HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.0 Staff Report 12.13.2006Exhibits 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 Fish & Wildlife Service dated 8/25/2006
AA
Letter from Lee Estes dated 10/23.06
BB
Follow up Letter from County Vegetation Director dated 10/20/06
CC
Applicant's Presentation
DD
County Staff Presentation
New Exhibits for December 13, 2006
EE
Letter from the Division of Water Resources dated 11/17/06
FF
Email from CDOT dated 11/22/06
GG
Letter from CGS dated 11/17/06
HH
Memo from County Veg. Director dated 12/4/06
II
Letter from the City of Rifle dated 11/30/06
JJ
Letter from Resource Engineering dated 12/6/07
KK
New Revised Application submitted in November, 2006
•
12/13/06 (Continued from 10/24/06)
FJ
PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
TYPE OF REVIEW
Special Use Permit for 1) "Processing, Storage
and Material Handling of Natural Resources"
& Special Use Permit for 2) "Development in
the Floodplain"
APPLICANT Rocks R Us, LLC
River's Edge, LLC
LOCATION
SITE INFORMATION
EXISTING ZONING
The subject property is located 1/2 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)
I. RECAP / NEW INFORMATION
As the Planning Commission will recall from the public hearing held on October 24, 2006, Staff
provided its report and recommendation of denial, the public hearing was opened to gain input from
members of the public, and a discussion ensued by the Commission of the matter. Based on this, the
Commission agreed to continue the public hearing to December 13, 2006 so that the Applicant could
have time to revise their submittal based on the forgoing testimony.
Recall, Staff recommended denial of the application based on 1) inability to demonstrate a 0.00 rise
in the 100 -year base flood elevation of the 100 -year floodplain, 2) that the proposed mining areas 2
and 3 fall with a l and 1/4 mile bald eagle nest buffer, and 3) inability to effectively mitigate visual
impacts during mining
Scott / Chambers Gravel Pit
PC —12/13/06
Page 2
To this end, the Applicant has submitted a revised application that Staff referred to all of the referral
agencies for their additional review and comment. Basically, the Applicant proposes two site plans in
hopes that the Planning Commission will recommend the BOCC approve Step 1 for immediate
mining and approve Step 2 (original plan) on the condition that once certain events occur; the entire
original mining plan would be allowed to proceed as well. These steps are discussed in greater detail
below:
A) New Revised Mining Plan (Step 1)
The Applicant proposes a revised mining plan shows a much more limited plan with a total
disturbance of 15.55 acres where the mining is to occur in two mining areas to take a total of three
years to mine and reaching full reclamation four years from the start of mining. The main revised
changes include 1) relocating the mining activity out of the FEMA 100 -year floodway portion of the
floodplain and 2) relocating the activity out of the 1/4 mile bald eagle buffer but within the 1/2 mile
seasonal buffer with an activity restriction that mining activity can only occur between July 31st and
January 15`h. This is graphically shown below and as Map C-2 Limited Mine Plan in the Application.
Staff points out that the plan above shows that while the two mining areas are outside the floodway,
the two 200' x 20' sediment ponds and rip -rap lined discharge channels are fully located in the 100 -
year floodway which requires a Floodplain Permit from the County (shown by the circles on the
illustration above). Such a permit can only be approved if it has been demonstrated that there is a
0.00 rise in the 100 -year base flood elevation which generally requires its own HEC -RAS analysis.
This very important requirement has not been met.
2
• •
Scott / Chambers Gravel Pit
PC —12/13/06
Page 3
Other comments received on the revised plan include the following:
1) Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT): CDOT has issued an access permit (#
305272) for this site. The permit will expire January 27, 2007. The permit is for 335 trips.
