requiring discharge to groundwater permit from CDPHE Each pit has dewatering trench with a total of 5 discharge points to Colorado River / wetlands RR flatcar bridge over Old Crossbow / wetland Reclamation Plan: Wetlands and Ponds 4 General Project Description' Life of Mining Activity: Approx. 10 years Hours of operation: 6:00 AM to 8:00 PM Monday, through Saturday and 8:00 to 1:00 on Sundays from' March through November. Operating hours from" December through February will be 6:00 to 6:00,I Monday through Saturday. Occasionally, the' Applicant proposes there will be nighttime mining for special public agency projects which would require BOCC approval in a public meeting at least two weeks prior to operations. Total gravel: 3,094,634 tons (63.69 acres) Asphalt & Concrete plants on site Access Plan: CDOT Frontage Road to I-70 City of Rifle Comprehensive Plan Ma,) • • 1) WifdWe Habitat Enhancement 2) Environmental Education 3) Pa.Wve Recreation 4) Agriculture, axf 5) Mine Reclamation. Additional Permits Required Division of Reclamation Mining & Safety City of Rifle: Watershed Permit Garfield County: Special Use Permit for Development t in Floodplain & Extraction, Processing, storage, and Material Handling of Natural Resources CDPHE Permit: Discharge to Groundwater, Stormwater Management Plan, Air Emissions DWR: Approval of water plan to fill ponds Floodplain Vicinity of Rifle. ran PE 5 Proposed Reclamation / Revegetation Wetland Shelf Design; Fur °wgNS .v w 5 b tare uIhrws Toosob Kopiaa1C 5° WalrrM Fdre b Deepph or 1.0 Lila Surf Stamps and Roots P laced h Plea w Mo iter ear, kg Fish Mehta! SW view across Colorado to expansion site showing riparian buffer Proposed Reclamation / Revegetation Wetland Shelf Design; ror�.uaq.nw. i Cr.4441,4 TgiNa9 444141, 81.44 vwrr.m cw. e44.444 P.444441 W 414•14011444414 rC e anrots • eW w+x+ --, rwrewn..Qa e 11.1.-4F6v. 1,44.4 444.444 wmmdro Main Project Challenges Dey9JopLngnt in Floodway 6.09.O1(A)prohftdts encroadrmentsincluding fill and new avnstructIon unless a technical evaluation demonstrates that such encroachments shall not resultIn any increase in flood levels during the occurrence of the base flood discharge. (Will result in a rise In the base flood elevation of We 100 -year floodplain requiring a LOMNt] 6 Main Project Challenges: Bald Eagle 1. Active Bald Eagle nest on neighboring LaFarge property to the east; 2. The US Fish & Wildlife as well as DOW typically recommend a 1 mile non disturbance zone around a nest which grows to y2 mile during nesting and breeding season; 3. Mining plan proposes mining activity (Areas 2 and 3) inside the y mile and ' mile buffer; 4. Bald Eagles are listed as an federally endangered species and protected by the Bald and Golden Eagle Act and Migratory Bird Treaty Act as administered by the USFS and rely heavily on the mature cottonwood galleries along the Colorado River; 5. Lafarge committed to maintaining the recommended Vi mile offset from the nest while the eagles are not nesting as well as respecting the 1/2 mile offset when the eagles are actively nesting (Exhibit X) Environmental Challenges to Prope 100 -year floodplain; Foodway Bald Eagle Buffer Zone (July to December) Main Project Challenges: Visual Impact i The USFW definition of "harassment' is an intentional or negligent act or omission which creates the likelihood of Injury to wildlife by annoying it to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavioral patterns which include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering. 1n Staff's opinion, if the eagles choose not to return to this established nest because mining was underway the next January 15th, one might reasonably assume the new use (gravel mining activity) was the cause of abandonment directly resulting In harassment Main Project Challenges: Visual Impact The proposal is to fully remove vegetation cover and mine approximately 63 acres (65%) of a 93 -acre property into three exposed surface gravel pits for a period of at least 10 years (2016). 'The existing established neighborhood character can be characterized as industrial (gravel mining to the north and east), (mass transit oriented) !COOT highway to the south, and natural riparian river bottom to the west ,at the entrance to the City of Rifle, The property itself serves as a natural unimproved buffer (on the south side of the river) separating the City of Rifle's main entrance from Lafarge's gravel pit operation. The site is highly visible from west -bound traffic on I-70 because it is elevated at feast 70 feet above the property. Some of the vegetation (mature cottonwood stands) on the property actually serve as a visual buffer (as well as for sound) between the City and the LaFarge gravel pit,. This property also serves as the last and most significant natural / unimproved properties along the river and I-70 corridor as one approaches Ole City of Rifle from the east. Once this property has been mined, it will significantly change the character of the area as seen primarily from 1-70 and from the bridge crossing the Colorado River entering and leaving the City of Rifle 7 Staff Recommendation: Denial 6.09.01(A) prohibits encroachments including fiiI and new construction unless a technical evaluation demonstrates that such encmadrments shall not result Many increase in flood levels during the occurrence of the base flood discharge. [Will result to a rise in the base flood elevation of the 100 -year fioodplain] 5.03,07(0] Impacts on wildlife and domesticanlmals through the creation of hazardous attractions, alteration ofexisbhg native vegetation, blockade of migration mutes, use patterns orother disruptions. [Proposed mining plan conflicts with r/: mile / °/< mile Bald Eagle protection buffer] 5.03(3) Design of the proposed use is organized to minimize impact on adjacent uses of land through installation of screen fences or landscape materials on the periphery of the Inland by location of intensively utilized areas, access points, lighting and signs in such a manner as to protect established neighborhood character. [.Adequately mitigate visual [meads from mining with better 8 : ::HRESOURCE ..... ■ ■■•• E N G I N E E R I N G INC. Fred Jarman Garfield County Building and Planning Dept 108 8th Street, Suite 201 Glenwood Springs CO 81601 RE: United Companies — Scott Pit Special Use Permit and Floodplain, Special Use Permit Application RECEIVED July 5, 2006 0Z Zoos GARFIELD COUNTY BUILDING & PLANNING Dear Fred: At the request of Garfield County, Resource Engineering, Inc. (RESOURCE) has reviewed the Special Use Permit Application and Floodplain Special Use Permit Application submitted by United Companies of Mesa County for the Scott Pit project located along the Colorado River near Rifle. The submittal is a three ring binder entitled, United Companies Scott Pit