Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.01 BOCC Staff Report 04.02.2007Exhibits for Public Hearing held on April 2. 2007 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 Application F Staff Memorandum G Comments from CDOT dated 12/20/06 H Comments from County Vegetation Manager dated January 3, 2007 I Letter from the Division of Water Resources dated 01/03/07 J Letter from the USACE dated 9/14/06 K Letter from the USACE dated 12/15/06 L Memorandum from the County Road and Bridge Department dated Dec 15, 2006 M Letter from the Loesch and Crann Ditch Comply dated 12/28/2006 N Letter from the Mayor of the Town of Silt received 1/2/07 0 Resolution no. 23 from the Town of Silt demonstrating eligibility for annexation P Letter from Mountain Cross Engineering dated 1/3/07 Q Letter to Planning Commission from Jeff Payne R - Letter to Planning Commission from Doug Grant S Letter from the DOW to County dated 1/2/07 T Letter to County from B&G regarding DOW donation dated 1/12/07 U Anonymous Letter V _ Staff PowerPoint Presentation W Email from Bobby Hays X Photo from Doug Grant Y Photos from Doug Grant Z Email from Ken Brenner dated 1/10/07 AA Letter from the Loesch & Crann Ditch Company dated 2/5/07 BB Letter from John Savage dated 3/7/07 CC Photos from Banks & Gesso dated 1/18/07 DD Letter from the Town of Silt dated 1/26/07 EE Road Impact Royalty Agreement FF Environmental Noise Impact Review Analysis (EDI) GG - _ - Revised TIS by Felsberg, Holt & Ullevig dated February, 2007 HH Revised Berming Screening & Bufferin Plan dated 3/15/07 lriT4jf :-...., 1,-`..11 ) .sr> J 1J G L.) yt r.. -.e r! e'l'. _ a ) ii 1,-4 ' cd `..�, 4, '. ✓„,4-,_,,,,„ 7, ,/,---k... //- / Lt.' BOCC 04/02/07 FJ PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS 1,}f(,]. TYPE OF REVIEW Special Use Permit far,,,'Processing, Storage and Material Handling of Natural Resources - and Development in the I00 -year Floodplain for a Gravel Extraction operation known as the "Grand River Park Project,. APPLICANT LOCATION SITE INFORMATION EXISTING ZONING Gypsum Ranch, LLC Just west and adjacent to the Town of Silt, south of the Colorado River and I-70 Mine approximately 110 acres of the 168 acre property. Agriculture / Industrial (Al) Silt Sand Gravel F'ROpc cD. alb lb I. REQUEST The Applicant requests approval ofa Special Use Permit for"Extraction, Storage. Processing, and Material Handling of Natural Resources" and Development in the 1 00 -year Floodplain for a Gravel Extraction operation on approximately 110 acres ofa 168 -acre property. On November 13, 2006. the Board of County Commissioners referred the request to the Planning Commission for a recommendation. • • Gypsum[ Ranch, LLC Gravel Pit BOCC — 04/02/07 Page 2 II. GENERAL LOCATION / SITE DESCRIPTION The property, in its total configuration, consists of I63 acres which is split by 1-70. The Application proposes all of the mining activity to take place on the southern 1 10 acres below I-70 which has historically been used in agricultural activities primarily including irrigated hayfields, pasturing. and other farming activities. The property is served by two irrigation ditches (The Rising Sun Ditch and the Last Chance Ditch) as well as several laterals used to irrigate the fields which are proposed for relocation. The property is characterized as relatively flat Colorado River bottom land. The Colorado River forms the north property line of the property with only a small shore line fronting the southern half of the property proposed for mining. The riparian areas along the Colorado River include Limited stands of mature cotton wood stands. The property contains several areas of jurisdictional wetlands comprising approximately 7.31 acres. Improvements to the property include several farming structures and abandoned buildings to be removed along with several dry utilities along the southern property boundary (some of which are to be relocated). There is an existing natural gas pipeline in the northeast portion of the property with several other proposed natural gas pipeline shown on the "pre -mining„ map Lastly, Antero has just finished drilling on one pad on the eastern portion of the property and is currently drilling on a second pad in the SW corner of the property. III. ZONING & ADJACENT USES The property is located in the Agricultural / Industrial (A/I) zone district which requires Processing, Storage and Material Handling of Natural Resources to be approved only with a Special Use Permit. The property to the east of the subject property is the proposed Stillwater Residential Development which has been annexed into the Town of Silt. The property to the north is the STt Colorado River; the property to the west is vacant undisturbed pasture / river bottom land also in the All zone district. The property to the south is (south of County Road 346) consists of land zoned Agricultural / Residential / Rural density (ARRD) which includes the six -lot Giomi Minor Subdivision in addition to large ranchette 2 • • Gypsum Ranch. LLC Gravel Pit BOCC — 04/02/07 Page 3 sized lots further south which are up on a considerable bench called Eagle Springs Subdivision (a 35 - acre subdivision) well above and south of the site. Most notably, the southern property line almost completely encompasses the Koncilia Property. Other properties south of the site include the "Aspen Garden Center" and the private "Wildlife Foundation" operation. The property to the west is also zoned All and consists of large open agricultural lots on the Colorado River floor. (The map above illustrates the surrounding zoning where the green represents the All zone district.) IV. GENERAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Application proposes to actively mune the southern 110 acres (area below I-70) over the course of the next 11.1 years to extract the sand and gravel at a rate of approximately 500.000 tons per year. The proposed mining plan includes 5 specific mining areas to be mined in an east to west direction. The mining activity includes locating a processing plant in the center of the property which includes product sifting and sorting machinery and asphalt and concrete batch plants. Following this. top soil and overburden are removed and stockpiled and the resource is dug out of the ground by heavy machinery. The pits are to be dewatered since mining is proposed well below the ground water table to a total depth of 25 feet The resource is then made ready for sale where it will be weighed at the remote scale next to the office then sent out to market. As the mining of one phase is completed. it will be reclaimed as the mining for the next phase begins which primarily includes regrading / re -contouring the slopes of the pit walls with overburden and topsoil to grades that allow for wall stability and also vegetation and wildlife mitigation to occur. At that point, dewatering will cease allowing the water table to seep into and till the pit. Once the water has fully recharged the pit, the water -reliant plant species are to be established along the banks of the pit. V. AUTHORITY & APPLICABILITY' Pursuant to Section 9.03.04 of the Zoning Resolution, an application for a Special Use Permit shall be approved or denied by the Board of County Commissioners after holding a public hearing thereon in conformance with all provisions of the Zoning Resolution. The Board may, at its discretion. refer the Application to the Planning Commission for a recommendation. VI. REVIEW AGENCY AND OTHER COMMENTS Comments have been received from the following agencies / community groups and are integrated throughout this memorandum as applicable. 1. City of Rite:: No comments received. ?. Town of Silt: Letter from the Mavor expressing the desire to renegotiate with the owner to 3 • Gypsum Ranch, LLC Gravel Pit B'OCC — 04/02/07 Page 4 annex into the Town of Silt. (Exhibit 0) 3. Burning Mountain Fire Protection District: No comments received. 4. Colorado Department of Transportation: No State Highway Access permit is required. (Exhibit G) 5. Colorado Division of Wildlife: Conducted several site visits and provided comments on how the reclamation should look since the owner wishes to deed the property to DOW once mined. (Exhibit to be expected by hearing) 6. Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment: No comments received. 7. Colorado Division of Water Resources: Reviewed the proposal and stated that prior to initiation of these uses of ground water, the Applicant «'ill need to obtain a well permit and an approved water supply plan or decreed plan for augmentation before a permit can be issued. (Exhibit 1) 8. Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Board: No comments received. 9. US Army Corps of Engineers: The Corps verified approximately 7.31 acres of waters of the US present on the site. Every effort should be made to amid project features which require dredged or fill material if the ►eaters of the US. In the event it can be clearly demonstrated that there are no practicable alternatives to filling waters of the US. mitigation plans should be developed w compensate for the unavoidable losses resulting from project implementation. (Exhibits Jr and K) 10. Garfield County Vegetation Management: Provided comments on weed management and the reclamation plan (Exhibit 11) 1 1 . County Road and Bridge Department: Suggested a variety of haul route alternatives, access permit requirements, road damage concerns. (Exhibit L) 12. Mountain Cross Engineering: Provided comments related to the provision of water and wastewater, traffic impacts, and lloodplain. (Exhibit P) VIL RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The proposed mining_ activity is located in an area of the County Just outside the Town of Silt which is in the area of urban influence and the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) for the Town as can be seen in the map below. The County AG PUI — Rural Transitional Residential 4 Gypsum Ranch, LLC Gravel Pit BOCC —04/02/07 Page S and the City have entered into an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) which requires each entity to refer proposed land uses that fall within this area of influence would be required to address the City's Comprehensive Plan for that area. In this case. the Town's Comprehensive Plan has mapped this area as primarily "Agricultural Planned Unit Development" (AG / PUD) and partially -Rural Transitional Residential... Existing agricultural areas will be protected Agricultural': from encroachment of suburban sprawl. Policies in existing agricultural areas will help agricultural landowners maintain their land in a productive state. Within the three-mile planning area: AGRICULTURAL AREAS on the land use map are designated for productive agricultural operations and uses directly related to agricultural operations such as ancillary structures. housing for land owners and extended family, roadside vegetable and or fruit stands for produce grown on-site value added processing of locally grown agricultural products, etc. A Rural Agricultural Transition Residential Tlns rS a r e"Insltio,,aI area rllta'rrC"%i'�7� to be used between urban development aiicl crwgrrrrrlrrtral areas on the ,fringe of the urban growth boundary It allows a nutl`rrlrrnie average (lc'rrs!n of two dwellings per acre and the chi ellrrtgs shank' i' Mei gel! rrr clrrste'rs ori srrurlle'r lots, preserving larger cnrec1s crl'agr-ierrltrrral or open .sdktce eis a bbufter to agricultural lairds It r.s' srrrtrlcrr to the agricultural consti'rvatiorr district lint it ah a1errsrtu s and allowing r, l►ro,rahT range of use of the open space c' inclttclrrrg agricultural or equestrrrlrt, community unite gardens, natural open space parks. golf course. etc The residential lot sizes crick' Sart from -.00() sq ,ft. to j acre lot sizes (2.000 sq. , f t ' per bonne Sae The property is also located within the "Colorado River Corridor District" which is an area along the Colorado intended to "recognize development potential of the land adjacent to the Colorado River, while at the same time preserving the floodplain. calm lands, historic values.. and sensitive riparian environment." In further support. based on the letter from the Mayor of the Town of Silt. the Town was (and remains) eager to annex this property and the proposed use into the Town. Specifically, the letter states... "The Town of Silt was not opposed to a gravel operation within our boundaries -1n fact, if the applicant had submitted the same proposal to the Town of Silt that they have now submitted to the County, they would already have 5 • Gypsum Ranch. LLC Gravel Pit BOCC — 04/02/07 Page 6 been annexed and be operating." To this end, the Town signed and recorded a Resolution of Substantial Compliance with stating that the property was eligible for annexation. VIII. GARFIELD COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN If the County's Comprehensive Plan is to be used in this review regarding future land t ,e desi mations, the property has been designated in Study Areas 2 and 3 as "Privately owned lands with site specific limitations to be evaluated at plan review. "To this end, virtually any land use. so long as it was consistent with the uses in the Al zone ( underlying zoning) district would be considered "compatible in this location so long as the environmental (geologic / hydraulic / slope) challenges were appropriately mitigated through plan review. In addition, Staff has included the majority of goals, policies, and objectives from the plan that relate to gravel extraction for your review: A) GOALS Garfield County recognizes that under Colorado law, the surface and mineral interests have certain legal rights and privileges, including the right to extract and develop these interests. Furthermore, private property owners also have certain legal rights and privileges, including the right to have the mineral estate developed in a reasonable manner and to have adverse land use impacts mitigated. Garfield County will encourage the development of a diversified industrial base for the County which recognizes the human resources, natural resources and physical location -to - market capabilities of the community, and which further recognizes and addresses the social and environmental impacts of industrial uses.. 13) POLICIES Garfield County, to the extent legally possible. will require adequate mitigation to address the impacts of mineral extraction on adjacent land owners. These measures may include the following: A. Landscaping and screening; B. Modification of phasing or area to be mined: C. Roadway improvements and signage; D. Safe and efficient access routes; E. Drainage improvements to protect surface and groundwater. r Dust, odors and fumes should be contained within the extraction site generating such emissions and should not negatively affect any surrounding land use. 6 Gypsum Ranch, LLC Gravel Pit BOCC —04/02/07 Page 7 •- Landscaping and screening will be required to address specific visual impacts of industrial development. A- Zoning regulations and a review process will be developed and enforced that recognize the differences in size, scope, and type of industrial development. A hierarchical review process will be developed which respects the unique land use issues based on the size and scope of the project. The County will require impact mitigation for these projects, when appropriate. The project review process will include the identification and mitigation of transportation impacts related to industrial development. • Garfield County, in coordination with relevant special districts, authorities and municipalities,. will require that developers of energy or mineral extraction projects finance the construction and operation of any public improvements which, now or in the future. will be required by their projects. or Garfield County will require developers of mineral extraction projects to participate in and contribute to the funding of the County's monitoring of the demographic changes and socioeconomic impacts associated with such projects. The applicability of this policy will be assessed on a case-by-case basis by the Board of County Commissioners. County zoning regulations regarding industrial development will be compatible with land use policies of adjacent jurisdictions. C) OBJECTIVES • The County will ensure that mineral extraction activities will not adversely affect the natural environment, including air quality, water quality, Nviidlile habitat or important t°isual resources. Encourage the location of industrial development in areas where visual, noise, air quality and infrastructure impacts are reduced. 0. The County, through the implementation of the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning. and Special Use Permit, will address future compatibility issues with current mining operations. Ensure that Zoning Regulations addressing Commercial and Industrial uses reflect the changing land use patterns and demographics of the County and encourage the further 7 Gypsum Ranch, LLC Gravel Pit BOCC — 04/02/07 Page 8 diversification of the County's economy. - Ensure that the type, size and scope of industrial and commercial development are consistent with the long-term land use objectives of the County. Iii . 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 Application proposes bringing potable water to the property as well as portable toilets. In the past, due to the longevity of the proposed use (at least 1 I.1 years) the Board has recommended that these services he provided on site and not rely on vendors. It appears the converted Office structure may be able to supply both potable water and sanitation service as it presently exists. Mountain Cross Engineering (on behalf of Garfield County) echoes Staff comments with the following: 1. Dater hauling is proposed for potable use at the extraction site, Generally speaking, hauling water has not been considered a reliable source. Alternative sources mai need to be investigated. 2. Portable toilets are proposed to be used and located out of the floodplain. Since a large amount of the site is expected to be inundated during 0 large magnitude flood it would be prudent to have acceptable toilet locations predetermined. 3. The existing residence is proposed lo be used as an office for the lye of the gravel pit. The type of the existing sewer connection is not mentioned. If the current residence is using an ISDSfor waste water treatment, the sizing and performance of the system should be verified for the uses expected and also conflict with the floodplain. 8 Gypsum Ranch, LLC Grauel Pit BOCC — 04/02/07 Page 9 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 proposed gravel operation proposes to generate the following traffic defined as average annual and daily trip generation: Trip Type Annual Average Daily (Vehicles Per Day) Sand & Gravel Delivery Trucks 24.695 174 Service Vehicles 1.168 8 Employees (6 total) 2.336 16 Total 28,199 198 Gravel Operation Trips N 6 ed7•ASAAF� 407 45 WAH a r iMarN Onto 11.1111 .11 4O The chart on the left shows the hourly distribution of those trips. The property has direct frontage onto CR 346 (Airport Road) which is a two lane County Road that links Silt with Rifle along the south side of the Colorado River, A portion of this same road has been annexed into the Town of Silt which falls inside of the Stillwater Development boundary including a portion of CR 346 and CR 311. (It is the position of Garfield County that the County has no obligations to ownership or maintenance of those segments of CR 311 and 346 that have been annexed.) The Application proposes that the project will utilize two entrances onto CR 346 for the life of the project. Typically. vehicles accessing a gravel pit are large and heavy. The Application contains a revised Traffic Impact Study (TIS) prepared by Felsburg, Holt, and Ullevig which analyzed the total trips and their respective turning movements at nearby intersections. 9 Gtpsutn Ranch, LLC Gravel Pit BOCC — 04/02/07 Page 10 In summary, the report states that the site will generate approximately 200 daily trips with 20 of these trips during the AM peak and 16 during the PM peak. Based on the results of the tra5c analysis, the existing, Short Range Future and Long Range Future scenarios are projected 10 operate at acceptable Levels of Service (LOS) with existing lane geometry and traffic control. in order for trucks to safely enter the site, the following roadway improvements are recommended: r Construct a 310 foot deceleration lane for the eastbound left turns into the she from CR 346: and Staff Agrees, but also raises the question of the potential need for an east -bound acceleration lane for slow -heavy trucks leaving the site competing with faster east -bound trips coming from the S-curve west of the property. Construct a 310 foot deceleration lane for the westbound right turns into the site from CR 346. [Staff Agrees] r Although not required to accommodate gravel pit trgc, it is recommended that the Grand River Gravel Pit pay a proportionate share qt. the cost (based on trips generated) 10 construct an exclusive left turn lane at the CR 346 / 311 intersection when it is constructed as part of the Stillwater Ranch development. [Staff Agrees] Note. the original TIS did not include the background traffic that is be generated from the proposed Stillwater Ranch and Ferguson Crossing developments. As a result, the Planning Commission required the Applicant to revise the TIS to accommodate the these twodevelopments in their long term forecasting models due to the direct impact they will have at the major intersections within Stillwater including CR 311, 331 and 346. [This is important because Staff just received a referral from the Town of Silt for the Stillwater Phase I development entitled "MeadowW ood Village" Preliminary Plan which contemplates 550 dwelling units, a golf course. two school sites, community center. water treatment site, parks. fire and police services, etc. The trips from the residential portion alone are approximately 5,263 which will primarily access the 346 / 311 intersection to get to Silt and I-70 a majority of time.] Therefore, given this development, Staff would agree with the Applicant's traffic consultant that the Grand River Gravel Pit, while not required. should pay a proportionate share of the cost (based on trips generated) to construct an exclusive left turn lane at the CR 346 / 311 intersection when it is constructed as part of the Stillwater Ranch development. This idea is also supported by the County's Comprehensive Plan: Garfield County, in coordination with relevant special districts, authorities and 10 • • Gypsum Ranch, LLC Gravel Pit BOCC — 04/02/07 Page 11 municipalities, will require that developers of energy oar .mineral extraction projects finance the construction and operation of any public improvements which, now or in the'inure. will he required by their projects, Road Impact Royalty Agreement: The Planning Commission required the Applicant to meet with the Town of Silt and possibly the representative of Stillwater Development to discuss any opportunities that might address road impacts the gravel operation might have on the Town's roads within Stillwater. To that end, a meeting did take place which resulted in a Road Impact Royalty Agreement between the Applicant and the Town of Silt which is attached to this memorandum. The main points in the agreement include the following: e The Operator (Applicant) is willing to pay a $0.101 ton royalty (collected monthly) to the Town of Silt for road impacts associated with sand and gravel extraction from the subject property: The royalties collected are to be spent by the Town on maintenance ancUor improvements to the portions of CR 311 and CR 346 that fall within Stillwater as well as other roads in the Town used by the operator as haul routes: While not currently in place, the Town is contemplating the creation of a'"Traffic Impact Fee". The agreement states that if a new fee is established. the operator is responsible for paying the fee, but that the operator shall receive a credit against a new fee of the royalties already paid. If the new fee demonstrates that a new fee would be less than $0.10 / ton, the Town shall not be required to provide a refund back to the operator: and 11 Gypsum Ranch, LLC Gravel Pit BOCC — 04/02/07 Page 12 :- If the Town de -annexes all of the roads listed above, the Town shall remit the remaining funds to the operator, not including the value of any expenditure made or committed for expenditure prior to the date of annexation and this agreement shall terminate. Staff suggests, should the Board approve the SUP request, that a condition of approval require the Operator/ Owner of the gravel operation provide the County with the royalties in the contract if said roads are de -annexed from the Town of Silt. The County Road and Bridge Department reviewed the proposal and stated they have no objection to this application with the following comments:: 1) Any access/s to the proposed gravel pit will need driveway access permit's issued by Garfield County Road & Bridge Department. The access permit's will have conditions specific to the driveway/s. This will include stop sign's at entrance to R. 346 (Rifle -Silt Road). The stop sign's and installation shall be as required in the MUTCD (Manual on Uniform Traffic Control. Devices). Paved or concrete apron's shall also be required as specified by the issued permit/s. 2) All truck traffic shall enter and !cave the travel pit site from the east and not ro west _on CR 346 to the Martini Creek interchange. This portion of CR 346 has 90 degree corners and narrow road sections and has not been added to the preferred haul routes as designated by Garfield County Road & Bridge Department for industry travel. By having all truck traffic entering and leaving to the east it will also help eliminate the noise and congestion going past the Wildlife Sanctuary that borders the proposed gravel pit operation. This may help address some of the concerns of the owners of the Wildlife Sanctuary if they knew this was a requirement of the gravel pit operation. 3) Garfield County Road & Bridge Department at this time is seeking funding to completely rebuild CR 336 (Jenkins Cutoff) the main cross road between CR 315 (Mamm Creek) and CR 331 (Dry 1 -follow Road), If the funding becomes available for 2007 CR 336 (Jenkins Cutoff) will be shut down for construction and CR 331 (Dry Hollow Road) will become the preferred haul route to access the drilling operations south of Silt. Trucks leaving the gravel pit would only have to go the east for approximately 1 -mile on CR 346 (Rifle Silt Road) to access CR 331 (Dry Hollow Road). 4) If road damage on CR 346 becomes evident due to the traffic generated from the gravel pit operation, the Road and Bridge Department shall require that repair or replacement of the road surface as determined by Garfield. County Road & Bridge Department become the responsibility of the owners or operators of the gravel pit operation. i2 1�F1, Ranch. LLC Gravel Pit BOCC —04/02/07 Page 13 5) If the gravel pit operation is approved, Garfield County Road & Bridge Department would request an onsite visit with the owners or operators to determine the safest location for the driveway access/s. Staff referred the Application to the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) due to the site's proximity to and proposed use of 1-70. CDOT reviewed the proposal and stated This site will not access the state systent directly; it will access by Ga f eld County Roads. The submittal did have a traffic impact study (Grand River Park Gravel Pit dated September 2006, by Felsburg Holt & Ullevig). This report indicated no need for aro access permit. 1 agree based upon the applicant numbers (198 trips). However. the studs did not take in account passenger car equivalent for the Section 2.3(e) of the Access Code. This will effect percentage change at 1-70 Frontage/GCR 311; however; it will still be less than 20%. Mountain Cross Engineering reviewed the TIS and stated, the Traffic Report for the future condition uses a growth rate that may be too low, when compared with the actual growth rate of the area. Also the report does not include traffic anticipated from adjacent proposed developments. These factors near change the results of the calculated future condition. The future condition ought to be reevaluated in light of the above. In summary, it appears the project will generate a maximum of 200 daily trips which will not reduce the nearby intersections to a LOS below B in 2030 which is acceptable. The revised TIS continues to recommend the Applicant make specific improvements to CR 346 to provide for safe turning movements into the site. Staff questions the ability for large / heavy truck acceleration out of the site into traffic flow on 346, This is not addressed in the study. The Road and Bridge Department has also made several recommendations that need to be addressed specifically related to preferred haul routes and damage to CR 346. In any event. should the proposal be approved. Staff recommends the TIS recommended improvements to CR 346 he completed prior to any mining activity and that the recommendations by the Road and Bridge Department become conditions of approval. 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 Application states that they intend to minimize the visual impact of the gravel pit primarily by ,.sequencing" and "overall layout" of the pit's design. Additionally, the intent is to mine from east to west so that the initial impacts are short lived in the overall scheme of the pits phasing plan so that the impact moves away from the residential areas in Stillwater Ranch (and the Town of Silt) as the 13 Gypsum Ranch, LLC Gravel Pit BOCC — 04/02/07 Page 14 operation progresses. Also, the processing operations (batch plants & sifting ./ sorting) occur in the bottom of the already excavated areas according to the Application. The proposed mining, plan shows the installation of several 10 -foot landscaped berms in specific locations to minimize certain visual and noise impacts to a very select few residential units. The challenge with most gravel extraction operations along the Colorado River is the fact that they all lay significantly below 1-70 making them extremely visible to public view traveling the corridor which is almost impossible to screen. in this case. there are also a number of residential properties in the immediate vicinity of the site. The aerial photo below shows the location of these properties. [The Mining Plan (Exhibit C-2) in the Application shows the location and extent of the berms proposed by the project.] The main impacts to several of the nearby residents will be noise, heavy slow moving haul trucks on CR 346. dust. and visual impacts. The impacts to the general area will be increased heavy haul vehicles. dust clouds, and the visual impacts for at least 11 years until reclamation begins maturity. The obvious land use challenge with any gravel extraction operation is that it is one of the most visually unappealing and surface damaging uses in the County that can occur on very large tracts ofland. However. if reclaimed appropriately, the same property can be subsequently developed into beneficial uses that are visually appealing, provide recreation opportunities. establish certain beneficial wildlife habitat. and even increase water quality control by the additions of wetlands. The question remains as to how to deal with (mitigate) the intermediate and temporary obnoxious kind use impacts until appropriate reclamation has matured. To this end. the Application proposes to limit maximum land disturbance to no more than 60 acres (55% of the total property) at any one time. Back filling and reseeding previously mined areas will occur concurrently with mining as much as possible. Gravel Make Stte Stilwater Ranch (Town of Ski Glom! Mirror Subd reiSi011- - It appears that the proposed gravel pit cannot be effectively screened even partially from view from I- 70. Additional berming could be placed around the southern, western. and eastern property lines to screen views from future residents in Stillwater Ranch. existing residents in the Giomi Minor Subdivision and adjacent residential properties to the south and east, and from general public view along CR 346, but that has not been proposed. Staff finds that landscaped berms along the east, south, and a portion of the west boundary could go a long way to mitigate visual impacts to some residents as well as the traveling public on CR 346. Perhaps the overburden and topsoil removed from the pits in the beginning of the mining operation could be used for the berms. 14 • G p.surrr Ranch, LLC Gravel Pit BOCC — 04/02/07 Page 15 Staff finds the Application, as presently proposed, could propose additional mitigation to further minimize the visual and environmental (noise & dust) impacts such as the following: 1) In any mining phase, the mined slope length of 211:1 V will he backfilled as necessary prior to topsoiling and seeding. Generally, this is a milder slope of at least 311:1 V from 5.0 feet below the water line and higher. The amount of mitred slope allowed to be present that is not backfilled at any given time is 1000feet,- 2) feet,2) The amount of backfilled slope that is not topsoiled is limited to 400 feet. Topsoiling is required on all surface areas down w 5.0' below expected water level. 3) Seeding and mulching according to the approved plan will occur on all ropsoiled 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 offinishing finishing mining in any designated ruining area (5 total ). the area must be .fully reclaimed including ropsoiling. seeding, mulching, sapling planting. and water filling of the lake. 6) 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. 7) 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 recl araban is not executed according to the plans. Enforcement Options: a) The Country commits to notifying the Operator of any conrplkntc e concern and allows an inspection with site personnel and the designated Counts inspector prior to contacting any agency. h) The County can request a site inspection with one day's notice to the Operator. Full access to any part of the site si.ill he granted. On request, all paperwork must be shown. The County cannot request a large number of. inspections that ►t,ould interfere with normal operation without cause. 15 • • Gypstrrrr Ranch, LLC Gravel Pit BOCC — 04/0.2/07 Page 16 c) A, full list of al! other permits will be provided w the COMM'. 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 gravid of the violation and the past history. d) The County will he invited to any bond release inspection ef'the State Division or 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. Section 5.03.07 Jindustria! Operations] Pursuant to Section 5.03.07 of the Zoning Resolution, a permit for Industrial Operations requires the submittal of an impact statement on the proposed use describing its location. scope, design and construction schedule. including an explanation of its operational characteristics. The impact statement is required to address the following: (A) Existing lawful use of water through depletion or pollution of surface run-off streamflow or ground water. Response The Application is required to 1) demonstrate how the use will not adversely affect ground / surface water from a pollution perspective as well as 2) demonstrate that the use of water (legal water rights) 16 • G},psum Ranch, LLC Gravel Pit BOCC — 04/02/07 Pane 17 have been obtained for the intended uses so that they do not adversely affect (injure) other water rights. Regarding water quality, the DRMS governs and controls water quality issues within the permit boundary while the Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) Water Quality Control Division maintains jurisdiction over water as it leaves the permit boundary. In this case, the mining program intends to dewater the separate pits during mining and discharge that water into the Colorado River which requires a Discharge Permit from CDPHE that regulates the method and expected quality of that water as it is discharged. The Application states that dry mining water pumping requirements may require up to 15,000 gallons per minute. No information (engineering design) was provided on how that water is to be discharged. Other Applications have provided details on the mining plans as to how this water is to be discharged. Additionally. the application does not demonstrate how stormwater is to be managed on and off site. While CDPHE and DRMS require this information for their permitting, the County also requires this information at the time of application pursuant to this standard which is not in the Application materials. Regarding the legal use of water required for this project, the mine is required to obtain well permits as well as an augmentation plan to operate. Water usage demand includes dewatering the pits (augmentation water) and surface loss of filled pits, dust control, process water, and potable and sanitary demands. The total proposed annual water demand is 47.2 acre-feet. The Application states that they will be able to use water from both the Rising Sun and Last Chance Ditch for these uses. In order to obtain the necessary water rights. Gypsum Ranch, LLC has submitted an application for water rights and a plan for augmentation to the Division 5 Water Court. An application, for a gravel pit well permit and approval of a substitute water supply plan has also been submitted to the State Division of Water Resources. Neither has been approved as of the drafting of this memorandum. Further. as a courtesy, the Division of Water Resources. reviewed the proposal and stated that prior to initiation of these uses of ground water, the Applicant will need to obtain a well permit and an approved water supply plan or decreed plan for augmentation before a permit can be issued. Staff suggests that no Special Use Permit be issued until the Applicant has obtained approved well permits and a plan for augmentation (decree or Temporary Substitute Supply Plan) from the DRW. Regarding physical water, Staff notes on page 19 of the permit request sent to the Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety (DBMS), that there are several wells within a 600 foot vicinity of the proposed gavel pit. The Application states that "preliminary analysis shows that the physical groundwater surface may be depressed at some of the inventoried wells: this erect is in the range of 2 to 15 feet and should not affect the viability of the wells as a water source. The operator continues to studs' groundwater e, fJects and tl°r'll pursue appropriate mitigation strategies if significant effects are identified through the course of the study." The Application. shows that there are eleven (11) well owners within the 600 linear feet of the permit boundary. 