Once of the conditions of this permit is the paving of the road from the Lafarge entrance to
the future entrance of Scott Pit. (Exhibit FF)
2) Colorado Geologic Survey: Under Step 2, the LOMR has been approved and the eagle has
been delisted, and mining would proceed in Areas 1, 2, and 3. I do not know whether the
eagle is scheduled for delisting or whether this is still being considered. In the latter case,
could there be a Step 3, where the LOMR was approved, but there would still be a seasonal
restriction due to eagle nesting? In this case, mining would not be limited in Area 1, and
mining would be seasonally limited in Area 2 and Area 3. (Exhibit GG)
3) Garfield County Vegetation Manager: The applicant states on Page J-2 that "to lessen the
overall visual impact from the removal of the noxious trees the removal may occur in
phases ". Reducing the population of Russian olive and tamarisk is not a negative impact to
visual aesthetics from the corridor. The timely treatment of all County listed noxious
weeds, including Russian olive and tamarisk, is encouraged given the threat of spreading
noxious weed seeds through gravel to previously uninfested areas. Staff recommends an
annual inspection in cooperation with the Division of Reclamation, Mining, and Safety to
review the weed management work and reclamation activities. (Exhibit HH)
4) City of Rifle: The City requests the Planning Commission deny the Application due to
location and direct impacts it will have on the City. The City urges the Planning
Commission to deny the Application with the understanding that could be mined w/o a
LOMR. The Floodplain permit should be denied and the balance of the property removed
from the permit until it has been demonstrated that they can be mined. The City also objects
to the hot -mix asphalt and concrete batch plants on site as they cannot be screened and add
to the visual impact to the City of Rifle. The proposed SUP is not compatible with the lands
to the south and the gateway corridor to Rifle. (Exhibit 11)
5) Division of Water Resources: The proposed expansion and subsequent reclamation plan
can be completed as proposed so long as the Substitute Water Supply Plan remains in force
or the Applicant acquires an approved augmentation plan for the net water depletions from
the proposed lakes. In addition, the well permit will need to be maintained in good standing.
(Exhibit EE)
6) Resource Engineering (on behalf of Garfield County): The proposed Special Use Permit
appears to generally meet all of the technical criteria for the Special Use general
3
• •
Scott / Chambers Gravel Pit
PC —12/13/06
Page 4
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. The request for Step 2, from a technical perspective, should be a separate
approval based on the inconsistency of the mining in Step 1 creating a problem with
location of facilities for Step 2 and uncertainty about the LOMR process results. At the very
least, any conditional approval of the Step 2 Mine Plan should require a separate
Floodplain Permit for Step 2 after FEMA approval of the CLOMR.
The mining activities of the proposed step 1 are inconsistent with the facilities plan for Step
2. The southeast corner of Mining Area 3 is the high ground outside of the floodplain that
is designated for the main facilities. If this area is mined in Step 1, there is no proposed
suitable area for the facilities. As described in the floodplain review below, all facilities
must be located outside of the floodplain, elevated above the 100 year base flood elevation,
and/or protected from inundation by flood events.
Almost all of the project site and activity are within the 100 yearfloodplain 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. The application proposes approval of
Step 1 mining outside of the floodway and conditional approval for the rest of the mining
plan upon approval of a Letter or Map Revision (LOMR) from FEMA to address the current
non-compliance issue. If the County agrees to a conditional approval for the Step 2 Plan,
at a minimum, one of the conditions should read similar to the following:
"Prior to commencing the Step 2 Mining Plan, the Applicant shall obtain
appropriate approvals from FEMA for a Conditional Letter of Map Revision
(CLOMR) or Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) and obtain a floodplain permit from
the County for the Step 2 Mining Plan activities within the floodway. "
The Step 1 Mine Plan includes minor activities within the floodway that have not been
addressed in the submittal. Therefore, the project has not demonstrated compliance with
Section 6 of Floodplain Regulations.
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
4
• •
Scott / Chambers Gravel Pit
PC —12/13/06
Page 5
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 for the Step 2 Plan (to
be addressed in a CLOMR), but does not address the Step 1 activities within the floodway
including a sediment pond and rip rap channel.
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 potentialflooding. 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(l)A above. These activities would be addressed in a future
Floodplain Permit application after a CLOMR is obtained.
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 of office must remain outside of the floodplain. The
batch plants must be located outside of the floodplain, elevated above the 100 year base
flood elevation, and/or protected fromflooding by other means such as rip rap lined berms
within the flood fringe area. Mining activities in Step 1 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 and locating other facilities in protected zones must be
presented. Otherwise mining in this area should not be allowed, except as the final phase of
the project (either Step 2 or Step 1 with no further mining).
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. Approval of the conditional Letter of Map Revision should be required prior to any
approval of a Floodplain Permit for activities within the floodway. (Exhibit JJ)
5
Scott / Chambers Gravel Pit
PC —12/13/06
Page 6
B) Originally Proposed Plan (Step 2)
In addition to Step 1, the Applicant requests the Planning Commission recommend approval to the
BOCC of Step 2 with the two significant conditions that 1) once a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR)
has been approved by FEMA and 2) the bald eagle has been "de -listed" from the Threatened and
Endangered list, then a Special Use Permit would automatically be issued for the entire / original
mining plan whenever and if ever they occur.
To this end, Staff recommends denial of the request for Step 2 based on the same recommendation
Staff made at the October 24th hearing. In addition, even if the eagle is de -listed which would
eliminate the buffer area, Staff believes a new mining plan will still need to be reviewed because of
what FEMA might or might not agree to in the floodway mapping. Further, if the Applicant mines
"mining area 3" as proposed in Step 1, they will have eliminated their only area outside of the
floodplain in which to locate their main staging area facilities (concrete / asphalt plants and crushing
and screening plant) for Step 2.
