Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4.0 PC Staff Report 06.24.2009PC Members Present Phil Vaughan Cheryl Chandler John Kuersten Lauren Martindale PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FROM JUNE 24, 2009 Staff Present Dusty Dunbar, Planner David Pesnichak, Planner Fred Jarman, B&P Director Deborah Quinn, Assistant Cty. Atty. Roll call was taken and the following members are absent tonight: Bob Fullerton, Jock Jacober, Adolfo Gorra, Greg McKennis, and Sean Martin_ All members present tonight are considered regular voting members for tonight's meeting. The first item on the agenda is approval of the minutes from the May 6, 2009 and the May 13, 2009 Planning Commission meetings. Lauren Martindale made a motion to approve the minutes from the May 6, 2009 meeting as written and John Kuersten seconded the motion. A vote was taken and motion passed unanimously. Cheryl Chandler made a motion to approve the minutes from the May 13, 2009 as written and John Kuersten seconded the motion. A vote was taken and motion passed unanimously. The next item of discussion on the agenda is a Sketch Plan Application for the Old Orchard Subdivision. The property is located at 44523 Highway 6, Glenwood Springs, Colorado. Four residential lots are proposed to be created from 20.22 acres. The applicant is Roc and Mary Gabossi. Phil Vaughan explained the process we will follow for this item tonight. Present for the applicant is John Taufer with Taufer and Associates and he is a Landscape Architect and Land Planner for the applicant on this proposal. Mr. Taufer's address is 909 Colorado Avenue, Glenwood Springs, Colorado. Also present is Roc Gabossi who is the owner and applicant on this project. His address is 44523 Highway 6 Glenwood Springs, Colorado. Dusty Dunbar is the County Planner on this project and she will present the project information and staff comments. Dusty Dunbar entered the following exhibits into the record: (Exhibits A&B have been voided and removed from exhibit list because this is a public meeting and no public noticing is required. All the other numbers will remain associated) 1 PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS TYPE OF REVIEW EXHIBIT 06/24/09 FJ Special Use Permit for 1) "Processing, Storage and Material Handling of Natural Resources" & Special Use Permit for 2) "Development in the Floodplain" APPLICANT River's Edge, LLC LOCATION SITE INFORMATION ZONING The subject property is located '/2 mile east of the main interstate intersection of Rifle Colorado between the Colorado River and Interstate 70. (Section 15, Township 6 South, Range 93 West) Approximately 93 acre parcel (mining / disturbing 25 acres) Agriculture / Industrial (Al) GENERAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Applicant specifically requests a Special Use Permit for "Extraction, Storage, Processing, and Material Handling of Natural Resources" for a Gravel Pit operation on approximately 25 acres of a 93 -acre property. This request is for an expansion of an existing mining permit currently in place with the Division of Reclamation, Mining, and Safety which also requires a Special Use Permit from Garfield County. The Applicant proposes to specifically mine gravel out of two areas where Area 1 consists of 7.1 acres and is located on the west end of the site and Area 2 consists of 13.9 acres and is located on the east end of the site. The remainder of the property would remain in its Scott Gravel Pit PC — 05/13/09 Page 2 current condition. The gravel would be mined down to approximately 25 feet with up to 5 feet of overburden to be removed. The Applicant intends to install a small office, scale, sanitation tank, portable toilets and a fuel bunker. The Applicant intends to also operate semi-portable concrete and asphalt plants and fuel tanks with this mining operation to be located in the bottom of mining area 2. Similarly, the crusher and screen is proposed to be located in the bottom of Area 2. The Applicant anticipates an average production (to vary based on market conditions) at 200,000 tons / year for approximately 5.96 years. The general hours of operation are proposed as the following: Monday— Saturday: 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM (Crushing, digging, and heavy hauling only occurring between 7:00 Am to 6:00 PM) Sunday: No operations (Except emergency maintenance) 11. GENERAL LOCATION / SITE DESCRIPTION The subject property is located 1/2 mile east of the main interstate intersection of Rifle Colorado between the Colorado River and Interstate 70. The map on the front page illustrates the location of the proposed gravel pit. The 93 -acre site is a relatively flat property in the Colorado River / Valley floor containing mature established riparian vegetation along the Colorado River, significant established wetlands along an older river corridor through the site known as the Ox Bow, as well as historically irrigated pasture / grazing fields all of which contain stands of mature dense cottonwood stands throughout the property. III. ZONING & ADJACENT USES The property to the east is the active LaFarge Mamm Creek Gravel Pit; the property to the north is the Colorado River with the nearly finished Chambers Gravel Pit on the north bank across the river; the property to the west is vacant undisturbed pasture, and the property to the south is CDOT right-of-way containing the frontage road and east and west bound lanes of Interstate 1-70. All of the surrounding adjacent properties are zoned Agricultural / Industrial (now Rural) similar to the subject property. (The map on the front cover of this memorandum illustrates the surrounding zoning.) IV. 