17 • Gypsum Ranch LLC Gravel Pit BOCC —04102/07 Page 18 The Application has not demonstrated that adequate water supply can serve the proposed gravel extraction use because 1) a gravel pit well permit and approval of a substitute water supply plan have not been approved by the State Division of Water Resources and 2) it remains uncertain how the gravel pit will affect the physical production of eleven nearby drinking wells which is a direct impact on the health. welfare and safety of the surrounding community. In addition. Staff finds that the Application has not demonstrated how the use will not adversely affect ground / surface water from a pollution perspective as required by this standard. This standard has not been met. (B) Impacts on adjacent land from the generation of vapor, dust, smoke, noise, glare or vibration, or other emanations. Response The proposed use will generate dust, smoke. noise, and odors from the processing and batch plant and use of heavy machinery digging out the resource from the ground. The Application states that dust, odor, and smoke are regulated by the Colorado Air Quality Control Division of CDPHE. As the Board is aware. dust generation remains a significant issue with gravel pits where they are required to constantly remain below 20% opacity at all times as required by CDPHE. The Application states that blowing of dust off-site will be controlled by water spraying of disturbed areas and materials stockpiles and revegetation of screening berms to minimize erosion. Because of the pit location between 1-70 and CR 346, unmitigated or ineffectively mitigated dust control could cause a serious threat to public safety for those traveling those roads. Should the proposed use be approved. Staff suggests the Applicant furnish all State required approvals ( APEN, Construction Permit, etc.) prior to issuance of a Special Use Permit. Regarding noise, state statute states "Sound levels of noise radiating frown a property line at a distance of 25 feet or more there from in excess of the d&A) established for the .following time periods and zones shall constitute (prema facia ) evidence that such noise is a public nuisance.- The table below shows the zones and dB(A) acceptable for each zone and particular time. Zone 7 am to 7 pm 7 pm to 7 am _ _ Residential 55 dB(A) 50 dB(A) COMMercial 60 dB(A t 55 dthA) Light lnditstrial _ 65 dB(A) 70 d&A) Industrial 80 dB(A) 75 dBoA i 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 Applicant commissioned an "Environmental Noise Impact Review" prepared by EDI. Their report provided the following conclusions: 18 G.17)%11111 Ranch, LLC Gravel Pi1 BOCC — 04/02/07 Page 19 Approximate Location of Nearest Residences Staff used to analyze noise location: The noise levels (dB(A)) was measured at the 6 nearest residences rather than at the 25 foot from property line as required by state statute as shown in the illustration to the left. The analysis shows that (at the residences) the maximum daily dB(A) is exceeded at houses l and 2 when the berm is being created. Other than that noise (which would be relatively temporary) none of the other proposed activities generate noise levels that exceed 55 dB(A) at the residences. Unfortunately, this study was not conducted in accordance with state law as the measurements were not taken at 25 feet from the emitting. property. This makes other represented noise levels suspect. For reference, review the graph 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Project specific Noise Analysis- Exceeds nalysis 2 6 19 Exceeds 55 dB(A) Overburden Removal & Berm Building Cement S Haut Trucks (CR 3461 Asphalt S Concrete Batch Pians Cement 6 Haut Trucks On Site -- Crushing S Screening -•- Front-end Loaders Conveyor systems -- Stacking Operations 2 6 19 GTsunt Ranch, LLC Gravel Pit BOCC — 04/02/07 Page 20 a. Expected noise levels from mining operations are less than existing daytime ambient noise levels, and Mining Operations will only occur during daytime hours, no nighttime operations are proposed or planned. b. The greatest noise impact will occur during overburden relocation and berm building, and will be generated by front-end loaders when they are near the perimeter of the site. These operations are temporary and will collectively only last a few weeks. In each location were equipment will move overburden and berm material, such operations may be performed to comply with relevant state noise standards (e.g., CRS 25-12-103). c. Noise frorn on-going extraction and processing operations and all other stationary noise sources (conveyor systems, crusherscreener, batch plants) will be less than the State of Colorado Daytime Residential limit of 55 dB(A) d Noise from cement and haul truck on-site operations will be Tess than the State of Colorado Daytime Residential limit of 55 dB(A). e. Noise from cement and haul trucks while operating on County Road 345 is not regulated by State of Colorado Noise Law 25-12-103: however, noise from these truck operations is expected to at the State of Colorado Daytime Residential limit of 55 dB(A). The consultant states in their conclusion that "'noise from on-going extraction and processing operations and all other stationary noise sources will be less than the required day time limit of 55 dB(A) and will also remain lower than the existing ambient noise. However, based on the location of where the noise level measurements were taken, Staff cannot confirm that the analysis is accurate and this standard has not been met_ Recording hours of operation. the Application proposes hours of operation from 6:00 AM to 8:00 PM effectively six days a week. Staff suggests, should the Board approve the SUP request, the hours of operation he 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.. Manilav through Saturday and 8:00 a.m. to I:OO p.m. on Sundays .[rona March through November. The operating hours during the December through February period $►'ill be 6:00 cr.m. w 6:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday. Regardinc Iiehting. the Application states thcs intend to use "down cast lighting or lighting affixed to rolling stock will be used to Iimit the v isihility of lights that are incorporated in the operation." As typically required of any use, all Lighting shall he the minimum necessary, directed inward and downward towards the property. It appears vibrations produced from the operation will be minimal as no blasting is proposed and would most likely not he felt at [he property boundary. 20 Gv.runi Ranch, LLC Gravel Pit BOCC 04/02/07 Page 21 (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 The Application contains a "Wildlife and Habitat Assessment- prepared by Environmental Solutions which conducted an analysis of the wildlife and habitat value of the existing property as well as the post development impacts of the proposed gravel extraction use. While note mentioned in other parts of the Application, this report states (page 3) that the "project sponsor has proposed that the property be donated to the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) for use as a public State Wildlife Area once all mining and mitigation activities are completed.- [Interestingly, page 12 of the DRMS application states that the "permit area will be reclaimed using concurrent reclamation techniques, with the potential to release and/or dedicate future recreational land to the Town of Silt in stages.'] The analysis described the existing state of the property, even with the existing wetlands, as having somewhat limited wildlife value due to the "generally degraded condition of most of the upland areas." However, a wide variety of species do frequent the area. The analysis focused mainly on impacts to Mule Deer and Elk. the Bald Eagle, the Great Blue Heron, and the Sandhill Crane. These species were selected due to their regulatory status, sensitivity to human activities, known use of the study area, limited habitat resources in the region, and their ability to serve as indicators of probable effects to a variety of other wildlife species. The report provides the following: Mule Deer and Elk: The property is not considered a high quality deer habitat and certainly does not receive use by this species. The DOW does map the area as Severe Winter Range for deer: but. because the lack of native shrub species and the bulk of the site being crop land or grassy Wetland, there is little forage for deer. This is additionally compounded by the disturbance of 1- 70 and nearby residential development. Elk are not known to use the site with any regularity and appear to be challenged by the same development threats to deer. Bald Eaele: There are no known nesting sites on the property with one known active site approximately 2 miles west of the property (LaFarge site). This may be due to the sparse mature couonwood galleries used by raptors on this portion of the Colorado River riparian river front which limits its raptor value. -44.09,7;17 „ - 21 • • Gypsum Ranch, LLC Gravel Pit BOCC —04/02/07 Page 22 Staff met with the DOW in the area of the site to determine if there were nests located near the property. The only potential nest appears to be located within the existing heron rookery located on an island upstream from the subject property southeast of the Herons Nest RV Park in Silt. [An eagle was perched in the rookery during the site visit.] As you are aware, the US Fish & Wildlife regulates federally protected species such as the American Bald Eagle by the Endangered Species Act. The US Fish & Wildlife as well as DOW typically requires a 1/4 mile non disturbance zone around a nest which extends to 1/2 mile during nesting and breeding season (January VI to July 31'5. To this end. Staff mapped the apparent nesting location and determined that the nesting area is over 1/2 mile upstream of the property. Great Blue Heron: There is a known rookery located approximately 0.7 miles upriver from the property. No herons were observed on the property as the lack of mature cottonwood stands precludes such use. The existing foraging habitat and reasonable proximity to an existing rookery would indicate that it likely receives some use by this species at present. Sandhi11 Crane: This species may use the property as a "stop over" spot during migration but there are no documented reports of cranes using the property. Based on the above, the wildlife report (Section 6.0 Potential Effects of the Proposed Project) discusses the reclamation plan and its potential wildlife and habitat value, Notably, the plan states that the main four lakes and existing wetlands will provide for valuable upland and aquatic habitat producing additional food sources and protective cover for all the species mentioned above. Staff finds that, based on the report, the operation will not significantly adversely affect wildlife and provide for a better wildlife habitat once reclaimed than exists today. Staff conducted a site visit with Will Spence of the Division of Wildlife on January 2. 2007. We walked the property with the Applicant and discussed changes to the reclamation plan since the Applicant has stated they intend to deed the property to the DOW after mining has completed. Additionally, the Applicant has met with the DOW several times prior to the Application to gain input on what DOW would like to see occur in the reclamation plan to best suit wildlife habitat. Wetlands Regarding wetlands, the US Army Corps of Engineers has issued a jurisdictional delineation for the property which generally regulates 7.31 acres of jurisdictional wetlands that are shown on the mining plan. There are other wetlands that the Corps agreed were artificial from irrigation practices and if irrigation ceased, so would the wetlands. Most importantly. the letter from the Corps includes a map of "potential wetlands" in the SW corner of the property that have not been delineated. However. no 22 Gypsum Ranch. LLC Gravel Pit BOCC — 04/02/07 Page 23 mining can occur in this area until a wetland delineation has occurred. This will need to be reflected on the official site plan. Irrigation Ditches As mentioned above, the property is crossed by the last Chance Ditch and the Rising Sun Ditch. To this end, the mining plan does not intend to relocate or impact the ditches. Additionally, the Leosch and Crann Ditch Company owns the Last Chance Ditch and had provided a letter with stipulations basically intended to place Gypsum Ranch. LLC on notice so as not to interfere with the operation and flow of the ditch system. Staff suggests these stipulations be considered conditions of approval. Noxious Weed Management The County Vegetation Manager reviewed the proposal and provided the following comments: The applicant has inventoried the site for weeds and vegetation. However the specific location of the weed infestations are not identified on a site neap. Staff requests that the applicant provide locations of county listed noxious wveed.► on a snap. Once the inventory is provided the applicant shall develop a weed management plan that addresses all county listed noxious weeds found on site. Of particular concern are the Russian - olives located on the site and along the two ditches. As the ditches act as facilitators of weed spread, as does the transport of gravel. we request that the applicant address the management of Russian olive on site within the, firm year of operation. This would also apply to tamarisk if found on-site, although the applicant's submitted inventory doesn't indicate tamarisk, staff believes Haat there may be some tamarisk on the property. (D) Affirmatively show the impacts of truck and automobile traffic to and from such uses and their impacts to areas in the County. Response As mentioned above, the property has direct frontage onto CR 346 (Airport Road). The Application proposes that the project will utilize two entrances onto CR 346 for the life of the project. Typically, vehicles accessing a gravel pit are large and very heavy. The Applicant proposes that the gravel pit will requires that the following haul routes are to he used: Area Proposed Haul Routes County Preferred Haul Route South 346 to 315 (Mamm Creek Road) 346 to 331 (Dry Hollow Road) 346 to 311 (Divide Creek) Not a preferred haul route OK OK Gypsum Ranch, LLC Gravel Pit BOCC — 04/02/07 Page 24 East 346 to 311 to: River Frontage 1-70 (East Bound) US 6 (Silt — New Castle) Access to the east is problematic due to the issue of going through Stillwater and upper portion of 311 which is not a preferred haul route. North 346 to 311 to: US 6 231 Road (15f SO 235 Road (Davis Point) 1-70 Access to the east is problematic due to the issue of going through Stillwater and upper portion of 311 which is not a preferred haul route. West 346 to Mamm Creek 346 to 311 to: US 6 1-70 (West Bound) NO Access to the east is problematic due to the issue of going through Stillwater and upper portion of 311 which is not a preferred haul route. As can be seen from the chart above, the most directly affected roads are CR 346, 311, 315, 1-70 Frontage Road. The Application contains aTraffic Impact Study (TIS) prepared by Felsburg, Holt, and Ullevig which analyzed the total trips and their respective turning movements at nearby intersections. In summary, the report states that the site will generate approximately 200 daily trips with 20 of these trips during the AM peak and 16 during the PM peak. Based on the results of the traffic is analysis, the e.visting, Short Range Future and Long Range Future scenarios are projected to operate at acceptable Levels of Service (LOS) with existing lane geometry and traffic. control. In order for trucks to safely enter the site, the following roadway improvements are recommended: Construct a 310 -foot deceleration lane for the eastbound left turns into the site from CR 346: and Staff Agrees, but also raises the question of the potential need for an east -bound acceleration lane for slow -heavy trucks leaving the site competing with faster east -hound trips coming from the S-curve west of the property. i Construct a 310 -foot deceleration lane for the westbound right turns into the site from CR 346. [Staff Agrees] Although not required to acconnn.odate gravel pit traffic, it is recommended that the Grand River Gravel Pit pay a proportionate share of the cost (based on trips generated) to construct an exclusive left turn lane at the CR 346 / 311 intersection when it is constructed as part of the Stillwater Ranch development. [Staff Agrees] Staff notes. the TIS did not include the background traffic that would be generated from the proposed Stillwater Ranch and Ferguson Crossing developments. Staff finds this to he an inadequate and 24 • Gypsum Ranch, LLC Gravel Pit BOCC — 04/02/07 Page 25 inaccurate characterization of the significant Qrowth in background traffic with Stillwater alone and the affect large heavy haul trucks will have at the intersection with CR 311 and CR 346. This is important because Staff just received a referral from the Town of Silt for the Stillwater Phase 1 development entitled MeadowWood Village Preliminary Plan which contemplates 550 dwelling units, a golf course, two school sites, community center, water treatment site. parks. fire and police services, etc. The trips from the residential portion alone are approximately 5.263 which will primarily access the 346131 1 intersection to get to Silt and I-70 a majority of time. Therefore, given this development. Staff would agree with the Applicant's traffic consultant that the Grand River Gravel Pit, while not required, should pay a proportionate share of the cost (based on trips generated) to construct an exclusive left turn lane at the CR 3461311 intersection when it is constructed as part of the Stillwater Ranch development. This idea is also supported by the County's Comprehensive Plan: Garfield County. in coordination with relevant special districts, authorities and municipalities.. will require that developers of energy or mineral extraction projects finance the construction and operation of any public improvements which. now or in the future, will he required by their projects. Based on this, the Applicant commissioned a revised Traffic Impact Study which has been submitted to the BOCC that incorporates Stillwater Ranch and Ferguson Crossing developments even through the improvements would all occur on Town of Silt's roads. The net summary and recommendations didn't change in the revised report presented here as follows: Grand River Gravel Pit is a sand and gravel mine located on CR 346 to the southwest of the Town of Silt. The property would include parking for employees. a sand and gravel mine, processing plant, and aggregate storage area. The site is projected to generate approximately 200 daily trips. with 20 of these trips during the AM peak and 16 of these trips during the PM peak. Based on the results of the traffic analysis, the existing. Short Range Future, and Long Range Future scenarios are projected to operate at acceptable LOS with the proposed lane geometry and traffic control. The Long Range Future scenario includes site generated traffic from the proposed Stillwater Ranch and Ferguson Crossing developments as well as proposed lane geometry and traffic control. In order for trucks to safely enter the site, the following roadway improvements are recommended. • Construct a 310 -foot deceleration lane for the westbound right turns into the site from CR 346. Although not required to accommodate the gravel pit traffic, it is recommended that the Grand River Park Gravel Pit pay approximately 25 percent of the equivalent cost of a left turn bay (based on passenger car equivalents) to account for their proportionate share of the cost of road improvements in relation to the traffic generated by the Stillwater Ranch development. Gypsum Ranch. LLC Gravel Pit BOCC 04/02/07 Page 26 The County Road and Bridge Department reviewed the proposal and stated they have no objection to this application with the following comments: 1) Any access's to the proposed gravel pit will need driveway access permitls issued by Garfield County Road & Bridge Department. The access permit's will have conditions specific to the drivewayis. This will include stop sign's at entrance to R. 346 (Rifle -Silt Road). The stop sign's and installation shall be as required in the MUTCD (Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices). Paved or concrete apronls shall also be required as specified by the issued permitis. ?r All truck traffic shall enter and leave the gravel pit site from the east and not go west on CR 346 to the Mamm Creek interchanue. This portion of CR 346 has 90 degree corners and narrow road sections and has not been added to the preferred haul routes as designated by Garfield County Road & Bridge Department for industry travel. By having all truck traffic entering and leaving to the east it will also help eliminate the noise and congestion going past the Wildlife Sanctuary that borders the proposed gravel pit operation. This may help address some of the concerns of the owners of the Wildlife Sanctuary if they knew this was a requirement of the gravel pit operation. 3) Garfield County Road & Bridge Department at this time is seeking funding to completely rebuild. CR 336 (Jenkins Cutoff) the main cross road between CR 315 (Mamm Creek) and CR 331 (Dry Hollow Road). If the funding becomes available for 2007 CR 336 (Jenkins Cutoff) will be shut down for construction and CR 331 (Dry HoI]ow Road) will become the preferred haul route to access the drilling operations south of Silt. Trucks leaving the gravel pit would only have to go the east for approximately I -mile on CR 346 (Rifle Silt Road) to access CR 331 (Dry Hollow Road). 4) If road damage on CR 346 becomes evident due to the traffic generated from the gravel pit operation, the Road and Bridge Department shall require that repair or replacement of the road surface as determined by Garfield County Road & Bridge Department become the responsibility of the owners or operators of the gravel pit operation. 5) If the gravel pit operation is approved, Garfield County Road & Bridge Department would request an onsite visit with the owners or operators to determine the safest location for the driveway accessls. Staff referred the Application to the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) due to the site's proximity to and proposed use of 1-70. CDOT reviewed the proposal and stated This site will not access the stale system directly it will access by Gadield County Roads. The submittal did have a tragic impact study (Grand Riser Park Gravel Pit dated September 2006. by Felsburg Holt & +Ullevig). This report indicated no need for an access permit. 1 76 • Gypsum Ranch, LLC Gravel Pit BOCC — 04/02/07 Page 27 agree based upon the applicant numbers (198 trips)_ However. the study did not take in account passenger car equivalent for the Section 2.3(e) of the Access Code. This will effect percentage change at 1-70 Frontage/GCR 311; however, it will still be less than 20%. Mountain Cross Engineering reviewed the TIS and stated, the Trac Report for the future condition uses a growth rate that may be too low, when compared with the actual growth rate of the area. Also the report does not include traffic anticipated from adjacent proposed developments. These factors may change the rest -alts of the calculated future condition. The future condition ought to be reevaluated in light of the above. In summary, it appears the project will generate a maximum of 200 daily trips which will not reduce the nearby intersections to a LOS below B in 2030 which is acceptable. The TIS recommends the Applicant make specific improvements to CR 346 to provide for safe turning movements into the site. Staff questions the ability for large / heavy truck acceleration out of the site into traffic flow on 346. This is not addressed in the study. The Road and Bridge Department has also made several recommendations that need to be addressed specifically related to preferred haul routes and damage to CR 346. In any event, should the proposal be approved, Staff recommends the TIS recommended improvements to CR 346 be completed prior to any mining activity and that the recommendations by the Road and Bridge Department become conditions of approval. (E) That sufficient distances shall separate such use from abutting property which aright otherwise he damaged by operations of the proposed use(s). Response Generally, the proposed pits are a minimum of 50 feet from the property line for the entire property. To the northeast, there appears to be sufficient distance separating the gravel pit from the Colorado River with the 200 -foot setback: to the north and northwest. there appears to be sufficient distance from I-70 with an approximate 190 -foot distance. Any potential damage that could occur on abutting properties would come from either ambient dust or noise from the large trucks mining and sifting / sorting the resource as well as the possible odors from the proposed concrete and asphalt batch plant. The proposed sorting, crushing, processing and asphalt and concrete batch plant is primarily located in either the center of the 110 acres or in the northwest corner. This should reduce the noise and dust on adjacent properties. Further, the Applicant has committed to a dust suppression program to keep dust managed at the site. This dust management program should also apply to the portions of CR 346 for 1/2 mile in either direction. As you are aware, if dust generation exceeds 20% opacity. it is in violation of State Air Quality Control Commission regulations. If noise exceeds the required dB(A), it is in violation of the States noise regulations found in the state statutes. Regarding noise. state statute states "Sound levels of noise: radiating, from a property 27 • • G l plum Ranch, LLC Gra vel Pit BOCC — 04/02/07 Page 28 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 (premafacia) evidence that such noise is a public nuisance." Again, abutting properties include I-70 and Colorado River to the north, vacant agricultural property to the west. 8 residential properties to the south, and a residential PUD in the Town of Silt to the east. (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 l concerning component of this activity relates to how well the pits are reclaimed, The Application proposes a reclamation plan which includes details for final slope recontouring, shoreline undulation. wetland / upland revegetation planting type and amount 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 (security) to the DRMS. Even with all of the benefits that gravel provides the community from a development perspective, Staff finds there will be impacts that cannot be totally mitigated primarily including 1) visual impacts during mining and during reclamation for eleven+ years on the community and visitors to the County and 2) occasional dust clouds that may exceed 20% opacity that may have a detrimental affect on traffic on I-70 and CR 346 at times. Certainly a benefit and impetus to strong reclamation is the dedication of this property to the Division of Wildlife once mining as occurred. Again. Staff recommends visual screening by landscaped berms where possible and effective such as on the east, south, and west property lines which is within the authority of the County. Clearly, the visual impact on 1-70 cannot be avoided altogether. (2) Special Use Permits may he 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. The Application contains a reclamation plan which involves earthwork (recontouring of pit walls to acceptable slopes) occurring at the completion of each phase with the majority of reclamation which 28 Gymarn Ranch, LLC Gravel Pit BOCC — 04/02/07 Page 29 includes final grading. recontouring of slopes, filling with water. and replanting occurring only until after a mining area has been mined. 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, 3) allowing the pits to partially refill per area during mining so that water would cover pit floors to resemble lakes rather than a dewatered pit floor, and 4) either removing the batch plants from the plan altogether or require them to be relocated in the pit floor rather than at grade. These are all methods currently in practice by other operators in Routt County. Staff su_gsests as a condition of approval that approved 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 he 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 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 site responsible party) who would still be on site as they mined the other portions to ensure 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. The County Vegetation Manager reviewed the reclamation plan stating that "the applicant does commit to reclamation of an area as mining is completed in a cell, however this commitment is in general tennis. Below is the language that we have either agreed to or requested on some of the other. recent gravel pit permits applications:" 29 • • Gypsum Ranch. LLC Gravel Pit BOCC — 04/02/07 Page 30 Within 6 tnonth.s cif finishing mining in any designated mining area the area must be fully reclaimed including topsoiling, seeding, mulching, sapling planting, wetland preparation and water filling of the lake. Seeding and mulching according to the approved plan n'ill 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. The submitted plant material list is acceptable. (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 In the past. the County has required operators submit security to the County to ensure reclamation occurs. As you are aware. the DRMS (via state statute) has attempted to preempt local regulations specifically regarding reclamation and security for reclamation. ('See CRS 34-32.5-109(3) below). "No govenunental 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, 1n rec tare reclamation standards different than those established by this article or to require anv perlor finance or financial warranty of anv kind for mining operations. The operator shall he 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.) 30 • • Gypsum Ranch, LLC Gravel Pit BOCC —04/02/07 Page 31 Staffs suggests not requiring an additional security for the County and instead rely on the DRMS bond calculation and management to ensure reclamation. Please note however. Staff has suggested requiring the Applicant to submit the proposed reclamation plan in this Special Use Permit application to DRMS so that 1) it will be the only reclamation plan used by both DRMS and the County to ensure reclamation has occurred to the County's specifications and 2) a new bond calculation shall occur and be submitted and held by DRMS to secure that proper reclamation can occur. This is a practice that is in place in Rout' 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. The County Vegetation Manager does make the following comments regarding the proposed security: "Revegetation costs have gone up considerably in the past year. For recent gravel permit applications we have suggested a per acre figure of $200() per acre for the drier sites and $2500 per acre for areas in either a riparian or wetland setting. The applicant has supplied a figure of $800 per acre. Staff suggests that there be discussion on the Planning and Zoning Commission level about the costs per acre for reseeding as estimated by the applicant.- He recommends the following monitoring program: • The operator vill submit an annual report to the County with GPS measurements shown on a map showing the current disturbance, what areas have been backfilled, ;there topsoil stockpiles are located, all site structures, what areas have been seeded, mulchedand what is planned for the ensuing 12 months. The County Irvin' be invited to any bond release inspection of the State Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety. The County inspector will have the opportunity to demonstrate that any item of the permit has not been complied with and that bond .should not be released. This includes weed management. • The County will have the opportunity to evaluate the perforinance of the applicant with regard to the County bond and withhold portions of the bond if it is demonstrated to the applicant that certain conditions of the permit have not been met. The applicant acknowledges that the County has performance standards in place that could lead to revocation of the Special Use Permit if continued violations of the permit occur over a period of time. Section 5.03.9$ [Industrial Performance Standards1 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. 31 • Gypsum Ranch, LLC Gravel Pit BOCC — 04/02/07 Page 32 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. As required by any gravel extraction operation. all of the following Industrial Performance Standards shall be considered conditions of approval for any Special Use Permit. (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 he exempted from this provision. (5) Storage area, salvage yard, sanitary landfill and mineral waste disposal areas: (A) Storage of flan!mable 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; (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; (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; (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. 2. The equipment storage area is not placed any closer than 300 ft. from any existing residential dwelling. 3. All equipment storage will be enclosed in an area with screening at least eight (8) feet in height and obscured from view al the same elevation or 32 Gypsum Ranch, LLC Gravel Pit BOCC —04/02/07 Page 33 lower. Screening may include terming, landscaping, sight obscuring fencing or a combination of any of these methods. 4. Any repair and tnaintenance activity requiring the use of equipment that will generate noise, odors or glare beyond the property boundaries will be conducted within a building or outdoors during the hours of 8 a.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 i -e u rree.., shall not exceed ten (10) acres in size. (F) Any lighting of storage area shall be pointed downward and i'nnward 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 he 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. Section 9.0.3.05 !