Finally, Staff finds that the best course of action is for the Planning Commission to make a decision
on the entire plan (Step 2) as that is what is really being asked for by the Applicant. Again, in light of
the significant issues with both Steps, Staff suggests the Applicant re -apply to the County at a time
when those constraints have been adequate flushed out. This also gives the public a chance be
involved in that process as well.
[Note, Staff's findings are the same for Step 2 as have already been discussed but are included in this
memo for your reference which is what follows in the body of the memo below.]
II. ORIGINAL REQUEST (AKA STEP 2)
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.
III. GENERAL LOCATION / SITE DESCRIPTION
The subject property is located I 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). The
map on the front page illustrates the location of the proposed gravel pit. The 93 -acre site is a
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
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.
6
Scott / Chambers Gravel Pit
PC —12/13/06
Page 7
IV. 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.)
V. 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 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.
Proposed Site plan Map
Mie irtg .area 1
ung Ar
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'
7
• •
Scott / Chambers Gravel Pit
PC —12/13/06
Page 8
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 Application states the property's uses will revert to
wildlife habitat and recreation for fishing and boating.
ose R/ar.a.t/.on Revegetation
Wetland Shelf Design:
u arers not adorrni
exrrry rug OE !Id,
Cottomo04 Sap3 W3 t'larxui
Cr E rstlnv. Tram A.nlr,od
Toprel Realacsrf 5' WrO ';r1 Fryer t'
is Cage; rl
0"
rrR
9
tor F00 HoLka
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.
VI. 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.
VII. REVIEW AGENCY AND OTHER COMMENTS
Comments have been received from the following agencies / community groups and are integrated
throughout this memorandum as applicable.
8
Scott / Chambers Gravel Pit
PC —12/13/06
Page 9
1. Bookcliff Soil Conservation District: No Comments Received
2. City of Rifle: Exhibits Q — W and II
3. Rifle Fire Protection District: No Comments Received
4. Colorado Department of Transportation: Exhibits H and EE
5. Colorado Division of Wildlife: Exhibit 1
6. Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment: No Comments Received
7. Colorado Division of Water Resources: Exhibits N and EE
8. Colorado Geologic Survey: Exhibits M and GG
9. Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Board: Exhibit J
10. US Army Corps of Engineers: No Comments Received
11. Garfield County Vegetation Management: Exhibits K and HH
12. Resource Engineering: Exhibits P and JJ
VIII. 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 mapped 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
mined at some point and that subsequent land uses would be required to reclaim for the above uses.
IX. 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
9
• •
Scott / Chambers Gravel Pit
PC —12/13/06
Page 10
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
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.
10
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,
deliveries, and customers.
Scott / Chambers Gravel Pit
PC —12/13/06
Page 11
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
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.
11
Scott / Chambers Gravel Pit
PC —12/13/06
Page 12
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.
In order to mitigate the visual impacts of the proposed mining plan, the Applicant has offered the
following mitigation scheme:
1. In any mining phase, the mined slope length of 2H:1 V will be backfilled as necessary prior to
topsoiling and seeding. Generally, this is a milder slope of at least 3H:1 V from 5.o feet
below the water line and higher. The amount of mined slope allowed to be present that is not
backfilled at any given time is 1000 feet. (Map C-2 shows this length in red.)
2. The amount of backfilled slope that is not topsoiled is limited to 400 feet. Topsoiling is
required on all surface areas down to 5.0' below expected water level. (Map C-2 shows this
length in green.)
3. Seeding and mulching according to the approved plan will occur on all topsoiled areas each
spring (March 15 -April 15) or fall (September 15 to November 15) no matter how small the
area is.
4. Within 6 months of finishing mining in any designated mining area (3 total), the area must be
fully reclaimed including topsoiling, seeding, mulching, sapling planting, wetland
12
•
Scott / Chambers Gravel Pit
PC —12/13/06
Page 13
preparation and water filling of the lake. This means that a person traveling westbound on I-
70 at 70 miles per hour will see approximately 1/3 of the pit disturbed which corresponds to
1,400 feet or approximately 14 seconds of visual impact.
5. The final reclamation plan will create one sand beach with a minimum 100 feet width, nature
trails, bird nesting boxes, wildlife educational signs, a picnic area and a small parking area
in the northwest corner of the permit area. The theme for reclamation will be the creation of
a riverine habitat dominated by lakes and wetlands usable by wildlife and generally
presenting a natural visual setting to observers traveling east of Rifle. Map F-1, Final
Reclamation Plan details specific locations of these features. Map F-3 shows a reclaimed
rendering of the area. Nothing in the final reclamation plan will preclude future development
of the property for other purposes as may be allowed by the applicable land -use codes. Note
this is a private park not open to the public.