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 2 Scott Gravel Pit PC — 05/13/09 Page 3 public hearing thereon in conformance with all provisions of the Zoning Resolution. V. REVIEW AGENCY AND OTHER COMMENTS Comments have been received from the following agencies / community groups and are integrated throughout this memorandum as applicable. 1. Bookcliff Soil Conservation District: No Comments Received from the County Referral. 2. City of Rifle: The City prefers this area not be mined as it is a valuable vista at the entrance to the City of Rifle from 1-70 as defined more fully in their East Gateway Plan. They believe this heavy industrial use will negatively affect the City's image and economic development. Should the County approve the mining request, they suggest a variety of reclamation measures. Specifically, the City recommends eliminating the asphalt / concrete batch plants from the application, requiring the Applicant to produce a 3-D model of the mining phases and reclamation, and requiring an enforceable reclamation plan to restore the site to curvilinear lakes and better wildlife habitat. (Recommended reclamation standards attached) (Exhibit N) 3. Rifle Fire Protection District: Indicated they had no comments on the proposal. (Exhibit L) 4. Colorado Department of Transportation: CDOT issued a highway access permit for 335 average daily trips with the main condition that the Applicant pave a 2.2 mile portion of the CDOT frontage road that provides access to the subject parcel. That permit has expired, but CDOT anticipates re -issuing the permit. (Exhibit J) 5. Colorado Division of Wildlife: Provided comments largely focused on the presence of the American Bald Eagle adjacent to the property (on the east) on the Lafarge (Mamm Creek) property. The CDOW recommends the Applicant revise their plan to honor the 1/2 mile and 1/4 mile buffers and timing restrictions so as to not over harass the Eagles. (Exhibit H) The DOW sent in an additional letter (June 5, 2009) that indicates the applicant has revised their plan to 1) increase shoreline undulation, 2) added more shallow banks to 5:1, 3) removed the concrete / asphalt batch plant (except for limited CDOT / FAA projects), and kept the mining inside the 1/4 mile buffer to "off season: time frames when the eagles are not in the nest. There is a newly discovered Red tailed Hawk 3 Scott Gravel Pit PC — 05/13/09 Page 4 nest that could be harassed by this operation. (Exhibit Q) 6. Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment: No Comments received. 7. Colorado Division of Water Resources: No Comments Received from the County Referral. 8. Colorado Geologic Survey: Indicated they found no geologic hazard that would appreciably affect this mine operation and it would appear that the water quality and pit -wall stability concerns have been addressed in the Application. Provided all relevant permits are in place, the CGS has no concerns with the mine as it is intended. (Exhibit 0) 9. Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining & Safety: No Comments Received from the County Referral. 10. US Army Corps of Engineers: No Comments Received from the County Referral. 11. Garfield County Vegetation Management: Agrees with the City of Rifle suggestions regarding the use of plant plugs (i.e. real plants) instead of broadcast seeding. The applicant does propose to plant trees, cuttings, and tublings. Research indicates that plug stock of wetland species such as sedges and rushes are more effective than broadcast seeding. Also large plug stock, over 21 inches, has been shown to be more effective than 12 inch plugs. Larger plugs can handle changing water tables better than the smaller plugs. There is a native shrub, silver -leaf buffalo berry (Shepherdia argentea) that may be confused with the noxious weed, the Russian -olive tree (Shepherdia argentea). The Applicant needs to be able to distinguish between the two so that the native silver -leaf is conserved and not managed like the Russian -olive. It is critical that the Applicant implement an effective Russian -olive and tamarisk treatment program. From this department's perspective, reducing the population of Russian olive and tamarisk is not a negative impact to visual aesthetics from the corridor as is stated on page J-2. The timely treatment of all County listed noxious weeds, including Russian olive and tamarisk, is encouraged given the threat of spreading noxious weed seeds through gravel to previously uninfested areas. Staff requests the removal of crested wheatgrass from the dry rangeland mix. Staff appreciates the City's comments and we emphasize aur concurrence with the 4 Scott Gravel Pit PC — 05/13/09 Page 5 Reclamation of the Scott Expansion to the Chambers Gravel Pit document provided by the City of Rifle. The topics of live -soil handling, using local plant sources for reclamation, and developing a benchmark for successful gravel pit reclamation are important items and worthy of further consideration by the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners. (Exhibit I) 12. Garfield County Airport: Indicated that the use is compatible in the vicinity of the airport. Does note see the resulting ponds as