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 he 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. Section 6.0 Flooplain Regulations The Application contains a floodplain analysis prepared by Consulting Civil and Water Resources Engineering, LLC. The analysis shows that the Property is located primarily within the flood -fringe 33 Gypsum Ranch, LLC Gravel Pit BOCC — 04/02/07 Page 34 portion of the 100 -year floodplain with a small portion of the property falling within the Floodway on the northeast portion of the property at the Colorado River. The illustration to the right shows the extent and boundaries of the flood -fringe (Zone Al across the property and the floodway according to panel map 1091C of the 1987 FEMA Flood Rate Insurance Maps (FIRM), revised in August, 2006. The conclusions from the analysis are presented here: A) There is an existing earthen levee approximately 2,100 feet long and three to 20 feet high protection the property from the Colorado River flows. The north end of the levee begins at the 1-70 fill and continues to the east and south. South of the south levee terminus, there is a swale in the natural ground at a slightly lower elevation, which therefore provides an overflow route for high, flows- Colorado River flows are directed to the 1-70 bridge opening by the levee. and only during very high flow conditions with the water surface be high enough to cause flow through the overflow section. Zone A: 100 -year Floodplain B) Under the existing conditions. during a 100-yearflood in the Colorado River, approximately 2,500 csfcould enter the property through the Swale south of the existing levee terminus and flow to the west across part of the property. C) Under Phase 1B, a 22.4 -acre, 25 foot deep pit be created near the east property line under phase 18 of the proposed mining plan. During a 100 -year flood event, approximately 2.500 cfs could enter the piton the east side through the over flow area. The pit will lie, f fell or partially full from groundwater inflow and the flood flows will quickly return water surface elevations to pre -mining conditions. Water surface elevations will be the same or less that before the pit was excavated. Subsequent phases will also have little impact. D) The main channel of the Colorado River, including the floodway, is separated from the property by the levee. The only possible hydraulic impact on the Colorado River water surface elevations would he from large above grade structures on the property causing sufficient backwater conditions to raise the water surface in the main channel upstream of the levee. The pits are below grade and will cause no change in the existing floodplain wetter 34 • Gypsums Ranch, LLC Gravel Pit BOCC —04/02/07 Page 35 surface elevations. The processing plant comprising a concrete batch plant, an asphalt batch plant, and stick piles will be above grade. At the location of these .facilities approximately 1,500 (over 1 mile) down stream of the overflow section, the floodplain is about 1,700, feet wide. There will he no discernable effect on the floodway. E) The property is hydraulically isolated from the floodway by the levee. Mining activities on the property will have no affect on the floodway. F) Pit capture is highly unlikely because of the distance of the pit, from the twain Colorado River channel and the self -armoring nature of the alluvial materials.. Staff finds that the Application has provided the required analysis prepared and stamped by the engineering firm Consulting Civil and Water Resources Engineering, LLC which meets the standards and criteria for mining in the flood -fringe of the I00 -year floodplain and ultimately determines that the proposal will not occur in or impact the floodway portion of the floodplain. Mountain Cross Engineering agrees with Staff's findings that the Floodplain Studs was complete and determined no impacts to the elevation of the floodway. However it raised one question concerning the south end of the levee: Is the levee and anticipated 2,500 cfs overflow by design? is there benefit or detriment to this site, the floodway, and downstream properties by extending/raising the levee to contain the floodwaters within the main channel? X. SUMMARY This gravel pit will be highly visible from 1-70 and virtually impossible to screen. It will also be highly visible from the 8 —1 0 residential properties along CR 346: however, landscaped berms could go a long way to mitigate those visual and noise impacts. Additionally, there are sequencing / "reclaim as you go" methods proposed that will reduce the overall visual impact. The traffic analysis was revised to more accurately characterize the projected traffic in 2030 including Stillwater Ranch which is moving forward with a Preliminary Plan for 550 residential units and more. It would appear the Town of Silt adamantly wants the operation to occur in this location (although annexed into the Town) and the County's Comprehensive Plan supports gravel extraction in this location so long as the impacts are adequately mitigated. Additionally, the owner has indicated that the property will he deeded to DOW at the end of the mining life which will have a direct public and wildlife management benefit. Lastly, Stillwater Ranch development will develop requiring significant amounts of aggregate for roads, foundations, etc. This proposed location will mean gravel is "at hand" rather than drawing from destinations further away adding that much more slow heavy haul traffic to the County's (and the Town of Silt's) road systems. 35 • Gipsunt Rwwh, LLC Gravel Pit BOCC — 04102/07 Page 36 XL PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission (by a unanimous vote of 6 to 0) recommends the Board of County Commissioners Approve a Special Use Permit for Extraction. Processing, Storage, and. Material Handling of Natural Resources and Development in the flood -fringe of the 100 -year floodplain for the Grand River Park Project on a property owned by Gypsum Ranch, LLC with the following conditions: (Note. the Planning Commission made changes to the original conditions of approval which are shown by adding additional language that is underlined and striking language by strike through.) 1. That proper posting and public notice was provided as required for the public hearing before the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners. That the public hearings before the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners were extensive or complete, that all pertinent facts. matters and issues were submitted and that all interested parties were heard at those public hearings. That the above stated and other reasons, the proposed Special Use Permit has been determined to be in the best interest of the health, safety, morals,, convenience. order. prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County. 4. That the application has adequately met Sections 5.03, 5.03.07, 5.03.08 of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended. ?. That all representations of the Applicant, either in testimony or the submitted application materials, shaII he considered conditions of approval unless specifically altered by the Board of County Commissioners. 6. The County shall not issue a Special Use Permit until all required local. state, and federal permits have been obtained and submitted to Garfield County including but not limited to the City of Rifle Watershed Permit, CDPHE, USACE. NDPES, Division of Water Resources (approved well permits and plan for augmentation), etc. at the Applicant .hall a 310 .foot deceleration lane for the constructa 310 -foot deceleration lane for the westbound right rums into the site Froin CR 4 . No mining activity can occur until these impror, ements c been installed and appro%ed 1,the County Road and Bridge Department. 8. The Applicant shall obtain driveway access permitis issued by Garfield County Road & Bridge 36 • Gypsum Ranch,, LLC Gravel Pit BOCC — 04/02/07 Page 37 Department at specific locations to be approved by the Road and ridge Department, These permits shall have conditions specific to the driveway's. This will include stop sign's at entrance to CR 346 (Rifle -Silt Road). The stop signs and installation shall he as required in the MUTCD (Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices). Paved or concrete apron's shall also be required as specified by the issued permit/s. 9. All truck traffic shall enter and leave the gravel pit site from the east and not go west on CR 346 to the Mamm Creek interchange. This portion of CR 346 has 90 degree corners and narrow road sections and has not been added to the preferred haul routes as designated by Garfield County Road & Bridge Department for heavy truck travel. 10. Garfield County Road & Bridge Department at this time is seeking funding to completely rebuild CR 336 (Jenkins Cutoff) the main cross road between CR 315 (Mamm Creek) and CR 331 (Dry Hollow Road). If the funding becomes available for 2007 CR 336 (Jenkins Cutoff) will be shut down for construction and CR 331 (Dry Hollow Road) will become the preferred haul route to access the drilling operations south of Silt. Trucks leaving the gravel pit would only have to go the east for approximately 1 -mile on CR 346 (Rifle Silt Road) to access CR 331 (Dry Hollow Road). 11. [f road damage on CR 346 becomes evident due to the traffic generated from the gravel pit operation, the Road and Bridge Department shall require that repair or replacement of the road surface as determined by Garfield County Road & Bridge Department become the responsibility of the owners or operators of the gravel pit operation. 12. 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 5.0 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. 13. The amount ofhacktilled 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. 14. 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. 15. Within 6 months of finishing mining in any designated mining area (5 total). the area must be full' reclaimed including topsoiiing, seeding, mulching. sapling planting. and water filling of the lake. 37 r Gypsum Ranch, LLC Gravel Pit BOCC — 04/02/07 Page 38 16. 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_ 17. 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. 18. The County commits to notifying the Operator of any compliance concern and allows an inspection with site personnel and the designated County inspector prior to contacting any agency. 19. 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. 20. A full list of all other permits shall 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. a. CDPHE Air Quality Control 303-692-315[) b. CDPHE Water Quality Control 303-692-3500 c. US Army Corps of Engineers 970-243-1199 d. Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety 303-866-3567 e. CDOT Grand Junction office 970-248-7000 21. 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. ?i t. 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. 23. The existing residence (proposed to he used as an office for the life of the gravel pit) shall provide potable water and wastewater service to employees of the gravel pit operation. The sizing and performance of the ISDS system shall be verified by an engineer to the County for the 38 \\J • Gypsum Ranch, LLC Gravel Pit BOCC — 04/02/07 Page 39 uses expected prior to the issuance of a SUP. 24. The Applicant shall install I 0-foollandscaped berms along. the cast. south. west boundary to aid in visual screening from residences and CR 346. The Applicant shall desianand submit a landscape / berm plan to the County prior to the hearine. before the BOCC. [This has been addressed by the Applicant.] 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.ni. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday. 27. All lighting shall be the minimum necessary, directed inward and downward towards the property. 28. The reclamation plan approved by Garfield County in the Special Use Permit shall 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. c29. Mining operations shall be allowed to progress so long as the previous pit has been reclaimed within 6 months after the commencement of the new pit mining operation. lithe reclamation has not.@))ccurred in six months, all mining operations on the property shall stop until the reclamation / revegetation has occurred to the satisfaction of the County. 30. The Applicant shall be required to present a yearly review and update of the gravel operations to the Board of County Commissioners until full mining operations have been completed and full reclamation has been established. 31. The applicant shall provide locations of county listed noxious weeds on a map. Once the inventory is provided the applicant shall develop a weed management plan that addresses all county listed noxious weeds found on site. The applicant shall address the management of Russian olive on site within the first year of operation. This also applies to tamarisk if found on- site. although the applicant's submitted inventory doesn't indicate tamarisk, staff believes that 39 • • Gypsum. Ranch, LLC Gravel Pit BOCC — 04/02/07 Page 40 there may be some tamarisk on the property. This v, sed management plan shall be submitted to the County Vegetation Manager for approval prior to the issuance of a SUP. 32. All mining activities shall be required to comply with the following performance standards (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 he 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. (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 law and shall comply with the national, state and local fire codes and written reconnnnendations I comments from the appropriate local protection district regarding compliance with the appropriate codes; (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; (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; (0) Storage of Heavy Equipment will only be allowed subject to (A) and (C) above and y the following standards: 1. The minimum lot size is five (5) acres and is not a platted subdivision. 2. The equipment storage area is not placed any closer than 300 ft. front any existing residential dwelling. All equipment storage will be enclosed in an area with screening at least eight (8) feet in height and obscured front view at the same elevation or lower. Screening may include berating, landscaping, sight obscuring fencing or a combination of any of these methods. -t 4. Any repair and maintenance activity requiring the use of equipment that will generale noise, odors or glare beyond the property boundaries will be 40 • • Gypsum Ranch, LLC Gravel Pit BOCC —04/02/07 Page 41 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 he 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. (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, (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. 33. That the Applicant commission a new Traffic Impact Study that includes the projected traffic in the Stillwater Ranch development prior to setting the hearing before the Board of County Commissioners. 34. The four concerns in the letter from the Loesch and Crann Ditch Company, dated 12/28/06 and attached to this memorandum as Exhibit M, are made conditions of approval by reference, 35. That the Applicant demonstrates what elements of the .Div isit n ()INV ildlile {DC)Vl') review N+•ere included its the proposed reclatnation_pian prior t+) the he.tIinc heft)r'r' the BC)C(T. [This has not been addressed by the Applicant.] of the S ecial 37. The Applicant, represented. shall donate the property once fulls mined to the IDivision of VV1d1ife. 38. That the Applicant explore the possibility of an internal road between the {,gravel operation and the adjacent Stillwater Ranch Development in order to alleviate unneee wary trio onto CR 346 as well as portions ot that road s\ stem that have been annexed into the Town o1' Silt. [This has been addressed by the Applicant.] 41 Gipsaanl Ranch. LLC Gravel Pit BOCC A 04/02/07 Page 42 Suggested additional conditions: 39. That in the event the Town af Silt de -annexes the mads subject to the "Road Impact Royalty Aureetrtent". the Operator / Owner of the travel operation shall aturee to enter into a contract that provides the County with the royalties included in the Silt contract if said roads are dc: --annexed from the Town of Silt. Additionally. any royalties paid 1(1 the Town of Silt that have not been glent .hall be delivered to Garfield County. �f7 11,0 111. r/ c fn 01 —7 Ort - '/PC( V G it+ A 4 cd Zi),•0 ;;� �- aa; w'I7. 14 2 Gypsum Ranch LLC/ Silt Sand Gravel Fred Jarman From: Roussin, Daniel[Daniel.Roussin@DOT.STATE.CD.USj Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2006 4:50 PM To: Fred Jarman Subject: Gypsum Ranch LLC/ Silt Sand and Gravel i EXHIBIT 1 I have done a brief review of the Gypsum Ranch LLC/ Silt Sand and Gravel. This site will not access the state system directly; it will access by Garfield County Roads. The submittal did have a traffic impact study (Grand River Park Grave! Pit dated September 2006, by Felsburg Holt & Ullevig). This report indicated no need for an access permit. I agree based upon the applicant numbers (198 trips). However, the study did not take in account passenger car equivalent for the Section 2.3(e) of the Access Code. This will effect percentage change at 1-70 Frontage/GCR 311; however, it will still be less than 20%. I would also recommend Garfield County to get a signed and sealed copy of the Traffic Study. 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 12/20/2006 MEMORANDUM To: Fred Jarman From: Steve Anthony Re: Grand River Project Date: January 3. 2097 • EXHIBIT Noxious weeds Mapping and inventory: The applicant has inventoried the site for weeds and vegetation. However the speefic location of the weed infestations are not identified on a site map. Staff requests that the applicant provide locations of county listed noxious weeds on a map. ManaLrement: Once the inventory is provided the applicant shall develop a weed management plan that addresses all county listed noxious weeds found on site. Of particular concern are the Russian -olives located on the site and along the two ditches, As the ditches act as facilitators of weed spread. as does the transport of gravel. we request that the applicant address the management of Russian olive on site within the first year of operation. This would also apply to tamarisk if found en -site. although the applicant's submitted inventory doesn't indicate tamarisk, staff believes that there may he some tamarisk on the property. Reclamation Phasing of reclamation: The applicant does commit to reclamation of an area as mining is completed in a cell. however this commitment is in general terms. Below is the language that we have either agreed to or requested on some of the other. recent gravel pit permits applications: Within 6 months o f fitisltitrg mining in any designated mining area the area must be ,fully reclaimed including topsoiling, seedling. mulching. sapling planting, wetland preparation and nater_illing of the lake. Seeding and mulching according to the approved plait will occur an al! topsWiled areas each spring (March 15 -Agri! 15) or fall (September 15 to November 15) no matter how small the area is. Plant material list: The submitted plant material list is acceptable. • • Revegetation costs and security: Revegetation costs have gone up considerably in the past year. For recent gravel permit applications we have suggested a per acre figure of $2000 per acre for the drier sites and $2500 per acre for areas in either a riparian or wetland setting. The applicant has supplied a figure of $800 per acre. Staff suggests that there be discussion on the Planning and Zoning Commission level about the costs per acre for reseeding as estimated by the applicant. Monitoring and Inspection Again, below are comments used in recent gravel pit permit applications. Staff recommends the following: • The operator will submit an annual report to the County with GPS measurements shown on a nap 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 ni nths. 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: This includes weed management. • The County will have the opportunity to evaluate the performance of the applicant with regard to the County bond and withhold portions of the bond if it is dentrnr.strated to the applicant that certain conditions of the permit have not been stet. The applicant 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 tine. JAN-03—O7 02:50PM FROM—Colo Old Water Resources +3038653589 • T-572 STATE OF COLO OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER Division of Water Resources Department of Natural Resources 1313 Sherman SL-evt, Room 818 Denver, Colorado 60203 Phone (303; 86G-35131 PAX 13133186G-3589 www,witer,it:Zte.CO. US January 3, 2007 Fred Jarman Garfield County Building and Planning Department 108 8th St., Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re' Grand River Park Project Special Use Permit Section 9, T6S, R92W, 5th PM Water Division 5 Water District 45 EXHIBIT Bill Owens Governor Russell CLorge Execudve Director Hal 0, Simpson, PE. State Engineer Dear Fred: The above -referenced submittal requests a special use permit for the Grand River Park Project. As stated in the State Engineer's March 4, 2005 memorandum to county planning directors, this office has no statutory responsibility to review land use actions that do not include the subdivision of land as defined in Section 30.-28-101(10)(a), C.R,S. This referral does not appear to qualify as a "subdivision". However, we have performed a cursory review and are providing informal comments. The proposed operation anticipates exposing ground water, and will consume ground water by evaporation, dust control, reclamation, water removed in the mined product and processing. Prior to initiation of these uses of ground water, the applicant will need to obtain a well permit, and an approved water supply plan or decreed plan for augmentation Is required before a permit can be issued, A proposed substitute water supply pian has been submitted to our office and is currently under review. Note that this office does not necessarily take the position that the water supply plan is valid. If you or the applicant has any questions concerning this matter, please contact me for assistance. Sincerely. Craig M. Lis, • Water Resource Engineer CML/CJLIGrand River Park Project.doc cc: Alan Martel[aro, Division Engineer Jaynes Lemon. Water Commissioner, f]istrict 45 • • 04/14/2006 16:45 9702412?56 / PLY To ATTrNTioN of Regulatory Branch (200675282) USACE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, SACAAMENTO CORPS OF ENGINEERS COLORADO/GUNNISON 3ASIN REGULATORY OFFICE 400 ROOD AVENUE, ROOM 142 sRaSeJUNCTION, te erc14. 2005-�r>3 EXHIBIT I T Mr. pan Fillipi p & G Environmental 11 Inverness Way South Englewood, Colorado 80112 Dear Mr. Fillipi: We are responding to your request and submittal information for an approved jurisdictional determination for the Hangs Ranch project site. This approximaeely 210 -acre site is located2at e CColorado River within Section 9, Township 6 South, Latitude 39° 32' 8.11", Longitude 107° 40' 17.8", Garfield County, Colorado. Based or. available information, we concur with the estiber mate of waters of the United States, as depicted on the Sepe 2006, Hangs Ranch Project Site, 2006 Wetland Delineations map, Figure 4 drawings prepared by 0 & G Envir nmeftal Consultants. There are approximately 950 feet of waters of the United States (Colorado River) bordering the north portion of this peoperty. There are also approximately 7.31 acres of wetlands, within the mapped area. We regulate these waters under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act since they are interstate waters of the United States and adjacent wetlands to the Colorado River. We also concur with the estimate of waters of the United States that are artificially irrigated areas. Areas identified as Section 9; Wet 03, Wet 02, Wet 04 and Wet 01 that total approximately 10.03 acres would revert to upland if irrigation ceased. We appreciate the additional monitoring well data supplied by Co1o::ado River Engineering, dated June 5, 2006 (Table 2 of your Addendum) to verify that these areas are solely supported by irrigation. We also understand that the area, identified on Figure 4 of the September 6, 2006 Wetland Delineation Map exists as Potential Wetland/Not Yet Delineated and may be evaluated at a later date. Additionally, property areas north of interstate Highway 70 and within the highway right-of-way (approximately 98.3 acres) were not delineated and remain un -verified by this office. 09/14/2006 16:45 9702412358 U5'AC PAGE 03/03 This verification is valid for five years from the date of this letter, unless new information warrants revision of the determination before the expiration date. A Notification of Administrative Appeal Options and Process and Request for Appeal form is enclosed. If you wish to appeal this approved jurisdictional determination, please follow the procedures on the form. you should provide a copy of this letter and notice to all other affected partiee, including any individual who has an identifiable and substantial legal interest in the property. This determination has been conducted to identify the limits of Corps of Engineers' Clean Water Act jurisdiction for the particular site identified in this request. This determination may not be valid for the wetland conservation provisions of the Food Security Act of 1985. If you or your tenant are USD program participants, or anticipate participation in USDA programs, you should request a certified wetland determination from the local office of the Natural Resources Conservation Service, prior to starting work. Please refer to identification number 200675282 in correspondence concerning this project. If you have any questions, please contact me at the letterhead address, email Mark.A.Gi1fil1anausace.army.miJ., or telephone 970-243-1199, extension 15. You may also use aur website: www.spk.usace. army.mil/regulatory.html. Sincerely, ma_ Mark GilfilYan Acting Chief, Colorado/Gunnison Basin Regulatory Office Enclosure Copy furnished without enclosure: Mr. Mark Bean, Garfield County, 108 8th Street, Suite 201, Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 c 9 wet 021 -tangs Ranch Project Site '006 Wetland Delineations Garfield County. CO Figure 4 Updated: September 6, 2006 1:5,000 51*\' 1 File Location: R:lProjectsQ38 Gypsum RanchtMaps Date: June 9. 2006 Projection: NAD 83 UTM Zone 13N 1 inch = 416 Feet USGS 7.5' Quad: Silt 11 irrverness way South Englewood, Colorado 80112 tel (720) 529-9777 fax (720) 529-9798 www.agenvironmentel.com • laiaUl OZe! d REPLY TO ATTENTION OF Is DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY • U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, SACRAMENTO CORPS OF ENGINEERS COLORADO/GUNNISON BASIN REGULATORY OFFICE 400 ROOD AVENUE, ROOM 142 GRAND JUNCTION, COLORADO 81501-2563 December 15, 2006 Regulatory Branch (200675282) EXHIBIT 1 14. 9 2006 � �� Mr. Fred Jarman, Staff Planner 4�'G Garfield County Building and Planning Department 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Dear Mr. Jarman: I am responding to your December 11, 2006, request for comments on the Grand River Park Project (Hangs Ranch) Special Use Permit application. This project is located at Latitude 39 32' 8.11", Longitude 107" 40' 17.8", Section 9, Township 6 South, Range 92 West, south of the Town of Silt and within Garfield County, Colorado. The Corps of Engineers' jurisdiction within the study area is under the authority of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act for the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States. Waters of the United States include, but are not limited to, rivers, perennial, ephemeral or intermittent streams, lakes, ponds, wetlands, vernal pools, springs, marshes, wet meadows, and seeps. Project features that result in the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States will require Department of the Army authorization prior to starting work. We have verified approximately 7.31 acres of waters of the United States present on the project site, southeast of Interstate 70. Property northwest of 1-70 has not been delineated or verified. The range of alternatives considered for this project should include alternatives that avoid impacts to wetlands or other waters of the United States. Every effort should be made to avoid project features which require the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States. In the event it can be clearly demonstrated there are no practicable alternatives to filling waters of the United States, mitigation plans should be developed to compensate for the unavoidable losses resulting from project implementation. • Please refer to identification number 200675282 in correspondence concerning this project. If you have any questions, please contact me at the letterhead address, email Mark.A.Gilfillan@usace.army.mil, or telephone 970-243-1199, extension 15. You may also use our website: www.spk.usace. army.mil/regulatory.html. Sincerely, Mark GilfSllan Biologist,Colorado/Gunnison Basin Regulatory Office • GARFIELD COUNTY Building & Planning Department Review Agency Form Name of application: Gypsum Ranch Co. LLC Sent to: Garfield County Road & Bridge Dept. Date Sent: Comments Due: EXHIBIT L Garfield County requests your comment in review of this project. Please notify the Planning Department in the event you are unable to respond by the deadline. This form may be used for your response, or you may attach your own additional sheets as necessary. Written comments may be mailed, e-mailed, or faxed to: Garfield County Building & Planning Staff contact: Fred Jarman 109 8th Street, Suite 301 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Fax: 970-384-3470 Phone: 970-945-8212 General Comments: Garfield County Road & Bridge Department has no objection to this application with the following comments. Any accessls to the proposed gravel pit will need driveway access permitls issued by Garfield County Road & Bridge Department. The access permitls will have conditions specific to the drivewayis. This will include stop signfs at entrance to Cr. 346 (Rifle Silt Road). The stop signls and installation shall be as required in the MUTCD (Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices). Paved or concrete apronls will also be required as specified by the issued permitls. Garfield County Road & Bridge Department requests that all truck traffic will enter and leave the gravel pit from the east and not go west on Cr. 346 to the Mamm Creek Interchange. This portion of Cr. 346 has 90 degrcc corners and narrow road sections and has not been added to the preferred haul routes as designated by Garfield. County Road & Bridge Department for industry travel. By having all truck traffic entering and leaving to the east it will also help eliminate the noise and congestion going past the Wildlife Sanctuary that borders the proposed gravel pit operation. This may help address some of the concerns of the owners of the Wildlife Sanctuary if they knew this was a requirement of the gravel pit operation. Garfield County Road & Bridge Department at this time is seeking funding to completely rebuild Cr. 336 (Jenkins Cutoff) the main cross road between Cr. 315 (Marron Creel)and Cr. 331 (Dry Hollow Road). If the funding becomes available for 2007 Cr. 336 (Jenkins Cutoff) will be shut down for construction and Cr. 331 (Dry Hollow Road) will become the preferred haul route to access the drilling operations south of Silt. Trucks leaving the gravel pit would only have to go the east for approximately I -mile on Cr. 346 (Rifle Silt Road) to access Cr. 331. (Dry Hollow Road). If road damage on Cr. 346 (Rifle Silt Road) becomes evident due to the traffic generated from the gravel pit operation we would request that repair or replacement of the road Revised 3/30100 41) 111 GARFIELD COUNTY Building & Planning Department Review Agency Form surface as determined by Garfield County Road & Bridge Department become the responsibility of the owners or operators of the gravel pit operation. If the gravel pit operation is approved Garfield County Road & Bridge Department would request an onsite visit with the owners or operators to determine the safest location for the driveway access/s. Name of review agency: Garfield County Road and Bridge Dept By: Jake B. Mall Date December 15, 2006 Revised 3/30/00 RECEIVED A� �QQ� 1 oe--.ch and C r. nn Ditch Company P. O. Ei n x 365 GARFIELD COUNTY BUILDING & PLANNING Rifle. CO 81650 December 28. 2006 Garfield County Planning Commission 108 Eighth Street. Suite 401 Garfield County Plaza Building Glenwood Springs. CO 81601 EXHIBIT i M Re. Gypsum Ranch Co. LLC / Silt Sand and Gravel !LC Special Use Permit The Last Chance Ditch may pass through portions of the property described in the Public Notice referencing this Special Use Permit. The Loesch and Cr-ann Ditch Company is owner of the last Chance titch. Enclosed for your reference is a copy of the Company's. Ditch Easement frond lire=-. and Conditions. which we request st that you consider in the permitting proces of the proposed sand .and gravel extraction operation. assuring that: (1) fh velopement and .uhsequest use of the operation will not interfere with the flow of water thrcugh the Last Chance Ditch_ (2) The Loesch and Cr Tann Ditch Company has pr i of approval authority over all plans affecting the Ditch. (3) Gypsum Ranch/Silt Sand and Gravel. along with succeissors and assignees. is liable for any and all expense incurred by the Company. to maintain normal water flow through the Ditch when flow has been impaired resulting from development and/or subsequent use of time proposed operation. (4) Gypsum Ranch/Silt. Sand and Gravel is liable for a damage fee of $50100 per day the Company for each day r:f interruption of normal water flow resulting from developement or use of the operation. Thank fur your consideration. Philip D. if4tte :ecretrary Enclosure. Notice of Ditch EGrr,ement Loesch and Cram] ppLtell Company P. 0. Box 365 Rifle, CO 61650 December 26. 2006 Notice of Ditch Easement ruidelirreb & Conditions Notice to All Persons with interest iii Real Estate contiguous to or traversed by the Loesch-Crann Ditch (Also known as the Last Chance Ditch). which Ditch is located south of the Colorado River between Silt and Rifle village South in Barfield County. Colorado. The Loesch Crann Ditch Company has been granted all necessary rights of way for establishment and maintenance of the ditch. The Company's right is known as a prescriptive easement which provides for the right to use as much land an both sides of the ditch as I. needed for ongoing repair and maintenance. Based on prior years experience the space required for utilization of the Company's right is approximately 20 feet on each side of the ditch. In order to provide for the efficient maintenances of the ditch the Company has established the following guidlinrrb: - Permanent fences and structures are not p.r-mitted within 20 Feet or the edge of the ditch. - Fences crossing the ditch right of way are to be kept to a murinus and will be provided with gates on both sides of the ditch to allow machine and truck access along each ditch bank. - Gates are to provide 12 foot clearance for machines passing through. The Company is to be provided keys for locked gates. -Location and structure of fences and gates are subject to approval by the Company. -Pipes, flumes. bridges acrd fences crossing the ditch are subject to approval by the Company and are to be positioned so as to not obstruct water flow. The installation. maintenance and repair of fences, y.s tes and crossings is not the expense of the Company. When a trespass of fences and/or- other structures on the Company right of way is observed. a warning will be ibsued advising the trespasser to resolve the trespass condition. Subsequently. in the routine use of the right of way by the Company. if the fences and/or other structures remain in trespass. the items in trespass will be physically cleared from the right of way by the Company. The trespasser will be held liable by the Company for the Company's expense incurred in clearing the structures from the right of way. Piping or lining of the Ditch by a landowner is subject to prior approval of the Company. The cost of the project is the expense of the landowner; and the landowner also bears full responsibility for insuring the free and full flow of water through the pipe or liner. The landowner will be held liable for maintenance expense of the pipe (liner). in the event the flow of the water in the Ditch is obstructed due: to the presence of the pipe (liner) in the ditch, the landowner will be held Liable for any and all expense incurred by the Company in restoring flow of water through the Right of Way including cleaning or removing the pipe (liner). The Company will be held harmless from storm drainage liability resulting From the installation of a pipe in the ditch. The Company Right of Way must be honored throughout the full traverse of the dixch, whether the ditch is open or piped. Town of Silt • December 27. 2006 Garfield County Planning 108 8th Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Commissioners: RECEIVED JAN 0 2 2007 GARFI LD WONT)/ BUILDING 8 PLANNfNG • EXHIBIT N 231 No. 7th Street / P.O. Box 70 / Silt, CO 81652 Phone: 970-876-2353 / Fax: 970-876-2937 On December 12, 2006. the Town of Silt received a referral from the Garfield County Planning Department for a gravel pit that is contiguous to our municipal boundaries. This is the same applicant who withdrew an application for annexation to the Town and a proposal for the same gravel pit operation within municipal boundaries. The Town of Silt is adamantly opposed to this proposal in the county. and we respectfully request that you deny this applicant's proposal and ask them to return to good faith negotiation with the Town of Silt. Contrary to the recent statements of the applicant. the Town of Silt was not opposed to a gravel operation within our boundaries. The owner of the property categorically did not negotiate this proposal with the Town in good faith. In fact, if the applicant had submitted the same proposal to the Town of Silt that they have now submitted to Garfield County, they would already have been annexed and operating. The Town of Silt has the following important concerns, and we expect to address them appropriately when Garfield County returns this applicant to the Town: • This gravel pit is located within our three mile sphere of influence, and we have an Intergovernmental Agreement with Garfield County regarding development within that three mile limit. • Our Comprehensive Plan is established to provide guidelines for any type of development within the Town's sphere of influence. We were following those guidelines in our negotiations with the applicant. 1. The Stillwater residential development is adjacent to the gravel pit, and the development is very close to beginning construction on the first phase. This development represents considerable investment by the developer and the Town. and this proposal will without doubt affect this development adversely. • The Town of Silt will still receive the vast majority of the impacts. The roads in this area are within our municipal boundaries, and the trucks will traverse our roads. Dust, vibration and noise will impact the Town of Silt citizens who will soon live in this area. The applicant insisted that we did not have authority to regulate these issues. even though the Colorado Revised Statutes clearly place these issues within the scope of authority of the local government. 1 The applicant has insisted that the Town of Silt was "impossible" in its. negotiations, which is absurd. After we had already reached agreement and • negotiated what we believed were the final documents regarding this proposal, we prepared the public hearing before our Planning and Zoning Commission. At 10 a.m. on the day of the hearing, the applicant submitted a revised agreement with over 30 substantive changes. including entirely new sections and proposed uses. These proposed uses included pipe lay down, a compressor station and other uses and proposals that the applicant had never discussed with the Town prior to the day of the hearing. 