6. Commit to a minimum of a 100 foot wide natural buffer with large cottonwood trees and
other shrubs in addition to many other trees along the Ox Bow channel which will be
preserved. (See Map C-2).
7. The operator will submit an annual report to the County with GPS measurements shown on
a map showing the current disturbance, what areas have been backfilled, where topsoil
stockpiles are located, all site structures, what areas have been seeded, mulched and what is
planned for the ensuing 12 months.
8. All of the above are binding conditions of the County permit and the State Division of
Reclamation, Mining and Safety. The Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety can
withhold the reclamation bond if the final reclamation is not executed according to the
plans. Also, the Division can impose fines for reclamation that does not follow the prescribed
commitments made at an earlier stage of mining.
9. Mining and reclamation must be completed within 11 years from the start of the operation. If
there is an unexpected downturn in the economy and United needs more time to finish the pit,
United will ask for a special request to the County Commissioners to continue for no more
than 2 years. The Commissioners have the right to reject the request.
10. Enforcement Options:
a. The County commits to notifying the Operator of any compliance concern and allow
an inspection with site personnel and the designated County inspector prior to
contacting any agency.
b. The County can request a site inspection with one day's notice to the Operator. Full
access to any part of the site will be granted. On request, all paperwork must be
13
•
Scott / Chambers Gravel Pit
PC —12/13/06
Page 14
shown. The County cannot request a large number of inspections that would interfere
with normal operation without cause.
c. A full list of all other permits will be provided to the County. Any person at any time
can call the following agencies directly and request an inspection if they believe a
condition of that agencies permit is being violated.
- CDPHE Air Quality Control 303-692-3150
- CDPHE Water Quality Control 303-692-3500
- US Army Corps of Engineers 970-243-1199
- Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety 303-866-3567
- CDOT Grand Junction office 970-248-7000
Agencies will issue violations with fines depending upon the gravity of the violation
and the past history.
d. The County will be invited to any bond release inspection of the State Division of
Reclamation, Mining and Safety. The County inspector will have the opportunity to
demonstrate that any item of the permit has not been complied with and that bond
should not be released.
e. The County will have the opportunity to evaluate the performance of the Operator
with regard to the County bond and withhold portions of the bond if it is
demonstrated to the Operator that certain conditions of the permit have not been
met. The Operator acknowledges that the County has performance standards in
place that could lead to revocation of the Special Use Permit if continued violations
of the permit occur over a period of time.
Staff appreciates the thoughtful detail and commitments made in the statements above. However, in
order to fully grasp what the true visual impact will look like form year to year over the 11 year
mining time frame, Staff requests the Applicant put together a visual analysis per each year of
mining based on the yearly mining plan in the Application. Presently, the Application provides a
visual for the end of mining at full reclamation. Staff finds this to be a useful illustration which, if
shown year to year, will give a much better representation of the visual impact from the proposed life
of the mine. In this way, the Planning Commission, public, and Staff can have a better discussion and
understanding of what these commitments will really accomplish as seen on the ground.
14
•
Scott / Chambers Gravel Pit
PC —12/13/06
Page 15
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/
Pursuant to Section 5.03.07 of the Zoning Resolution, a peimit 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.
15
• •
Scott / Chambers Gravel Pit
PC —12/13/06
Page 16
[As a matter of background, the City of Rifle recently acquired the property through condemnation
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, dust, 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.
16
• •
Scott / Chambers Gravel Pit
PC —12/13/06
Page 17
The Application contains an approved "Construction Permit" from CDPHE that requires all activities
cannot exceed 20% opacity.
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
7amto7pm
7pmto7am
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.m. on Sundays from March through November. The operating hours
during the December through February period will be 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday
through Saturday.
Overnight operation of an asphalt batch plant for public agency projects requiring such
17
• •
Scott / Chambers Gravel Pit
PC —12/13/06
Page 18
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
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 the mining plan and maps there will be a 100' buffer between the lulling 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 manure 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. 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
benns or woody vegetation. The top soil that will be removed and saved for later reclamation could be positioned as a
18
Scott / Chambers Gravel Pit
PC —12/13/06
Page 19
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.
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, hint, 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 '4 mile free from
disturbance with a buffer of 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 nears. They started nest building and breeding activities three years ago. This
pair seems to be more tolerant of disturbance. Interstate 70, the Lafarge Manure 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 Arca 3 (Mint Plan Map) be started after July 3 of any given year. If the operation cannot be
postponed at the following January, 15th, 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.