creating a waterfowl nuisance and does not believe the ponds will create glare problems for departing or landing aircraft. (Exhibit G) 13. County Project Review Engineer: Found no significant problems with the proposed mining plan. VI. RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The proposed mining activity is located in an area of the County just outside the City of Rifle (the City) which is described as the Area of Urban Influence. The County and the City have entered into an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) which agreed that proposed land uses in the County that fall within this area would be referred to each jurisdiction for comments. The following comments include a review of Section 10.0: "Area of Urban Influence" of the County's Comprehensive Plan's Goals, Policies, and Goals and the City of Rifle's formal review comments. 1O.O URBAN AREA OF INFLUENCE ISSUES: Primary issues identified during the Comprehensive Plan process can be summarized as follows: • County land use decisions, particularly those immediately adjacent to municipal boundaries have, in some cases, created compatibility problems; • Due to the wide variety of Uses -By -Right within the County's current Zoning Resolution, planning staff has no discretionary review authority to prevent incompatibility situations with an adjacent municipality. 5 Scott Gravel Pit PC — 05/13/09 Page 6 GOALS: Ensure that development and overall land use policies occurring in the County that will affect a municipality are compatible with the existing zoning and future land use objectives of the appropriate municipality. Allow for comments on community impacts including cases which fall outside the community's sphere of influence. Staff Comments The Applicant was referred to the City of Rifle meeting one of these goals. in doing so, the City has provided comments indicating they would prefer this mining activity did not occur because of its location at the entrance or "gateway" to the City. In 2008, the City adopted the "East Gateway Subarea Plan" which identifies this project area as located squarely within that gateway area as the entrance to Rifle. It would appear that gravel mining activity that is as highly visible as this project will negatively impact the entrance to Rifle resulting in "detracting from the natural, rural setting and convey a disorderly, industrial image" certainly during the mining activity. Gravel mining is a permitted use the Al zone district in Garfield County but appears to be incompatible with Rifle's future land use objectives. Consider the "Gravel Mining & reclamation Standards in their East Gateway Plan: A. Goals 1) Mitigate negative impacts during and after mineral extraction. 2) Minimize and eliminate the negative visual and operational effects of mining on the gateways and biological systems. 3) Encourage land uses that recognize the environmental sensitivity of the land. 4) Protect watersheds and floodplains. 5) It is the intent of the City to minimize the impact of any mining on the environment and surrounding Rifle gateways. 6 Scott Gravel Pit PC — 05/13/09 Page 7 B. Policies 1) The City adopts the guidance outlined in the County's proposed regulations and policies for gravel extraction operations drafted in November 2007 entitled, "Goals, Objectives, Policies & Regulations Regarding Gravel Extraction Operations." 2) The County's proposed regulations outline a regulatory framework that ensures mining activities limit their adverse affect on environmental and visual quality, and reduce potential land uses and traffic impacts. In addition to these regulations, the City will discourage any gravel mining operations, which contain crushing, asphalt processing or concrete operations between Mamm Creek and Exit 90. The City acknowledges that the proposed plan is a significant reduction in activity from the previous application; however, they believe the activity is still highly visible and highly impactful and have the following key points: 1) Eliminate the asphalt / concrete batch plants from the application; 2) Applicant should be required to produce a 3-D model of the mining phases and reclamation; 3) Require an enforceable reclamation plan to restore the site to curvilinear lakes and better wildlife habitat; (Recommended reclamation standards attached) OBJECTIVES: 10.5 Retain rural character outside of community limits. Staff Comment The site's present conditions are the epitome of "rural character." An industrial gravel mining operation on this land directly contradicts this objective. POLICIES: 10.1 Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Resolution revisions, Zone District Amendments and individual projects within defined Urban Areas of Influence, will be consistent with local municipal land use policies. Staff Comment As proposed, this application is not consistent with the City of Rifle's East Gateway Plan. Eliminating the batch plants will bring the application closer to being consistent with their plan. 7 Scott Gravel Pit PC — 05/13/09 Page 8 VII. REVIEW CRITERIA FOR SPECIAL USE PERMITS (SECTION 5:03 & 5.17) 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 to provide water and sanitation service for the employees on the site by using potable water service and portable toilet service during the 6 -year life of the mining operations. Because of the temporary nature of the activity, the County has allowed this type of service to support the employees rather than requiring the construction of a permanent ISDS and well system. Staff finds this is an acceptable method for the provision of water and sanitation service. 