1 This applicant originally proposed that the only uses would be gas wells and a gravel pit. and that the Town of Silt would receive the entire 181 acres for use as a park. Upon submission, the applicant reduced the acreage to be dedicated to the Town to 177 acres, with the applicant retaining the most critical access piece for "future residential development". They also opened the possibility of the numerous other uses. Apparently, our questioning these issues made us "impossible" in their opinion. The Town of Silt believes that it is appropriate and imperative that the applicant work with the Town of Silt to address the concerns we have with traffic, roads impacts, dust, noise and extraneous proposed uses. These were the issues that the applicant did not want to properly address and did not negotiate in good faith. Submitting a revised agreement with over 30 substantive changes on the day of the public hearing is not good faith negotiation. Even though the applicant acted in bad faith, the Town of Silt never denied their application, and we continued to believe we could reach agreement. We still believe it is possible to reach agreement, especially after reviewing the proposal to Garfield County, which is substantially different than the last proposal to the Town. The Town of Silt and Garfield County had an adversarial relationship regarding a gravel pit in the past. Unfortunately, litigation was necessary to resolve the issue in the Town's favor. The Town of Silt sincerely desires to avoid this path again, if possible. We respectfully request that Garfield County require this applicant to return to the Town of Silt in order to bring this proposal to fruition. Respectfully, David C. Moore Mayor • • TOWN OF SILT RESOLUTION NO. 23 SERIES OF 2006 A RESOLUTION SETTING FORTH FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS RELATING TO THE GRAND RIVER PARK PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ("PUD") ANNEXATION, ALSO KNOWN AS THE HANGS ANNEXATION WHEREAS, § 31-12-110. C.R.S. requires that the Board of Trustees adopts a Resolution setting forth said Board's findings of fact and conclusions prior to approval of an annexation: and WHEREAS, a public hearing was conducted this day following publication of notice of such hearing. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF SILT, COLORADO, THAT:. Section 1. The Board of Trustees of the Town of Silt hereby determines that all eligibility for annexation requirements specified in Sections 31-12-104 and 31-12-105, C.R.S. have been met for the annexation of certain unincorporated lana as described on Exhibit "A" attached and known as the Grand River Park PUD Annexation, also known as the Hangs Annexation, Garfield County, Colorado, Section 2. The Board of Trustees hereby determines that the petition for annexation was executed by 100% of the property owners of record, and therefore an annexation election is not required pursuant to § 31-12-107(2), C.R.S. INTRODUCED, READ, AND CONTINUED at a regular meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Town of Silt, Colorado held on the 12th day of June 2006. PASSED AND APPROVED at a regular meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Town of Silt, Colorado held on the 12th day of June 2006. ATTEST: TOWN OF SILT Town Clerk Shei a M. Mcln Mayor David C. Moore January 03, 2007 Mr. Fred Jarman Garfield County Planning 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: Review of Special Use Permit Application for Silt Sand & Gravel LLC Dear Fred: 1 A review has been performed of the documents for the Special Use Permit application for Silt Sand & Gravel LLC. The package was found to be well organized. The following comments, questions, or concerns were generated: 1. Water hauling is proposed for potable use at the extraction site. Generally speaking, hauling water has not been considered a reliable source. Alternative sources may need to be investigated. 2. Portable toilets are proposed to be used and located out of the floodplain. Since a large amount of the site is expected to be inundated during, a large magnitude flood it would be prudent to have acceptable toilet locations predetermined. 3. The existing residence is proposed to be used as an office for the life of the gravel pit. The type of the existing sewer connection is not mentioned. If the current residence is using an ISDS for waste water treatment, the sizing and performance of the system should be verified for the uses expected and also conflict with the floodplain. 4. It is stated in the documentation that various permit applications and approvals are pending or will be obtained; NPDES, Corp of Engineers, Well Permits, etc. Obtaining applicable permits and approvals should be conditions of approval. 5. The Traffic Report for the future condition uses a growth rate that may be too low, when compared with the actual growth rate of the area. Also the report does not include traffic anticipated from adjacent proposed developments. These factors may change the results of the calculated future condition. The future condition ought to be reevaluated in light of the above. 6. The Floodplain Study was complete and determined no impacts to the elevation of the floodway. However it raised one question concerning the south end of the levee: is the levee and anticipated 2,500 cfs overflow by design? Is there benefit or detriment to this site, the floodway, and downstream properties by extending/raising the levee to contain the floodwaters within the main channel? Feel free to call if you have any questions or if any of the above needs further clarification. Sincerely, Mountain Cross Engineering, Inc. Chris Hale, PE 1 • Planning Commissioners Garfield County Dear Planning Commission; EXHIBIT l My name is .teff Payne. I live at 6638 CR 346 on the south side of Silt & across the street from the proposed sand & gravel pit. My wife (Debby) & I have several issues with any commercial business of this size moving into our rural neighborhood. Sotrie of the points that I will address in this letter is already of issue due to the oil & gas industry moving into the area. Some of the points that my neighbors & I are already dealing with because of the oil & gas will only be compounded by the production from a sand & gravel pit. The increase in traffic & noise, when it used to be very peaceful & quiet, now there is constant noise & traffic corning & going all the time which would be increased with the gravel pit. We used to be able to take leisurely walks with our dogs which is now impossible. The traffic now has increased so much & the speed of the motorists has made it dangerous for anyone to enjoy a walk. We worry about our children, pets, livestock & wildlife because the area is changing and would only get worse if another business was in operation. Another issue that is related to the traffic is the condition of the road and who is responsible for the maintenance. Our road has gotten worse with the increase of traffic due to the oil & gas companies. The roads are getting large pot holes, waves in the pavement and the grooves in the pavement. This condition will only get worse if this company is allowed to open. The customers of a sand & gravel pit drive big equipment and the impact on the road would be significant. We are also concern with the quality of the air. This type of business creates lots of dust (&. noise). The increase of traffic, equipment & production causes lots of dirt to be disbursed into the air. I am also concerned that the digging will affect my water table & well water. All of this affects our quality or life. We didn't move to a rural area to be in a commercial zone for industrial production. I need not remind you of the wildlife that passes through this area. We have lots of deer and some elk that make this area their home. These animals pass through our fields to the river & back. It is my understanding that a business of this sort interferes with the migration of wildlife. I would be interested if there has been a study to discover the effect this business would have on the wildlife migration in our area. Please let us know the result ifa study is done. 1 feel that 1 have only scratched the surface of issues & problems that will arise ifa sand & gravel pit is allowed to open in our neighborhood. I wish that I could be at the meeting in person, but my work schedule does not make it possible. I would appreciate it if you would consider some of my concerns. Once this business is allowed to take over our neighborhood, there is no turning back. Thank you for taking the time to read & consider my letter. Sincerely, Jeff Payne • REcEiAPD Garfield County Planning Commission Members JAN 0 4 2007Dec.31,2006 GARFIELD LA NTY BUILDING & PLANNING RE: Gypsum Ranch Co. LLC Gravel pit and assoc. uses permit application Dear Planning commission members: EXHIBIT EL After briefly reviewing the file at the planning office for Silt Sand and Gravel LLC and Gypsum Ranch Co. LLC, gravel pit and other uses, 1 would like to respond to some areas that directly affect and concern me. Water; The plan for dewatering the pit says 15000 gpm will be pumped to the wetlands or river. Water pumped into the wetlands drains through pipes under I70 through ditches, over land , through more wetlands in a westerly direction to our property about one mile down stream. Normal irrigation of the area of this pit was far less (less than 3cfs) with the tail water returning to the river without causing damage to others property. We experienced a three fold increase in water flowing to our property when a parcel break occurred in the Last Chance Ditch in the area of this pit. When Antero was boring under 170 at this property and dewatering the pit where the boring was being done we saw an increase in the water coming to our property at that time. Dewatering of this pit should be directly to the river to prevent damage to property down stream . Water to maintain a wetland should be no more than historically leaked to it during irrigating in the irrigating season not year round. Dewatering year round is NOT acceptable in this area other than the river. Traffic: The traffic study calls for 99 trips in and 99 trips out. Yet the applicant says there will be 200 round trips a day. (200 rtd is 200 trips in and 200 trips out.) The study is limited to gravel haul trucks, employ's vehicles, and service vehicles. There is no mention of Concrete Trucks, Asphalt Trucks, Water Trucks and employ's vehicles and service vehicles for each of these operations. Is Antero still going to haul water from the first pond by CR346 and is this going to be a 24/7/365days a year operation? The traffic study only addresses Gravel haul trucks. The impacts to any and all roads can not even begin to be addressed until you have an exact number of trucks actually going to be using the area roads including the interstate. If all the traffic generated from all these operations going on simultaneously is counted the impact to 170 may be more than 10% requiring an access permit from the state, and major construction on 346 rd and Silt's roads. The special use permit issued in 1982 by Garfield County for WESTERN MOBILE'S gravel pit at Mamm Creek required direct access to 170 because the very roads (CR346) were not adequate to handle the volumes of traffic for an operation of that size and scope. CR346 has not been improved very much sense 1982 other than paving with the county over laying some of CR 346 a year ago appearing to be in anticipation of this gravel pit. When a traffic volume is established for this or any other pit it should be enforced at that number period. This is what happens: say 200 trips a day is established as the maximum volume for the roads providing access (improved for this pit or in place and adequate for this volume) .The operator calculated low purposely or not anticipating what the volumes would be he begins to go over 200 trips regularly. When the operator is • approached by the enforcement person about over impacting the roads from what improvements were done he responds THAT WAS AN AVERAGE 1 can do none today or 4000 tomorrow as long as the average is not more than 200 in 365 days. The road was not physically adequate to withstand 4000 trips any time and all the residents along the road have to endure far more noise, volumes, accidents, and road surface destruction if they can even get on the road from their driveways. The safety of everyone using the road is extremely decreased. No gravel pit operation should be able to self impose higher traffic impacts on roads by manipulating higher numbers by averaging. The roads don't self improve as traffic volumes go up and down when an operator wants to average. (200 TRIPS IS TO LOW FOR AN OPERATION OF THIS SIZE considering all the operations going on at one time) even 200 gravel haul trucks impact to the roads providing access to the site will require major improvements in both directions to 170. The 90 degree curve at the honey house is not adequate for a semi to stay in one lane when going around it in either direction it's difficult to stay in your lane even when driving a pickup around this curve. WATER TRUCKS 24/71365 what impact improvements to the roads are needed for this alone, impacts of running trucks beyond the operating hours proposed for the gravel pit to the entire resident's along the roads? Thank you Doug Grant 1-70 — Exit 94 4845 346RD North Silt, Co. 81652-9685 e-mail: douggrant@sopris.net sopris.net STATE OF COLORADO Bill Owens, Governor DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF RECEIVED JAN 0 9 2007 WILDLIFE GARFIELDLJUN1 Y AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Bruce McCloskey, Director 6060 Broadway Denver, Colorado 80216 Telephone: (303) 297-1192 www, wiidlie.srale, co. us January 2, 2007 Fred Jarman Garfield County Building and Planning Department 108 8`" Street. Suite 401. Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 (970) 945-8212 BUILDING & PLANNING RE: Gypsum Ranch LLC/ Silt Sand & Gravel: Grand River Park Project Dear Mr. Jarman: The Division of Wildlife offers the following comments in regard to the above proposed gravel pit: EXHIBIT 5 For Wildlife - For People District Wildlife Manager, Will Spence, has had the opportunity to review the referral information provided and is familiar with the area in question. He has made a visit to the site to determine impacts to wildlife that will occur as a result of this operation. The proposed gravel mining will take place along the Colorado River and will impact the lowland riparian habitat. This is the most diverse of any habitat type and is valuable to a large variety of wildlife. Species that utilize this area include mule deer, coyote, beaver, cottontail rabbit, weasel, raccoon, red fox. and a host of smaller mammals. It is also important habitat to a large variety of birds including Wild Turkey, Great Blue Heron, Canada Geese, Bald Eagle, several other raptors and an array of songbird species. The raptors are attracted to the quantity of available prey with the small mammal population and, for Bald Eagles, the ability to fish the river. The river itself contains fish species including trout, native suckers, and several other important aquatic animals including amphibian, reptile, and aquatic insects. This gravel extraction operation could 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 arc 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. Realizing these facts, the owners of the property have taken measures to assure that the project will have as little impact as possible. Reclamation will be done concurrent with the mining progression. Mining will be done by phases so that only parts of the property will be impacted at any given time. Top soil will be preserved and used as berms to lessen visual and audible impacts of the operation. Mining operations will stop at least 200 feet from the Colorado River. DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, Russell George, Executive Director WILDLIFE COMMISSION, Jeffrey Crawford, Chair • Tom Burke, Vice Chair • Claire O'Neal, Secretary Members, Robert Bray • Brad Coors • Rick Enstrom • Richard Ray • James McAnally • Ken Torres Ex Officio Members, Russell George and Don Ament • The applicants have been very diligent in developing a reclarnation plan that is wildlife friendly. Will Spence has had several meetings with Scott Balcomb to discuss the project and convey ideas that will make the finished product a valuable habitat for the wildlife mentioned above. The reclamation plan calls for four lakes and a smaller pond with wetlands between the lakes. The lakes are to have sides with a maximum slope of 1V:3H with slopes of 1:4 and 1:5 where possible. They are planning to utilize artificial islands. These are new to the area and we look forward to seeing if they provide a beneficial nesting and safe arca for waterfowl and shore birds. The islands may be a good idea for future projects of this type. There are plans for re -vegetation, tree planting and weed management. Thera arc two points that need to be addressed further in the reclamation plan. It is of very important that the sides of the lakes are as gradually sloped as possible. The 1:3 slopes arc a base line requirement. More gradual slopes are preferred. The reclamation map has a note saying shallower slopes may be provided at the discretion of the operator. There arc also areas on the map that show a more gradual grade. We would appreciate a definitive statement as to the actual percentage of 1:4 and 1:5 slopes as opposed to 1:3 slopes. If this goal is defined the operator will have an easier time creating more of the shallower slope areas. The second point is that it is important that the sides of the lakes are developed into meandering shore lines. This creates a longer shore line which is the crucial part of the lake for waterfowl and shore bird habitat. Meandering shore lines also provide coves and blinds that give cover to nesting and feeding birds. The intention to develop meandering shore lines should be spelled out in the reclamation plan. There is an active Bald Eagle nest up river to the east of the property. There have been at least two years of successful hatches from the nest. In concurrence with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service guidelines all activity must cease within a''h mile perimeter of the nest during nesting season. Nesting season in this area runs from January 1St through July 15th. The rest of the year there must be no activity within a'/. mile perimeter. The gravel pit may be beyond the' lx mile perimeter and is definitely beyond the'/, mile perimeter. The actual distance from the nest to the gravel pit is being determined by the operator or the Garfield County planning office. The owners of the property have expressed their intention to donate the property to the Colorado Division of Wildlife upon reclamation to be used as a State Wildlife Area. This would insure that the land will be left as wildlife habitat. It will provide an opportunity for waterfowl and small game hunting as well as fishing opportunities. This kind of property is much needed along the river corridor and will be appreciated by the sportsmen and wildlife enthusiasts that. will enjoy the access. The Division appreciates this generous offer and may accept the donation upon approval of the Directors Staff, Wildlife Commission and ultimately the state legislature after the reclamation is complete. The Division of Wildlife will need to determine what species of fish can be stocked in the resulting ponds once reclamation is completed. As the property is adjacent to the river it is important to establish aquatic populations that will not interfere with the endangered species inhabiting the Colorado River. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on this important land use issue. If you have an questions please contact District Wildlife Manager, Will Spence. Sincerely, Dean Riggs Area Wildlife Manager cc: Ron Velarde Will Spence John Toolen EDWARD MULHALL, JR SCOTT BALCGMB LAWRENCE R GREEN TIMOTHY A. THULSON DAVID C. HALL FORD CHRISTOPHER L. COYLE TRONAS J. RTE RT CHRISTOPHER L. GEIGER SARA M DUNN DANIEL C. WENNOGLE Scorn GROssCUP VIA E -Mail • BALCOMB & GREEN, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW P.O. DRAWER 790 818 COLORADO AVE1VUE GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81602 T.c,.IC I itoNE: 117 U.94 5. 1154 H Fat 143MI1.a: O7O.O4S.M902 www.bakombgreen tuna January 12, 2007 Fred Jarman Planning Director Garfield County Building and Planning Dept. 108 8th Street, Ste. 401 Glenwood Springs CO 81601 EXHIBIT T KENNETH BALCOHB 1024ROO5 OF COUNSEL. JOHN A, THULSON Re: Grand River Park Project and North Bank Holdings Project: Colorado Division of Wildlife Acquisition Dear Fred: 1 enclose a letter from Mr. Dean Riggs to Scott Balcomb which outlines generally the proposed donation to the Colorado Division of Wildlife by Gypsum Ranch Co. LLC ('"Gypsum Ranch") of that portion of Gypsum Ranch's property following mining operations and reclamation as may be allowed under the presently sought after Special Use Permit. By this letter 1 would ask that Mr. Riggs' correspondence by entered into the record as an exhibit. All representations of Gypsum Ranch confirmed within this correspondence relating to this donation may be considered within the conditions which may be imposed by the Nanning and Zoning Commission and later, the Board of County Commissioners. Very truly yours, BALCOMB & GREEN, P.C. By: Enclosure cc: Scott Balcomb • • STATE OF COLORADO Bill Owens, Governor DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF WILDLIFE AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Bruce McCloskey, Director 6060 Broadway Denver, Colorado 80216 Telephone: (303) 297-1192 www. wildlife.srare.ca.us Scott Balcomb, Manager Gypsum Ranch Co., LLC and North Bank Holdings, LLC P.O. Drawer 790 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602. RE: Grand River Park Project and North Bank Holdings Project: Colorado Division of Wildlife Acquisition Dear Scott: OFf IP For W ldlife- For People I first wish to thank you for your partnerships' interest in developing reclamation plans for proposed gravel pits that are "wildlife friendly." You initially approached our District Wildlife Officers Will Spence (Grand River Park Project) and Brian Gray (North Bank Holdings) about their recommendations for reclaiming the properties in a wildlife friendly way after gravel mining . Both Will and Brian have reviewed the proposed reclamation plans that have been proposed to Garfield County and other agencies. It is apparent that you have substantially adopted our recommendations. The result should be properties that are excellent resources to wildlife that rely on the riparian area provided by the Colorado River, particularly water fowl and aquatic species_ You have suggested that Gypsum Ranch Co., LLC, as the owner of the Grand River Park Project., wishes to donate this approximately 180 -acre property to the Colorado Division of Wildlife to be used as a State wildlife area. Donation would actually occur after the mining phase has been completed, and the property has been reclaimed, in accordance with the reclamation plans approved by Garfield County and the Division of Mining and Safety. It is anticipated that this donation may occur within ten years, but could take as long as 25 years depending upon the gravel market. In any case, after 25 years, the property would be donated to the Colorado Division of Wildlife. The specific property that will be donated will be that portion of the property formerly known as "the Hangs Place" that is south of 1-70. Included in the donation would be sufficient water rights to augment the surface evaporation of resulting "water features" that would remain after the mining and reclamation phases, and in addition thereto a small amount for potential irrigation at the discretion of the CDOW. It would be our intent to rely on the resulting excellent values to wildlife to provide sportsmen with fishery and water fowl hunting opportunities. It is anticipated that other wildlife enthusiasts would also enjoy the area. Area 7 of the Division of Wildlife will recommend to the CDOW Senior Staff, Wildlife Commission and the Legislature that upon completion of the reclamation phase, we would accept the donation. Area 7 cannot bind the Commission nor the Legislature. However, we would anticipate that the donation would be accepted at the appropriate time. It is our understanding that the plan to make this donation by Gypsum Ranch Co.,LLC is conditional upon both properties being successfully permitted by all necessary permitting agencies for gravel operations. it is also our understanding that similar wildlife benefits will result on the North Bank parcel although future uses DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, Russell George, Executive Director WILDLIFE COMMISSION, Jeffrey Crawford, Chair • Tom Burke, Vice Chair • Claire O'Neal, Secretary Members, Robert Bray • Brad Coors • Rick Enstrom • Richard Ray • James McAnally • Ken Torres Ex Officio Members. Russell George and Don Ament contemplated for the North Bank Holding property will be private or non-public in nature It is further our understandingthat are ghtayouewiish to that to name thedetdonatedroperty: Russell George State Wildlife Area. We appreciate both Gypsum Ranch Co., LLC and NorthiBanktHoldings,vLLC's willingness to reclaim as we have recommended. We much app suggested. pbelieve oftthe statew wfor generationstremendous come. Forwildlife area his giftreasons, We and to the sportsmen are generally supportive of your plans for both properties. Sincerely, +bean Riggs Area Wildlife Manager 711 Independent Grand Junction, CO. 91505 cc: Will Spence 6;e:,e) D Al V, 4 CJ X11 R T RECEIVED JAN 12 2007 GARFIELD COUN cOA-1 PL /9•AJh 5/L.T 6ver9v6` r-), Jif j 6 Lt) 0 y tit 0 s f+6 ►tiit- , /la 4t 4 - • you .4oz.7, l pE s cm,/ So Hf E 6, - — _S: T,-16 /3 A c t< car T/-1 & ci 19, M i , ; y T/1J/'4 I70 r - [. 4,4 5 rLI c) it' vie r /2 A P/26-160477— (1 /26—NC. .C g eit C13J & 1 66-7-e TO ©P i -, 7V1e._ WC e AJi L 1,41e 66' D6f T&%y 6-r5 , 9/6 4/r ,9 aop s C, n1 7 r y 1s p f T ov1 VV7-6,1 T i � - r ► V/T Imo' / T1v Df r i r 13 oTf OF Tff Ur TCt�( ._s R) 10 15 , 0 v viciy p / it,4649 tgls OlZ 6 e_ 12#61.-6 T 5a hi ,9 610 OpsG -1&t, /5 16- ogorft /JF,o/yr 6thf2/ (, e 2- jH6, rrrH r vi r- v et) y , 1 ( s 5,4c) 0 p /3-6 iL-irkg_e P 4,-/ /)t) i/Y ///6-1 Ri 1U0 e 9-r Al 77/6 KV -61-'7-6-6W A- 6) 77, A 0 fr 1 i4P/96,1 c yuf e -s -n oao ,i1&&07- - /✓6-6036/1 P e6 9 /9-19 - ar Y11 Cc��% � Y C) 7" T c, Com' F0 S P& se —=- I ? T C.05 r O F ROAD �i"4f4 IVO ULD D C) M) WY / JV r' ► 7 6 Le ti{' J JU5i I2AVi 6 G14 ((.20 0L-.) TH-e 10 Tc3 (t) F r J (2s I -(-7 (./ aUi FAL.- /3474) b+ 4 L LL_ 5-61c-_- /0s 70 /,,e 77/// T 5/L7 's&.) T /Lie/ ,2, s 71/01 1) f 2) iH6 / 7r` .TH IV & y or- z, s 619 /Ai -Th'i 5 p et_40 ev 7- 44/ z) e /e6--fi2 7— P ians, ,tee - i/q ,47 /-?7,0e 77 Re -5017-5 -To -7/16 efr( p /I/ ZS Q) 6- 'Nkff y l0 /�T rl v7— 6F 0 v/6),/c)-. 6#11.1 /11-)V D ris 717(1:- 6-7 ir 6 - o Ves/ if 6,q /9 - Pr /3 07- 77-//s r rt.„ 7 A / Dori/ bitil-ht3 6s7- 1 r•s pv/ u s, P' J - y 7771/It/ S r it) it) i tui? I I E- 77 I - 10- — -P6)4/ 17- 50 01/7 74- +0a 0 - v C A ki) IV e ft.) ,9iF 6 7r7/7" -C---5.. 7 - /lb/6-'7s P 0 1 'I' /1--lv 7-1 6- '7-77 71.,) -7-#/4.9 T -77Z) 56- Cy 7,:e7;tic-e- (2/1--A7677. I/ a /7 (lit) q • • EXHIBIT • • Grand River Park Project "Gravel Pit" Special Use Permit Extraction & Material Handling of Natural Resources & Development in 100 -Year Floodplain Planning Commission January 15, 2007 (Continued from 1/10/07) 6:30 PM Owner: 4R„epresentative: Property Location: Property Size: Zoning: Access: Current Use: Proposed Use: Proposal Gypsum Ranch, LLC Balcomb & Green (Tim Thulson) Bill Roberts (Operator) SUV of Sit South of Colorado River and I-70 168 acres (110 ac) Agricultural / industrial (AI) CR 346 Pasture / Agricultural Sand & Gravel Extraction 0 I 0 C) CZL Cb rs) a 0 Hours of Operation Noise Life of Mining Activity 1 Staging Dust Lighting Fumes 1 odors Vibration *Affects on Wildlife Loss of Habitat Vegetation Water Quality Impacts Loss of Floodplain integrity General Visual Impact to area Traffic / access Local Watershed Impacts Reclamation j Revegetation Genera/ Grave/ Pit Impacts EXPLAN ATION • Permitted sand and gravel operation Historic sand and gravel operation or borrow pit Sample location and umbel Resources Category 1 - Iligh Potential Category 2 - Good Potential Category 3 - Moderate Potential Category 4 - Low Potential Resource overlain by more than 5 R. of loess (wind-blown silt) 9 Gravel Resource Map \I MM,ICHAMBERS PIT c r / Cl1AM13L'RS PIT 1 W. RTFLE PIT ; MILE POND PIT 4e, DICK CASEY PIT r 15 s ei I SILT PIT v _ LOESCH PIT AULEY P x -T W. RIFLE PIT _f1 v 0 Proposed Extraction Operation Timeline (based on 500,000 tons / year) Phase Mined Acreage Years to Mine Timeline 1A 1.72 acres 0.10 Jan — 07 to Feb — 07 1B 26.42 acres 2.50 Feb — 07 to Aug — 09 2 16.86 acres 1.75 Aug — 09 to Apr -- 11 3A 39.50 acres 4.00 Apr — 11 to Apr 15 03B(1) 15.36 acres 1.75 Apr — 15 to Dec — 17 3B(2) 10.30 1.00 Dec — 17 to Dec - 18 Total 110.16 acres 11.1 years December 2018 FLAdarifAv MAINS LIMIT / POEN k1RRSA/T NWT iliWor, EMI TAYY Tb6Rx e7NTO o DISrpY RdTFAAF SIA TE (pRDA EVISLIML FAS EO# PROVSED iAS LIFE E#STnY 4,411E40 -[n MELOrA TEE OWL Ewp VTLiTr E14STIMM1IRf CARE E+RSmY S1 '11M RMLSdIC1I014* WE,LANd3 M4NROYn+G WELL 1311KrI aA OF ■1TP16 fMPfPAIEAit E Mara CO!. °RAW.) RIVER Phase 3A (Apr 2015) rig -'i Wad(1i FAIM+Al, rh e 3B plee 2018) Phase 1/2 4, Processing Area ACCESS EDAC 41612Y0SEd IPELBE EASEMENT PHASE lA ININ6 AREA Po Phase 2 (Apr 2011) 1 Phase IA OrwATEQPY meas+ ISEE 6F -TALL) rGE a4 REALM LAST ctuN E QETO4 Frxnew Lh1Elu1. FILOM PUD/T C. trfFAssw AKILEMI pA� C45L✓vrt WV -I4 - , R -M.4 C}AS 1SFE dErinj Cai▪ da• llto (F IVA NOUSE Scale Office / Parking Generalized Cross - Section of an Alluvial Gravel Deposit Topsoil - Clayey, silty, sand. Alluvial Cap Gravelly, silty. sand or clay. Grovel Depcsit - Variable s+7e gravel and cobbles. May contain sand, clay and silt matrix material -1 rRm. Garfie/d County Comprehensive Plan Map Privately owned lands with site specific use limitations such as flood plain, slope hazard, septic constraints, or surficial geology (mud flow, debris fan) to be eval- uated val- uatod at plan re vie w s C • at= rhino in,on1�r� • — ��11.�11�h�1/1,�11e�IMt1/M• qu.. w..r.rd.x + •y�l•y 5 f! i■ .w • .1 II mi MINI I I h. 1 'Fills gravel pit is located within our three mile sphere of influence, and we have an intergovernmental Agreement with Garfield County regarding development within that three mile limit. Our Comprehensive Plan is established to provide guidelines for any type of development within the Town's sphere of influence. We were following those guidelines in our negotiations with the applicant. N. OF. The Municipalities recognize and agree to comply with the County ty s .statutory deadlines for application review and action, as set forth in Section 30-28-136(1)(h) and (2) of the Colorado Revised Statutes, and the County, in return, recognizes and agrees to comply with the deadlines for application and action of the respective municipalities. To the extent possible, it is agreed by alt parties hereto that the respective Municipalities conducting a review ()fan Application shall have twenty-one (21) days in which to conduct their reviews and provide cormnents to the County for its consideration. The parties understand that, for certain development Applications, the 21 -day deadline for re'siew and comment is imposed by statute, and failure to comment within the prescribed ' 'time must be considered an approvalthe r •. pp by e�'�t�we municipalities. Likewise, the County shall have twenty-one (21) days in which to forward its comments for consideration on an Application to the refer Municipality or Municipalities. VIN PUBLIC/INSTITUTIONAL/SU itilJE- RECREA UBLIC/IN TITUTIONAL/S 1tuUL- RF_CREA I ION COMMERCIAL IR ,m.1' TION RESIDEIJn 1AI, Existing agricultural areas will be protected Agricultural : from encroachment of suburban sprawl. Policies in existing g agricultural areas will help agricultural landowners maintain their land in a productive state. Within the three-mile planning area: AGRICULTURAL AREAS on the land use map are designated for productive agricultural +3perations and uses directly related to agricultural operations such as ancillary structures, housing for land owners and extended family, roadside vegetable and or fruit stands for produce grown on-site value added processing of locally grown agricultural products, etc. • r4 Rural 14Tr iciilt fr(ll 1 7'r711sitroii Remleiitial This 1.5 (1 transitional (Irt'(1 mended to b' 1M('(l between urban development (7)i(1 (J 1'1c liltiii i1 ar't'aS on the 117/ig' t t the iirl.)(-iti growth 1'Oi1)r(1ar v. It (111011's (1 maximum (average (-tensity of two dwellings s per (r(.U'. (1)1(1 tln' dwellings should be located 111 clusters 071 siir(allt'r lots, preserving larger art'(aS c)f (l:277c tilnnil'(al or open Vac(' as (a ro agricultural is .5:111 liar to the agricultural c oInser l (1tior1 district but with higher densities and allowing (1 broader r(iiig' c?1 hue c+1 t11t' opt'H ,space including argl7elllrllrul or eglic'Stt'1(1)L c'c11111111r1rity gar(le)/s, natural open space'.. parks. golf -course. etc The residt'rltitil lot si:.'s 111(11 i'arv,fr'otrl .000 sq /`t. to acre lot si=t=s (22,000 sq ,ft r per lromiic' site 1 Town of Sirs Comments from Mayor Moore substantive changes on the day oldie public hearing is nut good faith negotiation. Even though the applicant acted in bad faith, the Town of Silt never denied their application, and we continued to believe we could reach agreement. We still believe it is possible to reach agreement, especially after reviewing the proposal to Garfield County, which is substantially different than the last proposal to the Town. 'Mr =.•eras t.r v :ti• rttwb a•.,% -1/4.1117l •a.e 1. \.71 u7r 117 ,• •el LIfL (41,11.1/4.(11111 try 1. I vs tit 4.r1 a1lla tivi117. !f411, 7reli'e{r7t1,11 77., a gravel operrdwn xvithin our bi nuiid.aric`,. The owner �.� ' the property, entegoricallf-v fii-1 not negotiate thus proposal with the Tovin in $l)t)(d l rirll lo fact. II tic applicant had srthniitted ser vi- proposal to the Town of Silt that thc\ Matti c ams, ;utl)rnittcd to (jar -field +t_ounr:l , they 'lNotilcl ;dread). have been annexed and operating. Puente b rFr mael was of the applieraell. dht town it Sik wa/ ncrf "tr•••l r., a pn,rl war*** rahar <Ait Mordant*. the costa of is rope>rry carpi waft dao Md+en®Me.K Ilea p.eye ml with die 'for,* rn 10.4 kith In fact: If Iht appl.nrd Md erirniteri the eater r toter to lie Toon of Sill Iher rMy lien maw *changed at riarfiel.l reunry. tits} ,,nul l aer:e.dt Nary !wets aernexrd awl apnerlreq [hr 1 .Nn. F 1r+1i. e.µ I, .II•,.. .r r.'1" .;.l ,.".rcc-n.e. noel 'sc r.tre' ri' mlehr-.then. ririn.rirvrelv whim litalieid 1 •met,' lelernwr It'll epgrhw.I b.r Om 1.rn,n ♦ !Ma erne -I per e;. and .. oho. e.nr IM._- —1e4 rlrhetc e9ir Inee+gsr•rnr.rnln I M1 rerrrnmi w rth r:q.f,; .. e.adea ISO line 11'- r.,r. • • tiv_ g', n�r+pii'a. i 4 t 1- a44V1'TI'LMaI ff t l0.'4'ti 4194*t4 FPPlr++ wwr Stork..of N{tracte* e•aCA{trerziao.e.Wrea *tact!h.f.. r/.l.nts it crawh warmed. :ie1. tiek9ewi i ttirtiil'qieal *OrAftatt'aleitri ARAilla11enIMiM7dIffcrnmIwr+lmtell ilr•z rtk iti ••••.0104,-- • rac I .v,o <A Slk and rtien7.c..1 11maul. I,s4 are Who m1 e.el relhrtnr-vhtl^ eerpardlnp n pe... r.l ,. rhe Ivw I Inlwirntledy hryrar.r'n w,t n xi,ce t N frrahr Ibr roar Ito dee 1 noxa-. %ilt n•xetr t :k•fler I.'• oktf.) 044 IAA Wilk if p...' 4.4 We r.sl eoti4F5 er.l'atir Wog 1 Yerfw►! t:••!L mantra Irl. app'. "' 1r wrl.m• ra+ the 7r+.er e•!50rrn +-.'.e+.rOP. t•rea4thkpeapvwlit &w7fo. We respcctthlly request that (.tar field County require this applicant to return to the Town c►f Silt in order to bring this proposal to irttitioti. .urr r..*Inr d...., r t s+f + i , let .I Ih.w h..4Y a .wt,.+ntrl I hr: murk * a.., rn N.rSel rM Sik wec 'eeap en,ebk" M 11 re rc.lweiam.. wrath ts sl.letd Atrrr we r arl Atrrnt rtxhc,l ayr[rr-r•ae and Town of Silts Comments: Annexation Eligibility 1 Section 1. The Board of Trustees of the Town of Silt hereby determines that all eligibility for annexation requirements specified in Sections 31-12-104 and 31-12-103, C.R.S. have been met for the annexation of certain unincorporated land as described an Exhibit "A" attached and known as the Grand River Park PUD Annexation, also known as the Hangs Annexation, Garfield County, Colorado. Ser. -4 1 TIS d3ua l oi T rusme'S of the i rqt ar Sx% herr, 'I C .1 1-- e a1 ibuberyr }ox anneeehon teitedveraer"z 5 *zted In Secuonx +1 - ?-+,a .t 1 t.12.4U3. C Fl S Haus t irl r»N'o' m arrexaeon cr % er'.an ./tar_oip raiez tend Ai oser:'rer{ .n o reel' A' ePer,tex1 and kncxxn as r7e Gomez! River Pa•k Pte :` Annoxaton, re©rnq+an et the Hamm Annexation. 1•ia"ve0 C tijnre, Section 2 The Boar, 71 'ir'lees hero^{ d$t rlv,15 Wet the orison ft, anrte.3',rx4 r;af etenutera i" IV.' • ^ rna pr»perrr Owlets cr resorC. are/ Mere' -e an annexation elachnl Vs not 1 qulrn1 pursuant to ti 31.12•1nrl2?• GHS 1N!AODUCED. READ, AND GUNT1NUED et t , v 7 or the ts:Aitti ri t,..15.1 .n; w1 Ph! I owl .- `�1It + s.1arY..lG r?111 qr, .' - ., .a ,1u1e 2006 PASSED ANO APPROVED el a ray I' B arri of Tremens Y Mr3 ..ver, f.1 _AI Cr_!