Expansion to the Chambers Pit 112 Permit Application to the Colorado Division of Minerals and Geology dated February 28, 2006. The submittal has a County Special Use Addendum and a County Floodplain Addendum. It is noted that the Scott Pit would be an independent operation isolated from the Chambers Pit and is no longer considered an expansion of the Chambers Pit. Our comments on each special use permit are outlined below. SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION Summary The proposed Special Use Permit does not appear to meet all of the technical criteria for the Special Use general requirements in Section 5.03, the specific requirements in Section 5.03.07, and the standards in Section 5.03.08 of the Garfield County Zoning regulations as outlined below. Special Use General Requirements The general requirements for any special use permit include providing adequate water and wastewater service and adequate road improvements and/or access for the proposed use. The application states that potable water and sanitary facilities will be provided, but there is no evidence to demonstrate that adequate facilities will be provided. The application indicates that a State approved Substitute Water Supply Plan and gravel pit well permits have been obtained. Evidence of such is not included in the submittal and must be provided prior to issuance of any permit. The project site will be accessed from the 1-70 north frontage road, west of the 1-70 AirportlMamm Creek interchange. Such access will require a permit from CDOT. The CDOT permit for 400 one way trips per day must be obtained prior to issuance of any special use permit. All provisions of the CDOT permit should be conditions of any special use permit. Consulting Engineers and Hydrologists 909 Colorado Avenue ■ Glenwood Springs, CO 81 601 • (970) 945-9777 • Fax (970) 945-1137 Fred Jarman Page 2 July 5, 2006 The application is unclear as to whether Phase 4 of Mining Area 3 will be mined. The Phase 4 area is the high ground outside of the floodplain. This is the area designated for the fuel bunker, batch plants, office, scales, and crushing/screening plant. Any approval must specify no mining of the Mining Area 3 Phase 4 area. INDUSTRIAL OPERATIONS REQUIREMENTS Section 5.03.07 of the County Regulation outlines additional specific criteria for industrial operation. The criteria require that the applicant prepare and submit an impact statement of the proposed use. The application presents a paragraph by paragraph response to Section 5.03.07 which addresses impacts and mitigation measures. The responses primarily rely on the requirements of CDMG to meet County regulations and are lacking detail. Comments on specific subparagraphs of the regulations are given below. 5.03.07.1(A) — The application does not show adequate legal and physical supply for project operations. The plan for potable water should be submitted for review prior to any approval and the a copy of the well permits and State approved Substitute Water Supply Plan described in the application must be submitted prior to issuance of any permit. 5.03.07.1(B) - Applicant should submit the certified engineer proof with the application. 5.03.07.1(D) - The application states there is no impact since traffic will shift from one location to another. CDOT is specifically sensitive to the significant increase in truck traffic in the interchange area. A CDOT access permit is required for this project. 5.03.07.1 (E) — Applicant should submit the certified engineer proof with this application. The Applicant should describe be the setbacks to adjacent properties, adjacent property uses, fencing, screening, lighting, etc. and should affirmatively state, sufficient separation from abutting property is provided. 5.03.07.2(A) — Applicant shall comply with applicable County Noxious Weed Regulation. 5.03.07.2(B) - Since applicant has previously indicated that the County cannot be a named beneficiary of the CDMG reclamation bond, a separate bond should be provided to the County. Recent projects have required $1,000 per acre. Such bond would include control of noxious weeds. INDUSTRIAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS The submittal indicates that the project will comply with the Industrial Performance Standards set forth in Section 5.03.08, but the application is lacking the information which is routinely provided in other applications. Such missing documentation includes a Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan (SPCC), a Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) and an Emergency Response Plan. Such information must be submitted to support the application. RESOURCE NOINEERING I N C. Fred Jarman Page 3 July 5, 2006 5.03.08.5(B) - Application states facilities will be located in bottom of pits. Due to floodplain constraints, all facilities will be located on the high ground in the southeast corner outside of the floodplain. FLOODPLAIN SPECIAL USE PERMIT Almost all of the project site and activity are within the 100 year floodplain and most of that area is also within the floodway. Therefore, a Floodplain Special Use Permit is required. The application presents a comparative analysis using cross sections to show the pre - mining, mining, and post mining ground and pond water surfaces within the project. Calculations of "flow" capacity are presented using the Manning Equation for uniform flow. The analysis concludes that the project has a minimum 72% increase in flow capacity within the project area. The calculations and conclusions in the application are not appropriate because the calculation of flow capacity does not account for non -effective flow area in the pits, backwater control elevation of the top of pit and top of isolation berms, and upstream and downstream control conditions. We believe that no conclusions can be drawn from the calculations and analysis. The cross section data suggests that the placement of fill for isolation berms, creation of stockpiles for topsoil, overburden and gravel and construction of two bridges are unmitigated encroachments in the floodway. The application also proposes uses within the floodway that are not allowed by the regulations. The application does not demonstrate compliance with the County floodplain regulations in Section 6 of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution. We therefore recommend denial for non-compliance with the regulations as detailed below. SPECIAL USES AND STANDARDS FOR FLOODWAY Section 6.09.01(A) prohibits encroachments including fill and new construction unless a technical evaluation demonstrates that such encroachments shall not result in any increase in flood levels during the occurrence of the base flood discharge. The application proposes the placement of fill and construction of two bridges within