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 n/4 mile non disturbance zone around a
nest which grows to 1/2 mile during nesting and breeding season.
19
• .
Scott / Chambers Gravel Pit
PC —12/13/06
Page 20
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 1/4 mile distance needed for non -disturbance. Actually, as
scaled on the plans, the 1/4 mile
distance puts the buffer
somewhere in the middle of
Mining Area 3 (the eastern pit).
The 1/2 mile buffer from the nest
extends to cover approximately
1/2 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 31St 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 1/ 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 1/4 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 14 mile
20
• •
Scott / Chambers Gravel Pit
PC —12/13/06
Page 21
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.
21
• •
Scott / Chambers Gravel Pit
PC —12/13/06
Page 22
(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
22
• •
Scott / Chambers Gravel Pit
PC —12/13/06
Page 23
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
23
• •
Scott / Chambers Gravel Pit
PC —12/13/06
Page 24
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
24
Scott / Chambers Gravel Pit
PC —12/13/06
Page 25
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 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.
In order to mitigate the visual impacts of the proposed mining plan, the Applicant has offered the
following mitigation scheme:
1. In any mining phase, the mined slope length of 2H:1 V will be backfilled as necessary prior to
topsoiling and seeding. Generally, this is a milder slope of at least 3H:1 V from 5.o feet
below the water line and higher. The amount of mined slope allowed to be present that is not
backfilled at any given time is 1000 feet. (Map C-2 shows this length in red.)
2. The amount of backfilled slope that is not topsoiled is limited to 400 feet. Topsoiling is
required on all surface areas down to 5.0' below expected water level. (Map C-2 shows this
length in green.)
25
• •
Scott / Chambers Gravel Pit
PC —12/13/06
Page 26
3. Seeding and mulching according to the approved plan will occur on all topsoiled areas each
spring (March 15 -April 15) or fall (September 15 to November 15) no matter how small the
area is.
4. Within 6 months of finishing mining in any designated mining area (3 total), the area must be
fully reclaimed including topsoiling, seeding, mulching, sapling planting, wetland
preparation and water filling of the lake. This means that a person traveling westbound on I-
70 at 70 miles per hour will see approximately 1/3 of the pit disturbed which corresponds to
1,400 feet or approximately 14 seconds of visual impact.
5. The final reclamation plan will create one sand beach with a minimum 100 feet width, nature
trails, bird nesting boxes, wildlife educational signs, a picnic area and a small parking area
in the northwest corner of the permit area. The theme for reclamation will be the creation of
a riverine habitat dominated by lakes and wetlands usable by wildlife and generally
presenting a natural visual setting to observers traveling east of Rifle. Map F-1, Final
Reclamation Plan details specific locations of these features. Map F-3 shows a reclaimed
rendering of the area. Nothing in the final reclamation plan will preclude future development
of the property for other purposes as may be allowed by the applicable land -use codes. Note
this is a private park not open to the public.
6. Commit to a minimum of a 100 foot wide natural buffer with large cottonwood trees and
other shrubs in addition to many other trees along the Ox Bow channel which will be
preserved. (See Map C-2).
7. The operator will submit an annual report to the County with GPS measurements shown on
a map showing the current disturbance, what areas have been backfilled, where topsoil
stockpiles are located, all site structures, what areas have been seeded, mulched and what is
planned for the ensuing 12 months.
8. All of the above are binding conditions of the County permit and the State Division of
Reclamation, Mining and Safety. The Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety can
withhold the reclamation bond if the final reclamation is not executed according to the
plans. Also, the Division can impose fines for reclamation that does not follow the prescribed
commitments made at an earlier stage of mining.
9. Mining and reclamation must be completed within 11 years from the start of the operation. If
there is an unexpected downturn in the economy and United needs more time to finish the pit,
United will ask for a special request to the County Commissioners to continue for no more
than 2 years. The Commissioners have the right to reject the request.
10. Enforcement Options:
26
1 •
Scott / Chambers Gravel Pit
PC —12/13/06
Page 27
a. The County commits to notifying the Operator of any compliance concern and allow
an inspection with site personnel and the designated County inspector prior to
contacting any agency.
b. The County can request a site inspection with one day's notice to the Operator. Full
access to any part of the site will be granted. On request, all paperwork must be
shown. The County cannot request a large number of inspections that would interfere
with normal operation without cause.
c. A full list of all other permits will be provided to the County. Any person at any time
can call the following agencies directly and request an inspection if they believe a
condition of that agencies permit is being violated.