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. Staff Response The only vehicle access to the area is provided directly off of an existing CDOT frontage road that dead ends at the subject property. Presently, the road is paved from the 1-70 interchange (County Airport Interchange) to the LaFarge Mamm Creek Pit entrance. It is a gravel surface from that point to the entrance of the subject property. The frontage road lies within CDOT's jurisdiction. Staff referred the Application to CDOT which stated they had "signed an access permit for 335 daily trips on January 23, 2006. This permit did include highway improvements which primarily include paving the frontage road from the end of the existing pavement at the entrance to LaFarge to the access point for this property. CDOT had not received the Notice to Proceed at this point." Staff has attached the signed permit as well as the list of conditions that have to be met before any mining operation can begin. [Note: CDOT noted that this permit has expired, but CDOT expects to re -issue the permit on the original findings and conditions.] While the specific access does not involve Garfield County, the act of hauling gravel on the County's road system does require the Applicant to be aware of heavy haul routes and over sized / weight requirements required by the Road and Bridge Department. Should the Board approve this Special Use Permit, Staff suggests that no mining work / site prep be 8 Scott Gravel Pit PC — 05/13/09 Page 9 allowed to begin until the improvements required by CDOT have been installed and approved by CDOT according to their permit. 3. Design of the proposed use is organized to minimize impact on adjacent uses of land through installation of screen fences or landscape materials on the periphery of the lot and by location of intensively utilized areas, access points, lighting and signs in such a manner as to protect established neighborhood character. Staff Response The existing established neighborhood character can be characterized as industrial (gravel mining to the north and east), 1-70 (CDOT highway) to the south, and natural rural -riparian river bottom to the west at the entrance to the City of Rifle. The property itself serves as a natural unimproved buffer (on the south side of the river) separating the City of Rifle's main entrance from LaFarge's gravel pit operation. The site is highly visible from west -bound traffic on 1-70 because it is elevated at least 20 feet above the property. Some of the vegetation (mature cottonwood stands) on the property actually serve as a visual buffer (as well as for sound) between the City and the LaFarge gravel pit. This property also serves as the last and most significant natural / unimproved properties along the river and 1-70 corridor as one approaches the City of Rifle from the east. As portions of this property are mined, it will change the character of the area as seen primarily from 1-70 on the approach to the City of Rifle. In order to further minimize the visual impact, he Applicant proposes on-going reclamation ("reclaim as you go") as the mining continues but this activity will be highly visually impacting and will permanently change the character of the area. Staff suggests as a condition of approval that the proposed reclamation plan in the Special Use Permit be resubmitted to the DRMS and becomes the only reclamation plan (tasks I timetables) used by both the County and DRMS. Additionally, a new bond be calculated to cover this plan and secured with DRMS to cover its implementation. VIII. REVIEW CRITERIA FOR SPECIAL USE PERMITS (SECTION 5.17) SUPPLEMENTARY GRAVEL EXTRACTION REGULATIONS The following section reviews the application against the County's new gravel extraction regulations. (For the ease of the reader, the regulations are in bold italics followed by a Staff response.) 5.17.01 Water Quantity & Quality Impacts / Floodplain Impacts If a gravel pit is located within the floodplain there is a reasonable chance that it could be flooded during its operational life. Equipment, machinery, fuel etc could 9 Scott Gravel Pit PC — 05/13/09 Page 10 become pollutant sources in the case of a flood. In addition, if the pit is located near the floodway of a river there is the possibility that in a flood a gravel pit could alter the natural course of a river. This can have negative impacts on a river ecosystem and unknown impacts on nearby landowners. Every Application for gravel extraction shall address the following: 1. When the proposal is near a river or stream the Applicant is required to submit an analysis by a professional engineer showing the boundaries of the floodplain and the floodway in the area of the pit. Staff Response The mining area falls within the 100 -year floodplain of the Colorado river. The Application contains maps C-1: "Baseline Conditions" and C-2 "Mining Extents" which show the boundaries of the floodplain and the floodway in the area of the pit. 2. Provide a Stormwater Management Plan that demonstrates how the project will not adversely affect surface or groundwater resources. Additionally, provide a Sediment and Erosion Control plan that demonstrates what best management practices will be used in the project. Staff Response The Applicant has submitted a Combined NPDES Combined Process & Stormwater Permit and Stormwater Management Plan to CDPHE and to the City of Rifle. The Applicant intends to slope the operations such that all stormwater run-off from disturbed areas will drain into the pits. The project will have a discharge permit from CDPHE that allows for process -water and stormwater to be discharged into the Colorado River with certain protection measures to filter sediment put in place including gravel filter check dams to maintain TDS levels between 35 and 70 miligrams per liter. The plan appears to have these safeguards in the proper operational places. 