the floodway. The analysis presented in the application does not account for ineffective flow area in the pits, control elevations of the top of pits and berms, stockpile fills, and bridge construction. It is our opinion that absent detailed hydraulic modeling to show otherwise, the above factors indicate that the project will result in a rise in the base flood elevation. Section 6.09.01(E) prohibits any obstruction that would adversely affect the efficiency of or restrict the flow capacity so as to cause foreseeable damage to others. The proposed bridges are within the floodway, subject to overtopping, restrict the main conveyance of the river, and are debris collectors and/or debris producers that could damage other structures or create more critical obstructions downstream. RESOURCE ENGINEEPINO INC Fred Jarman Page 4 FLOOD FRINGE July 5, 2006 Section 6.09.02(A) prohibits construction in the floodplain that alone or cumulatively would cause or result in the danger of substantial solid debris being carried downstream by floodwaters. The construction of the two bridges results in such danger. Section 6.09.02(D) — See comments for Section 6.08.01(E). It is important to note that should the applicant undertake detailed hydraulic modeling, the analysis must extend upstream and downstream to assess impacts due to any changes in the energy gradient of the river. Any changes in floodplain elevation will require a Letter of Map Revision approval from FEMA. Such approval should be required prior to any approval of a Floodplain Special Use Permit. Please call if you have any questions or need additional information. Sincerely, RESOURCE N NEERING, INC. ti Michael J rio , P.E. Water R "sources Engineer MJE/mmm 885-36.0 K:1Clientsl885 GARC0136.0 Glen's Pitlrj special use review 885.doc 'RESOURCE ENGINEERING I N C. 07/06/06 11:04 FAX 970 625 3210 CITY OF RIFLE CITY OF RIFLE, COLORADO RESOLUTION NO. 34 SERIES OF 2006 -> LEAVENWORTH QQ_II U04 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RIFLE. COLORADO. OPPOSING THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION FOR UNITED COMPANIES, SCOTT EXPANSION TO THE CHAMBERS PIT AND REQUESTING GARFIELD COUNTY TO DENY THE APPLICATION. WHEREAS, in February 2006, United Companies filed a Special Use Permit application with Garfield County, which application proposes to extract gravel from a site, known as the Scott Expansion to the Chambers Pit, adjacent to the Colorado River and essentially surrounded on three sides by the corporate boundaries of the City of Rifle (the "City"); and WHEREAS, the proposed Scott Expansion Pit will mine approximately 64 acres of land located near Exit 90 of Interstate - 70, which is the primary entrance to the City, and will substantially impair the visual experience of approaching and entering the City from the east; and WHEREAS, numerous gravel pits along the Colorado River corridor from New Castle to Rifle are currently permitted by Garfield County and the Colorado Division of Minerals and Geology; and WHEREAS, the gravel mining applications are being approved without the benefit of a comprehensive study of the cumulative impacts of such operations on wildlife and on riparian and wildlife habitat, water quality, hydrology, and the flood plain along the Colorado River corridor; and WHEREAS, taken together, the current and prospective gravel operation sites represent an unprecedented growth rate in the local gravel industry occurring largely on the New Castle—Rifle corridor's most highly valued and sensitive landscapes; and WHEREAS, the Rifle City Council is concerned that the unchecked proliferation of such gravel operations, including the proposed Scott Expansion which immediately encroaches on the City's boundaries, will deter economic development and econotuic diversity in the community, including tourism and an improved and progressive image for the City; and WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 31, Series of 2006, the City called upon the Garfield County Board of County Commissioners, the Colorado Division of Minerals and Geology, and all other appropriate governmental agencies and entities to collectively prepare and participate in the costs of a Colorado River Corridor Environmental Impact Assessment, which Assessment shall examine the cumulative impacts of gravel mining operations in order to create an appropriate Colorado River. Corridor Gravel Mining Master Plan; and WHEREAS, in light of these activities and the City's duty to its residents to protect its irna and entrance to the City, the City Council must oppose the Scott Expansion and request that Garfield: County deny the Scott Expansion Special Use Permit application. 07/06/06 11:04 FAX 970 625 3210 C1TY OF MILL; City of Rifle, Colorado Resolution No. 34, Series of 2006 Page 2 of 2 4 LtAVbNWUHIH WJ003 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RIFLE, COLORADO, THAT: 1. The aforementioned recitals are hereby fully incorporated herein and adopted as findings and determinations by the City Council. 2. The City of Rifle hereby calls upon the Garfield County Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners for Garfield County to respect the City of Rifle's interest in protecting the entrance to Rifle and deny the Special Use Permit application for the Scott Expansion to the Chambers Pit. THIS RESOLUTION was read, passed, and adopted by the Rifle City Council at a regular meeting held this 5th day of July, 2006. ATTEST: W City Clerk By CITY OF RIFLE, COLORADO 07/06/06 11:04 FAX 970 625 3210 CITY OF RIFLE 3 LEAVHNWURTH IJ uuZ CITY OF RIFLE, COLORADO RESOLUTION NO. 31 SERIES OF 2006 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RIFLE, COLORADO. PROPOSING THE PREPARATION OF A COLORADO RIVER CORRIDOR. ASSESSMENT AND THE CREATION OF A MASTER PLAN THEREFORE. WHEREAS, numerous gravel pits along the Colorado River corridor from New Castle to Rifle are currently permitted by Garfield County and the Colorado Division of Minerals and Geology; and WHEREAS, several additional gravel mining applications are currently pending before the County and the Division of Minerals and Geology; and WHEREAS, taken together, the current and prospective gravel operation sites represent an unprecedented growth rate in the local gravel industry occurring largely on the New Castle—Rifle corridor's most highly valued and sensitive landscapes; and WHEREAS, the gravel mining applications are being approved without the benefit of a comprehensive study of the cumulative impacts of such operations on wildlife and wildlife habitat, water quality, hydrology, and the flood plain along the Colorado River corridor; and WHEREAS, economic development and growth, including the tourism industry, in the New Castle—Rifle Colorado River corridor are also impacted by the image and industrial appearance of current and expanding gravel pit operations; and WHEREAS, a comprehensive study should also address long-range conservation planning for regional gravel pit operations with the goal of managing gravel pit development to ensure sufficient resources will be available in the future to maintain regional development and growth; and WHEREAS, the Rifle City Council finds and determines that the best interests of the citizens of Rifle will be served by working cooperatively with neighboring municipalities, Garfield County, the Division of Minerals and Geology, and other governmental agencies and entities to prepare a Colorado River Corridor Environmental Impact Assessment, thereby collecting data and information for effective long-range regional planning. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RIFLE, COLORADO, THAT: 1. The aforementioned recitals are hereby fully incorporated herein and adopted as findings and determinations by the City Council. VAR@SLNSVMS10.1d 07/06/06 11:04 FAX 970 625 3210 CITY OF RIFLE City of Rifle, Colorado Resolution No. 31, Series of 2006 Page 2 of 2 -4 LEAVENN'ORTH 41003 2. The City of' Rifle hereby calls upon the Garfield County Board of County Commissioners, the Colorado Division of Minerals and Geology, and all other appropriate governmental agencies and entities to collectively prepare and participate in the costs of a Colorado River Corridor Environmental Impact Assessment, which Assessment shall examine the cumulative impacts of gravel mining operations in order to create an appropriate Colorado River Corridor Gravel Mining Master Plan. THIS RESOLUTION was read, passed, and adopted by the Rifle City Council at a regular meeting held this 5th day of July, 2006. By ATTEST: VanSzax\iwe CITY OF RIFLE, COLORADO 211 North Public Rd. Suite 200 Lafayette, CO 80026 tel. 303,664.5301 fax 303.664.5313 DESIGN 11C(JlNlCEI'T5 June 21, 2006 Jim Neu Rifle City Attorney Leavenworth & Karp, P.C. 201 14"' Street, Suite 200 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 Dear Jim, This letter is in regards to the Scott Property (Rifle Gravel Ponds) located along the north side of Interstate 70 approximately one mile east of the Highway 6 Exit and the main entrance into Rifle, Colorado in Garfield County. The Colorado River borders the northern edge of the property and a variety of existing wildlife such as bald eagles, blue heron, deer; fox and other animals are present on this site. An oxbow also meanders through the site. This property consists of 53 acres and is proposed to be mined for gravel in a 10-15 year time span. After mining is complete, the proposed design consists of three ponds or gravel pits that engulf most of the site. Design Concepts is a Landscape Architecture firm with extensive knowledge and experience in working on and designing reclaimed mining projects similar to the Scott Property. These projects include Thornton Gravel Lakes, Sprat Platte Lake, Eagle Claw Fishing Facility and Fort Morgan Riverside Park fishing ponds. In each of these projects, we provided extensive design services to enhance these sites for passive recreational and educational uses such as fishing, wildlife viewing, hiking and picnicking. In designing a public park there are many items to consider in creating a successful park. The park needs to be functional, as well as, aesthetically pleasing for all the users. The proposed Scott Property has many items of concern that Design Concepts recommends should be addressed prior to final acceptance. ❑ A majority of the site is proposed to be water in the form of three ponds. Design Concepts recommends smaller ponds and more land for aesthetics, environmental considerations, human interactions and adequate site access. More space is needed for trails, parking, crossings, shade shelters, seating areas, picnic areas, wildlife observation, interpretive signage and water play. The proposed access road along the I-70 edge needs special consideration. Space is needed to meander the access road away from the Interstate. ❑ Design more naturalistic/organic shaped ponds. The ponds should not have any long straight edges. Consider landforms within the ponds or pond shores such as coves, enclaves, beaches, peninsulas and isolated islands for wildlife. ❑ Vary the pond edge slopes. All proposed slopes are consistent 3:1 slopes. Provide areas with 7:1 slopes for gentler access into the water in some places. Provide random spots of 4:1, 5:1, and 6:1 or more on slopes of all pond edges by leaving some existing resources in place. Provide level areas within slopes for benches along the water edge. ❑ Preserve more existing mature vegetation than proposed. By making the ponds smaller and reconfiguring the shape, more vegetation, particularly the mature cottonwoods, could be saved. ❑ Provide more vegetation between the south property line and access road to buffer/screen I-70. Provide more trees along pond edges for shade. ❑ Provide a 20' trail easement on the south edge of the property. The Scott Property has the potential and is a great opportunity to become a very successful amenity for public use. Mining for a natural resource and planning for a passive recreational park can coincide if appropriately planned. On behalf of the City of Rifle, Design Concepts recommends the proposed design of the Scott Property be resubmitted with the above concerns and recommendations addressed. Sincerely,. fitzfr Shanen Weber Associate Landscape Architect MEMORANDUM 4F re ',:;ORDON MFYFR TO: John Hier, City Manager City of Rifle 202 Railroad Avenue Rifle, Colorado 81650 FROM: Jefferey S. Simonson, P.E. DATE: July 5, 2006 SUBJ: United Companies Scott Pit Special Use Permit Review and Floodplain Special Use Permit Review Garfield County, Colorado John, The purpose of this memorandum is to update you, other staff members and Council as to the City's review of the applications for the Scott Pit Special Use Permit and the Floodplain Special Use Permit currently under review and consideration for the Garfield County Planning and Zoning Commission meeting of July 12, 2006. As you are aware, City staff has been discussing the application at length with the applicant. The applicant has submitted additional information as recently as mid -last week and we continue to review the application based upon its technical merits that centered on the technical concerns that we have previously discussed with staff. Our latest pieces of information come in the form of an e-mail that transmitted responses to technical questions that we had relative to receipt of floodplain calculations for the Colorado River. We received that information on last Wednesday. Although we have made considerable strides towards addressing our technical concerns as they relate to addressing identifiable impacts to the City's water