- CDPHE Air Quality Control 303-692-3150
- CDPHE Water Quality Control 303-692-3500
- US Army Corps of Engineers 970-243-1199
- Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety 303-866-3567
- CDOT Grand Junction office 970-248-7000
Agencies will issue violations with fines depending upon the gravity of the violation
and the past history.
d. The County will be invited to any bond release inspection of the State Division of
Reclamation, Mining and Safety. The County inspector will have the opportunity to
demonstrate that any item of the permit has not been complied with and that bond
should not be released.
e. The County will have the opportunity to evaluate the performance of the Operator
with regard to the County bond and withhold portions of the bond if it is
demonstrated to the Operator that certain conditions of the permit have not been
met. The Operator acknowledges that the County has performance standards in
place that could lead to revocation of the Special Use Permit if continued violations
of the permit occur over a period of time.
Staff appreciates the thoughtful detail and commitments made in the statements above. However, in
order to fully grasp what the true visual impact will look like form year to year over the 11 year
mining time frame, Staff requests the Applicant put together a visual analysis per each year of
mining based on the yearly mining plan in the Application. Presently, the Application provides a
visual for the end of mining at full reclamation. Staff finds this to be a useful illustration which, if
27
• •
Scott / Chambers Gravel Pit
PC —12/13/06
Page 28
shown year to year, will give a much better representation of the visual impact from the proposed life
of the mine. In this way, the Planning Commission, public, and Staff can have a better discussion and
understanding of what these commitments will really accomplish as seen on the ground.
(B) 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;
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.
28
•
Scott / Chambers Gravel Pit
PC —12/13/06
Page 29
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). 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.
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
29
• •
Scott / Chambers Gravel Pit
PC —12/13/06
Page 30
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.
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
30
Scott / Chambers Gravel Pit
PC —12/13/06
Page 31
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.
The mining operation will generate emissions and particular matter also known as PM 10 (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;
31
Scott / Chambers Gravel Pit
PC —12/13/06
Page 32
Response
The Application responds to this criterion by acknowledging the visual impact of the property due 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.
(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 1/4 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
32
Scott / Chambers Gravel Pit
PC —12/13/06
Page 33
conducted within a building or outdoors during the hours of 8 a.m. 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.
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.
33
Scott / Chambers Gravel Pit
PC —12/13/06
Page 34
Section 9.03.05 [Periodic Review of SUP]
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
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.
X. 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 as shown in the graphic above. The area in white is not in the floodplain. 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.
Most generally, development needs to be carefully reviewed if proposed in the floodplain so that it
34
• •
Scott / Chambers Gravel Pit
PC —12/13/06
Page 35
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:
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.
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.
• •
Scott / Chambers Gravel Pit
PC —12/13/06
Page 36
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 1/4 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).
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
oodwa sub'ect to overto • sin: restrict the main conve ance o 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(l)A above.
Standards for 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.
36
• •
Scott / Chambers Gravel Pit
PC —12/13/06
Page 37
XI. 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
1/4 and 1 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.
XII. 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
37
• •
Scott / Chambers Gravel Pit
PC —12/13/06
Page 38
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
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.
XIII. 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.
38
OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER
Division of Water Resources
Department of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman Street, Room 818
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phone (303) 866-3581
FAX (303) 866-3589
www.waterstate.co.us
• •
STATE OF COLcILUII..II.JEEeR
November 17, 2006
Mr. Fred Jarman
Staff Planner
Garfield County Building and Planning Department
108 8th Street, Suite 401
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
Re: Scott Expansion of the Chambers Pit
DRMS (DMG File No. M-79-205)
Section 15, T6S, R93W of the 6th P.M.
Water Division 5, Water District 39/45
Bill Owens
Governor
Russell George
Executive Director
Hal D. Simpson, P.E.
State Engineer
Dear Mr. Jarman:
We have reviewed the information concerning Scott Pit which is an expansion of the
Chambers Pit at the above -referenced facility. Specifically, we have reviewed the Scott Pit -
County Special Use Permit and Floodplain Special Use Permit application for United Companies,
dated November 2006 and prepared by Greg Lewicki and Associates, PLLC. We understand that
a gravel pit well will be used to dewater the site and an approved permit has been issued for
United Companies with an expiration date of May 3, 2007. In addition, the applicant has obtained
an approved Substitute Water Supply Plan (SWSP) with an expiration date May 2007 (See
attached). The proposed expansion of Scott Pit and the subsequent reclamation program can be
completed as proposed as long as the SWSP remains in force or the applicant acquires an
approved augmentation plan for the net water depletions from the proposed lakes/ponds. In
addition, the well permit will need to be maintained in good standing.
If you or the applicant has any questions concerning this matter, please contact me at
this office for assistance.
Sincerely,
Mark J. Vanarelli, P.E.