3. In all cases, an application for a gravel mining operation shall include a Spill Prevention Counter Measure and Control Plan (SPCC) that provides a program that handles spills of hazardous materials as well as local contact information for responsible personnel at the facility. Staff Response The Application contains an adequate SPCC plan for the project in Appendix A. 4. No application shall be accepted by the County without a letter from the applicable fire protection district stating that the proposed project has been adequately designed to handle the storage of flammable or explosive solids or 10 Scott Gravel Pit PC --- 05/13/09 Page 11 gases and that the methods comply with the national, state and Local fire codes. Staff Response Staff referred the Application to the Rifle Fire Protection District for their review. They provided comments which indicated that they had no additional comments. The Application does discuss the fuel storage on site which ranges based on what types of equipment are on site. The tanks themselves have secondary containment up to 110% of capacity and are stored outside of the 100 -year floodplain. In all cases, storage of these fuel tanks are required to meet national, state, and local fire codes. 5. 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. Staff Response It appears the Application contains a monitoring method through the use of "staff gauges" that will provide an early warning system to allow the removal of all equipment / fuel tanks from areas where flooding might occur. Staff suggests these gauges be installed with cement bases and painted vertical pipes (gauges) to ensure their permanence. If personnel are properly trained and the equipment is properly maintained, this system can work. 6. Development in 100 year Floodplain: Floodways - located within areas of special flood hazard established in Section 6.03.02, are areas designated as floodways. Since the floodway is an extremely hazardous area due to the velocity of flood waters which carry debris, potential projectiles and erosion potential, the following provisions shall apply: a) Encroachments are prohibited, including fill, new construction, substantial improvements and other development within the adopted regulatory floodway unless it has been demonstrated through hydrologic and hydraulic analyses performed in accordance with standard engineering practice that the proposed encroachment would not result in any increase or decrease in flood levels within the County during the occurrence of the base flood discharge. b) If Section 6.09.02 (1) (to be inserted when formatted) above is satisfied, all new construction and substantial improvements shall comply with all applicable flood hazard reduction provisions of Section 6.09. 11 Scott Gravel Pit PC - 05/13/09 Page 12 c) Under the provisions of 44 CFR Chapter 1, Section 65.12, of the National Flood Insurance Regulations, the County may permit encroachments within the adopted regulatory floodway that would result in an increase in base flood elevations, provided that the Applicant obtains a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) for a floodway revision through FEMA and that no mining activity shall occur until FEMA has approved a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR). d) In all cases, there shall be no storage of fuel or hazardous materials including concrete / asphalt batch plants within the floodway. Staff Response Much of the property falls within the 100 -year floodplain of the Colorado River. The Applicant, by way of TetraTech, has conducted hydraulic analysis in order to determine that the proposed mining plan will not affect the 100 -year floodplain. TetraTech submitted (on behalf of Garfield County) a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) to FEMA in 2007 based on the previous three -pit application. FEMA approved the CLOMR. Since then, the plan has been reduced to 2 pits. TetraTech conducted a further analysis based on the reduced plan and found that the floodway mapping approved by FEMA on the three -pit version was unchanged with the revised version. TetraTech states that "The CLOMR, sated October 2007, submitted to FEMA also presented a revised floodway based on the changes in the floodplain due to the gravel mining in the three separate pits. This floodwav is unchanged under the alternate gravel mining condition." Ultimately, the Applicants are required to submit a final Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) once all of the post -mining / reclamation is completed so that FEMA can issue revised 100 - year floodway maps. The Application shows proposed asphalt / concrete batch plants, and fuel tanks are to be located outside of the 100 -year floodway as depicted on the Applicant's Map C-1. 