intake structures on the Colorado River, we have not been in receipt of a revised application to Garfield County that indicates that the plan has been modified to address such issues. We expect, based upon our discussions with the applicants engineer, that the applicant will be able to mitigate impacts that we expect will result from the proposed mining activities. The primary impact of concern is modification of the river alignment as a result of pit -capture occurring. By verbally committing to providing erosion protection to vulnerable areas, the pit capture concern can be mitigated. Again, we are not in receipt of a revised mining plan that reflects this modification for the County submittal. During mining, the applicant has expressed their willingness to address the pit capture by committing to provide the resources necessary to re-establish the main stem of the river if pit capture occurs. The acceptability of this mitigation technique would be one subject of discussion during the watershed permit hearing. 118 W. 6'h Street, Suite 200 Schmueser Gordon Meyer, Inc. (970)945-1004 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 (970)945-5948 FAX 1-5-06 Memo to John Owned WednesdayJuly 05. 2006 02:51 PM During mining, we are not certain as to the specific mining plan revisions necessary to assure that the issues related to the County's Floodplain Development Permit can be properly addressed. Because of these various issues, we would recommend that Council, at minimum suggest to the County that they continue the hearing until the plan can be modified to reflect the various modifications discussed of recent and until the City Staff can be provided more time to work with the applicant's engineer to address the remaining technical issues. Thank you. Jeff Simonson I:\1999\99055a\287\corresp\7-05-06 memo tojohn.doc 118 W. 6"' Street, Suite 200 Schmueser Gordon Meyer, Inc. (970)945-1004 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 (970)945-5948 FAX 7-5-04 Memo to John Owned Wednesday July 05. 2006 02:51 PM SCNMUESER GORDON MEYER E N G I NEERS SURVEYORS April 17. 2006 Mr. Mark Bean. Director of Building and Planning Garfield County 108 8t" Street Glenwood Springs. CO 81601 RE: United Companies Scott Pit Special Use Permit Floodplain Special Use Permit Review Garfield County, Colorado Dear Mark: OLENno0D SPP,Hcs 1 16 W. 6TH. SUITE 200 GLENW000 SPRINGS. CO 81601 970-945-1004 Px: 970-945-5948 P.O. BO( 2155 ASPEN, CO 81612 970-925-6727 Px: 970-925-4157 CRESTED BUTTE P.O. BOX 3086 CRESTED BUTTE. co 81 224 970349-5355 Px: 970349.5358 The purpose of this letter is to provide comment on behalf of the City of Rifle to the Garfield County Planning and Zoning commission and the County Commissioners transmitting the City of Rifle's concerns relative to the proposed gravel pit to be known as the Scott Pit and to be mined by United Companies. As you are aware, the proposed Scott Pit is located east of the City of Rifle just south of the city's raw water intake between the Colorado River and Interstate 70. The proposed mining activity falls within the City's Watershed District and therefore is subject to procuring a watershed permit from the City of Rifle. Additionally, it is subject to receiving a special use permit from Garfield County as well as a Floodplain Special Use Permit from the County acting as the Floodplain Administrator for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) towards administering the National Flood Insurance Program in Garfield County. Colorado. In order to conduct this review, we are in receipt of the 112 Permit Amendment Application to the CMLRD dated February 28, 2006 as prepared by Greg Lewicki and Associates of Parker, CO. Greg Lewicki and Associates is acting as the applicant's agent for this application. The true applicant for this project is Old Castle SW Group Inc. doing business as United Companies. This 112 Permit Amendment Application is to amend the Chambers Pit Permit. CMLRD Permit #M-79-205. In addition to our review of the aforementioned information, we've also reviewed Section 6 of the Garfield County land use code entitled, "Flood Plain Regulations". Finally, we have reviewed Appendix E of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) for the National Flood Insurance Program: 44 CFR Parts 59, 60, 65 and 70. The primary concerns the City of Rifle has with this particular land use activity that will be addressed by this letter relates to those impacts that would be generally associated with the floodplain/floodway of the Colorado River, the City's Intake structure (s) the City's waterworks facilities (pump stations and settling ponds) and adjacent transportation facilities that are contiguous with the proposed activity. Given our review of the information please note the following comments and/or concerns: Item 1: All of the pit lakes proposed for the Scott Expansion lie within the 100 -year flood plain of the Colorado River. Item 2: The pit lakes also will lie within or near the ten-year flood plain of the Colorado River. This means that there will be a ten percent chance in any given year that the river will interact with the pits. Given this fact, there is also a high potential for pit capture to occur which ultimately would result in a realignment of the Colorado River uccn'99055A46ncorresp1413-061tr to Mark Bean ac Given the significant chance for the interaction between the Colorado River and the pits to occur, there is also a significant chance for the equilibrium profile of the streambed to be altered. It will be altered through a local steepening of the energy and hydraulic profile of the stream. A locally steeper gradient is created upon flood waters entering the pit at the upstream end of the pit. This over -steepened nic point (with its increased stream power) commonly erodes upstream in a process known as headcutting. In addition to the headcutting, gravel pits (at the downstream end) will also trap much of the incoming bedload sediment which will pass sediment hungry water downstream. This characteristic of the water will typically erode the downstream channel bed and banks to regain part of its sediment load lost in the gravel pit. Thus, pit capturing commonly results in an incision of the stream, both up and downstream of the pit. The application is silent on the anticipated limits of this "incision in the stream bed". Obviously, as the incision is created, and water recedes, there is a high risk that the city's intake structures may be without water. Item 3: The primary form of mitigation proposed by the applicant to avoid pit capture has been in the form of providing a 100 -foot wide minimum buffer between the main channel of the Colorado River and the pit excavations. The applicant identifies that this minimizes the potential for pit capture of which