Water Resources Engineer
cc: Alan Martellaro, Division 5 Engineer
James Lemon, Water Commissioner, District 39/45
Scott Gravel Pit at Mamms Cal
Fred Jarman
From: Roussin, Daniel[Daniel.Roussin@DOT.STATE.CO.US]
Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2006 4:01 PM
To: Fred Jarman
Subject: Scott Gravel Pit at Mamms Creek
1
EXHIBIT
FF
Fred - CDOT has issued an access permit (# 305272) for this site. The permit will expire January 27, 2007. The
permit is for 335 trips. Once of the conditions of this permit is the paving of the road from the Lafarge entrance to
the future entrance of Scott Pit. If you have any questions, please let me know.
Thanks
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
11/22/2006
• •
STATE OF CO
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
EXHIBIT
RECEIVED
NOV 2 7 2006
November 17, 20► t' RFIELD COUt�'' `+
ILDING&P!; ,,
Re: Scott Gravel Pit
CGS Review No. GA -06-0009
Dear Mr. Jarman:
NE 15 T6S R92W
DEPAATURTMERALNT OF
N
RESOURCES
Bill Owens
Governor
Russell George
Executive Director
Vincent Matthews
Division Director and
State Geologist
CGS received the most recent revision of Scott Pit Special Use Permit and Floodplain Special Use
Permit (revised November 2006) prepared by Greg Lewicki and Associates. This version describes
a Step 1, Limited Mining Plan, which would limit mining to 5.5 acres in Mining Area 1 and 10.05
acres in Mining Area 3, (no mining in Area 2) until a LOMR is approved and the bald eagle is de-
listed from the Endangered Species List. Under Step 2, the LOMR has been approved and the eagle
has been delisted, and mining would proceed in Areas 1, 2, and 3. I do not know whether the eagle
is scheduled for delisting or whether this is still being considered. In the latter case, could there be a
Step 3, where the LOMR was approved, but there would still be a seasonal restriction due to eagle
nesting? In this case, mining would not be limited in Area 1, and mining would be seasonally
limited in Area 2 and Area 3.
CGS has no objections to the plan as it is proposed.
Y+urs truly,
elia Gree
Geologist
303-866-2811 celia.greenman@state.co.us
• •
MEMORANDUM
To: Fred Jarman
From: Steve Anthony
Re: Scott Expansion Chambers Pit/United Companies
Date: December 4, 2006
EXHIBIT
4 -
The applicant states on Page J-2 that "to lessen the overall visual impact from the removal of the noxious
trees the removal may occur in phases".
From this department's perspective, reducing the population of Russian olive and tamarisk is not a negative
impact to visual aesthetics from the corridor. The timely treatment of all County listed noxious weeds,
including Russian olive and tamarisk, is encouraged given the threat of spreading noxious weed seeds
through gravel to previously uninfested areas.
Staff recommends an annual inspection in cooperation with the Division of Reclamation, Mining, and
Safety to review the weed management work and reclamation activities.
12/05/2006 TUE 11:21 FAX
r
•
EXHIBIT
Li:x
November 30, 2006
Mr. Fred Jarman, Director
Garfield County Building & Planning
108 8th Street, Suite 401
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
RE: Scott Gravel Pit SUP Application
Dear Mr. Jarman,
RECEIVED
DEC 0 5 2006
-.r rr itLD COUNTY
BUILDING & PLANNING
The City of Rifle respectfully requests this letter and all previous correspondence and City
resolutions regarding this matter remain a part of the public record considered by the
Garfield County P&Z and County Commissioners.
The City continues to request Garfield County deny this application because of its location
and the direct impacts it will have on the City Rifle. Further, we request the P&Z and/or
County Commissioners prohibit the consideration of the entire mining area as part of this
SUP application with the understanding that approximately 12.5 acres can be mined absent a
Letter of Map Revision from the Federal Emergency Management Agency. The Floodplain
Development Permit should be denied and the balance of the property removed from the
Special Use Permit application until the applicant demonstrates what additional lands can be
mined. The LOMR will likely impact the configuration of the ponds and require significant
modifications to the mining plan proposed by the applicant.
Lastly, the City emphasizes its objection to locating hot mix and concrete batch plant
operations at this location. These land use activities are extremely industrial and will have a
severe impact on the image of Rifle. There is no means available to screen these operations,
and persons traveling the I-70 corridor will associate these activities with the character of
Rifle. We recommend the applicant be required to find an alternate location to process the
aggregate should the County grant permission to mine this site.
The City of Rifle experienced two decades of decline as a result of the Oil Shale bust. The
citizens of this community have only seen positive change occur in the last five years. Rifle
should not have to overcome the unnecessary obstacle proposed by United Companies.