7. Standards for Areas of Shallow Flooding: Located within the areas of special flood hazard established in 6.03.02 are areas designated as shallow flooding also known as the flood -fringe. These areas have special flood hazards associated with base flood depths of 1 to 3 feet where a clearly defined channel does not exist and where the path of flooding is unpredictable and where velocity flow may be evident. Such flooding is characterized by ponding or sheet flow; therefore, the following provisions apply: 12 Scott Gravel Pit PC - 05/13/09 Page 13 a) All new construction and substantial improvements of residential structures have the lowest floor (including basement) elevated above the highest adjacent grade at least as high as the depth number specified in feet on the community's FiRM (at least two feet if no depth number is specified). b) All new construction and substantial improvements of non-residential structures; 1. have the lowest floor (including basement) elevated above the highest adjacent grade at least as high as the depth number specified in feet on the community's FIRM (at least two feet if no depth number is specified), or; 2. together with attendant utility and sanitary facilities be designed so that below the base flood level the structure is watertight with walls substantially impermeable to the passage of water and with structural components having the capability of resisting hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads of effects of buoyancy. c) A registered professional engineer shall submit a certification to the County Floodplain Administrator that the standards of this Section, as proposed in 6.08.02 (1) a., have been fully satisfied. d) Require within Zones AH or AO adequate drainage paths around structures on slopes, to guide flood waters around and away from proposed structures. 1. The proposed operation will be located a sufficient distance from other mining operations so as not to create cumulative impacts to the integrity of the water course. The Board of Commissioners will determine sufficiency of distance. 2. In -stream mining is not permitted. 3. All applications shall provide a de -water / discharge plan that provides a detailed graphic representation of how dewatering operations shall occur. This plan shall demonstrate that the discharge will not exceed state standards for discharge into a water course or wetland. 13 Scott Gravel Pit PC - 05/13/09 Page 14 4. In all cases, the Application shall contain proof that the operation has adequate legal and physical water for the proposed application. Staff Response There are no mapped areas of Zones AH or AO on the property and there will be no in - stream mining. The application properly details how dewatering will occur to state standards as well as discharge to wetlands. Regarding required distances from other gravel mines to avoid a cumulative impact to the water course, the areas to be mined are small relative to the other previously mined areas. The eastern pit (Area 2) will not likely affect the Colorado River as it is isolated from the areas in Lafarge that are not in the floodplain. The existing ox -bow will likely carry floodwaters south of that area. The western area has been designed with an inflow / outflow structure that will allow for the pit to be captured and then remain unchanged as the river recedes. The dewatering into the wetlands and Colorado will keep the wetlands wet and have TDS levels at lower levels that the existing level. Staff does not see that the post -mining / reclaimed site will result in a negative cumulative impact with the vegetated land buffers and pit designs that are proposed. The Application contains a stamped and signed statement from Greg Lewicki, P. E. (licensed to practice in the State of Colorado) that that the standards of this Section have been fully satisfied. Finally, the State Division of Water Resources has approved the well permits via a court approved augmentation plan. 5.17.02 Air Quality Fugitive dust from disturbed areas is one of the primary causes of gravel pit air pollution. The potential for soil erosion potential also increases proportionate to the amount of disturbed area. Gravel Pits should make an active effort to reduce disturbed area through phased reclamation, efficient operations, and Landscaping. Disturbed acreage can also provide a measure of visual impact when the operation is located on valley floor and there are residences on nearby hillsides. Opacity not to exceed 20%. 1. All gravel operations in the County shall comply with applicable County, State, and Federal regulations regulating air pollution and shall not be conducted in a manner constituting a public nuisance or hazard. 2. Impacts on adjacent land from the generation of vapor, dust, smoke, or other emanations. All applications shall demonstrate how they will meet County, 14 Scott Gravel Pit PC - 05/13/09 Page 15 State, and Federal air pollution regulations. Any repair and maintenance activity requiring the use of equipment that will generate odors beyond the property boundaries will be conducted within a building at any time or outdoors during the hours of 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM, Monday - Saturday. 3. The proposed operation will be located a sufficient distance from other mining operations so as not to create cumulative impacts to air quality. 