•.fIacb hit on Ma 2406. TOW"1 OF CII T • too cloth Fivilvta tt M-1, i EXISTING SURFACE ARTTFICIAL ISLAND FEATURE (SEE NOTE 9) 25' ,EYP.) FINAL SLOPE (SEE NOTE) 5' NORL WATER LINE (M.) 10 SLOPE TRANSITION 11/4 SIDE SLOPE NOTES: 1. SIM SLOPES WILL BE 3:1 OR SHALLOWER TOA DEPTH Of AT LEAST 10 0 FEET EIELOW THE NORMAL WATT LINE, PURSUANT OT CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS RULE 3.1.5(7). TOP OF CUT -- 25' MIN. NATURAL GROG SHALE i BEDROCK PERMIT BOUNDARY 2. SHALLOWER SLOPES, ESP€CLAUY AT THE EMER&ENT FSE NEAR THE NORMAL WATER ELEVATION, MAY BE PRQVI1)ED AT THE DISCRETION Of TSE OPERATOR AND AS ILLUSTRATED ON THIS PLAN 3. SHALLOWER SINE SLOPES ON PLAN REPRESENT APPROIATE LOCATION AND DIMENSION OF ToPoGRAPHIC FEATURES, BUILT FEATURES MAY BE ADJUSTED IN THE FIELD CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF MS RANI -1r; I iolic niCS Lk e COVOP, 'nf 1171 ,11t),itnt rIIrLI 1 1)).r., Wetland Shelf Design: 1 er areas adjacent to existing wetlands Coktf_wwood 5jiI q Plaided Or Existing 1 'cos AVOlOr.Ki W.A1:11)11Sheir 5Minimum Curer Between Excavation and Existing Wetlands 0- 4. ta' 1 Wellette I 'Ingo 3 TotsoII Replaced le Dunn) eF V xtsting WetUnds • liVellanci Shelf Design: Fot at (.345 )1 :vljtic.eril exlslItig wu'IincJs Cottonwood Saplings Planted Or ExIstiog T roes Avolclorl F Original Pre -Mining Sure oxininte Lake Surface Ic Dept) of to PLANT SCHEDULE SYM TYPE KEY QTY BOTANIC NAME I COMMON NAME SIZE • Deciduous Trees FP 20 Frax,nus persylvanica Green Ash 2" col. PA 50 Popului an • strfolia hlarrowleaf Cottonwood _ r " cal, PF 50 Populus fremontn _ Fremont Cottonwood 2 cal. 9.0 Evergreen Trees PP 20 Pinus ponderosa - Ponderosa Pine 6 o Deciduous Shrubs RT 250 Rhus trilobata 5kurkbush Sumac ' 5 .al RA 350 Ribes aureurn ' Golden Current 5 .al. PERMANENT SEEb MIX FOR FINAL RECLAMATION COMMON NAME GRASSES; _ - VARIETY PLS / AC TO USE SEEOINfa IRATE IN PLS (LBS J ACRE'} PERCENT OF MIX (%) - Radon Soiodo - - 1.5 0.3 20 Inland saIt9r - 3,0 - 0.5 15 — — 'lestern - r Anrbs 16.0 3.2 Dettibnich sceirreltail 9.0 0.9 10 Ilkiebtreti whastraes 1 12.0 2.4 _ 20 JMwttoegrass LO 01 1a TOTALS 42.5 7.5 100 Wildlife Impact Application contained a "wildlife & Habitat Assessment" prepared by Environmental Solutions which provided an opinion on impacts to the following wildlife: - --_-_Y LuL tr. 1 /2 Mile Radius' 1/4 Mile Radius 1 x::y - Wildlife Impact Ultimately, the "Wildlife & Habitat Assessment" Based on the above, the wildlife report (Section 6.0 Potential Effects of the Proposed Project) discusses the reclamation plan and its potential wildlife and habitat value. • Notably, the plan states that the main four lakes and existing wetlands will provide for valuable upland and aquatic habitat producing additional food sources and protective cover for all the species mentioned above. Staff finds that, based on the report, the operation will not significantly adversely affect wildlife and will provide for a better wildlife habitat once reclaimed than exists today. Colorado Division of Wildlife This gravel extraction operation could 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_follo 'ed by the conversion cit' habitat into disturbed areas. These areas often scc an infestation f! no n '1 .: d noxious weeds. St.rietures that are not lsllcnik hi" friciidll. �' such as str.,n '4t +''1 rend!, And r;1 1()id 91' top .�r1i. :19.1i,''.1 diad;I!, 49p,'1 n:10. •_ .III The owners of the property have expressed their intention to donate the property to the Colorado Division of Wildlife W)un reclamation to be used as a State Wildlife Area.. This would insure that the land will be left as wildlife habitat. eill provide an opportunity for waterfowl and small game hunting as well as fishing opportunities. This kind of property is much needed along the river corridor and will he appreciated by the spartsmee and wildlife enthusiasts that wVill enjoy the access. The Division appreciates this generous offer and may accept the donation upon approval of the Directors Staff, Wildlife Commission and ultimately the state legislature after the reclamation is complete. There are two points that need to be addressed !iii herrn IIclamation lan. It is of very irri e rtant that the ides of • lakes are as gradually sloped as possible. The 1:3 slopes are a base line requirement. More gradual slopes are preferred. The reclamation map has a note saying shallower slopes may be provided at the discretion of the operator. There are also areas on the map that show a more gradual grade. We would appreciate a definitive statement as to the actual percentage of 1:4 and 1:i slopes as opposed to I :3 slopes. If this goal is defined the operator will have an easier time creating more of the shallower slope areas. The second point is that it is important that the sides of the lakes are developed into meandering shore Lines. This creates : longer shore lige icli is the crucial part of the lake for waterfowl and shore bird habitat. Meandering shore lines also provide coves and blinds that give cover to nesting and feeding birds. The intention w develop meandering shore lines should be spelled out in the reclamation plan. vxrlt1 or eat Ar 7EP[JIWNi dr •ti1f1"Re,.•,Lt s. DIVISION OF WILDLIFE .nr*rywr.66WP. 6614 [yw.m C.0 Qejiif .ss 0404..."' '" Wildlife Impact . l .t. [. _" substantiallyf"lf' k1 i" our irs . It is apparent that you have ;:ncaTztV and. other a��ri'" _ �.'F�"�� 1 r ',-1*- ,,�.• • r4 °:,. .._. We appreciate bath Gypsum Ranch Co., LLC and North Bank Holdings, LLC' s willingness to reclaim as we have recommended. We much appreciate the donation that has been suggested. We believe this gift will be a tremendous asset torywi}ldil -fe in the area and to the sportsmen of the state for generations to come. reasons. we are generally supportive of your plans for bath properties. anticipated that other wildlife enthusiasts would also enjoy the area. area o ' Division of Wildlife will recommend to the CLOW Senior Staff, Wildlife Commission. and the Legislature that upon completion of the: reolamatior phase, we would accept the ,donation. Area 7 cannot bind the commission nor the Legislature. However, we would anticipate that: the donatiefi would ipe accepted at the appropriate time. , :� I. �. as the owner of ! he Grand River par-}: Yr I E have suggested that Gypsum Ranch t:. a ..I, , Project, wishes to donate this appr :;. nia t.e.LY 180 -acre property to the Colorado Division a i Wildlife to be used d s a State wildlife area. Donation would actually occur after. rhe mining phase has been completed, and the property has been reclaimed, in accordance with the reclaratian plans approved by Garfield County and the Division cf Mining and Safety. It is anticipated that this donation may occur within ten years, but could talke as lonq as 25 years depending upon the gravel market. In any case, after 25 y Rears t' a property would be donated to the Colorado ivision of Wildlife. The specific property that will be donated will be that Road Impacts 5.03(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. 5.03.07(0) Affirmatively show the impacts of truck and automobile traffic to and from .►ch uses and their impacts to areas in the County. Applicant provided a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) prepared by Felsburg, Holt, and Ullevig which sta ted (in summary) "the site will generate approximately 200 daily trips with 20 of these trips during the AM peak and 16 during the PM peak. Based an the results of the traffic analysis, the existing, Short Range Future and Long Range Future scenarios are projected to operate at acceptable Levels of Service (LOS) with existing lane geometry and traffic control. In order for trucks to safely enter the site, the following roadway improvements are recommended:" • Construct a 310 -foot deceleration lane for the eastbound left turns into the site from CR 346; Construct a 310 -foot deceleration lane for the westbound right turns into the site from CR 346; and • Although not required to accommodate gravel pit traffic, it is recommended that the Grand River Gravel Pit pay a proportionate share of the cost (based on trips generated) to construct an exclusive left turn lane at the CR 346 / 311 intersection when it is constructed as part of the Stillwater Ranch development. Road Impacts Staff notes, the TIS did not include the background traffic that would be generated from the proposed Stillwater Ranch. Staff finds this to be an inadequate and inaccurate characterization of the significant growth in background traffic with Stillwater alone and 4ihe affect large heavy haul trucks will have at the intersection with CR 311 and CR 346. This is important because Staff just received a referral from the Town of Silt for the Stillwater Phase I development entitled "MeadowWood Village" Preliminary Plan which contemplates 550 dwelling units, a golf course, two school sites, community center, water treatment site, parks, fire and police services, etc. The trips from the residential portion alone are approximately 5,263 which will primarily access the 3461 311 intersection to get to Silt and I-70 a majority of time. herefore, given this development, Staff would agree with the Applicant's traffic onsultant that the Grand River Gravel Pit, while not required, should pay a proportionate share of the cost (based on trips generated) to construct an exclusive left turn lane at the CR 346 / 311 intersection when it is constructed as part of the Stillwater Ranch development. This idea is also supported by the County's Comprehensive Plan. cu r --r CD 1:u yr) rp I --I Road Impacts 1) Any access/s to the proposed gravel pit will need driveway access permit/s that will have conditions such as stop signs and paved or concrete apron/s; 2) All truck traffic shall enter and leave the gravel pit site from the east and not go west on CR 346 to the Mamm Creek interchange. This portion of CR 346 has 90 degree corners and narrow road sections and has not been added to the preferred haul routes as designated by Garfield County Road & Bridge Department for industry travel. By having all truck traffic entering and leaving to the east it will also help eliminate the noise and congestion going past the Wildlife Sanctuary that borders the proposed gravel pit operation. 3) Garfield County Road & Bridge Department at this time is seeking funding to completely rebuild CR 336 (Jenkins Cutoff) the main cross road between CR 315 (Mamm Creek) and CR 331 (Dry Hollow Road). If the funding becomes available for 2007 CR 336 (Jenkins Cutoff) will be shut down for construction and CR 331 (Dry Hollow Road) will become the preferred haul route to access the drilling operations south of Silt. Trucks leaving the gravel pit would only have to go the east for approximately 1 -mile on CR 346 (Rifle Silt Road) to access CR 331 (Dry Hollow Road). 4) If road damage on CR 346 becomes evident due to the traffic generated from the gravel pit operation, the Road and Bridge Department shall require that repair or replacement of the road surface as determined by Garfield County Road & Bridge Department become the responsibility of the owners or operators of the gravel pit operation. r T +b..,. ... ..._I ...;4- ,..., ...,Oft .......,.4 C' ..0 #%1 1 rr^.a,....4-,, rl..-' A 0_ o....i..on. nn .�...c..,...r LEGEND County Road, no restrictions adopted Preferred Haul Route Trucks Prohibited ---- State or Federal Highway County Preferred Haul Routes LbIiENU SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREAS SUBJECT TO INUNDATION BY THE 19/0 ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD EVENT The 1 c'o annual chance flood 1100 -year tloorn, also known as the base floud, Is the flood that Iran, a 1% chance of being equaled or exceeded in arty given year, TIio Special Hood Hazard Area Is the area subject to flooding by the 1 % annual chance flood. Areas of Special Floaci Hazard include Zones A, AE. AM, AO, AR, A99, V, and VE, The BA:F, Flood Elevation Is the water surf ace elevation of the 1 % annual chance flood. ZONE A No base flood elevat ions • ormIF o.rt, Zone A: loo -year Flood -fringe '",..,„ ....., ,/- ...ii. rya, aP ...^.. . — — l i J _i I.. !i ti' ti y.. i•.�) `- ~' Imo" _ L Imo-. i - .- i ; fir'•, /}, rte" * �,. � •' ---No :et- 0"" v 74, _ •- I —en v M J v11,, �. "moi -4..,..., " r y !✓ rW ` t'' Imo.+. K.• 7� E �= (. ', r .' .4, V ., ..... o., 76 'Ice ` a -h .�- - ":.. n 7: 4 ', r" 4- P . per. 1 , r , 1--- r 4— r I =1 • '4 "r y.. ^ ' r -"F. e– -1- 4_ "" '., ", r-� -- r r .,�, , ! — ....- rt 411• -.. ... `� C R -1 z, . ., — ft. it, .--.. moi. •` . ,— 7_: 4– ',,., 4 21 rC' '' �' ril.» .1 ,_.....2.. : ii.... so so ,�,v.r 14 :: I --.'.r" .1i :."....:.,......-:,:,,L,..:11:: J ter., . J r , c"r• 1--I". �-, = 4. ..-a ., ..+ v 1. .d V 5,—`'' rt. I =. r. t - .. ti H� r or..„ — (t . -..4..,R' �^ 'J. I- '� ^� ti - R' — '�" r^, ..... 0. r t- I— " ,nk n ; r i fir'. r — ..., .•.ti — . • ~ V r ^ wI - _ ON 0 S.. L -.=, t " �. —.. V V `— C. 1^' �' 7� 1 ^ .A v .-.* —,,;, v f' f R' 1) The Application states that they intend to minimize the visual impact of the gravel pit primarily by "sequencing" and "overall layout" of the pit's design. Additionally, the intent is to mine from east to west so that the initial impacts are short lived in the overall scheme of the pits phasing plan so that the impact moves away from the residential areas in Stillwater Ranch (and the Town of Silt) as the operation progresses. 2) Also, the processing operations (batch plants & sifting / sorting) occur in the bottom of the already excavated areas according to the Application. 3) The proposed mining plan shows the installation of several 10 -foot landscaped berms in specific locations to minimize certain visual and noise impacts to a very select few residential units.It appears that the proposed gravel pit cannot be effectively screened even partially from view from I-70. 4) Additional berming could be placed around the southern, western, and eastern property lines to screen views from future residents in Stillwater Ranch, existing residents in the Giomi Minor Subdivision and adjacent residential properties to the south and east, and from general public view along CR 346, but that has not been proposed. 5) Staff finds that landscaped berms along the east, south, and a portion of the west boundary could go a long way to mitigate visual impacts to some residents as well as the traveling public on CR 346. Perhaps the overburden and topsoil removed from the pits in the beginning of the mining operation could be used for the berms. 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 5.0 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; 2) The amount of backfilled slope that is not top -soiled is limited to 400 feet Top -soiling is required on all surface areas down to 5.0' below expected water level,. 3) Seeding and mulching according to the approved plan will occur on all top -soiled 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 (5 total), the area must be fully reclaimed including top -soiling, seeding, mulching, sapling planting, and water filling of the lake. 5 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. 6) 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 plana Z; Fugitive Dust 5.03.07(B) An impact statement is required to address ''Impacts on adjacent land from the generation of vapor, dust, smoke, noise, glare or vibration, or other emanations.' •he Application states that dust, odor, and smoke are regulated by the Colorado Air Quality Control Division of CDPHE. As the Board is aware, dust generation remains a significant issue with gravel pits where they are required to constantly remain below 20% opacity at all times as required by CDPHE. The Application states that blowing of dust off-site will be controlled by water spraying of disturbed areas and materials stockpiles and revegetation of screening berms to minimize erosion. ,ecause of the pit location between 1-70 and CR 346, unmitigated or ineffectively mitigated dust control could cause a serious threat to public safety for those traveling those roads. Should the proposed use be approved, Staff suggests the Applicant furnish all State required approvals (APED, Construction Permit, etc.) prior to issuance of a Special Use Permit. Noise 5.03.07(8) An impact statement is required to address "Impacts on adjacent land from the generation of vapor, dust, smoke, noise, glare or vibration, or other emanations. 4,_egaidmg noise, ;state ;°tatute states -SO111kl levels of ll isee rck1i(iti11g4frOI11 ar property lnit' at a .' ' ' .if excess [? x11+." 4U 1.11 4St(7l 11Sheel 0r the following time c1],��lc111c t C?f _. feet or more there from 011 t. �. �` , periods (11111:011es ,5•1k711 constitute (pr41)1(f f(0ui' ()vide; That SiIC1010180 iS 1 pii1_nce 1r11iSaiic'E' The table below 81tows the zones and dB(A) acceptable foi each zoiie and particular tune Zone Rest d entz al Commercial Light Industrial " (1111 t(1 "inn 55 dB(A) 60 dB(A) c55 dB(A) 11111 (0 -11111 50dB(A) 55 dB(A) 70 dB( ) Indy stn l 80 dB(A) 75 dB(A) nice the standard requites that the "volume of sound generated shall comply Avith the standards set forth 111 the 1,'(}loiad1:► Revised Statute, at the tulle any new application i, made The Application hour- of operation from 6.1.01.0 AM to 8.01) PI\1 effectively ix days a week. Staff suggests, should the Board approve the SUP request,. the hours of operation be similar to what the Board required foi the recently approved "` 3Ie1r Pit- \`luc1t are as follows Noise /Hours of Operation The gravel pit hours of operation will be 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., Monday through •aturday 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 activity, may be allowed subject to approval of the Board of County Commissioners in a publl`c 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. • Suggested Conditions 6) The County shall not issue a Special Use Permit until all required local, state, and federal permits have been obtained and submitted to Garfield County including but not limited to the City of Rifle Watershed Permit, CDPHE, USACE, NDPES, Division of Water Resources (approved well permits and plan for augmentation), etc. 10) That the Applicant shall improve CR 346 by constructing a 310 -foot deceleration lane for the eastbound left turns into the site from CR 346 and constructing a 310 -foot deceleration lane for the westbound right turns into the site from CR 346. No mining activity can occur until these improvements have been installed and approved by the County Road and Bridge Department. 8) The Applicant shall obtain driveway access permit/s issued by Garfield County Road & Bridge Department at specific locations to be approved by the Road and ridge Department. These permits shall have conditions specific to the driveway/s. This will include stop signs at *trance to CR 346 (Rifle -Silt Road). The stop signs and installation shall be as required in the MUTCD (Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices). Paved or concrete apron/s shall also be required as specified by the issued permit/s. 9) All truck traffic shall enter and leave the gravel pit site from the east and not go west on CR 346 to the Mamm Creek interchange. This portion of CR 346 has 90 degree corners and narrow road sections and has not been added to the preferred haul routes as designated by Garfield County Road & Bridge Department for heavy truck travel. Suggested Conditions 10) Garfield County Road & Bridge Department at this time is seeking funding to completely rebuild CR 336 (Jenkins Cutoff) the main cross road between CR 315 (Mamm Creek) and CR 331 (Dry Hollow Road). If the funding becomes available for 2007 CR 336 (Jenkins Cutoff) will be shut down for construction and CR 331 (Dry Hollow Road) will become the preferred haul route to access the drilling operations south of Silt. Trucks leaving the gravel pit would my have to go the east for approximately 1-mile on CR 346 (Rifle Silt Road) to access CR 31Dry Hollow Road). o 11) If road damage on CR 346 becomes evident due to the traffic generated from the gravel pit operation, the Road and Bridge Department shall require that repair or replacement of the road surface as determined by Garfield County Road & Bridge Department become the responsibility of the owners or operators of the gravel pit operation. 12) In any mining phase, the mined slope length of 2H:1V will be backfilled as necessary prior to topsoiling and seeding. Generally, this is a milder slope of at least 3H:1V from 5.o *et 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. 13) 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. 14) 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. Suggested Conditions 15) Within 6 months of finishing mining in any designated mining area (5 total), the area must be fully reclaimed including topsoiling, seeding, mulching, sapling planting, and water filling of the lake. 16) 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 •ockpiles are located, all site structures, what areas have been seeded, mulched and what is planned for the ensuing 12 months. 17) 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. 18) The County commits to notifying the Operator of any compliance concern and allows an inspection with site personnel and the designated County inspector prior to contacting any ,encY. 19) 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 Targe number of inspections that would interfere with normal operation without cause. Suggested Conditions 20) A full list of all other permits shall 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 21) 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. 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. Suggested Conditions 23) The existing residence (proposed to be used as an office for the life of the gravel pit) shall provide potable water and wastewater service to employees of the gravel pit operation. The sizing and performance of the ISDS system shall be verified by an engineer to the County for the uses expected prior to the issuance of a SUP. !4} The Applicant shall install 10 -foot landscaped berms along the east, south, west boundary to aid in visual screening from residences and CR. 346. 25) 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. 26) Overnight operation of an asphalt batch plant for public agency projects requiring such •tivity, 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. 27) All lighting shall be the minimum necessary, directed inward and downward towards the property. Suggested Conditions 28) The reclamation plan approved by Garfield County in the Special Use Permit shall 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. Mining operations shall be allowed to progress so long as the previous pit has been '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. 30) The Applicant shall be required to present a yearly review and update of the gravel operations to the Board of County Commissioners until full mining operations have been completed and full reclamation has been established. 31) The Applicant shall provide locations of county listed noxious weeds on a map. Once the rientory is provided the applicant shall develop a weed management plan that addresses all county listed noxious weeds found on site. The applicant shall address the management of Russian olive on site within the first year of operation. This also applies to tamarisk if found on-site, although the applicant's submitted inventory doesn't indicate tamarisk, staff believes that there may be some tamarisk on the property. This weed management plan shall be submitted to the County Vegetation Manager for approval prior to the issuance of a SUP. Suggested Conditions 32) All mining activities shall be required to comply with the following performance standards: (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 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 may be required by law as safety or air pollution control measures exempted from this provision. shall be the use which (5) Suggested Conditions 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 j comments from the appropriate local protection district regarding compliance with the appropriate codes; (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; (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; (D) Storage of Heavy Equipment will only be allowed subject to (A) and (C) above and the following standards: Suggested Conditions 1. The minimum lot size is five (5) acres and is not a platted subdivision. 2. The equipment storage area is not placed any closer than 300 ft. from any existing residential dwelling. 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. 4. Any repair and maintenance activity requiring the use of equipment that will generate noise, odors or glare beyond the property boundaries will be conducted within a building or outdoors during the hours of 8 a.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. (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. Suggested Conditions 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. 33) That the Applicant commission a new Traffic Impact Study that includes the projected traffic in the Stillwater Ranch development prior to setting the hearing before the Board of County Commissioners. 34) The four concerns in the letter from the Loesch and Crann Ditch Company, dated 12/28/06 and attached to this memorandum as Exhibit M, are made conditions of IP approval be reference. To: • • Town of Silt Memorandum Board of Trustees, Planing and Zoning From: Bobby J. Hays Re: Stillwater, Grand River Park, County roads Date: 7 - 9 -06 EXHIBIT This memo is being sent on matters of concern. My main concern is the lack of another major roadway within the designed community of Stillwater. With county road 311 being the primary source of access to the entire development. 1 believe that the addition of an additional road from River Frontage Road is needed. From my observation there is an existing roadway to the west of exit 97. This existing dirt road reaches the north side of the Colorado River. It is my belief that a new bridge is needed at this point and the road way continued so that it encounters County Road 331. This would require a modification of the existing proposal presented to the town and an adjustment to the master plan of their proposed Meadowwood Village, Since their proposal of altering the County Road 331 is already in existance I beleive it is only fitting to continue this county road to the north until it encounters River Frontage Road to the west of exit 97 of Interstate 70. Since a gravel pit is also planned for an area just to the west of the Stillwater plan this additional roadway would also provide an access for the truck traffic to 1 -70 and avoid County Road 311. This would also help to alleive truck traffic from the Grand River Park (gravel pit) instead of allowing this traffic next to the schools (if they are built). I also consider for the far or near future it would be beneficial to have the County Road 346 continue west (at the 90 degree curve at the south edge and western end of the proposed gravel pit property) to encounter the Interstate with a underpass constructed in the area to provide access to the Interstate. I also consider it proper to plan with Garfield County to detour construction of the certain property to allow the same County Road 346 south of the Limbachs to be extended east to encounter County Road 331 in the distant future (50 yrs.). With the increase population growth in Garfield County and the continued annexations of new development to the town of Silt 1 believe it is appropriate to begin to plan for a longer distance in the future than the Town has in the past. let 1, t 1 . / '-':�: of • • •1 Ii' -�d II , 7 �r a[ LJ 4'. r? • 4 t• -es \ 1 1 s - •I b a 1 I • a• e • t ! li 1 ea -! - Forte- I. • Vs, 1'e:_ \4 ,. ' ."`1 J" ; + /�/ • Burris house with wetlands drain in foreground Wetlands drain intake under 1-70 at Burris house (no water) EXHIBIT v-a.6C1- 3',^15, t v e • 1 Second Wetlands drain East of Burris drain(no water) SecondWetlands drain pipe east of Burris house ( airport exit sign) Second Wetlands drainpipe in fore ground looking south east of 1-70 Third wetlands drain pipe in fore ground looking west Third wetlands drain east of Burris drain Third wetlands drain pipe inlet (no running water,frozen pool) First irrigation ditch east of Burris house going under 1-70 First irrigation ditch inlet (no water) going under 1 -70 • Fourth wetlands drain inlet east of Burris house (no water,e-conduit) • Fourth wetlands drain inlet bottom left (no water) Fourth wetlands inlet east of Burris house looking east • • Second irrigation ditch east of Burris(no water) Second irrigation ditch east of Burris inlet under I -70 • • 711* Fifth wet lands drain east of Burris house (no water) Fifth wetlands drain looking south west v Third irrigation ditch east of Burris house Inlet (no water) Third irrigation ditch east of Bur house (no water) s • • Sixth wetlands drain east of Burris house(no water) Sixth wetlands drain looking to 1-70 • 14‘, 41111F6r6"-r. Seventh wetlands drain east of Burris house(no water) Seventh wetlands drain (no water) • Fourth irrigation ditch Inlet east of Burris House (no water) Fourth irrigation ditch east of Burris house Fourth irrigation ditch (no Water ) • • Fifth irrigation ditch east of Burris house(no water) Fifth irrigation ditch east of Burris house (no water) Fifth irrigation ditch east of Burris house • • Eighth wetlands drain east of Burris house(no water) Eighth wetlands drain inlet on Gypsum Ranch off 1-70 ROW Gas line bore between eighth and nineth wetlands drains Nineth wetlands drain east of Burris house © colo river bridge w -end Nineth wetlands drain (no water) Dave Moore • • I EXHIBIT From: ken brenner [kpbrenner@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 10. 2007 3 27 PM To: Dave Macre. Allen Lambert, Bruce Christensen, hmclairdchmcnews.org; Donald Crammer; Douglas Mercatons: Frank Breslin. Helen Klanderud; Jim Doody; Keith Lambert; Leroy Duroux: Michel liassig. Roy McClung Subject: Re Silt gravel pit issue with County of Garfield Dave Do you have an IGA with the County regarding joint land use review kin a three mile radius around Silt? Steamboat Springs and Routt County use that tool to help with these situations. Gravel pits are about the most contentious issue here also. I hope your town is successful, this sounds like a terrible impact on Silt. Ken ps I can't make the 12th Dave Moore emooreconst@willowwisp.net> wrote: > Greetings, > > > > • • Loes'eh and Crr.nn Ditch Company P. O. Box 365 Rifle. CO 81650 February 5, 2007 Garfield County Planning Commission 108 Eighth SLr'et.t . Suite 401 Garfield ter-lt., Plan: Building Glenwood Springs. CO 131501 R �` >i:, v l a m Re: Gypsum Ranch Co. LLC / Silt land and Grovel LIC Special Use Permit_ fh vi `ri or1 .:f Company Response G f December "78. 200E The r c?st rhonce rn y pan-% thr r ap ,,art t a of the properti dt. s r'tbed 10 the Pebl is Notice referencing this Special Use Permit. . The t oesch .and Crann Ditch Company is owner of the Last Chance Ditch Erre 1osed for your reference ,3 copy of the Company.- Ditch C.r:errtetlt Guideline .= and Conditions. which we request that you consider ira the permitting process of the proposed sand and gr av:1 e'xt'r .ction operation. .a4-. 'ut ;rig that.: (1) Developement and sub'.equr.-.t- use of the operation will not interfere with the flow of water through the Last Chance Ditch. (2) The Loesch .tnd Crann Ditch Company iias prier approval arrthnri t,_a rlvor .r`1 plan.. .,ffec'tiny the Pitch C,ypt=urrr Rrrrrr h/`.•,i l t Sand and Gravel, .along with successors .end assignees. is liable for damage- to the Company and it. Stockholders caused by interruption of normal water Flow resulting from devnl opement or use of the oper.it i rar, . (C) Gypsum Ranch/Silt Sand and Grovel, along with surcer,srars and assignee. is tidbit- for any and all r:xpe+r.,.iut_ur red by tht Company to return .end maintain normal water flow through the Ditch, when flow h.,c been impaired re-a.il Piing from development and/or c:rahsequr nt use of the proposed operatior Thank your for your -onsideration, Philip t1. ntc.... `.ec r••tr.rr-y Fnr 1 o. rare- Nor is r' of fliI lr Fa r?rria•rat RECEIVED FEB 0 6 2007 •lEL.a C' MTy .Jv,LDlNG & PL,;NNING Loesch and Crann Ditch Company SRifle, CO Jl16b0 March 14. 2003 Notice to All Persons with interest in Real Estate contiguous to or traversed by the Loesch—Crann Ditch (also known as the Last Chance Ditch), which Ditch is located south of the Colorado River between Silt and Rifle Village South in Garfield County. Colorado. Ilse Luebch Cram 0i I...Ir Lornporly Ii.r, been gr'anLud all ries i.yanby right.. of Woy fur' estnbllslrrnrrer „i i11.110t,11,1kL the diLeh. The company'., riylrt a, known .•rs .a prescriptive ed-.emenr. wh,ch p. o, rde•, tot the right to use a, mcm.le Larrd on both aide•. ut the eliLclr a, i-, need. -c1 ler onguntg repair and nl.rirrl,err.ru.-. Based on prior years experience the space required for utilization of the Company's right is approximately 20 feet on each side of the ditch. in order to provide lin the nits r+:ri1 rrra irrl.en.11ke.' 0 the ditch the Curlrlaarry has .=:.L:abli:.lrerd the 1ulluwirrtr guideline's. - Permanent lw.tit.es arid ,Lt u. I.1,4r c- ata rrut permitted within .'0 fret .1 the edge o f the ditch. - Fences crossing the ditch right .if way ar.e to be kept to a rtlirriMhM and will be provided with gat..aa tib both wide. of the ditch I u allow machine arnd truck access along ooLli dr i • II batik. - Gates ❑re to provide 1.: Iuul c1_. ..ri t_- Fni ai,,.l1L l pasbing through. the e."np..,ny rte. 10 be provided key. - Location and .a. tr-ulturd ut tenses -.uLAet1 eppruval by LOITrlacally. . -Pipes. ilwnrs, hi ide.Ii And is-nr, tr,,,, r+i.l the ditch are subject to approval by the Company 011U di F• to be prr,rtiuned ,o at. Cu out Sbst t +r r water flow. f1'le installation. maintenance and repair uI fences, yaces and crossings not the expense of the Company. When a trespass or rences and/o1 other ,,tructules on the Company right or way is observed. ra warning will be i.,sued advising Gee LIW1. paster co trespass. condition. Subsequently. in the routine use of the right uT .a.,ti by the Company, it the fences .and/or other structures remain in trespas... the items in trespass will be physically cleared from the right of way by the Company. The trespasser will be held liable by the Company for the Company's expense incurred in clearing the structures from the right of way. Piping 01 lining 01 r.he 11J:eh by a landowner l., iAtbject to prior approval u1 the Company. The cosi of the project t. 11re e,l)eri- e or the landowner, .end I.hr• Landowner .also be.ai, hull r-e-.,puusiL•.Lily fur Insuring the free And tull flay of water through the pipe or liner. lire 1.r4IJuwrrer will be held liable lot maintenance rxpenv>e u1 the pipe diner p. lel I.he eveill. the Clow of the water in the Tutsis is obstructed duce Lo the presence ut the pipe ( hese 1 ir+ the ditch. LJee Landowner wilt be held liable ri,, ow; and 011 expense incurred ed 'by the Company In restoring rluw or water 1111 uugli Llle Fright of Way including leaning or removing thin pipe (1 tried. The Company will be held harmless from storm drainage liability resulting from the installation of d pipe in the ditch. The Company Right of Way must honored throughout the full traverse of the ditch, whether the ditch is open or piped. JOHN W. SAVAGE, P.C. Attorney atLaw • 201 Railroad Ave P O Box 1928 Halle, CO 81650-1926 970825-1470, fax 625-0803 email SavageJW@rof net 14.fritif R d 9 2007 V Lt11 1 -*5 March 7, 2007 Garfield County Planning Department 108 8th St., Ste. 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re: Special Use Permit of Gypsum Ranch Co., LLC/Silt Sand and Gravel LLC T6S-R92W-Sec. 9; aka 6533 CR 346, Silt, CO 81652 Dear Sirs; 1 personally, and on behalf of Rifle Retail Ventures, LLC, Rifle Mixed Ventures, LLC, and Bernard Ruben, owners of property in the vicinity of the proposed Special Use Permit recommend that said permit be granted on equitable terms. Sand and gravel are, literally, the foundation of our modern society. The ready availability and decreased cost of sand, gravel, concrete, and asphalt have a direct impact on the local quality of life in Rifle. The minor, short term disturbances attributable to sand and gravel mining are inconsequential when compared to the effect on modem life if sand and gravel become scarce and/or more expensive. In the long term, I believe that sand and gravel mining operations result in a net benefit to the riparian and human environment. Just in our local area, we have the Lyons Ponds Rest Area, ponds at Webster Hill and Parachute, the development at DeBeque, and a number of similar areas in DeBeque Canyon and the Grand Junction area that show what an asset reclaimed gravel mining operations become in the future. C:\3ocuments and Settings'John Savageklkily DocumentslCL1ENTS\RIFLE= RETAIL VENTURr S Itr to Cty ne gravel pit SUP.doc Revised: 317/2007 2:21'.00 PM: Printed: 03/07107: 2:22 PM, Page 1 of 1 Olive •■ Banks and Gesso, LLC To: Cathi Edinger Garfield County Building and Planning 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Tim Thulson, B (comb & Green, P.C. From: Alex Schatz Re: Color copies fo \Written record, Gypsum Ranch, LLC Gravel Pit Date: 16 January 2007 cc: Transmittal EXHIBIT 1- 720 Kipling St.,Sui Lakewood, Colorado 80215 (303) 274-4277 Fax (303) 274-8329 www. banks ggssso.com l.. EI V D JAN 1 8 2007 ZAu m -?i- `- , COUN7ry Please find enclosed color copies of the electronic slides presented by the applicant in the Grand River Park Project (e.g., Gypsum Ranch, LLC Gravel Pit) Special Use Hearing before the Garfield County Planning and Zoning Commission on January 15, 2007. Eight slides showing vegetation and general reclamation conditions on a model project site were presented by the applicant for the Commission's reference. Due to the late hour, the hardcopy version of this exhibit was inadvertently not presented for the written record at the hearing. • „.•.,27,40. , : • • 4 • '9 • • • 2 • Town of Silt January 26, 2007 EXHIBIT 231 No. 7th Street / P.O. Box 70 / Silt, CO 81652 Phone: 970-876-2353 / Fax: 970.876-2937 RECEIVED JAN 3 0 200/ GAri -tau GUi.INTY BUILDING & PLANNING Garfield County Planning Department Fred Jarman ! 