the City could concur however; the proposal does not mitigate the potential for pit capture. It is our opinion that the City of Rifle cannot allow a use (that does not presently exist) that will knowingly have a high risk of harming the City's ability to maintain access to its water. It is the opinion of the City that the applicant needs to develop a plan that mitigates the risk of pit capture altogether. Presently, the applicant notes that the risk of its pits and the river interacting is at ten percent. Other than proposing a "buffer" the applicant proposes nothing to arrnor the banks or the buffer area towards mitigating the potential for pit capture and head cutting to occur. The buffer area proposed to mitigate pit capture is only located between the main channel and the proposed pits. There is virtually no buffer area proposed between the pits and the "ox bow' channel. Item 4: The applicant identified a concern over potential bank scour and potential impact to the City's intake structure. The bank scour would be created as a result of introducing fill in the flood plain/floodway for the alternative purpose of protecting the mining activities from flooding on the Colorado River. As is obvious, this fill would create additional velocity in the main channel of the river which would also increase the potential for bank scour. Accordingly, the applicant then recommends that the Colorado River be allowed to utilize its "historic" flood plain to carry the flood waters with no additional protection provided to the mining activities. Obviously, this recreates the concern over the potential for pit capture and the concern that there's a 10% risk of pit capture occurring as a result of the 10% chance of the interaction between the river and the pits in any given year. Item 5: Regarding Page SP -1 of the application, water issues, has the applicant dealt with the water rights issues associated with the project? Item 6: The County's land use code states that a mine site may not cause impact outside the permit boundary. Impacts have not been thoroughly defined as a result of the analysis provided to date. Even though the applicant has provided a basic analysis showing that the pits will cause reduced water surface elevation immediate to the pit, the applicant is changing the energy gradient and admits that they will (change) drop the water surface in the flood plain of the river. The applicant needs to perform a step back water analysis incorporating the proposed mining activities to determine where elevation impacts exist as a result of mining. It is common practice to observe that these types of activities will have elevation impacts upstream and downstream of the proposed activities for as much as 500 to 1000 feet. Since the application is silent on identifying the extent and impact from a water surface elevation standpoint, the application is incomplete in this regard. Item 7: The City and County should be in receipt of a copy of the Change of Access Permit for the 1-70 frontage road. Obviously, this information will be valuable when determining impacts on adjacent roadways and will help the City and County to understand conditions of approvals that may be granted through this application process. For example, is the applicant going to "pave" the frontage road to mitigate dust from mining traffic (as LaFarge has done) or is the applicant going to provide frequent applications of dust palliatives? II 999\99055At2$7 ooveso 4-1 &0ottr to Mark Bean.Eoc Item 8: On Page SP -2: there is a code reference of 5.0, 3.0, 7.1 (E) which identifies that the CDMG requires engineer certified proof that the mining operation will not cause impacts outside of the permit boundary. Currently, the applicant has not provided any "certified proof' that there will not be impacts outside of the permit boundary. Additionally, the applicant's proposal is identifying that there are potential impacts as a result of the proposed mining activities. Additionally, the applicant has proposed buffer areas and dam pit excavations to allow for premature filling of pit excavations during flood events to lessen the potential for pit capture. The applicant further has not provided sufficient analysis (or technical evaluations) that would identify the extent of impacts in the elevations of the Colorado River upstream and downstream of the proposed permit boundary. Item 9: On Page SP -2, the applicant responds to code reference 5.03.08.4 in stating that all portable plants will be located in the pit bottom or away from 1-70. As a majority of the activity is proposed to be located in a mapped floodway, this, by county floodplain regulations, is a prohibited activity unless a technical evaluation can demonstrate that the encroachment will not result in any increase in the flood levels during the occurrence of the base flood discharge. The current evaluation does not address water surface elevations nor is it a recognized standard of practice for determining water surface elevations in Riverine situations. Such methods of determining elevations are HEC -2, HEC -RAS and WSPRO. These are among the accepted methods of determining water surface elevations utilizing step backwater computations. Item 10: Page D-1 of the application identifies that the pre -mining work will include the provision of an isolation berm being constructed. This berm does not appear in any of the drawings nor does it appear to have been modeled in the evaluation submitted. This encroachment "fill" in the floodplaiNfloodway is required to be supported by a technical evaluation using standard engineering practice. Item 11: On Page D-1, two truck traffic bridges are identified as being proposed in the mining activities. Again, no evaluation has been submitted indicating whether or not the existence of these traffic bridges will create an impact in the floodplain. Per the floodplain regulations, a technical evaluation is required to be submitted that demonstrates that the encroachment shall not result in any increase in flood levels during the occurrence of the base flood discharge. Item 12: On Page D-2: the first statement for the storrn water and sediment control states that "berms will isolate the site from the surrounding area". Where are the berms located and have they, being fill, been modeled for their impact in the floodway of the Colorado River? Item 13: On Page D-4, the application states that stockpiling and crushing will occur within the pit bottom once a mining area has been opened up. However, along with the initial phasing of a mining area, the adjacent phase may be stripped to provide a processing and staging area until room is available on the pit bottom. Again, the stated use is contrary to what is allowed in the floodway. No analysis exists which supports that the uses can exist in