4. No application shall be approved until the Applicant submits evidence that all plants and processing equipment shall have current Colorado Department of Public Health and the Environment (CDPHE) Air Pollution Permits and shall meet current CDPHE emissions standards for air and water. Staff Response The Applicant has stated that this operation will comply with applicable County, State, and Federal regulations regulating air pollution and shall not be conducted in a manner constituting a public nuisance or hazard. The pit is a "wet" gravel mine which generally produces much less dust than "upland" gravel pits as this pit will need to continuously be dewatered as it is mined below water table. The augmentation plan also allows for the use of this water as dust suppression on site. The crusher / screen facility and asphalt and concrete batch plant have air emission permitting requirements by the state. Staff is concerned with dust generation due to the very close proximity to 1-70. The crusher / screener is enclosed and equipped with wet scrubbers (water spray facilities) to keep the aggregate moist. The nearest crushing activity nearby is at least 1/3 miles to the east in the Lafarge site which staff believes is a sufficient distance so as to not create a cumulative air quality impact if the mitigation measures are properly implemented which include ensuring the machines are operating to their air permit designs. As a condition of approval, the Applicant shall submit all the air emission permits for the equipment to be used on site. 5.17.03 Noise / Vibration All gravel extraction operations in the County shall comply with applicable County, State, and Federal regulations regulating noise pollution and shall not be conducted in a manner constituting a public nuisance or hazard Volume of sound generated shall comply with the standards set forth in the Colorado Revised Statutes at the time any new application is made. 1. An Applicant shall submit a noise study that demonstrates the proposed gravel operation can meet the requirements in the matrix below based on measuring the sound levels of noise radiating from a property line at a distance of 25 feet or more beyond the subject property. (The image to the 15 Scott Gravel Pit PC - 05/13/09 Page 16 right shows a dashed line at 25 feet beyond the subject property where noise shall be measured.) 2. Note, the dB(A) threshold shown below shall be that of the receiver and not that of the emitter. For example, while the gravel operation would be considered an industrial operation, the dB(A) levels shown below are measured according to the neighboring uses so that if a residential use was located adjacent to the operation, sound levels could not exceed 55 dB(A) from 7 AM to 7 PM and 50 dB(A) from 7 PM to 7 AM. Zone 7 am to 7 pm 7 pm to 7 am v Residential 55 dB(A) 50 dB(A) e Commercial 60 dB(A) 55 dB(A) r Light Industrial 65 dB(A) 70 dB(A) . Industrial 80 dB(A) 75 dB(A) 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. Staff Response The Applicant prepared a noise analysis (by Ryan Ellis, Environmental Engineer) which states that at full operation during the day, the noise generated from the mining activity would not exceed 71 dB(A) at 25 feet from the permit site which is more restrictive than the outer boundaries of the property. This level I still below the maximum thresholds in the table above from the state statutes and it appears this can be met. The Application does not intend to use explosives to mine any of the aggregate. The vibration would come from the crusher and asphalt mix / concrete batch plant that will not be perceptible at the property's boundaries. This standard is met. 5.17.04 Visual lmpacts All applications for gravel extraction shall address the following: 1. All gravel operations proposed to mine areas greater than 30 acres shall be designed in multiple phases in order to minimize the visual impact of the gravel pit primarily by logical "sequencing" and "overall layout" of the pit's design. Staff Response The total area to be mined is approximately 21 acres; however, it will occur in two small pits where the Applicant proposes to mine those pits in a sequence. The Application proposes 16 Scott Gravel Pit PC — 05/13/09 Page 17 to mine Area 1 (7 acres) first so that it can be reclaimed first as it is closer to the City of Rifle. Then Are 2 is to be mined in four phases from west to east. Mining Area 1 is to be "reclaimed" which includes backfilling, grading, topsoil replacement, reseeding, and water refilling prior to mining Area 2 which will significantly reduce the overall extraction impact that is open at one time. 2. Design of the proposed use including the storage of heavy equipment is organized to minimize impact on adjacent uses of land through installation of screen fences, berming, and/ 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. Staff Response This is a difficult property to hide. The most viewable perspective is from 1-70 westbound as you approach the Rifle exit as it is right next to the interstate. It is problematic to screen because the site is well below the 1-70 road platform and could not effectively be screened from that view point. From the other vista, there are either other gravel pits or fairly mature vegetation (cottonwood galleries) that screen portions of the property already. This will be a highly visible gravel operation as you approach the City of Rifle exit. 3. At the discretion of the County Commissioners, al! outdoor storage facilities may be required to be enclosed by fence, landscaping or wall adequate to conceal such facilities from adjacent property. Staff Response This operation is going to generate large / tall piles of aggregate and will have large machinery on site to mine and crush the gravel. Additionally, the Application proposes asphalt and concrete batch plants that are to be located at grade in the southeast portion of the property and will be highly visible until they could be located in the Mining Area 2. Staff believes that since they are not necessary to the mining activity and are highly visible, they be eliminated from this application to help reduce the severe industrial visual impact. 