08 8th Street Glenwood. Springs, CO 81601 Dear Fred: At the Garfield County Planning and Zoning Commission hearing regarding a proposed gravel pit on the western boundary of the Town of Silt, the Commissioners required the applicant to contact the Town to try to reach agreement concerning the impacts to our roads. This letter will confirm that the gravel pit operator, Bill Roberts, and one of his employees, Sean Mello. met with me on January 24, 2007. to discuss this issue. While we do not yet have an agreement approved by our Board of Trustees, we are working diligently toward that end. We are preparing an agreement for our Board's consideration at their meeting on February 12, 2007. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions. Sincere[ Richard J. Aluise Town Administrator 1111 ! i I :,Ili wow fortiovictoN it ill Recepttont' 717783 EP -17/1007 04 4y l3 aFr 6 '09% P 0714 Jean lberi..o 0} 7 'Rim 'Fell S16 0 Doe Fee 0 00 CPttt='Et n C[]li"1T1 co ROAD IMPACT ROYALTY AGREEMENT EXHIBIT EE THIS ROAD IMPACT ROYALTY AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is made and entered into on this lL# day ofz. 2007, being the date last approved by Resolution and/or Ordinance of the parties hereto, effecti' a as of the Effective Date set forth below, between SILT SAND & GRAVEL LLC, a Colorado limited liability company, whose address is 0304 Highway 133, Carbondale, Colorado 81623, and TIIE TOWN OF SILT, COLORADO ("Town"), a municipal corporation in the State of Colorado, whose address is 231 North Seventh, P.O. I-3ox 70, Silt, Colorado 81652. RECITALS WHEREAS, Operator owns Silt Sand and Gravel LLC, a Colorado limited liability company; WHEREAS, the Operator will remove sand and gravel from the proposed Grand River Park Project gravel pit, located in Garfield County on the western boundary of the Town ("Property"); WHEREAS, the Operator is willing to pay a royalty to the Town for the road impacts associated with sand and gravel extraction in accordance with the terms of this Agreement for the reasons set forth herein; WHEREAS, the Operator desires to satisfy certain recommendations issued by the Garfield County Planning and Zoning Commission pertaining to road impacts affecting the Town; WHEREAS, pursuant to C.R.S. section 29-20-101 et seq., the Town has the authority to accept such payments for impacts to assist with the maintenance, operation, repair and replacement of municipal infrastructure; and WHEREAS, the Town has the authority as a Home Rule Municipality to accept such payments for impacts to municipal infrastructure. NOW, THEREFORE, based upon the foregoing and in exchange for the consideration recited herein, the parties desire to reduce this agreement to writing. ROYALTY PROVISIONS 1. ROYALTY_ Subject to the provisions hereinafter set forth, the Operator shall pay to the Town for all sand and gravel extracted from the Property during each calendar month a royalty at the rate of Ten Cents ($.10) per product ton of two thousand (2000) pounds. The Operator shall keep and maintain adequate and accurate records of the quantities of sand and gravel extracted from the Property. The royalty payments shall be accompanied by a monthly statement with the royalty calculation that includes an accounting of the tons of sand Road Impact Royalty Agreement Page 1 of 7 Silt Sand & Gravel. LLC and the Town of Silt E \G\Gypsum RanchlHangs PropernylSat Sand & GravellFinat Clean Road hews Royalty Agri doe ■+Il1 "`:i 11.1 1MuI CI� rl,lleVitiV Ahs1 !I11I I:ecepttonn. 717783 .12/22 /WI' 24' 49 23 4>M e] 1E196 P OLP" Jean Al bar leo 2 of Roc 1 ee S36 JO Doc 1. •a 2 DD GARF IELO 1+oWirY CO and gravel extracted or darned extracted ,as hereinafter defined for the month. The I'own shall have the right at all reasonable times during business hours and upon reasonable prior notice to examine such records of the Operator at the offices of the Operator and to verify the quantities of sand and gravel extracted and the accuracy of the scales used to weigh the same. Sand and gravel "extracted" or "deemed extracted" for purposes of calculating the royalty due shall mean all sand and gravel removed from the Property, subject to the following exclusions: A. Sand and gavel "extracted" or "deemed extracted" shall not include sand and gravel used by the Operator in constructing, maintaining or repairing roadways within the Property or used in other areas of the Property or the construction, maintenance and repair of roadways and driveways on or in connection with the Property, including but not limited to any such road construction, maintenance or repair required under Operator's approved permits. B. Sand and gravel "extracted" or "deemed extracted" shall not include tailings or washed tines nor shall such terms included materials brought onto the Property for use in recycling operations or used on the Property for reclamation purposes in accordance with Operator's approved permits. C. Sand and gravel "extracted" or "deemed extracted" shall not include sand and gravel removed and transported from the Property over and across roadways other than those identified in Paragraph 4., hereinbelow. 4. WEIGHING (7F SAND AND GRAVEL. For the purpose of calculating the royalty due, pursuant to Paragraph 1, hereinabove, quantities of the sand and gravel extracted from the Property on which said royalty is due shall be measured as follows: All sand and gravel shall be weighed on a certified scale upon its removal from the Property. Accuracy of the scale shall be checked and adjustments made at least as often as is required to continue to be certified. Records of the accuracy check and adjustments shall be preserved and made available in the same manner as other records. 3. TERM AND PAYMENT. This Agreement shall start and remain in effect for the duration of commercial sand and gravel mining operations within the Property unless otherwise terminated as hereinafter set forth. Operator shall pay the royalty due within thirty (30) days after the close of such calendar month. All royalties paid under this Agreement shall be maintained by the Town in a separate enterprise fund, managed in .accordance with current GASB accounting requirements. Any royalty not paid when due shall bear interest at the annual rate of interest of ten percent 00%). Should any royalty remain unpaid thirty (30) days beyond the receipt by the Operator of written notice of default as provided in Paragraph 9., hereinbelow, said royalty shall thereafter bear interest at the default rate of fourteen percent (14%), compounded annually. Road Impact Royalty Agreement Page 2 of 7 Silt Sand & Gravel, LLC and the Town of Silt 1: '-GA itpsurn Ran tailings cruor .51lt Sand & Gravel\Final C'c n Road Impact Ruyahy AgrI ,Joc 11411 ;1011b1,l' 4tiY411khi4tilhAVI 1111 ReccptiDne" 717783 7i i2, 2007 l;4 49 23 PN 8 1096 P 0736 Jean giber sco 3 al 1 Rec Fee Sf6 co Doc zee 0 -Jo GARFIELD S.01Rav CO In the event that a dispute arises between the Town and Operator as to the amount of the royalty due, the Operator shall pay to the Town the amount claimed by the Town; provided however, that the Town shall place such disputed amount into a separate escrow account. Thereafter the Town and Operator shall mediate their claims as to the applicable royalty to he paid. If the town and Operator are unable to resolve their claims as to the escrowed royalty through mediation within thirty (30) days of the date the disputed funds are escrowed, the parties may thereafter pursue their respective civil claims thereto as hereinafter provided. 4. APPLICATION OF' ROYALTY PAYMENTS. The royalty(ies) shall be applied by the lawn to the maintenance andior improvement of the following municipal roads: County Road 346 from the western boundary of the Town limits east to its intersection of County Road 311; County Road 311 from its intersection of County Road 346 north to the Frontage Road; County Road 331 from the southern boundary of the Town limits north to its intersection of County Road 346. and such other reds within the 'Town limits which are utilized by the Operator as haul routes. S. OTHER FEES, CREDITS. The parties acknowledge that the royalty(ies) contemplated in Section one (1) is by agreement, and that the Town has not performed an impact analysis to determine the actual road impacts associated with sand and gravel extraction operations on the Property, and is basing this royalty amount due to it on the hest information it has before it at this time. If the Town performs a road impact analysis in the future, as the 1 own now is contemplating and as is permitted in C.R.S. section 29-20-101, ei seq., and pursuant thereto adopts by ordinance of general applicability, a road impact fee for a such uses or similar uses, Operator shall he responsible for the payment of the established impact fee; provided however, that as against said impact fee, Operator shall receive a credit as to all royalty amounts paid by the Operator to the Town under this Agreement in the event that the impact analysis demonstrates an impact of less than ten cents ($.10) per ton, the Town shall not be required to provide a refund to the Operator. 6. DEANNEXATION. If the Town de -annexes all of the roads enumerated in Section three (4), the I•own shall remit the remaining balance of the enterprise fund to the Operator, not including the value of any expenditures made or committed for expenditure prior to the date of de -annexation and this agreement shall terminate and be of no further Force or effect. 7. DEFAULT BY TOWN. A "breach" or "default" by the Town under this Agreement shall be defined as the Town's failure to fulfill or perform any material obligation of the Town contained in this Agreement. 8. DEFAULT BY OPERATOR. A "breach" or "default" by Operator shall be defined as Operator's failure to fulfill or perforin any obligation of Operator contained in this Agreement. 9. NOTICES OF DEFAULT. In the event of a default by either party under this Agreement, the non -defaulting party shall deliver written notice to the defaulting party of such default, at the address and in the manner specified in Section 21, and the defaulting party shall have thirty (30) days from and after receipt of such notice to cure such default. Road !mpact Royalty Agreement Page 3 of 7 Silt Sand et Gravel, LLC and the Town of Silt L •G‘irpsum Ranchtrtangs Prnpeir Silt Sand & Liravcl Fmr1 Clean Rued Impact Royrity Agri Kioc 1111 led 'I III11 IMMIL 111 Recept4004. 717763 +17!22 ?00' 34 49 13 PI9 1996 P ST:37 Jean Alberrco 4 of ; err. sae S36 00 Doc roe C 00 GRRFIELO COLI rr 40 10. REMEDIES. If any default under this Agreement is not cured as described above, the non -defaulting party shall, subject to the mediation procedures hereinabove contained. have the right to enforce the defaulting party's obligations hereunder by an action for specific performance and/'or an action for damages. Venue for such action shall lie exclusively in the District and County courts, Garfield County, Glenwood Springs, Colorado as applicable. 11. ASSIGNMENT. The Parties agree and acknowledge that the rights and obligations of Operator under this Agreement may be assigned by the Operator to persons or entities without the prior consent of the Town; provided, however, such assignee agrees in writing to be bound by the terms and conditions of this Agreement, and the Operator shall give notice to the Town pursuant to Paragraph twenty-one (21) of any such conveyance, together with the assignee's written agreement to be bound by the terms and conditions of this Agreement. 12. WAIVER OF DEFECTS. In executing this Agreement, Operator waives all objections it may have concerning defects, if any, in the formalities whereby it has executed, or concerning the power of the Town to impose conditions on Operator as set forth herein, and concerning the procedure, substance and form of the ordinances or resolutions adopting this Agreement. 13. MODIFICATIONS. This Agreement shall not be amended, except by subsequent written agreement of the Town and the Operator, 14. RELEASE OF LIABILITY. Neither the Town nor Operator shall be legally bound by any representation of any of its officers, agents, members or designees not contained within this Agreement except as is otherwise allowed under the Municipal Code and, Municipal Ordinances of the Town of Silt, Colorado. The Operator, when dealing with the Town, acts at its own risk as to any representation or undertaking by Town officers or agents or their designees, which is subsequently held to be unlawful by a court of law. 15. CAPTIONS. The captions of this Agreement are inserted only for convenience and in no way define or limit the scope or intent of this Agreement or any part thereof. 16. BINDING EFFECT. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective heirs, successors and assigns. 17. INVALID PROVISION. If any provision of this Agreement shall be determined to be void by any Court of competent jurisdiction, then such determination shall not affect any other provision hereof, all of which other provisions shall remain in full force and effect. It is the intention of the parties hereto that, if any provision of this Agreement is capable of two constructions, one of which would render the provision void, and the other of which would render the provision valid, then the provision shall have the meaning which renders it valid. 18. GOVERNING LAW. The laws of the State of Colorado shall govern the validity, performance and enforcement of this Agreement. Should any party institute legal suit or action for enforcement of any obligations contained herein, it is agreed that the venue of such suit or action shall be in Garfield County, Colorado. 19. ATTORNEY'S FEES; SURVIVAL. Should this Agreement become the subject of litigation between the Town and the Operator, the Court shall award to the prevailing party Road impact Royalty Agreement Page 4 of 7 Silt Sand & Gravel, LLC and the Town of Silt E `.G\G+plum HonclAlisop ihopcnrSdi Sand & Gravet\Firrr Clean Road impact Royalty Amt doc ■IIIPlea 11:1 in .114 11111 ReceptaanN: 717783 11I/11'.00' 14 44 23 PM 9 1/046 P Ong Jr'eyR1barico 5 u! ' Roc -on $38 00 inc Fee 0 00 :PRFIELD COUNTY CO attorney's fees and costs of suit actually incurred, including expert witness fees. All rights concerning remedies and/or attorney's fees shall survive any termination of this Agreement. 20. AUTHORITY. Each person signing this Agreement represents and warrants that they are fully authorized to enter into and execute this Agreement and to bind the party it represents to the terms and conditions hereof. 21. COUNTERPART. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, and all of which, when taken together, shall be deemed one and the sarne instrument. 22. NOTICE. All notices required under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be hand delivered or sent by facsimile transmission or registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, to the addresses of the parties hereinafter set forth. All notices by hand delivery shall be effective upon receipt. All facsimile transmission shall be effective upon transmission receipt. All notices by mail shall be considered effective seventy-two (72) hours ager deposit in the United States mail with a proper address as set forth below. Either party by notice so given may change the address to which future notices shall be sent. Notice to Town: Notice to Counsel: Notice to Operator: Notice to Counsel: Town of Silt Town Administrator 231 North 7th Street P. O. Box 70 Silt, CO 81652 Telephone: (970) 876-2353 Facsimile: (970) 876-2937 Town of Silt Attn: Pamela Barber 231 North Seventh P.O. Box 70 Silt, CO 81652 Telephone: (970) 876-2353 Facsimile: (970) 876-2937 Silt Sand & Gravel LLC Inc. Attn: William M. Roberts 0304 Highway 133 Carbondale, CO 81623 Telephone: (970) 963-9424 Timothy A. Thulson 818 Colorado Avenue Glenwood. Springs, CO 81601 Telephone: (970) 945-6546 Facsimile: (970) 945-8902 Road Impact Royalty Agreement Page 5 of 7 Silt Sand & Gravel, LLC and the Town of Silt ti 4.i\Gypsum Ranch) fangs P operty1S1t1 Sand & GravdlFinat Clean Road tmpa n Royalty .Agri doc 11ilrui :611011410114 11 Ruceptaonp' 717783 ad I //i2007 04 44 23 'n 6 1096 P 0719 Jean Ritter tea b ut ; Rea ree S:16 u0 Doc ae• 4 00 GPIFIELO COUNtY C0 23. GENDER. Whenever the context shall require, the singular number shall include the plural, the plural the singular, and the use or any gender shall be applicable to all genders. 24. RECITALS. for the purposes of clarity, the parties state that all recitals set forth in this agreement explicitly constitute a part of the agreement of the parties and that the parties agree to be bound by the same. WHEREFORE, the parties hereto have executed duplicate originals of this Agreement on the day and year first above written. TOWN OF SII, , COLORADO, a Colorado} un ipal Corporatio 13y: Ric t d .!. Luise, To Manager By: Tod .1 IMPF tts, Mayor Pro Tem Sheila McIntyre, Town CI SILT SAND & GRAVEL LLC a Colorado limited liability company By: William M. Roberts, Manager Road. Impact Royalty Agreement Page 6 of 7 Silt Sand & Gravel, LLC and the Town of Silt L `:G+t',ypaum Ranch J-iangs Prapeny SiIt &Ifd & Grayd1Final Clean /tried Impact Royalty Agri Jac 1111 In Il'.A IIM I'IIHL L1 4 Ail%Mt ill N 111111 ReceptLong 717783 L)7 22,2007 04 49 1s PIA B 1896 P 0"40 Jean llueryco u1 ! Rita Fro $35 00 Joe Fpr 0 00 GFPRFIELO COUNTY CO STATE OF COLORADO COUNTY OF GARFIELD ) ) ss. • The Ibregoing instrument was acknowledged, subscribed and sworn to before me this to4n day of U.c+rrii, 2007, by Richard J. Aluise, as Town Administrator, and Tod Tibbetts, as Mayor Pro Tem, on behalf of the Town of Silt, Colorado, a Colorado Municipal Corporation. Witness my hand and official seal. STATE OF COLORADO ) COUNTY OF GARFIELD ) t,i151111111111 • r. *,�lM '''�y111111' i .y r.4 r ic My tr¢ ijission expires: 1 - qs it??... :•NOTAR'.VI '� PuBLIG: rrs F'y• . • . Fy • ss. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged, subscribed and sworn to before me this -01- day of17- .� 't , 2007, by William Roberts, Manager of Silt Sand & Gravel LLC. Witness my hand and official seal. Notary Public My commission expires: Road Impact Royalty Agreement Page 7 of 7 Silt Sand & Gravel. LLC and the Town of Silt F \Gypsum Rar1ch.Ftvalgs Property\Sdt Send li Gavel\Final( lc= Road Impact Riiyelry AgrI duc w ■ engineering dynamics r`ncorporated EXHIBIT IFP Environmental Noise Impact Review, Grand River Park Project EDI Job # C-3595 Prepared for Banks and Gesso, LLC 720 Kipling Street. Suite 117 Lakewood. Colorado 80215 Voice. 303-274-4277 Fax: 303-274-8329 Prepared by: RECEIVED oirs Stuart D McGregor, P.E. Senior Acoustical Engineer MAR 0 9 WV GA FIELD Ot RNTy SU L0ING & PLANNING 8 -Mar -07 Page 1 of 11 3925 S. Katamath St., Englewood, Colorado 80110 • voice: 303-761-4367 • fax: 303-761-4379 Forward • e ■ engineering d dynamics rncorporafed Engineering Dynamics, Inc has reviewed the information submitted to Garfield County regarding noise compliance for the proposed Silt Sand and Gravel, LLC. Grand River Park Protect, located in Garfield County. Colorado This purpose environmental review is to determine that proposed aggregate operations will meet the State of Colorado Noise limits for residential structures The proposed aggregate development site is located approximately 1/2 —mile southwest of the City of Silt, north of Garfield County Road 346 southeast of 1-70 and south of the Colorado River Figure 1 shows the Planned Mining Recovery Scenario. and Figure 2 shows the approximate location of proposed Mining Recovery Areas and the Nearest Residences, the nearest residences are labeled as Locations 1 through 6. 8 -Mar -07 Page 2 of 11 3925 S. Kalamath St., Englewood, Colorado 80110 • voice: 303-761-4367 • fax: 303-761-4379 ■ engineering e incor dynamicsoratedp 1.0 Background From the Planned Mining Recovery Scenario the operations that will occur on the site are. a. Overburden / topsoil relocation for construction of screening berms. This operation will be done with large front-end loaders, and/or bulldozers. and will be the operation with the greatest potential for impact, because the screening berms are along the perimeter of the site, and therefore closest to the nearest residences. b. Aggregate removal transport and processing. This operation will be done with large front-end loaders. conveyors systems and small crushers. Conveyor System noise — levels taken from EDI's database show the conveyor noise to be a steady 48 dB(A) at 200 ft along the conveyor route. The most noise is produced where the product falls off the end of the belt into a transfer hopper, which feeds the next belt. Aggregate Stacking — noise levels from aggregate stacking into stock piles are not louder than conveyor system noise In this report conveyor system noise will be used to model stacking noise. Crushing and Screening operations — will take place near the center of the development site and will be shielded from the nearest residences by stockpiles. Levels taken from EDI's database show that crusher and screening related noise are in the range of 60 dB(A) at 200 ft. Front-end loaders. such as a Caterpillar 980. and will produce a moving noise footprint of 80 dB(A) at 50 ft when operating at full throttle and load. This would occur when the loader was pushing against a stockpile and scooping up a load of rock product. The loader would then back away and go to the appropriate hopper at either the concrete or asphalt plants. When the loader is moving backwards, the backup alarm is activated. Back -Up Beeper Noise — the traditional backup beeper, which produces a tonal acoustic signal, which is audible at distances of up to 1000'. This traditional back-up beepers can be replaced with a new device, which produces bursts of band limited random noise. This is commonly referred to as "white noise This noise, which is a hissing sound in its characteristic, is audible in the shadow zone of the equipment at sound levels that are as much as 5 dB less than the sound level produced by conventional tonal backup beepers. In addition the sound from the "white noise" alarms, because it is random, tends to blend in with the existing background nose at much closer distances from the equipment. This effect along with the 5 dB reduction in sound levels reduces the zone of audibility of the backup alarm system to less than 500 ft, and the 55 dB(A) level to about 250 ft The model number applicable to this project is the BBS -92, from Brigade Backalarm, website at www bbs-tek.com. No further analysis of backup beeper noise is performed in this report. c Asphalt and cement batch plant operations. Noise emission levels of asphalt and concrete batch plants are typically in the range of 60 to 65 dB(A) at distances of 200' d. Cement truck and aggregate haul truck Truck noise can be controlled by limiting truck speeds to 15 mph. At 15 mph. the trucks will produce a maximum noise level of 80 dB(A) at about 25 ft and 55 dB(A) at about 350 ft. 8 -Mar -07 Page 3 of 11 3925 S. Kalamath St., Englewood, Colorado 80110 • voice: 303-761-4367 • fax: 303-761-4379 2.0 Applicable Standards • 2.1 State of Colorado Noise Law 25-12-103. Maximum permissible noise levels. d ■ engineering dynamics e incorporated (1) Every activity to which this article is applicable shall be conducted in a manner so that any noise produced is not objectionable due to intermittence, beat frequency, or shrillness. Sound levels of noise radiating from a property line at a distance of twenty-five feet or more therefrom in excess of the dB(A) established for the following time periods and zones shall constitute prima facie evidence that such noise is a public nuisance: Table A: Maximum Allowable Noise Sound Pressure Levels for Specified Premises Zone lam to next l 0pm 1 0pm to next lam Residential 55 dB(A) 50 dB(A) Commercial 65 dB(A) 80 da(A) 60 dB(A) 75 dB(A) Industrial Light Industrial 75 dB(A) 70 dB(A) (2) In the hours between 7:00 a.m. and the next 7:00 p.m., the noise levels permitted in subsection (1) of this section may be increased by ten dB(A) for a period of not to exceed fifteen minutes in any one- hour period. (3) Periodic, impulsive, or shrill noises shall be considered a public nuisance when such noises are at a sound level of five dB(A) less than those listed in subsection (1) of this section. 25-12-108. Preemption. The provisions of this article shall not be construed to preempt or limit the authority of any municipality or county to adopt standards, which are no less restrictive than the provisions of this article. 2.2 Application of Noise Law The State of Colorado noise law can be interpreted two ways, First — from paragraph 2,1 (1) above and the title of 'Table A', the wording strictly indicates that noise levels are based on the zoning of the property on which the noise source is located. Second — from 'Table A' above, the noise levels associated with the zoning of the receiving property. As a conservative practice, the state noise ordinance is 'implemented' as the noise levels associated with the zoning of the receiving property. In this case the residential zoning of the nearest residences. For construction related activities, it is important to note that the State of Colorado noise statute (e.g., paragraph 2.1(2) accommodates temporary exceedance of the sound pressure levels identified in Table A. This provision is applicable to activities, such as earthmoving operations on the land surface, that are relatively noisy, but are very temporary in duration. It should be noted that Table A and the State of Colorado noise statute have no direct application to agricultural land. Also, it is important to note that the State of Colorado noise ordinance listed above DOES NOT apply to cement or haul trucks operating on County Road 346. 8 -Mar -07 Page 4 of 11 3925 S. Kalamath St., Englewood, Colorado 80110 • voice: 303-761-4367 • fax: 303-761-4379 ■ engineering edynamics incorporated 3.0 Typical Noise Levels and Definition of Terms For reference Table 3.1 shows some A -weighted noise levels of typical activities. NOTE: For the average human an increase of the measured noise level of 10 dB is Subjectively Perceived as being twice as loud or half as loud for a 10 dB decrease. The decibel change at which the average human will indicate that the noise is just perceptibly louder or perceptibly quieter is 3 dB. Table 3.1: Qualitative Description of Tonically Occurring Noise Sound Level, dB(A) Type of Noise Relative Loudness (Human Judgement) of Different Noise Levels Subjective Impression of Noise 110 Disco Dance Floor 128 times as loud Uncomfortably Loud 90 Motorcycle at 25' 32 times as loud Very Loud 85 D8 Cat Dozer at 50 ft. 80 Diesel Truck, 40 mph at 50' 16 times as loud Loud 75 Average Car, 40 mph at 25' 70 _ Vacuum Cleaner at 3' 8 times as loud 65 Conversation at 3' 60 Background Music 4 times as loud 55 Air Conditioning Unit at 15' 50 Quiet Residential Twice as loud 45 Bird Calls Quiet 40 Lower Limit Urban Daytime Ambient Reference loudness 30 Background Quiet Suburban at Night 1/2 as loud 20 Quiet Whisper 1/4 as loud Barely Audible 0 Threshold of Hearing The following are standard definitions of acoustical terms and noise metrics used in this report. Decibel (dB), - a unit of level which denotes the ratio between two quantities that are proportional to a reference level of power or pressure. Sound Pressure Level (dB) - in air, 20 times the logarithm (to the base 10) of the given sound pressure to the reference sound pressure of 20 micropascals; units of decibels. Not to be confused with Sound Power Level, the Sound Pressure Level is the physical quantity that a sound level meter measures. A -weighted Noise Level, dB(A), - the physical process of measuring sound with the same sensitivity to frequency as that of the human ear. A sound level meter will have, inside it, an electrical circuit that allows the meter to have the same sensitivity (response) to sound at different frequencies as the average human ear. Ambient Noise - at a specified time, the all encompassing sound associated with a given environment, being usually a composite of sound from many sources at many directions, near and far, including the specific sources of interest. Background or Residual Noise - at a specified time, the all encompassing sound associated with a given environment, being usually a composite of sound from many sources at many directions, near and far, remaining in a given location in a given situation when all uniquely identifiable discrete sound sources are eliminated, rendered insignificant, or otherwise not included. 8 -Mar -07 Page 5 of 11 3925 S. Kalamath St., Englewood, Colorado 80110 • voice: 303-761-4367 • fax: 303-761-4379 • 4.0 Existing Ambient Noise Levels ■ engineering dynamics e 1 incorporated On Monday and Tuesday 26 and 27 February 2007 (from approximately i lam Monday through 11am Tuesday) measurements of existing ambient noise levels were made near Residential locations 2, 4 and 6, as labeled in Figure 2. The results of these measurements are shown in Figure 4.1. The sound level measurements were taken with three Quest Model M-39 integrating Sound Level Meters, programmed to acquire hourly average sound levels, for a period of 24 -hours. The meters were configured for A -weighting and the Slow time constant. The meters were placed at a distance of 50' from C,R. 346. Observations made during the on-site noise measurements showed that, the existing ambient noise environment at and around the residences nearest the proposed mining area is controlled vehicle traffic on I- 70, existing truck traffic on C.R. 346, existing gas wells. and aircraft overflights into and out -of the Rifle airport. 4.1 Measurement Results Inspection of Figure 4.1 shows, Residences 1 and 2 -- between the hours of 7:00 (7am) and 17:00 (5pm), which is within the State of Colorado Daytime hours, noise levels at residences 1 and 2 average at or above 55 dB(A). Residence 6 — between the hours of 7°00 (7am) and 17:00 (5pm), which is within the State of Colorado Daytime hours. noise levels at Residences 6 average at or below 55 dB(A). Approximately, 50% of the time noise levels are greater than 50 dB(A). Therefore, noise levels during daytime hours when aggregate mining would occur, are already in excess of the State of Colorado Residential Daytime noise limit of 55 dB(A) 8 -Mar -07 Page 6 of 11 3925 S. Kalamath St., Englewood, Colorado 80110 • voice: 303-761-4367 • fax: 303-761-4379 65 60 55 50 45 40 ■ engineering dynamics edtincorporated Figure 4.1: Existing Ambient Noise Environment at Nearby Residences O 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 t7 CV eei a ici CO !c= CO to O r r e 2r: u7 [ii;ISop drir N N "Ng Time, 24-hour Clock — Res 1 --A- Res 2 .-n-- Res 6 8 -Mar -07 Page 7 of 11 3925 S. Kalamath St., Englewood, Colorado 80110 • voice: 303-761-4367 • fax: 303-761-4379 . engineering e I dynamics incorporated 5.0 Expected Noise Levels at Nearest Residences In this section the maximum expected noise levels from any piece of equipment operating within the mining plan area are calculated at the nearest residences, shown in Figure 2. The assumptions made in this analysis are as follows, a. All planned berms are in place, except during overburden removal and actual berm building. b. Maximum noise levels for non -stationary equipment, such as, bulldozers and front-end loaders are at the closest point to the residence that the equipment will ever operate, and at the highest elevation of operation (this minimizes berm effects). 5.1 Noise from Individual Sources Expected noise levels at the nearest residences are listed in Table 5.1. These noise levels DO NOT include background noise levels from other noise sources. See Section 5.3 for additional comments. Table 5.1: Expected Aggregate Extraction Noise Levels, dB(A Operation Residence Identification from Figure 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 Overburden Removal and Berm Building 65 65 50 50 55 55 Conveyor Systems 34 34 <30 <30 <30 <30 Stacking Operations 34 34 <30 <30 <30 <30 Crushing and Screening 48 48 41 41 46 46 Front-end Loaders 50 50 40 40 45 45 Asphalt and Concrete Batch Plants 55 55 46 46 52 52 Cement and Haul Trucks On -Site On County Road 346 48 50 50 53 45 50 45 50 50 55 50 55 5.2 Combined Noise Levels The aggregate removal and processing operations listed above do not all occur simultaneously; therefore, assuming that they all do occur simultaneously will result in a worst case noise levels. These worst case noise levels will not exceed 58 dB(A). This will occur only when front end loaders are operating at existing grade level AND both batch plants are operating. During all other operation scenarios combined noise levels will be less than 52 dB(A). 5.3 Comparison with Existing Noise Environment Comparison of existing ambient noise levels, shown in Figure 4.1, with expected maximum noise levels shown in Table 5.1, shows that for all cases except overburden removal and berm building, noise from mining operations is less than existing daytime ambient noise levels. Where, expected equipment operation noise levels are 10 dB(A) or more less than ambient noise levels (shown in Figure 4.1) they do not contribute to the overall noise level. Therefore, comparing noise expected noise levels in Table 5.1 with existing ambient noise levels in Figure 4.1 shows that noise from conveyor systems, stacking operations, and crushing/screening operations will not add to the overall noise environment. Noise from front-end loaders will only add to the overall noise environment for Residences 1 and 2. Noise from batch plant operations will be at or near the same level as existing ambient noise levels for Residences 1, 2, 5 and 6, and will add to the overall noise environment. 8 -Mar -07 Page 8 of 11 3925 S. Kalamath St., Englewood, Colorado 80110 • voice: 303-761-4367 * fax: 303-761-4379 6.0 Conclusions • The results of Sections 4.0 and 5.0 show, ■ engineering dynamics e i incorporated a. Expected noise levels from mining operations are less than existing daytime ambient noise levels, and Mining Operations will only occur during daytime hours, no nighttime operations are proposed or planned. b. The greatest noise impact will occur during overburden relocation and berm building. and will be generated by front-end loaders when they are near the perimeter of the site. These operations are temporary and will collectively only last a few weeks. In each location were equipment will move overburden and berm material, such operations may be performed to comply with relevant state noise standards (e.g., CRS 25-12-103). c. Noise from on-going extraction and processing operations and all other stationary noise sources (conveyor systems, crusher, screener, batch plants) will be less than the State of Colorado Daytime Residential limit of 55 dB(A). d. Noise from cement and haul truck on-site operations will be less than the State of Colorado Daytime Residential limit of 55 dB(A). e. Noise from cement and haul trucks while operating on County Road 346 is not regulated by State of Colorado Noise Law: 25-12-103, however, noise from these truck operations is expected to at the State of Colorado Daytime Residential limit of 55 dB(A). 3 -Mar -07 Page 9 of 11 3925 S. Kalamath St., Englewood, Colorado 80110 • voice: 303-761-4367 • fax: 303-761-4379 d 0 engineering e ks ifincodgazed 4.1 = = = = J•r•toft.,•4 rm.*. • dp•••!. w • • aarla ipixont. a. 'attn. P • ••-, mac ut•n:. mac. 4 ../.. \ \ Ide 1. V. . 16;11 .4.1.6*1 DA N.% 10.2Patli MEI. \ 4*, J .4k* - • -•4,- 5. 44* • -.4•••:. • 01.014110 rift 0••••E 0.1•424..1.1A4 Nvr *bar 1 ......• '•••:•....-- .1, ..111‘,7 .1. mi.i . il , 41*.kt 4 Rwt Or Amr .0_ -.........,..4 .g...1 .,.....,-4. wad Id AtiV.I. ...a.. i i orcworrecaM• Aato rt !.././1 Writ 11 41.111X4 4.,0.11 N.••••. •••.... • - • . ; NI\ _ .• • ntalle t tara PAPII 43derArde UAri tarell 4.1par WWII& 41.011,70.4.2.a. ',NM .... J :717 Nralfttt... O. 0 At erry.ite.Mr L tit ••al oth-•••/ P Imo* vac*. 4.- • Lao. Pa.ttetap p .1- 1_ --- 8 -Mar -07 MASI I #PIKSPI XrASE 1 A AkINIAlli Mari .4F -x V _ • . PO* tat4i4}C,IL4 AAP. - • , .40,440 ,t9r At a Mt .17•1- • NYA,11.91...11 WetIma"1.1114 Figure 1: Planned Mining Recovery Scenario Page 10 of 11 3925 S. Kalamath St., Englewood, Colorado 80110 • voice: 303-761-4367 • fax: 303-761-4379 MAPawrs•T Orr ky Weve Approximate Mining Recovery Area if edynamics incorporated a engineering W flume Ave Nome Ave 7 01-----t304 Orn 120044 1 Rct+ •-i rn rront st ftbniage �SC CO Orado Rover 1F1-5-,rn Sun i-) Approximate Location of Nearest Residences 5 2007 Mapfluest me 7007 Tile Atlas Dry NJOOW C Risenp Sun birch a30 Figure 2: Approximate Location of Mining Recovery Areas and Nearest Residences 8 -Mar -07 Page 11 of 11 3925 S. Kalamath St., Englewood, Colorado 80110 • voice: 303-761-4367 • fax: 303-7614379 4 4 4 4 4 4 9 1 • • GRAND RIVER PARK GRAVEL PIT TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY Prepared for: Banks and Gesso, LLC 720 Kipling Street, Suite 117 Lakewood, CO 80215 Prepared by: IP Felsburg Holt & Ullevig 6300 South Syracuse Way, Suite 600 111/ Centennial, CO 80111 3031721-1440 Project Manager: Jenny A. Young, PE Project Engineer: Ryan D. Germeroth, El 0 FHU Reference No. 06-151 • February 2007 10 11)110 r EXHIBIT i vb MAR I 6 2007 Grand River Park Grave! Pit Millie Impart Study TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. EXISTING CONDITIONS 4 A. Land Use --- 4 B. Roadway System 4 C. Traffic Volumes 4 D. Capacity Analysis 6 III. FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS ---- 7 A. Background Traffic 7 B. Site -Generated Traffic -------- 10 C. Traffic Impacts -------------- --15 D. Design Considerations ---------------- ---15 E. State Highway Access Permit Requirements 15 IV. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS 16 APPENDIX A TRAFFIC COUNTS APPENDIX B EXISTING LEVELS OF SERVICE APPENDIX C SHORT TERM LEVELS OF SERVICE APPENDIX D LONG TERM LEVELS OF SERVICE elrn 40110 Grand River Park Gra'i }1 Pit Traffic Impact Study via LIST OF FIGURES +rte' 4104, Page Owe Figure 1. Vicinity Map 2 woe Figure 2. Site Plan ---- 3 ✓ ole Figure 3. Existing Traffic Conditions 5 Figure 4. Year 2008 Background Traffic Conditions 8 Iva Figure 5. Year 2027 Background Traffic Conditions 9 Figure 6. Site Generated Traffic ------ --- ------ -12 Figure 7. Year 2008 Total Traffic Conditions -13 Figure 8. Year 2027 Total Traffic Conditions 14 woe wrada LIST OF TABLES virAt Table 1. Average Annual and Daily Trip Generation 10 Table 2. Hourly Trip Distribution ------ 11 ova r.;,,,,, -3111 (s, ,ud Riser l'ur'k Graltill leu(fr, 1Hirai f 1r+rola I. INTRODUCTION The Grand River Park Gravel Pit, a sand and gravel mine located on 180 nue,. of hind lip! south and west of the Town of Silt. is located to the west of County Road (OR c 1 1 cw ( i.tr, 9 The property would include parking for employees, a sand and gravel minir of processing plant, and aggregate storage area. An access to the site is proposed to he 101..rtr•,1 on CR 346 to the west of CR 311. Figure 1 illustrates the location of the prolan l ,rrsrl !tie adjacent roadway network and Figure 2 illustrates the site plan. 10 This analysis documents peak hour traffic conditions, describes the existing roadway network, forecasts and distributes site -generated traffic volumes, and analyzes the clk ct of the site generated traffic in combination with the background traffic growth for both Short Range 1 r+lair. 111, and Long Range Future scenarios. The Short Range Future analysis assesses rotlifltIorr., the plant reaches its projected full annual production in 2008; the Long Range hitt ire assesses conditions in 2027. For the Short Range Future analysis, projected tratlrc volume., from Phase 1a of Ferguson Crossing, a proposed development near the intersection of the 110 Frontage Road and 9`h Street, have been included in this scenario. Traffic volumes and roadway geometries for the Long Range Future condition reflect those developed by LSC lar their ,l;�rrir,iry 9 2007 report titled, Traffic Impact Analysis Stillwater. Long range traffic conditions frorn thi report include the buildout of both Ferguson Crossing and Stillwater. In addition, the gravel mine is anticipated to operate for ten to fifteen years so the 2027 scenario presented in this roport conservative since mining operations will conclude around the year 2020. This analysis provides an update to the September 2006 report completed by Felsburg Holt & Ullevig titled Grand River Park Gravel Pit Traffic Impact Analysis. In that report, traffic from the proposed Ferguson Crossing and Stillwater Ranch developments was not included in the analysis so that impacts directly related to the proposed gravel mine could be determined Based on comments provided by Garfield County, it was decided that the original study should be updated to include traffic from both the Ferguson Crossing and Stillwater Ranch developments to provide consistency between the traffic studies in the area. In addition, it was ' stated that truck traffic from the gravel mine should be restricted from traveling west on CR 346 since this roadway is not a designated haul route. This means roadways to the east of the site will have slightly more traffic than originally forecasted. With these cornments taken into account, the recommendations and conclusions from the original study are generally the same in this updated report. A deceleration lane is still recommended at the site access for right 9 turning vehicles and the increase in traffic on the nearby roadways is still less than twenty percent so a new access permit is not necessary. 9 5 3 9 1111 1 • FELSBURG (i1IOLT r& IrLLI VI Page i 1 1 • i w 0) K<1—zo.- Gland lima' Park TIA, 06.151. 2)9/07 11 41 41 41 41 41 41 4) 40 40 40 41 40 40 41 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 41 40 40 40 41 40 40 40 40 40 40 41, 40 4/ 40 40 40 3 • • .11 c• ,e% •••• e„. . - '. e• ., 0.r..' 4 1 .., . F r• i , Ili. , st. i...•••• j... !Mr ImMk •=i . AIR WV ...r • r,„ ••••,. • 1- Sy C • • p I \ 114 6 s .. --.---1 , ''" ' - - 1 ' . I , '''‘‘•,p '‘, 6," • , .., ' 1.11 . i . *=),.. '• - N..," • lt, - .,, .14 ' - 4 IS ... w•••:-4. '2. ' N." r i - 1 . 4... 6 i I 4. -6 4 pi. $ 4, 111 1 / , 1 14' ' 1 r r.„ . -/-4' •. -..\ N. - -., k„ 41, • qt,••• .,''',• i I 'ii', ' , •t• . •)1, •.' • ...4, ., / • t . . • •1/4.'." 1' 1 ; „,, ,',.. li• , , 4 ',,,' . a. - - • - - - , , - . ts.', —, cry^ s. I' - - •'• -- - - .. , - 7":, • - •-•--_, - ,1111 +..•7 ‘••• 1.1 c.& G16'1 '4 '16.• • 4- 11 0 und River Park Grave/ Pit Traffic Impact Study ogee II. EXISTING CONDITIONS pare PAO A. Land Use The area in and around the proposed mining operation is primarily vacant agricultural/ranch land The Town of Silt is located northeast of the site across Interstate 70 and the Garfield County Airport is located directly west of the site on CR 346. B. Roadway System The following existing roads in the vicinity of the site would be affected by project traffic. POO • CR 346 (Airport Road) borders the site to the south and extends from CR 331 to vole Rifle. The posted speed limit is 35 miles per hour (mph) • CR 331 is to the east of the site and connects CR 346 with CR 311. The posted speed limit is 35 mph. • CR 311 is to the east of the site and connects CR 331 with the 1-70 frontage road. The posted speed limit is 35 mph. • CR 315 (Mamm Creek Road) is to the west of the site and intersects with CR 346 just south of the 1-70 interchange. • Interstate 70 Frontage Road borders the south side of 1-70 in the vicinity of the site and connects to 9'h Street in the Town of Silt. rvera C. Traffic Volumes AM and PM peak hour turning movements were recorded in the vicinity of the site at the following intersections • 1-70 Frontage Road/CR 311 • CR 311 1 CR 331 In addition, daily traffic volume counts were conducted on the 1-70 Frontage Road and on CR 331 Currently, the 1-70 Frontage Road carries approximately 3,000 vehicles per day (vpd), and CR 331 carries approximately 600 vpd. The existing traffic volumes are shown on Figure 3 and the count data are provided in Appendix A. 1111 11 1 iRl7 (4,1,.1 Page 4 pi EELSBL"RG (dHOLT & ULLEVIG ala 1-70 Frontage Road LEGEND XXX(XXX) = AM(PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes XXXX = Daily Traffic Volumes x/ = AM/PM Peak Hour Unsignalized Intersection Level Of Service Stop Sign 771 ./.\\ 7, Not to Scale North 1 CR 331 Figure 3 Existing Conditions Grand River Park TIA, 06.151, 2181x7 t,ruild River Park Gra.el Pit • Traffic Impact Study D. Capacity Analysis Current traffic operations were evaluated at the two count intersections using methods documented in the Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board (TRB), Third Edition, 2000 (HCM-2000). HCM-2000 defines traffic operations by a level of service (LOS), which is a qualitative measure based on the average delay per vehicle at a controlled intersection. LOS is described by a letter designation ranging from A to F, with LOS A representing very little delay and LOS F representing extreme delay. Unsignalized intersection analyses report LOS ratings for each critical movement while signalized intersections analyses report a LOS rating for the overall intersection. For LOS analyses, a 5 percent heavy vehicle percentage of existing traffic was used in the calculations. This percentage represents the amount of the total traffic in the vicinity of the site related to heavy vehicles and is based on data collected by the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) on US 6 through the Town of Silt As seen on Figure 3, the stop controlled approaches to both intersections operate at LOS B or better during both peak hours. Analysis worksheets are included in Appendix B. 111,1 FE( ..,i rR( LILI._EVrc, Page 6 u -iim -it- f e r um/ River Park Grave Traffic Impact :Sial! r III. FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS Future traffic conditions consist of two components: background traffic (traffic growth that is anticipated as a result of population and employment increases in the region in the future) and site traffic (traffic associated with the proposed development). Future capacity analyses serve as a means to assess whether the existing and proposed infrastructure is adequate to accommodate both components of future traffic, and to determine locations where additional capacity Is needed. This section discusses the procedures used to determine future traffic conditions in the first year of full plant production (2008) and in the long-range planning year (2027),, and assesses level of service with and without the project in each year. A. Background Traffic Background traffic for 2008 and 2027 was determined by estimating the incremental increase in traffic that is anticipated due to regional growth. Other proposed developments in the area include Ferguson Crossing and Stillwater Ranch. The average COOT 20 year growth factor for US 6 and 1-70 in the vicinity of the site results in a rate of approximately 4 percent per year. In addition, the state demographer is forecasting a growth rate of approximately 4 percent for Garfield County. This rate, in addition to traffic from Phase la of Ferguson Crossing, was used to estimate the increase in traffic for the 2008 background condition. Using HCM-2000 methods, traffic operational analyses were conducted based on the existing lane geometry and traffic control. As can be seen on Figure 4, the stop controlled approaches in the vicinity of the site are projected to operate at LOS B or better for both peak hours. LOS worksheets are included in Appendix C. Long Range build traffic from the LSC Stillwater report, which also includes a fully developed Ferguson Crossing, was used as the 2027 background traffic in this report. The level of service analysis for the Long Range condition was conducted using the proposed lane geometry and traffic control from the Stillwater Ranch report. The proposed roadway improvements from this report include a traffic signal at the intersection of CR 311 and the Frontage Road and the construction of a roundabout at the intersection of CR 311 and CR 331. Traffic operations at the proposed roundabout were analyzed using the roundabout analysis software SIDRA. All intersections and stop controlled approaches are projected to operate at LOS C or better for the Long Range condition. The results of these analyses are summarized on Figure 5 and LOS worksheets are included in Appendix 0. (11111111_Ti H I s1L1RG & 1 I 1 EVIG IIFELSBURG HOLT ULLEVIG North ala 1-70 Frontage Road • .K �-a CR 31 LEGEND 1 ;I AV P1" Peak Hour T•a f+c V3k',es XXXX - Da ty Traffic Voken s DM Peak Nov, Uresigmetzed . -- -secctiD'l Level v' Serrow S • - : Sip* \v.!: Scafe _ • reAre 4 Year 2005 Bac+c roJnd Tra`" c Ccnth or s 3-2,o a.vlr Park' A. D6•15'. 7,9.77 pi C'ELSi3[.`RG (4 HOLT L'LLEVIG LEGEND XXX(XXX) = AM(PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes XXXX = Daily Traffic Volumes KIX AM/PM Peak Hour Signalized Intersection Level of Service = Traffic Signal Not to Scale North Bit 1-70 Frontage Road 2,600 20,000 B/B 15(20)-0- 605(915)-Th 5(20)fa1)5(915)`Th CR 331 J' 295(195) 1.f 65(40) 130(130) —4 20(35) 4— 35(45) t t 130('90) �-75(35) 15(25) CR 311 • Figure 5 Year 2027 Background Traffic Conditions Grand River Perk T1A. 06.151, 219/07 61am! River Park Grn Pit Traffic Italian t .titrr�h Site -Generated Traffic Site generated traffic comprises only those trips originating or terminating at the proposed sand and gravel operation. The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation Manual, Seventh Edition. 2003 does not contain trip generation rates for a gravel mine land use: therefore, site trips were estimated based on operational information provided by the applicant It is estimated that the site will have an annual production of 500,000 tons of sand and gravel. 1 his production rate will likely occur approximately one year after initial start-up; thus full production is anticipated in 2008. Full production is expected to last only ten to fifteen years but 2077 was used to be conservative since 20 years is the Gong range time frame generally considered in traffic studies. The plant will have six employees at full production, and there will be approximately four service vehicles that visit the site daily. Table 1 summarizes the average annual vehicles and the average daily (vpd) number of sand and grave! delivery trucks, service vehicles. and employee trips from the site at full production. Table 1. Average Annual and Daily Trip Generation Trip Type Annual Average Daily (vpd) Sand and Gravel Delivery Trucks 24,695 174 Service Vehicles (4 per day) 1,168 8 Employees (6 total) 2,336 16 Total 28,199 198 On a typical day, the site would generate approximately 198 vehicle trips, of which 182 are trucks. Using a passenger car equivalent of three for the trucks, this equates to 546 passenger car equivalents. Table 2 shows the distribution of these trips throughout the day. The hourly distribution is based on conversations with the plant manager at a similar plant located west of the City of Longmont. Approximately 20 of the trips would occur during the AM peak hour of adjacent road traffic. and approximately 16 trips would occur during the PM peak hour, The AM and PM peak hour project trips assigned to each roadway are shown on Figure 6. It is anticipated that 50 percent of the traffic will go eastbound on 1-70 and the other 50 percent will go westbound on 1-70. All of the traffic generated by the site is anticipated to go east an CR 346 to CR 331 and then north on CR 311 to access the 1-70 Frontage Road. Truck traffic will be restricted from going west on CR 346 since this is not a preferred truck route designated by the Garfield County Road and Bridge Department. The distribution percentages were estimated based on traffic distribution patterns for delivery trips and employee trips identified by the owner. The site -generated traffic assignments were added to the background traffic volumes in each analysis year to produce the 2008 and 2027 total traffic shown on Figures 7 and 8, respectively. ItHI Silk IR( �d Lilt T I G Page 11) Grand River Park Grai l Pit • Traffic Impact Study Table 2. Hourly Trip Distribution Hourly Distribution Sand/Gravel Service Vehicles Employees Total in Out In Out In ' Out In Out Total 5:00-5:59 AM 0 0 0 6:00 - 6:59 AM 11% 5 9 4 y 9 9 18 7:00 - 7:59 AM 11% 7 9 1 1 2 10 10 20 8:00-8:59 AM 8% 9 7 9 7 16 9.00-9:59 AM _8% 9 7 1 10 7 17 10:00-10:59 AM 9% 7 8 1 7 9 16 11:00 - 11:59 AM 9% 7 8 2 7 10 17 12.00 - 1.2:59 PM 8% 4 7 1 1 2 7 8 15 1:00 - 1:59 PM 9% 8 8 _8 8 16 2:00 - 2:59 PM 8% 7 7 _ 7 7 14 3:00 - 3:59 PM 9% 8 8 8 8 16 4:00-4:59 PM 8% 7 7 1 1 8 8 16 5:00 - 5:59 PM 2% 6 2 4 6 6 12 6:00 - 6:59 PM 3 2 3 2 5 7:00 - 7:59 PM 0 0 0 Total 100% 87 87 4 4 8 8 99 99 198 1111! 1l1, .1 I ( II01.1 1'1 1 1 It e Pup. II 4110 0 0 414) 4 1, 4, 0 4)47474;4)4i4)4D4)4)4)401)4)4)4,4,4i4)40404)4040(1) 410 40 0 40 0 41 •EELSBURG (4 HOLT & ULLEVIG 1-70 Frontage Road LEGEND XXX(XXX) = AM(PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes XXXX - Daily Traffic Volumes nnS. Not to Scale North Figure 6 Site Generated Traffic Grand River Park 11A. 06-131, 219107 bs� • 'h LEGEND XXX(XXX) = AM(PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes XXXX = Daily Traffic Volumes x/x AMIPM Peak Hour Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service = Stop Sign Not to Scale A 1-70 Frontage Road 10(10) 5(20) Z:5 Z 3,650 ;L 15(10)-. 90(140) —4, — a/a b/b Site Access t__ 10(10) t— 15(40) 840 d to 00 4 +11 L.1 111 r U 4 55(30) 10(5) 25(30) -- CR 331 85(70) 10(5)--t CR 311 Figure 7 Year 2008 Total Traffic Conditions yn'A Ce -151 2.9'07 -iaiiikikkk A V M r r iv 'r► i tw fir rUI • Liar;L 1 t1 fIIIHOLT Wit: ll r_'LLEVR LEGEND t -t t itttlittl th t Vli XXX(XXX) = AM(PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes XXXX = Daily Traffic Volumes x/x = AM/PM Peak Hour Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service XIX = AM/PM Peak Hour Signalized Intersection Level of Service U i= Stop Sign .,,_. = Traffic Signal o: o i-1 Nrh- 1-7() Frontage Road 20(35) — 35(45) 20,200 15(2O)-1. 615(925)-1. Scale 10(10) CR 331 -- 105(150) 2,800 150(125)---- 305(205) 65(40) 130(130) ii V t 130(90) 75(35) 15(25) CR 311 • Figure 8 Year 2027 Total Traffic Conditions Grand River Park sikl Pit • Traffic Impact Study C. Traffic Impacts Using HCh1-2000 methods. both signalized, unsignalized, and roundabout level of service analyses were conducted based on the future total peak hour traffic volumes_ The roundabout analysis software SIDRA was used for the proposed roundabout. The results of these analyses are summarized on Figures 7 and 8, and worksheets are included in Appendices C and D. For the 2027 total traffic scenario, as in the 2027 background condition, the proposed lane geometry and traffic control in the Stillwater Ranch report were used in the analysis. For future scenarios, the signalized intersections, stop controlled approaches, and proposed roundabout within the study area operate at LOS C or better with the lane geometry shown. D. Design Considerations The land use proposed for the site would result in an increase in side street truck traffic at the site access intersection with CR 346; 87 of the 99 outbound daily trips from the site would be sand and gravel trucks. These heavy vehicles require significantly longer time to accelerate to the pasted speed limit and therefore would require larger gaps in traffic to turn onto CR 346. This is particularly relevant for the sand and grave! trucks, which would be fully -loaded on the outbound trip. Even though CR 346 is not a state highway, the Colorado State Highway Access Code was used to determine acceleration and deceleration requirements for the access to the site. The classification category RB (Rural Highway) was used for this study. Due to the low peak hour volumes (10 vehicles per hour) at the site access and the posted speed limit of 35 mph, acceleration lanes are not needed on CR 346 according to the State Highway Access Code. In addition, deceleration lanes are not required due to the low volumes but should be implemented so that trucks can safely turn off of CR 346. Based on the RB classification in the State Highway Access Code, a westbound right turn lane should be constructed with a declaration length of 310 feet, including a 120 -foot taper (10:1 ratio). The traffic impact study for the proposed Stillwater Ranch development shows an access aligning with the intersection of CR 311 and CR 331 and recommends a roundabout be constructed at this intersection by 2012. Because the Grand River Park Gravel Pit traffic will impact the left turn movement at this intersection, it is recommended that the gravel pit pay approximately 25 percent of the equivalent cost of a left turn bay (based on number of passenger car equivalents). E. State Highway Access Permit Requirements The current daily traffic along the 1-70 Frontage Road west of CR 311 is approximately 3,000 vpd. The proposed site is estimated to generate approximately 200 trips per day on the 1-70 Frontage Road, which equates to a seven percent increase aver the current level of traffic on this roadway. Since this increase is less than 20%, the State Highway Access Code considers this a minor modification to the existing access permit on the Frontage Road. Thus, an access permit from the Colorado Department of Transportation is not required. 1 I Ltitit I KG [ , Ili! T 61. i 1' I VIS Ptn,r' I 5 Grand River Park G41)1 Pit 110 n'aff ic !r►r jr�rrr .5'frrrd f IV. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS Grand River Gravel Pit is a sand and gravel mane located on CR 346 to the southwest of the Towii of Silt. The property would include parking for employees, a sand and gravel mine, processing plant, and aggregate storage area. The site is projected to generate approximately 200 daily trips, with 20 of these trips during the AM peak and 16 of these trips during the PM peak. Based on the results of the traffic analysis, the existing, Short Range Future, and Long Range Future scenarios are projected to operate at acceptable LOS with the proposed lane geometry and traffic control. The Long Range Future scenario includes site generated traffic from the proposed Stillwater Ranch and Ferguson Crossing developments as well as proposed lane geometry and traffic control. In order for trucks to safely enter the site, the following roadway improvements are recommended. • Construct a 310 -foot deceleration lane for the westbound right turns into the site from CR 346. Although not required to accommodate the gravel pit traffic, it is recommended that the Grand River Park Gravel Pit pay approximately 25 percent of the equivalent cost of a left turn bay (based on passenger car equivalents) to account for their proportionate share of the cost of road improvements in relation to the traffic generated by the Stillwater Ranch development. A state highway access permit is not required because the proposed site is expected to increase the traffic along the 1-70 Frontage Road by only seven percent, which is considered a minor modification to the existing access permit. Put,. 16 Grand River Park Ad Pit • Traffic Impact Study APPENDIX A TRAFFIC COUNTS • 111.Si31.11RO i, II0I T �z l l 1 EVIU Appendix . I All fhill', Data Sofvices, Inc woo t4 44111 Ave 11M0•.ft Maw'. CO 80033 111111 iIllfrtellrc:cialtl.nef ti 1 nine u 011AM 0/ 15 AM 07 30 AM 9/ 45 AM 1 rstttl OM 00 AM 0815 AM 11H :to AM On 45 AM Tad lvlt 3 2 1 3 9 ALL Traffic Data File Name : 3168t346AN1 Site Code : 00000000 Start Date ; 811512006 Rage No : 1 Grvues Printed- Unshifted 316 Southbound 346 Westbound 316 Northbound 346 Eastbound Thru I Right 1 Peds Left Thru I Right Peds Left Thru Right Peds Leff Thru r Right Peds 5 5 0 1 1 3 0 1 12 2 0 3 2 0 0 10 2 0 1 1 1 0 1 5 1 0 3 3 1 0 9 3 0 2 0 2 0 1 14 1 0 4 1 1 0 6 5 0 1 1 2 0 0 3 2 0 3 0 1 0 30 15 0 5 3 8 0 3 34 6 0 13 6 3 0 5 4 1 0 6 1 3 0 5 10 4 0 1 10 6 0 17 25 14 0 (,r,ttxl ICrt:tl 76 55 29 0 Arrprrlr% 236 50 264 0 1 ul.al 'h• 10 3 21.7 11.5 0 1 1 3 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 3 0 1 2 5 0 4 4 12 0 9 7 20 0 25 19.4 55-6 0 3.6 2.8 7.9 0 0 4 1 0 0 7 1 0 1 7 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 23 5 0 5 57 11 0 6.8 78.1 15 1 0 2 22.5 4.3 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 1 2 1 0 8 3 1 0 21 9 4 0 61.8 26.5 11.8 0 8.3 3.6 1.6 0 315 Qut In Trial 98 110 fl t Th North ad 8/1512006 07.0 811512006 08 45 AM Unshif Left Thru R • Pads l 68) Out in otal 31(1. int loot 38 31 39 2? 135 21 24 36 37 118 253 All Traf :r Data Alt batty Data Services, Inc �G1�i1 W 4411: Ave Wheat R:dgt., CO 80033 wwwf:llfraThcdara. net File Name : 3168.346AM Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 8/15/2006 Page No : 2 316 Southbound 346 Westbound 316 Northbound 346 Eastbound `'d. rr1 10110. Left [ rhru 1 Flrgnt Peds Left 1 Thru I 'oak Flout Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 I °er,lk Hour lot Ent 0/00AM 3 07:15AM 2 0/ 30 AM ' 1 Of 4!-1 AM 3 to.d vroomo.0 .. Aril Todd! PI IP 107 750 Left ! 1 hru Ri,a 1 Peds I Lett I Thru wit it I Ped 318 Peak Hour Data North [nShifted eak Hour Begins at a1:60 AM 318 A 2 Nc— re re N sn 0 c 5 r 1 3 5 1 2 10 2 0 14 1 1 1 0 3 1 5 1 0 7 3 3 1 0 7 31 9 3 0 13 2 14 1 0 16 4 39 6 5 0 14 1 1 2 0 4 0 3 2 0 5 3 0 1 0 4 27 30 15 0 54 5 3 8 0 16 3 34 6 0 43 13 6 3 0 22 135 5.5.6 27.8 0 31.2 18.8 50 0 7 79.1 14 0 59.1 27.3 13.6 0 750 .750 .000 .964 .625 .750 .667 .000 .800 .750 .607 .750 .000 .672 .813 .500 ,750 .000 .786 865 318 Peak Hour Data North [nShifted eak Hour Begins at a1:60 AM 318 A 2 Nc— re re N sn 0 c AA 7' alt(' Data services, Inc �rttl�r W 44th Ave W. )f Ridge. CO 80033 ww�t JIM afrcdata.net Si, tri Time 0.1 (f0 F'M 041sPM 04 30 PM 04 45 PM 7 trl�ti (15 00 PM 0515 PM 05 30 PM 05 45 PM 1n1:11 Left 2 5 5 7 19 3 9 5 6 23 All Traffic Data File Name : 316$346PM Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 8/15/2006 Page No : 1 roues Printed- Unstated 316 Southbound 346 Westbound 316 Northbound 346 Eastbound Irrt L Thru Right C Peds Left Thru I Right Pads Left Thru Right Peds Left Thru 1 Right' Peds ' 8 5 0 2 2 2 0 1 12 0 0 6 2 0 0 15 4 0 1 0 3 0 2 16 1 0 7 1 0 0 8 3 0 1 2 10 0 1 19 1 0 4 2 0 0 12 7 0 1 4 7 0 3 22 2 0 4 0 1 0 43 19 0 i 5 8 22 0 7 69 4 0 21 5 1 0 11 12 0 0 1 2 0 2 16 0 0' 8 0 0 0 13 12 0 0 4 6 0 1 7 1 0 6 0 3 0 13 6 0, 0 1 5 0 0 9 1 0 5 1 0 0 5 1 0 1 1 2 0 1 15 0 0 4 3 2 0 42 31 0 1 7 15 0 4 47 2 0 23 4 5 01 Grand 1ut:il 42 App+rh'4, 237 Total "k, 9.8 65 48 19.9 50 28.2 11.7 0 0 6 15 37 10.3 25.9 63.8 1.4 3.5 8.7 0 0 0 11 116 8.3 87.2 2.6 27.2 6 4.5 1.4 0 0 0 44 9 6 74.6 15.3 10.2 10 3 2.1 1.4 T North 811512006 04'00 8/15/2006 05.45 PM t..t ad i I r Left Thru R e ht Ped 971 316 w 0 0 0 1uIdl 4, 55 56 70 223 55 62 46 41 204 427 .AU fi.: attic Data All Isoffit. Dclltr Sorvices, Inc Priod1 W 4-11h Ave Witold Raki,..CO 80033 www tillf►afllc:rfnta.nct File Name : 316&346PM Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 8/1512006 Page No : 2 + P 316 346 Southbound Westbound telt i now R.9!! tracts 1 Av. r r' Left i Ttwu J %tit Ped Petal. thou Analysis From 04 DO PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 o11 1'n.tk I $t>411 Ito L lit t)4 'tri, PM 114 4' 1'M uu F"M 05 15 PM 1411.11 Vrohililt, . Apr f111.1r 1'I fr 5 7 3 9 24 23 !'i 6117 316 Northbound 5.r eft Thru j mot 1 P TON 346 Eastbound I Left 1 T iu i}r edsi 8 3 0 16 1 10 13 1 19 1 0 21 4 2 0 0 6 56 12 7 0 26 1 4 7 0 12 3 22 2 27 4 0 1 0 5 TO 11 12 8 13 12 0 34 0 4 6 0 10 1 7 1 0 9 6 0 3 0 9 52 44 34 0 102 2 11 25 0 38 7 64 4 0 75 22 2 4 0 28 243 43.1 33.3 0 5.3 28.9 65.8 0 9.3 85.3 5.3 0 78.6 7.1 14.3 0 .846 .708 .000 .750 I .500 .688 .625 .000 .731 .583 .727 .500 .000 .694 .688 .250 _333 .000 .778 .868 316 In Total Peak Hour Data North Peak How Begins at 04.30 pm Unshitted 318 606664464 7,•3 Sero es Irc :,'4411/,11 Ave =a.' Ridge. CO 80033 www.alltrafflcd ata. net Start 15 -Aug -06 Time Tue EB WB 12:00 AM 2 0 01:00 0 0 02:00 3 1 03:00 0 1 04:00 1 2 05:00 12 12 06:00 19 22 07:00 19 25 08:00 11 17 09:00 12 13 10:00 13 15 11:00 13 23 12:00 PM 9 19 01.00 18 22 02:00 22 10 03.00 19 19 04:00 20 22 05:00 28 28 06:00 28 15 07:00 17 12 08:00 13 11 09:00 6 3 10:00 6 4 11:00 2 1 Total 2 0 4 1 1110 3 24 41 44 28 25 28 36 28 40 32 38 42 56 43 29 24 9 10 3 Total 293 297 590 Percent 49.7% 50.3% _ AM Peak 06:00 07:00 07:00 Vol. 19 25 44 PM Peak 17:00 17:00 17:00 Vol. 28 28 56 Grand Total 293 297 590 Percent 49.7% 50.3% ADT Not Calculated • +IIIt11+liititUtttttutuuutuuuut Start 15 -Aug -06 Time Tue _ EB WB --,. 12:00 AM 11 3 14 01:00 2 0 2 02:00 0 2 2 03:00 4 4 8 04:00 6 7 13 05:00 48 49 97 06:00 81 95 176 07:00 98 166 264 08:00 89 112 201 09:00 93 85 178 10:00 87 87 174 11:00 77 107 184 12:00 PM 78 83 161 01:00 82 80 162 02:00 94 97 191 03:00 102 111 213 04:00 135 106 241 05:00 140 100 240 06:00 122 89 211 07:00 65 57 122 08:00 44 42 86 09:00 33 18 51 10:00 22 11 33 11:00 15 5 20 Total 1528 1516 3044 Percent 50.2% 49.8% AM Peak 07:00 07:00 07:00 Vol. 98 166 264 PM Peak 17:00 15:00 16:00 Vol. 140 111 241 Grand Total 1528 1516 3044 Percent 50.2% 49.8% ADT Not Calculated • Grand River Park ILI Pit Traffic Impact Studs APPENDIX B EXISTING LEVELS OF SERVICE • iil`l'l la C I1,rl rlppendi.. ft 1 I( tinsignalized lnieection Capacity Analysis : 1 rontago Road & County Road 311 • E xilinri AM14',l, I venment 1.1f 14' Configurations Sirgir Control ('irr,drs Volume (vehlh) F'n. rk Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) I'e+rirrstrrans Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC 1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol IC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) IF (s) pit queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) m+ectior, Lane # — EBT EBR WBL WBT Free 0% 12 0.92 13 EB 1 67 0.92 73 VIf B 1 Volume Total 86 Volume Left 0 Volume Right 73 cStI 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.05 Or rel ie Length 95th (ft) 0 Control Delay (s) 0.0 lane LOS Approach Delay (s) 0.0 Approach LOS 14 7 0 1492 0.00 0 3.4 A 3.4 6 0.92 7 86 86 4.1 2.2 100 1492 NB 1 137 115 22 936 0.15 13 9.5 A 9.5 A Free 0% 7 0.92 8 NBL NBR ite Stop 106 20 0.92 0.92 115 22 None 70 49 70 49 6.4 6.2 3.5 3.3 88 98 923 1011 11'1%ction Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (rain) 5.7 19.5% 15 ICU Level of Service A 1312007 1 rritil.rurg Holt & IJllevig Synchro 6 Repor t K:\061511Synchro\ExistinglExisting AM . sy7 HCM Unsignalized intillection Capacity Analysis 3: County Road 331 & County Road 311 • Existiru AMfeni•. Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lance Configurations 4 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Volume (vehlh) 68 7 9 53 33 27 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 74 8 10 58 36 29 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed Otis) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 134 72 101 0 0 vC 1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 134 72 101 0 0 IC, single (s) 7.2 6.6 6.6 6.2 4.1 IC, 2 stage (s) IF (s) 3.5 4.0 4.0 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 90 99 99 95 98 cM capacity (vehlh) 765 795 766 1076 1604 Direction, Lana# EB 1 W137-1-- SB 1 SB 2 :r f:'i .` Volume Total 82 67 36 29 Volume Left 74 0 36 0 Volume Right 0 58 0 29 cSH 768 1016 1604 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.11 0.07 0.02 0.02 Ouecre Length 95th (ft) 9 5 2 0 Control Delay (s) 10.2 8.8 7.3 0.0 Lane LOS B A A Approach Delay (s) 10.2 8.8 4.0 Approach LOS B A }Intersection Summary Average Delay 7,9 Intersection Capacity Utilization 20.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 218/2007 Synchro 6 Repoli K:1061511Synchro\ExistinglExisting AM.sy7 I elsliurrl Holt & Ullevig 11CM Unsignalized Infection Capacity Analysis 2: Frontage Road & County Road 311 • Existing PM Peak ovement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR 1 ally Configurations ty 4' tYr Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0°k 0% Volume (vehlh) 8 115 20 8 82 9 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 9 125 22 9 89 10 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (fIJs) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 134 123 71 vC 1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 134 123 71 IC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 IC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 98 90 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 1433 851 983 irection, Lane # EB 1 VUB 1 NB 1 Volume Total 134 30 99 Volume Left 0 22 89 Volume Right 125 0 10 cSH 1700 1433 863 Volume to Capacity 0.08 0.02 0.11 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 1 10 Control Delay (s) 0.0 5.4 9.7 Lane LOS A A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 5.4 9.7 Approach LOS A Intersection Summary Average Delay 4.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 26.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 2/8/2007 Felsburg Holt & Ullevig Synchro 6 Report K: \061511Synchro\Existing\Existing PM.sy7 1 l[;M l Irtsignalized If/section Capacity Analysis :t t:tnirrty Road 331 & County Road 311 _ 0.4ovni n 'nt carr, 4,rrnfigura11ons 4 t Sign Control Stop Stop t;r,trit' 0% 0% Votumo (veh/h) 54 5 6 29 flunk Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 59 5 7 32 Ilear-Arians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Flrtr1it trial flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 128 93 164 0 0 v01, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 128 93 164 0 0 1C, single (s) 7.2 6.6 6.6 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 4.0 4.0 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 93 99 99 97 97 cM capacity (veh/h) 790 768 702 1076 1604 re 6n;5Lan it r'TO. , i °' SBT SB 2 Existing PM Peak EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Free 0% 43 65 0.92 0.92 47 71 Volume Total 64 38 47 71 Volume Left 59 0 47 0 Volume Right 0 32 0 71 cSH 788 986 1604 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.08 0.04 0.03 0.04 Queue Length 95th (ft) 7 3 2 0 Control Delay (s) 10.0 8.8 7.3 0.0 1 ane LOS A A A Approach Delay (s) 10.0 8.8 2.9 Approach LOS A A nfarsection Summary Average Delay 6.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 19.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 218,9007 Synchro 6 Report K:\061511Synchro\Existing\Existing PM.sy7 F e,1;hin g Halt & Ullevig UftflUUtUh1tUUUttiflUUh1UUUU Grand Kiger Park vel Pit Traffic Impact Study APPENDIX C SHORT TERM LEVELS OF SERVICE FEl SBURG ( 11('LT & LILLEV1G Appri;div d' iv Unsignalizeed Ineection Capacity • Analysis 2008 Background i(pritNue Road & County Road 311 ~ 4\ ik AM Pei +tovernent EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR or ,p configurations To, 4 Sign Control Free Free Stop ( r;,tde 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) 15 80 5 10 125 20 Pttak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 llourly flow rate (vph) 16 87 5 11 136 22 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ftls) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 103 82 60 vC 1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 103 82 60 IC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 100 85 98 cM capacity (veh/h) 1470 910 997 !iirectioii, Lane # E '( We 1' i NB 1 Volume Total 103 16 158 Volume Left 0 5 136 Volume Right 87 0 22 cSH 1700 1470 921 Volume to Capacity 0.06 0.00 0.17 Oueue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 15 Control Delay (s) 0.0 2.5 9.7 Lark LOS A A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 2.5 9.7 Approach LOS A Inteeisesction Summary Average Delay 5.7 Intersection Capacity Utilization 20.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 241'2007 Synchro 6 Repos l K:1061511Synchro12008 Bckgrnd12008 Background AM.sy7 f t islae.irg Holt & Ullevig 11( rw1 1111",111rt.111.-4.11 1nOection Capacity Analysis • 2008 Background (-Annoy 1.++; ri i 331 & County Road 311 AM Peak Mitt11 EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR 4 T4Viol Cosltic)! Stop Stop Free t .r grin 0% 0% 0% Vt)Yi1110 (vuliltr) 75 10 10 55 35 30 I.unb How 1 Mini 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 N N^1y !km rein (vph) 82 11 11 60 38 33 I'nlla4lr riu'rr. WV/MOM (to Welkut0 Spend (IUs) Pleftit Blockage kr 1+I turn flr+rn (V1,11) None None Madam, storage von) 'ff lignal (it) px. plaloun unblocked j9.411fitiing volume 141 76 109 0 0 vie 1, stair 1 cunt vol IMINGto 2 coni vol vCr►, eN+t,l:lc+ert vol 141 76 109 0 0 PAW (tl) 7.2 6.6 6.6 6.2 4.1 tt' ! *1,i{lei (;) t+' t•I 3.5 4.0 4.0 3.3 2.2 1K► Tome t►re+r 89 99 99 94 98 darsiclly (vrelJti) 754 789 757 1076 1604 r*Coiiin t +��+ t.EB 1 WB 1 SB 1 SB 2 p 101.11 92 71 38 33 Vnl+nn t r,tt 82 0 38 0 VOiuino Righl 0 60 0 33 r.%11 758 1011 1604 1700 VONN1io to Capacity 0.12 0.07 0.02 0.02 V,?►rrue Ietiglh 95th (ft) 10 6 2 0 001101V1Delay (s) 10.4 8.8 7.3 0.0 tuna L )a B A A MOHO Delay (s) 10.4 8.8 3.9 Approach LOS B A 1�r Summary Avernipe Delay 8.0 Mohr'$ ction Capacity Utilization 2i .3% ECU Level of Service A Anntynli Period (min) 15 .!'43C10u Synchro 6 Report K:1061511Synchro12008 Bckgrnd12008 Background AM.syi 1 trIttbt rr ct Holt & Ullevig If .M tinsignalized Int Action Capacity Analysis 2 I ronta je Road & County Road 311 • 2008 Background PM Peak JiUvQrnrnt �► i `- 4\ EBT EBR: WBL 1NBT NBL NBR I ono. Corrfulurations ja 4 Sitin Control Free Free Stop [�r;�tlrs 0% 0% 0% Volume (vehlh) 10 130 20 10 95 10 F't•;rk Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 11 141 22 11 103 11 Ptitlrrslnarrs Lane Width (ft) W,alkrng Speed (ftls) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median typo None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) px, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 152 136 82 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 152 136 82 IC. single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 IC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 lr0 queue free % 98 88 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 1410 837 970 pffe-4 in,Lane# EB1 WB 7 NB1 Volume Total 152 33 114 Volume Left 0 22 103 Volume Right 141 0 11 cSH 1700 1410 848 Volume to Capacity 0.09 0.02 0.13 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 1 12 Control Delay (s) 0.0 5.1 9.9 Lane LOS A A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 5.1 9.9 Approach LOS A Intersection Summary Average Delay 4.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 27.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 2/1312007 Synchro 6 Repent K:1061511Synchro12008 Bckgrnd12008 Background PM.sy7 Felsburg Holt & tilievig F I(:Ml linsijnaliized int ection Capacity Analysis 3 Cotmty Road 331 & County Road 311 • 2008 Background PM F'edk _÷ 4 Movcrtrent EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR al rte Configurations 4 i it Sign Control Stop Stop Free Condi e 0% 0% 0% Volunit: (veh/h) 60 5 5 30 45 70 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 65 5 5 33 49 76 I ettt,s,lrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (leis) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 133 98 174 0 0 vC 1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 133 98 174 0 0 tC, single (s) 7.2 6.6 6.6 6.2 4.1 IC, 2 stage (s) IF (s) 3.5 4.0 4.0 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 92 99 99 97 97 cM capacity (veh/h) 783 763 692 1076 1604 birection, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 SB 1 SB 2 Volume Total 71 38 49 76 Volume Left 65 0 49 0 Volume Right 0 33 0 76 cSH 781 997 1604 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.09 0.04 0.03 0.04 Queue Length 95th (ft) 7 3 2 0 Control Delay (s) 10.1 8.8 7.3 0.0 Lane LCIS B A A Approach Delay (s) 10.1 8.8 2.9 Approach LOS B A Intersection Summary Average Delay 6.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 20.