the floodway. Additionally, no certification for flood proofing exists for the uses. Item 14: Page D-4 states "an increased volume access permit from CDOT is currently pending approval". The city needs to be in receipt of a copy of the increased volume access permit, complete with the conditions of approval. Item 15: On Page D-8, there appears to be a misleading statement wherein it is stated "it should be also noted that the local traffic will not see an increase." From our reading of the statement, this is in reference to the Chambers Pit losing the traffic that now accesses 6 & 24 on the north side of the Colorado River. This traffic is lost to the mining activities that will be amended to the Chambers Pit permit with the Scott Pit mining activities. With the traffic moving from the north side of the river (access to Highway 6 & 24) the traffic will now be moved to the south side of the river to the 1-70 frontage road and eventually to the Mamm Creek Interchange. State, county and city roadways will see increase industrial related traffic as related to this use in the 1-70 and Airport Road corridors accordingly. !VI 9flak99055A1287‘corresor4-13-96IV to Mark Bean doe Item 16: For revegetation of disturbed areas, the application is silent on how the dryland seed mix will be started. Is there irrigation proposed? As is common knowledge, even the dryland seed mix will not "take" unless it is irrigated. Once the vegetation is mature, then it is common practice to abandon the irrigation due to the nature and use of the dryland seed mix. Item 17: The wildlife information submitted in the application came directly from the Mamm Creek Sand and Gravel Permit application. Has wildlife been specifically addressed for this application? Is it sufficient that this application utilize information from a neighboring pit to complete their submittal requirements? Item 18: As related to the floodplain development permit, the following comments are being provided: A. A large portion of the proposed activities are proposed to exist, not only in the floodplain, but also in the floodway. These activities are summarized as follows: 1. Fill (topsoil, product, over burden, berming). 2. Encroachments 3. New construction (bridges, roads) 4. Stock piles storage (topsoil, overburden, and product piles) 5. Portable plants will be located in pit bottoms 6. Temporary water and sewer facilities? 7. Temporary fuel storage? (i.e., equipment: crushing/screening, excavation, loading, etc.) b. None of these uses or activities are allowed to exist unless a technical evaluation demonstrates that encroachments shall not result in any increase in flood levels during the occurrence of the base flood discharge (section 6.09.01(1)(A) c. None of the bullet points 5, 6, or 7 above would be allowed in the floodway (Section 6.09.01 (1) (B). d. None of the bullets 1 or 6 would be allowed in the floodway (Section 6.09.01(1)(C) e. None of the bullets 3, 5 or 6 above would be allowed in the floodway (Section 6.09.01(1)(D) f. None of the bullets 1-7 above would be allowed in the floodway if a technical evaluation cannot support their existence, The technical evaluation provided does not model such nor is a recognized "standard of practice". g. If the technical evaluation can be provided to demonstrate that the encroachments will not result in any increase in flood levels during the occurrence of the base flood discharge, then all improvements are required to meet the performance standards set forth in Section 6.09.02(3). h. Section 6.09.02(3)(B) states that all new construction or substantial improvements shall be reasonably safe from flooding. Given the location of the proposed mining activities, it should be noted that this item is not particularly met since a 10% chance exists for flooding in any given year. i. Section 6.09.02(3)(C) states, for this applicable case, "that the uses shall provide flood proofing...evidence shall be submitted and certified by a registered professional engineer or 1 i1999\99055Aancorrespw-13-061h to Mark Bean arcs architect that flood proofing meets the standards as set forth herein". Such evidence and certification does not appear in the application packets. j. From the Code of Federal Regulations, 44CFR Section 60.3 (B)(5) and (c)(4) require the community to obtain and maintain a Registered Professional Engineer's certification that a non- residential building was properly flood proofed. (This would be commonly known as a flood proofing certificate). This information has not been provided in the application. k. The county's flood plain regulations require that flood plains be free of encroachments that will cause an increase in flood levels. In a floodway, it needs to be documented that the project will not cause an increase in flood heights. This is not just for the immediate area of the project, but for the community as a whole. The technical evaluation needs to be extended far enough upstream and downstream to assure that the elevation changes as a result of the project will not show impact. The county should receive a no rise certification from a registered engineer along with the supporting engineering analysis prior issuing any permits. The engineering or no rise certification must be supported by the technical data and signed by a registered professional engineer. The supporting technical data should be based upon the standard step back water computer model used to develop the original 100 -year flood way shown on the FIRM and FBFM in the flood insurance study. For the Colorado River, HEC -2 was used, however, FEMA is now allowing HEC -RAS as a substitute for this requirement. I. Depending upon the results of the HEC -RAS model for the purpose of modeling the proposed impacts as a result of the mining activities, it may be determined that flood plain elevations will be impacted adjacent to and upstream and or downstream of the proposed activities. If this is the case, then the need to obtain a conditional letter of map revision may be required as a result of the proposed activity. Subsequent to obtaining a conditional letter of map revision and subsequent to performing the actual mining activities, a map revision may be required further in the future. Given the number of concerns and or comments that the City has relative to the application submitted and relative to the applicant procuring a county special use permit along with a county floodplain development permit, the city would request that Garfield County either deny the applications or continue the hearings for each of the permits being requested on the basis of needing additional analysis in defining all impacts and the means by which to mitigate those impacts. We thank you for your patience in reviewing the City's concerns in this regard and would request any supporting