CITY OF RIFLE
202 RAILROAD AVENUE • P.O. Box 1909 • RIFLE, CO 91650
WWW. R 1 F L E C O. O R G
12/05/2006 TUE 11:21 FAX •
Scoa Crravel Pit SUP
City of Rifle Comments
November 30, 2006
Page 2 of 2
•
f�J002/002
The most basic principle of a Special Use Permit is tied to compatibility; the requested use is
not compatible with the land uses south of the Interstate or the gateway corridor into Rifle.
The applicant acknowledges there will be impact but it will "only" Iast a decade. Rifle
doesn't have a decade. Timing is critical to success, and our time to succeed is now not a
decade from now.
Respectfully,
City)of Rifle
Matt Sturgeon
Assistant City Manager
iiii.R ES U RG E
.....
■■■■■ 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
EXHIBIT
:ss
December 6, 2006
RE: United Companies — Scott Pit
November 2006 Amended Special Use Permit and Floodplain Application
Dear Fred:
At the request of Garfield County, Resource Engineering, Inc. (RESOURCE) has
reviewed the amended 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 November, 2006. The new submittal incorporates the concepts from the
Applicant's October 2006 Planning Commission presentation intended to address the
agency review comments and staff report. The application seeks approval of a limited
area of mining and conditional approval of the remaining mining area. 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. The request for Step 2, from a technical
perspective, should be a separate approval based on the inconsistency of the mining in
Step 1 creating a problem with location of facilities for Step 2 and uncertainty about the
LOMR process results. At the very least, any conditional approval of the Step 2 Mine
Plan should require a separate Floodplain Permit for Step 2 after FEMA approval of the
CLOMR.
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 and a permanent
underground holding tank for the office. 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
Consulting Engineers and Hydrologists
909 Colorado Avenue ■ Glenwood Springs, CO 81 601 • (970) 945-6777 • Fax (970) 945-1137
• •
Fred Jarman
Page 2
December 6, 2006
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 mining activities of the proposed step 1 are inconsistent with the facilities plan for
Step 2. The southeast corner of Mining Area 3 is the high ground outside of the
floodplain that is designated for the main facilities. If this area is mined in Step 1, there
is no proposed suitable area for the facilities. As described in the floodplain review
below, all facilities must be located outside of the floodplain, elevated above the 100
year base flood elevation, and/or protected from inundation by flood events.
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.
5.03.07.2(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 on the entire property.
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. The application
proposes approval of Step 1 mining outside of the floodway and conditional approval for
the rest of the mining plan upon approval of a Letter or Map Revision (LOMR) from
FEMA to address the current non-compliance issue. If the County agrees to a
conditional approval for the Step 2 Plan, at a minimum, one of the conditions should
read similar to the following:
RESOURCE
■U•UU E N G I N E E R I N G I N C.
• •
Fred Jarman
Page 3
December 6, 2006
"Prior to commencing the Step 2 Mining Plan, the Applicant shall obtain
appropriate approvals from FEMA for a Conditional Letter of Map Revision
(CLOMR) or Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) and obtain a floodplain permit from
the County for the Step 2 Mining Plan activities within the floodway."
The Step 1 Mine Plan includes minor activities within the floodway that have not been
addressed in the submittal. Therefore, the project has not demonstrated compliance
with Section 6 of Floodplain Regulations.
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 for the
Step 2 Plan (to be addressed in a CLOMR), but does not address the Step 1 activities
within the floodway including a sediment pond and rip rap channel.
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. These
activities would be addressed in a future Floodplain Permit application after a CLOMR is
obtained.
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 of office must remain outside of the floodplain.
The batch plants must be located outside of the floodplain, elevated above the 100 year
base flood elevation, and/or protected from flooding by other means such as rip rap lined
berms within the flood fringe area. Mining activities in Step 1 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 and locating other facilities in protected zones
must be presented. Otherwise mining in this area should not be allowed, except as the
final phase of the project (either Step 2 or Step 1 with no further mining).
Section 6.09.02(D) — See comments for Section 6.08.01(E).
RESOURCE
MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM I N C.
• •
Fred Jarman
Page 4
December 6, 2006
Any changes in floodplain elevation will require a Letter of Map Revision approval from
FEMA. Approval of the conditional Letter of Map Revision should be required prior to
any approval of a Floodplain Permit for activities within the floodway.
Please call if you have any questions or need additional information.
Sincerely,
RESOURC , N ►+ E RING, INC.
Michael J. Eribr4, '.E.
Water Resdurces Engineer
N E/mmm
8, 5-36.0
Iients1885 GARC0136.0 Glen's Pitlfj special use review 885.doc
RESOURCE
NGINEERING I N C.