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 2/8/2007 Felsburg Holt & Ullevig Synchro 6 Report K:1061511Synchro12008 Bckgmd12008 Background PM sy7 I i(;1M I insignalized Initection Capacity Analysis 2008 Trtt;tl 1 ( :tJur Iiy Road 346 & Site Access AM irttr Ott EBL EST WBT WBR SBL SBR 1 Wu, C:c,catuturations '�rf- $igo Control Free Free Stop rir, 0% 0% 0% Volintle (veh/h) 0 25 15 10 10 5 I',.,+w ttcnrr Factor 0.92 0.92 092 0.92 0.92 0.92 l Iuurty flow rate (vph) 0 27 16 11 11 5 I'c,rlrsstrrnrs Ldnu Width (ft) Wtrlkirrsi Speed (ftfs) Percent Blockage t:itilrt tririi flare (veh) McGhan type None Madirui storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 27 43 16 vC 1, stage 1 conf vol vC2. stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 27 43 16 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 IC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 of) queue free % 100 99 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 1567 960 1054 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 WB 2 SB 1 Volume Total 27 16 11 16 Volume Left 0 0 0 11 Volume Right 0 0 11 5 cSll 1700 1700 1700 989 Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.02 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 1 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.7 Lana LOS A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 8.7 Approach LOS A Intersection Summary Average Delay 2.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 13.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis period (min) 15 2/8/2007 Synchro 6 Report K:1061511Synchroi2008 Tota112008 AM sy? Felsburg Holt & Ullevig 1 ICM Unsignaiized InOsection Capacity Analysis S 2008 Total 2: Frontage Road & County Road 311 AM Peak 4— 4 p Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Luno Configurations ', 4 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Volume (vehfh) 15 90 5 10 135 20 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 16 98 5 11 147 22 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ftls) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 114 87 65 vC 1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 114 87 65 IC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 100 84 98 cM capacity (vehfh) 1457 903 990 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 Volume Total 114 16 168 Volume Left 0 5 147 Volume Right 98 0 22 cSH 1700 1457 914 Volume to Capacity 0.07 0.00 0.18 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 17 Control Delay (s) 0.0 2.5 9.8 Lane LOS A A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 2.5 9.8 Approach LOS A Intersection Summary Average Delay 5.7 intersection Capacity Utilization 21.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 2/8/2007 Synchro 6 Report K:\061511Synchro12008 Tota112008 AM sy7 06464 Felsburg Holt & Ullevig I IUM l Jr tsignaiized I ntikction Capacity Analysis • 3 Cotirnly Road 331 & County Road 311 2008 Tutnl AM PV.: a-- r+r*edrient EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR I .11 If. Urrnlu orations 4 1 r Sign Control Stop Stop Free Grad 0% 0% 0% V(.alunae (vehfh) 85 10 10 55 35 40 Firms Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hr lofty flow rate (vph) 92 11 11 60 38 43 i't �Str;lrt;aros Lone Width (ft) Walking Speed (ftJs) Percent Blockage F:ittlri lilt flare (veh) Median type None None Mecti, n i storage veh) Upstronm signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC., conflicting volume 141 76 120 0 0 %/Ct. stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vr..u, untaloched vat 141 76 120 0 0 tC, single (s) 7.2 6.6 6.6 6.2 4.1 IL. 2 slave (s) IF (s) 3.5 4.0 4.0 3.3 2.2 pit queue Tree % 88 99 99 94 98 GM capacity (veh/h) 754 789 747 1076 1604 Irciiiin; Lane # EB 1 W8 1 SB 1 SB 2 Volume Total Vtrlunie Left Voltam. Right cril Volume to Capacity Untrue t ength 95th (ft) Control Delay (s) Larva LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS intei colon Summary 103 71 38 43 92 0 38 0 O 60 0 43 757 1008 1604 1700 0.14 0.07 0.02 0.03 12 6 2 0 10.5 8.8 7.3 0.0 B A A 10.5 8.8 3.4 B A Average Detay 7.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 21.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 1/H/20(17 1 eI lftrrq Holt & Ullevig Synchro 6 Repot K:1061511Synchro12008 Totat12008 AM sy7 lit linsignalized Ir section Capacity Analysis 2008 Total 1 Comity city Road 346 & Site Access PM Peak Movirnent EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR k ;tl le Cuntigurations r Sign Control Free Free Stop Glade 0% 0% 0% 1lvlur�rr� (veh/h) 0 30 40 10 10 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 33 43 11 11 0 f'udi .Ii !MIS Lune Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 54 76 43 vC 1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 54 76 43 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 IC, 2 stage (s) IF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 100 99 100 cM capacity (vehlh) 1532 920 1018 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 WB 2 SB 1 Voluine Total 33 43 1 1 11 Volume Left 0 0 0 11 Volume Right 0 0 11 0 cSH 1700 1700 1700 920 Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.01 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 1 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.0 Lane LOS A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 9.0 Approach LOS A Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 13.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 2/8/2007 Synchro 6 ReporI K:\061511Synchro12008 Total12008 PM . s y r Felsburg Holt & Ulfevig 11CM tJnsignalized Ineection Capacity Analysis S 2008 1 rit ll ' 1 rontage Road & County Road 311 I'M r •. • k 'i f` 4— 4 c vement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR I. ill fit' Guiiliguratlons T} 4 V Sign Control Free Free Stop (;ait, 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) 10 140 20 10 105 10 t'rviik Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 11 152 22 11 114 11 PERI strians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ftfs) Percent Blockage Hight turd flare (veh) Median type None Modian storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 163 141 87 vC 1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 163 141 87 IC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) IF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 98 86 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 1397 831 963 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 Volume Total 163 33 125 Volume Left 0 22 114 Volume Right 152 0 11 cSH 1700 1397 841 Volume to Capacity 0.10 0.02 0.15 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 1 13 Control Delay (s) 0.0 5.1 10.0 Lane LOS A B Approach Delay (s) 0.0 5.1 10.0 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Average Delay 4.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 28.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 2/812007 Synchro 6 Report K:1061511Synchroi2008 Tota02008 PM sy7 Felsburg Holt & Ullevig 00140 I It M llnsignalized Inection Capacity Analysis c.;e minty Road 331 & County Road 311 • 2008 Total PM Peak 1 ONO Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR 1 i+: Configurations 4 I 11 if bion Control Stop Slop Free (;10(10 0% 0% 0% Volun►e (veh/h) 70 5 5 30 45 80 I'irak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0,92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 76 5 5 33 49 87 i'e.destrians Lann Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage 1.0111 lura flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX. platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 133 98 185 0 0 vC.1. stage 1 conf vol vC2. stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 133 98 185 0 0 IC, single (s) 7.2 6.6 6.6 6.2 4.1 IC, 2 shute (s) IF (s) 3.5 4.0 4.0 3.3 2.2 oft queue free % 90 99 99 97 97 CM capacity (vehlh) 783 763 683 1076 1604 DWoction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 SB 1 SB 2 Vokune Total 82 38 49 87 Volume Left 76 0 49 0 Volume Right 0 33 0 87 cSH 782 994 1604 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.10 0.04 0.03 0.05 Or Mile Length 95th (ft) 9 3 2 0 Control Delay (s) 10.1 8.8 7.3 0.0 lane lOS B A A Approach Delay (s) 10.1 8.8 2.6 Approach LOS B A Inlersoction Summary Average Delay 5.9 Intersection Capacity Utilization 20.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 2/8/2007 Synchro 6 Report K:\061511Synchro12008 Total\2008 PM.sy7 1 i ,i ;Lmurg Holt & Ullevig Grand River Park gtel Pit Traffic Impact Study APPENDIX D LONG TERM LEVELS OF SERVICE ( l �l LI IT l t'l 1 FV1 Appendix I) 1 1 :M Signalized ante tion Capacity Analysis ; f inntnge Road & County Road 311 0;104 -r-l. Movement EBT 2027 Background AM Peak C 4_ 4\ EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR 1 .,i u: Configurations Ideal Flow (vphpl) Io1;0 Lost time (s) Lane Uhl. Factor Fr1 Fit Protected ;ald Flow (prat) Flt Permitted Satcf. Flow (perm) r 4 W 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.96 1810 1538 1754 3322 1.00 1.00 0.87 0.96 1810 1538 1581 3322 Volume (vph) Peak -hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTO Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) 15 0.92 16 0 16 605 0.92 658 282 376 35 0.92 38 0 0 20 740 50 0.92 0.92 0.92 22 804 54 0 6 0 60 852 0 Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) 2 45.3 45,3 0.57 4.0 3.0 Perm Perm 2 6 45.3 45.3 0.57 4.0 3.0 6 8 45.3 26.0 45.3 26.0 0.57 0.33 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1034 879 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 vfs Ratio Perm c0.24 vfc Ratio 0.02 0.43 Uniform Delay, dl 7.4 9.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.0 1.5 Delay (s) 7.4 11.2 Level of Service A B Approach Delay (s) 11.1 Approach LOS B Fntersection Summary . 903 1089 03.26 0.04 0.07 7.6 1.00 0.1 7.7 A 7.7 A 0.78 24.1 1.00 3.7 27.8 c 27.8 c f iCM Average Control Delay HCM Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group 20.0 0.56 79.3 47.5% 15 HCM Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service B 8.0 A 21912007 Fclsbutg Holt & Ullevig Synchro 6 Report K:1061511Synchro12027 Bckgrnd12027 Background AM.,Iy/ g.dlIntersection Stonmary SCR 311/CR 331 Sloe Subtitle .10101 Performance Measure Demand Flows - Total soim Percent Heavy Vehicles Degree of Saturation Effective Intersection Capacity 95% Bat k of Queue (ft) 95% Back of Queue (veh) Control Delay (Total) Control Delay (Average) Level of Service Level of Service (Worst Movement) Total Effective Stops Effective Stop Rate Proportion Queued travel Distance (Total) Travel distance (Average) Travel Time (Total) Travel Time (Average) Travel Speed Operating Cost (Total) Fuel Consumption (Total) Carbon Dioxide (Total) Hydrocarbons (Total) Carbon Monoxide (Total) NOX (Total) .... i & associate ,, akcelik aTraffic aaSIDR/'. K: \06151 \Synchro\Roundabout\AM 2027 Bckgrnd roduced by aaSIDRA 2.1.4.357 Copyright© 2000-2005 ktelik & Associates Pty Ltd 7/9/2007 8:15:58 AM Vehicles Persons 2080 veh/h 3120 pers/h 5.0 % 0.706 2948 veh/h 266 ft 10.2 veh 6.78 veh-h/h 10.17 pers-h/h 11.7 s/veh 11.7 s/pers LOS B LOS B 1810 veh/h 2715 pers/h 0.87 per veh 0.87 per pers 0.84 0.84 846.3 veh-mi/h 1269.5 pers-mi/h 2148 ft 2148 ft 31.3 veh-h/h 46.9 pers-h/h 54.1 secs 54.1 secs 27.1 mph 27.1 mph 810$/h 810$/h 33.7 gal/h 319.8 kg/h 0.478 kg/h 15.99 kg/h 0.581 kg/h I it.M Signalized Inter tion Capacity Analysis 1 rr,ntarje Road & County Road 311 • 2027 Background PM Peak H,�r7Vurnr:nt EBT '\ p EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR amp r L,o1Iflgurations bloat Flow (vphpl) Iota' Lora time (s) Lane Ulil. Factor tit lit Protected said 1 low (prat) Ft( Permitted Sall] Flow (perm) Volume (vph) Peak -hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) R roR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1810 1.00 1810 20 0.92 22 0 22 4 '1 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 4.0 4.0 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.97 0.95 1538 1760 3328 1.00 0.87 0.95 1538 1575 3328 915 0.92 995 401 594 45 0.92 49 0 0 35 775 35 0.92 0.92 0.92 38 842 38 0 3 0 87 877 0 Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Large Grp Cap (vph) vis Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm vlc Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary 2 52.1 52.1 0.60 4.0 3.0 1080 918 0.01 Perm Perm 2 6 52.1 52.1 0.60 4.0 3.0 6 8 52.1 27.2 52.1 27.2 0.60 0.31 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 0.02 7.2 1.00 0.0 7.2 A 14.9 c0.39 0.65 11.6 1.00 3.5 15.1 B 940 1037 c0.26 0.06 0.09 7.5 1.00 0.2 7,7 A 7.7 A 0.85 28.1 1.00 6.5 34.5 c 34.5 c HCM Average Control Delay HCM Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) C Critical Lane Group 23.3 0.72 87.3 67.7% 15 HCM Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service C 8.0 C 2/9/2007 F ulshing Holt & Ullevig Synchro 6 Repurl K:\06151.1Synchro12027 Bckgrnd12027 Background PM,sy7 osgdiqntersection Stir mary 6064 CR 311/CR 331 subtitle 600 . Performance Measure Demand Flows - Total Joh Percent Heavy Vehicles Degree of Saturation Effective Intersection Capacity 95% Brick of Queue (ft) 95% Back of Queue (veh) Control Delay (Total) ispillControl Delay (Average) Level of Service Level of Service (Worst Movement) Owe Total Effective Stops Effective Stop Rate Proportion Queued Travel Distance (Total) LSTravel Distance (Average) Travel Time (Total) Travel Time (Average) Travel Speed Operating Cost (Total) Fuel Consumption (Total) Carbon Dioxide (Total) Hydrocarbons (Total) Carbon Monoxide (Total) fIOX (Total) akce13k & associalc aTraffic aaSIDRP. • Vehicles 2263 veh/h 5.0 D/0 0.817 2770 veh/h 396 ft 15.2 veh 7.15 veh-hjh 11.4 s/veh LOS 8 LOS B 1898 veh/h 0,84 per veh 0,89 917.3 veh-mi/h 2140 ft 33,7 veh-h/h 53.6 secs 27.2 mph 872 $ /h 36.5 gal/h 346.2 kg/h 0.517 kg/h 17.33 kg/h 0.632 kg/h Persons 3395 pers/h 10.73 pers-h/h 11.4 s/pers 2847 pers/h 0.84 per pers 0.89 1376.0 pers-mi/h 2140 ft 50.5 pers-h/h 53.6 secs 27.2 mph 872 $ /h :`06151\Synchro\Roundabout\ PM 2027 Bckgrnd roduced by aaSIDRA 2.1.4.357 Copyright© 2000-2005 kcelik & A55ociates Pty Ltd 1,1!, c 1/9/2007 8:16:24 AM 11CM Unsignalized In•ection Capacity Analysis 1 Comity Road 346 & Site Access -4r, 44- 4/ WBT WBR SBL SBR 2027 Total AM Peak l „n[. Configurations + r Yj Sign Control Free Free Stop (;rt,ciRr 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) 0 150 105 10 10 0 Pooh Hour Factor 0.02 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 163 114 11 11 0 l'udeslr,ans Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (itis) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 125 277 114 vC 1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 125 277 114 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 IC, 2 stage (s) IF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 100 98 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 1443 706 930 pieection, Lane # FB 1 WB 1 WB 2 SB 1 Volume Total 163 114 11 11 Volume Left 0 0 0 11 Volume Right 0 0 11 0 cSH 1700 1700 1700 706 Volume to Capacity 0.10 0.07 0.01 0.02 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 1 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.2 Lane LOS B Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 10.2 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Average Delay lritersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 0.4 17.9% 15 ICU Level of Service A 2/9/2007 Synchro 6 Report K:1061511Synchro12027 Total12027 AM sy7 Fulsburg Holt & Ullevig 1 fCM Signalized lnter•ti©n Capacity Analysis rontage Road & County Road 311 -- ' 4- Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR 2027 TotHI AM Pcrrk 1 one Configurations + r 4 'V Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 l0lsd Lost lime (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lame Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 f it 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 lit Protected 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.96 Said Flow (prof) 1810 1538 1754 3322 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.87 0.96 Srrtd. Flow (perm) 1810 1538 1581 3322 Volume (vph) 15 615 35 20 750 50 130A -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 16 668 38 22 815 54 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 288 0 0 6 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 16 380 0 60 863 0 Turn Type Perm Perm Protected Phases 2 6 8 Permitted Phases 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 45.3 45.3 45.3 26.3 Effective Green, g (s) 45.3 45.3 45.3 26.3 Actuated glC Ratio 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.33 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4A 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1030 875 900 1098 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 c0.26 vis Ratio Perm c0.25 0.04 v/c Ratio 0.02 0.43 0.07 0.79 Uniform. Delay, di 7.5 9.8 7.7 24.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.0 1.6 0.1 3.8 Delay (5) 7.5 11.4 7.8 27.9 Level of Service A B A C Approach Delay (s) 11.3 7.8 27.9 Approach LOS B A C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay HCM Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group 20.1 0.56 79.6 48.1% 15 HCM Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Levet of Service 8.0 A 2/912007 Synchro 6 Repur 1 K:1061511Synchro12027 Tota112027 AM sy/ 1 eh;hur j Hull & Ullevig +Intersection Stir ma ry ,SCR 311/CR 331 toe lima Performance Measure Ira Demand Flows - Total two Percent Heavy Vehicles Degree of Saturation boa Iffy( live Intersection Capacity 400 95'".+W Back of Queue (ft) 95% Back of Queue (veh) Control Delay (Total) Control Delay (Average) Level of Service Level of Service (Worst Movement) SOS Total Effective Stops Effective Stop Rate Proportion Queued 401110 Travel Distance (Total) Travel Distance (Average) Travel Time (Total) Travel Time (Average) Travel Speed Operating Cost (Total) Fuel Consumption (Total) Carbon Dioxide (Total) Hydrocarbons (Total) Carbon Monoxide (Total) HOX (Total) r akcelik & associates aaTraffic aaSIDRA K:\06151 \Synchro\Roundabout\AM 2027 Total Produced by aaSIDRA 2.1.4.357 Copyrights; i 2000-2005 Akcelik & Associates Pty Ltd 1whiR' i 2/9/2007 8:17:49 AM • Vehicles Persons 2101 veh/h 3152 pers/h 5.0 % 0.715 2940 veh/h 274 ft 10.6 veh 7.00 veh-h/h 10.50 pers-h/h 12.0 s/veh 12.0 s/pers LOS B LOS B 1855 veh/h 2783 pers/h 0.88 per veh 0.88 per pers 0.85 0.85 855.0 veh-mi/h 1282.4 pers-mi/h 2149 ft 2149 ft 31.7 veh-h/h 47.6 pers-h/h 54.4 secs 54.4 secs 26.9 mph 26.9 mph 822 $ /h 822 $ /h 34.2 gal/h 323.9 kg/h 0.485 kg/h 16.23 kg/h 0.589 kg/h idi FIC +I Unsignalized IntWction Capacity Analysis • 1 t ;minty Road 346 & Site Access 4/ Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR WO I alio Crrrrfigurations + t r tii ow, (-.0.,(h, Control Free Free Stop t,o,uck 0% o% 0°/a soli Volume (vehfh) 0 125 150 10 10 0 WO Poak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0,92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 136 163 11 11 0 IO I'ecicstrians w oe Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (Ws) WO Percent Blockage WO Right turn flare (veh) Machan type None We Median storage veh) 4111111 Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked born vC, conflicting volume 174 299 163 vC 1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol We vCu, unblocked vol 174 299 163 401. IC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) IWO tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 Ibrig. p0 queue free % 100 98 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 1385 686 874 twee Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 WB 2 SB 1 el Volume Total 136 163 - 11 11 Oillej Volume Left 0 0 0 11 Volume Right 0 0 11 0 twee cSH 1700 1700 1700 686 1104 Volume to Capacity 0.08 0.10 0.01 0.02 ��� Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 1 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.3 `ter Lane LOS B wee. Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 10.3 Approach LOS B 1.04 Intersection Summary 2027 Total PM Peak . Average Delay 0.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 17.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 2/9/2007 Synchro 6 Report K:1061511Synchroi2027 Tota112027 PM sy7 Felsburg Holt & Ulfevig I ICM Signalized Inters on Capacity Analysis 0040 2. Frontage Road & County Road 311 • 2027 Tohil PM Peak Owe --►"it c ~ 4 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR bone I. Nee Configurations + r 4 IN Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 tail Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 Fit Protected 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.95 Said Flow (prat) 1810 1538 1760 3329 Fil Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.87 0.95 Said Flow (perm) 1810 1538 1575 3329 Volume (vph) 20 925 45 35 785 35 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 22 1005 49 38 853 38 R I OR Reduction (vph) 0 407 0 0 3 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 22 598 0 87 888 0 Turn Type Perm Perm Protected Phases 2 6 8 Permitted Phases 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 52.1 52.1 52.1 27.4 Effective Green, g (s) 52.1 52.1 52.1 27.4 Actuated WC Ratio 0.60 0.60 0,60 0.31 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1078 916 938 1042 vis Ratio Prot 0.01 c0.27 Ws Ratio Perm c0.39 0.06 vie Ratio 0.02 0.65 0.09 0.85 Uniform Delay, d1 7.2 11.7 7.6 28.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.0 3.6 0.2 6.8 Delay (s) 7.3 15.3 7.8 35.0 Level of Service A B A C Approach Delay (s) 15.2 7.8 35.0 Approach LOS B A C Intersection Summary HCfvt Average Control Delay HCM Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group 23.7 HCM Level of Service C 0.72 87.5 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 68.3% ICU Level of Service C 15 204)/2007 Synchro 6 Report K:\061511Synch ro\2027 Tota112027 PM.sy7 1 el:sl.rurg Holt & Ullevig Intersection Si mart' R 311 JCR 331 ubtitle Performance Measure Demand Flows - Total Percent Heavy Vehicles Degree of Saturation Effective Intersection Capacity 95°fo Back of Queue (ft) 95°fo Back of Queue (veh) Control Delay (Total) Id Control Delay (Average) Level of Service Level of Service (Worst Movement) Total Effective Stops Effective Stop Rate Proportion Queued Travel Distance (Total) Travel Distance (Average) Travel Time (Total) Travel Time (Average) Travel Speed Operating Cost (Total) Fuel Consumption (Total) Carbon Dioxide (Total) Hydrocarbons (Total) Carbon Monoxide (Total) NOX (Total) 4 akCeii$4 `.s & associat:: aaTraffic aaSIE Ri). K:\06151\Synchro\Roundabout\PM 2027 Total Produced by aaSIDRA 2.1.4.357 Copyright© 2000-2005 Akcelik & Associates Pty Ltd Generated 2/9/2007 8:17:52 AM Vehicles Persons 2284 veh/h 3426 pers/h 5.0 % 0.824 2771 veh/h 411 ft 15.8 veh 7.44 veh-h/h 11.15 Pers-h/h 11.7 s/veh 11.7 s/pers LOS B LOS B 1950 veh/h 2925 pers/h 0.85 per veh 0.85 per pers 0.90 0.90 925.9 veh-ma/h 1388.9 pers-mi/h 2141 ft 2141 ft 34.2 veh-h/h 51.3 pers-h/h 53.9 secs 53.9 secs 27.1 mph 27.1 mph 885 $ /h 885 $ /h 37.0 gal/h 350.6 kg/h 0.525 kg/h 17.60 kg/h 0.640 kg/h • March 30, 2007 Fred Jarman, Planning Director Garfield County Building & Planning Department 108 8'" St., Ste. 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 EXHIBIT RE: Gypsum Ranch. LLC / Silt Sand & Gravel: Grand River Park Project Dear Mr. Jarn-nan:: Due to a prior commitment, I will be unable to attend the Garfield County Board of County Commissioners hearing on the above referenced application this coming Monday, April 2, 2007. In place of the testimony that I anticipated giving at that time, I would ask that this letter be entered into the hearing record. The Division's review of the approved reclamation plan for the above -referenced project, confirmed that the issues previously raised by Mr. Dean Riggs in his correspondence to you of January 2, 2007 pertaining to meandering shorelines and slope gradation, have been adequately addressed. As previously communicated to you, the Division is otherwise satisfied with the environmental and wildlife mitigation proposed by the applicant and looks forward to working with the property owner for the ultimate development of a state wildlife area at this location. Should you have any questions or concerns regarding any of the above, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, Will Spence District Wildlife Manager Rifle South District (970) 985-5882 • • Department of Energy Western Area Power Adrninistraton Rocky Mountain Customer Service Region P 0 Box 3700 Loveland, CO 80539-3003 MAR 2 9 2007 Garfield County Planning Department 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Planning Department: RE: Gypsum Ranch Co. LLC / Silt Sand and Gravel LLC EXHIBIT LTJ With regard to the Special Use Permit to allow extraction, processing and storage of natural resources for a sand and gravel extraction operation located in the SWI/4 Section 9, Township 6 South, Range 92 West of the 6th P.M., Garfield County, State of Colorado, Western Area Power Administration's (Western) comments are as follows: I. All construction activities within Western's Craig -Rifle 230 -kV Transmission Line easement should be coordinated with this office. [A copy of a Right -of -Way Use Application has been submitted for construction of the sand and gavel extraction operation.) 2. If mining is planned within the transmission line easement, Western requests the following: a. Any blasting, extraction techniques, or equipment used in the operation can not damage the transmission facility. b. Western must retain access to the transmission line at all times. For instance, if "islands" are left at structure sites, ramps of adequate grade and stability must be provided to get heavy equipment up to the structures in order to maintain the facility. c. Depending on the depth of the mining operation, Western must be allowed to review the design in order to establish the radius/distance that the mining operation can occur from the structures to maintain structural integrity. Please note that the easement width is 125 feet (62.5 feet each side of the centerl i ne), 3. A minimum overhead clearance of 16 feet from the conductors of Western's Craig -Rifle 230 -kV transmission line should be maintained at all times. RFfirTVE MAR 3 0 2007 • • Within these parameters, Western Area Power Administration has no objection to the proposed sand and gravel extraction operation. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project. If you have any questions, please contact Ms. Braileigh Jay at (970) 461-7654. Sincerely, 444-7 Pl#* J Carey Ashton Realty Officer Enclosure Date: Western Area Power Administration Rocky Mountain Customer Service Region. ATTN: Carey Ashton, A7400.LV P.O. Box 3700 Loveland, CO 80539-3003 RIGHT-OF-WAY USE APPLICATION EXHIBIT A Page of NOTE: A minimum overhead clearance of at least 16_ feet from the conductors must be maintained at all times, Transmission Line: Craig -Rifle 230 -kV Description of Proposal (Narrative): Location: Section 9 , Township 6 South , Range 92 West _ , 6"' P.M. (Meridian) County: Garfield , State: Colorado Complete if applicable: Subdivision , Lot Block , City PROFILE: Show the location, height (feet), and distance (feet) from the nearest transmission line structure. WAPA Structure No. WAPA Structure c----- No. Gjoun Su acg Ground Surface PLAN: Show the location and dimensions (in feet) of the proposed facility in relation to the center conductor of the transmission line. EDGE OF ROW Transmission Line Centerline WAPA Structure No. EDGE OF ROW North Show NORTH by an -ow at (+) an block at left and show approximate location in Section at right. --EDGE OF ROW Transmission Line Centerline Attach other drawings and information as appropriate. WAPA Structure • No. -----EDGE OF ROW NW114 NE114 SW1/4 SE1/4 NOTE: Induced voltages and currents may occur on facilities constructed or placed under or near high voltage transmission lines, therefore, the Licensee shall be responsible for the protection of personnel and equipment in their design, construction, operation and maintenance of the facilities described in this application. Name: (Please Print) Company: Address: Signature Telephone No: ( ) EARTHEN RAMP OVER PIPE - FOR MAINTENANCE ACCESS REGULATING POND PUMP EARTHEN RAMP OVER PIPE FOR MAINTENANCE ACCESS THRUST BLOCKS (TYP.) REGULATING PUMP LEVEE DISCHARGE PIPE LEVEE DISCHARGE BELOW LOW WATER LINE TO REDUCE BANK EROSION COBBLE / BOULbER RIVERBED LOW WATER ELEVATION INTERSTATE 70 COLORADO RIVER —' 10 TO 15 INCH BOULDER— ARMOR LAYER DISCHARGE PIPE LOW WATER RIVERBED 12/6/06 IMPACT TYPE ENERGY DISSIPATER TO II REDUCE DISCHARGE PIPE VELOCITY & SPREAD FLOW OVER ROCKS PRIOR TO i ENTERING RIVER LOW WATER ELEVATION • COLORADO RIVER DISCHARGE ALTERNATIVES mf of J A" II SALMS ALA G•T". I.. 417 •. SILT SMeP 5 -_ I.LC. P tEGT PPAMI. r VER PAW 1lItaXE 1 1^A._a It *WAD AHLLATZON o. TO ZT REGULATING POND WORKING FACE CONVEYANCE TRENCH OR PIPE T_ PERMIETER DEWATERING TRENCH CONVEYANCE TRENCH OR PIPE CONVEYANCE PUMP COLLECTION SUMP TYPICAL PIT P11 PERIMETER bEWATERING TRENCH PUMP ENCLOSURE SEE bETAIL FOR TYPICAL SUMP DETAIL L_ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 V 0 0 0 000000 00 00000 / SEDIMENT DEPOSITED AND REMOVED AS NEEDED SUMP bETAIL SEDIMENT REMOVAL PROVIDED BY SETTLEMENT ALONG LEN&TH OF PERIMETER TRENCH, FILTRATION THROUGH SELECTED AGGREGATE FILTER RACK, FILTRATION THROUGH PUMP ENCLOSURE, OR OVERFLOW OF UPPER CLEAN WATER LAYER INTO PUMP ENCLOSURE TYPICAL PIT bEWATERING +3 SEbXMENT CONTROL IR�li4�}Y A`f �.fia�ft often , �` iIQ4l1 4L.0 40L • IA% y 466tH L L c 6eIllp 406/'06 PAS 0N101in' a C144V 44414+rrn .1 h4M5 01l P!4 .l U AYYVJ 4 OaNM 1 • III Banks and Gesso, LLC Transmittal To Tim Thulson From: Alex Schat f, Re: Condition 35, pg. , Gypsum Ranch staff review Date: 30 March 2007 720 Kipling St ,Suite Lakewood, Colorado 80215 (303) 274-4277 Fax (303) 274-8329 www banksandgesso.com Condition 35 of the Garfield County Planning Commission recommendation of approval for the Grand River Park Project states that the applicant will demonstrate what elements of the Division of Wildlife (CDOW) review were included in the proposed reclamation plan. As noted in the staff report, at page 22, "the Applicant has met with the DOW several times prior to the Application to gain input on what DOW would like to see occur in the reclamation plan to best suit wildlife habitat " In addition, personnel from the CDOW have met on-site with County staff. As a matter of record, the applicant has engaged the Division of Wildlife to the greatest degree possible. do terms of the reclamation plan, passive recreational use, including wildlife habitat, has been integral to the program since this project was first proposed. As the project evolved, specific criteria and attributes were addressed to clarify the appropriate measures to be taken for post -mining use as wildlife habitat.. In chronological sequence, as described below, the reclamation plan took shape pursuant to CDOW guidance, and applied general principles to foster wildlife habitat. as follows 1. The May 2006 submittal to the Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining, and Safety provides for recreational post -mining use. At the time of this submittal, a general program of recreational use was desired, including accommodation of possible municipal recreational facilities. Nonetheless, passive recreation, including uses consistent with a wildlife preserve, were contemplated. In its submittal, the aaplicant stated (at page 21, Exhibit H of the 112 report): "Following reclamation, the site will be generally suitable for wildlife uses similar to the pre -mining condition, though with no specific wildlife function as a condition of reclamation." The original reclamation plan included wetland preservation, groundwater lakes, and native grassland vegetation suitable for general habitat. CDOW expressed interest in the project, and, in approximately August 2006, various correspondence from the CDOW concerning the site and other reclamation standards for the area were forwarded to the Reclamation consultant, this firm. An April 2006 letter, particularly, was very detailed and explicit in establishing reclamation criteria for CDOW purposes. The letter recommended: 100 feet of buffer setback along the River corridor: shoreline • • CDOW Reclamation Ern nc' 30 March 2007 Page 2 slopes no steeper than 3:1; small islands and coves; 30 feet of meandering shoreline for every 100 feet of pond shoreline; woody plantings and berms; and conservation easements, Each and every one of these criteria was examined. The reclamation plan was modified to enhance these criteria where it did not already meet them. 3. With the presentation of the adequacy response to the DRMS on Sept. 6, 2006, woody vegetation and other reclamation features were introduced as part of the enforceable reclamation plan. These enhancements were not part of the Division's adequacy review, they were introduced by the applicant solely to honor the intent to utiiixe CDOW criteria. Internally, the plans were specifically checked and found to meet CDOW criteria, including criteria concerning minimum slopes and quantity of meandering shoreline. 4. The DRMS accepted the modified Reclamation Plan. In its second adequacy review, the DRMS even asked the applicant to enhance the plant growth medium and provide further specifications regarding woody plant materials. The applicant complied with all requests and, in so doing, made these specifications part of the enforceable criteria for release of the state Reclamation Permit. 5. In yet another layer intended to ensure wildlife benefit in the reclamation plan, Mr. Steve Dahmer, an environmental scientist with Environmental Solutions, provided local expertise in assessing the site and its wildlife potential. His reports were provided as the final two attachments to the Garfield County Special Use application and included specific assessment of mitigation and reclamation measures for wildlife purposes. The Environmental Solutions reports were submitted to both the County and the DRMS and serve to define wildlife functions for the site. 6. The applicant continued to communicate with the CDOW in the lead -up to the January Planning Commission hearing. Calculation of the percentage of slopes dedicated to 3:1 or shallower, versus 4:1 or shallower and 5:1 or shallower, was performed in December 2005 (augmenting a prior calculation in Auguest 2006 of linear feet of shoreline at each slope gradation). On January 2, 2007, the CDOW issued a letter to Garfield County, presently known as Exhibit S of the case record. This letter expressed that the applicants "have been very diligent in developing a reclamation plan that is wildlife friendly." It also stated that "there are two points that need to be addressed further in the reclamation plan." These points were: (1) "a definitive statements as to the actual percentage of 1:4 and 1:5 slopes as opposed to 1:3 slopes," and (2) "the intention to develop meandering shoreline should be spelled out in the reclamation plan." On January 3, 2007, the applicant (Scott Balcomb) electronically transmitted a definitive statement of shoreline slopes to CROW. This statement repeated the resujts of prior measurements performed on the plans, as tailored to CDOW criteria, which measurements may have been conveyed orally on prior occasions. These measurements show that, at a minimum, based on the • CDOW r et ornOihrs larnsntt 30 Marcn :007 Paya 3 reclamation plan, 10 percent of slopes will be 5 1 or shallower, 15 percent will be 4:1 to 5:1 slopes, and the remainder of shoreline slopes will be 3:1 of shallower. The January 3 message to CDOW also stated that a note regarding intent to create a meandering shoreline would be included on the reclamation plan. 10. On January 3, the applicant's representative transmitted a revised reclamation plan to the DRMS as part of the response to the DRMS second adequacy review. This plan is the enforceable reclamation pian for state permitting purposes. Notes regarding both slopes and meandering shorelines are included. Even more importantly, the contour plan itself illustrates the minimum requirements to create meanders and shallower slopes. There is a high degree of variation in the shoreline and areas of 4:1 And 5:1 slopes are expressly called out on the plan. To augment the intent, the notes allow for "additional sinuosity" and "shallower slopes at the discretion of the operator.'Flexibility is provided for the sole purpose of allowing the standards for slopes and meanders to further exceed CDOW criteria upwardly: the basic plan has at no time failed to meet CDOW criteria since plans were first modified for the Sept. 6, 2006, DRMS first adequacy response submittal. 11. The applicant provided a copy of all DRMS documents to Garfield County Planning, including the January 3, 2007, adequacy submittal. All plans submitted to the County substantially comply with CDOW criteria regarding slopes and shorelines, as well as all other reclamation features. 12. On January 12, 2007, the CDOW issued a letter to the applicant, presently found under Exhibit T in the County's case record, stating that, it is apparent that you have substantially adopted our recommendations.°' 13 CDOW personnel were present in support of the application on January 10 and 15, 2007. 14. On January 27, 2007, the DRMS issued a Reclamation Permit approval letter referencing the January 3 submittal. No changes to the reclamation plan have occurred since the January Planning Commission hearing.. This lengthy history is not typical of every sand and gravel project. in fact, it is as lengthy as it is due to extraordinary efforts to incorporate CDOW input. In response to Condition 35, the applicant believes the record should show that each and every element of the CDOW review was considered by the applicant and integrated into permit documents as appropriate to achieving permitting goals.