information that is received on the behalf of this application in the future. Upon your receipt and review of this letter, if you have any questions or comments, please don't hesitate to call. Sincerely, SCMMV SER i3O' SON MEYER, INC. e j;lm'n n, P.E., C.F.M. Cop ing pity 'neer 11999 95055AV.8lcorreso14-13-06It, to Mark Bean dcc LOYAL E. LEAVENWORTH SANDER N. KARP JAMES S. NEU KARL J. HANLON SUSAN W.LAATSCH ANNA S. ITENBERG MICHAEL J. SAWYER CASSIA R. FURMAN BETH E. KINNE CASSIE L. COLEMAN LAURA M. WASSMUTH LEAVENWORTH & KARP, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 201 14 r" STREET, SUITE 200 P. O. DRAWER 2030 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81602 Telephone: (970) 945-2261 Facsimile: (970) 945-7336 JSN@lklawfirm.com July 6, 2006 Fred Jarman, Senior Planner Garfield County Building & Planning Department 108 8`''• Suite 201 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 EXHIBIT V DENVER OFFICE:* 700 WASHINGTON ST. STE 702 DENVER, COLORADO 80203 Telephone: (303) 825-3995 *(Please direct all correspondence to our Glenwood Springs Office) Re: City of Rifle Comments on Scott Expansion to the Chambers Application Dear Fred: As you know, we represent the City of Rifle. The City appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Special Use Permit Application for United Companies Scott Expansion to the Chambers Pit. Rifle is extremely interested in this application because of its proximity to the City. The Scott Pit proposes to mine 64 acres along Interstate 70 adjacent to Rifle's primary eastern entrance. This is a very sensitive area for the City as it lies directly across from the City's Colorado River Raw Water Intake that supplies 90% of the City's water. In addition, the City is very concerned with the appearance of a gravel pit operation and its post reclamation impact. This industrial activity at the City's doorstep wild hinder the City's efforts at diversifying its economy and attracting new businesses based on its natural assets. The City's strategic plan to pursue such economic opportunities will benefit the entire County and region, but this Application, if approved, wilt make such attempts more difficult. The City has numerous technical concerns with this activity's impact on the flood plain and to the City's water intake structure. Jeff Simonson, P.E. of Schmueser Gordon Meyer, the City's Engineer, has submitted two comment letters on the Application. The first dated April 17, 2006 provides general comments on the Application and its potential impacts to the flood plain. Since that letter was drafted, the City has met with the Applicant to resolve some of the concerns the City has regarding its water intake structure and ensuring the activities do not negatively impact the City's primary water source on the Colorado River. As you know, the Applicant must receive a City of Rifle Watershed District Permit prior to the commencement of any of its proposed mining activities. It is our understanding that the County will require a Watershed District Permit as a condition of a Special Use Perrnit issued by the County, if it is approved. The second letter dated July 5, 2006 discusses some of the progress the City made with the Applicant, but indicates that there are remaining deficiencies and questions that need to be answered. The City Council at its meeting on July 5, 2006 passed City of Rifle Resolution No. 34, Series of 2006, officially opposing the Application and requesting that Garfield County deny the I: 711.110 enI,\II i11c.I.1.I47'.I.clic rx•lumun.knuPll n7x1 LEAVENWORTH & KARP, P.C. Page 2 July 6, 2006 Application, a copy of that Resolution is enclosed. The City has again worked with the Applicant regarding reclamation issues, and the City appreciates the Applicants willingness to meet with the City to discuss these matters. Unfortunately, as discussions progressed, it became apparent that the Applicant's need to extract 100% of the gravel resource left little room to address some of the City's concerns. Therefore, from a public policy standpoint, the City Council felt it had a duty to oppose the Application in full. One post reclamation use the City desired for the Property to have was a park -like appearance. Even if public access was never granted on the Property, the City believed the appearance of a park would mitigate the visual impact of the mined Property. Enclosed is a letter from Shanen Weber with Design Concepts that reviewed the Application from that perspective. We understand a park is not a post -mining use of the Property; however, we thought the County might benefit from Ms. Weber's comments. Finally, we have included other comments provided by City organizations and commissions regarding this Application, and City of Rifle Resolution No. 31, Series of 2006 calling for an environmental assessment on the cumulative impacts of the numerous gravel mining operations in the Colorado River Corridor between New Castle and Rifle, and the creation of a Master Plan to address those impacts. We will attend the hearing in front of the Planning Commission to provide further details and request additional mitigation if this Application is approved. Thank you for your time and consideration. Please let me know if you have any questions or need anything from the City prior to the meeting. JSN: Enclosure cc: John Hier (w/o enc.) Matt Sturgeon (w/o enc.) City Council (w/o enc.) L 21111“ IIeOmQJW I Lcu.m]mm.n.&mIPli wpd Very truly yours, "Enhancing the qualit `life. for Rifle residents through positive recrer ?al activities". June 26, 2006 LETTER TO THE EDITOR: The Rifle Parks and Recreation Advisory Board has unanimously voted to approve the resolution below concerning the proposed gravel pit to be built at the entrance to the City of Rifle. Be it resolved that the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board opposes the pending Special Use Permit application for the United Companies (Scott Pit) and urges the Board of County Commissioners to deny it because: 1. There are insufficient safeguards to assure responsible reclamation of the property after the work has been completed. 2. The lack of visual screening will very substantially impact the view of Rifle's main entrance from 1-70. 3. The gravel pit may well endanger the City water intake facilities. 4. The impacts upon wildlife will be substantial. 5. The application does not address the need for conserving quality gravel resources for future development. Sincerely, Rifle Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Steve Carter — Chair Jim Boone Mildred Whitt Rich Carter — Vice -chair Kelly Bina — Secretary Mark Lapka Betsy Rice Ed Weiss CITY OF RIFLE 202 RAILROAD AVENUE • P.O. BOX 1908 • R I FLEA CO 81650 WWW. R[ F L E C O. O R G (970) 625-2151 Phone • (970) 625-6285 Fax • Recreation a�rifleco.orq