4. New long-term (more than one year) mining operations will minimize visual impacts along entryways to growth centers. Planning Commission and/or the Board of County Commissioners will determine sufficiency of minimization. Staff Response This mining plan is for approximately 6 years with the caveat that it is also based on market conditions which means it is anyone's guess how long it will really take. Because this site is located in the County's Comprehensive Plan's Area of Urban Influence and within the City of Rifle's East Gateway Plan, Staff recommends eliminating the asphalt and concrete batch 17 Scott Gravel Pit PC - 05/13/09 Page 18 plants to help reduce the industrial nature of the activity. 5. All application shall include a "Berming, Screening, and Buffering Plan" to aid in visual screening. Provisions in this plan shall be in place prior to commercial mining. Prior to site disturbance, the Applicant shall obtain a grading permit from Garfield County. The Applicant shall invite the Staff from the County Building and Planning Department to the site to inspect that the installation occurred pursuant to the plan presented to the Board of County Commissioners prior to the commencement of any commercial activity and issuance of the SUP. Staff Response The Application does not contain a "Berming, Screening, and Buffering Plan" because the Application states that there is nothing that can be done to screen from 1-70 and the other view points are relatively screened. Further, these are small mining areas that will be reclaimed as lakes once mined. This standard has not been met as no plan was submitted. 6. All lighting shall be the minimum necessary, directed inward and downward towards the property, Staff Response Applicant agrees to comply with this standard. 7. Unless otherwise determined by the Board of County Commissioners, 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 commenced in six months or have been completed within eighteen (18) months, all mining operations on the property shall stop until the reclamation /revegetation has occurred to the satisfaction of the County. Completion, including but not limited to top -soiling, seeding, mulching, sapling planting, and water filling of the lake, shall be determined by the provisions contained within the reclamation plan approved by the Board of County Commissioners. Staff Response Applicant agrees to comply with this standard. 5.17.05 Impacts to County Road System 1. All applications for a gravel extraction operation shall submit a traffic impact study prepared by a professional traffic engineer that identifies projected 18 Scott Gravel Pit PC — 05/13/09 Page 19 volumes of traffic through the life of the project, expected haul routes and any improvements street improvements adequate to accommodate traffic volume generated by the proposed use and to provide safe, convenient access to the use. These improvements shall either be in place or shall be constructed in conjunction with the proposed use. Staff Response Application contains a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) prepared by Kimley Horn. Access to the site is by way of the CDOT frontage road that connects to the Mamm Creek (Rifle Airport) Exit and Mamm Creek Road. As mentioned earlier, the CDOT access permit has expired, but CDOT intends to re -issue that permit for 335 daily trips with a main condition that the Applicant pave that portion for the frontage road from the property to the existing paved portion. The T1S was originally prepared in 2005 and Staff required that it be revised to fit the terms of this application which as completed and included in Appendix D. Ultimately, the TIS believes that the generated trips will primarily use 1-70 with approximately 10% using County Roads due to historic users. in any event, there will be a minimal impact to the CDOT interchange at Mamm Creek. Staff cannot guess as to what market conditions will exist that determines that the gas companies south of 1-70 will not use gravel for their efforts from this pit versus Lafarge which directly impacts County roads. However, it appears that there are not any direct adverse impacts to the County road system. Further, the County will assess an overweight / oversize tax on these large trucks. 2. Truck traffic will not access the mining operation through residential, or commercial areas, or such traffic will be mitigated Staff Response There are no commercial or residential areas associated with the direct access of this property. 3. The Applicant shall submit evidence of insurance fora minimum of $1,000,000 to cover any damages to public and private property, and Garfield County shall be named as an additional insured. Staff Response The Applicant does not wish to submit evidence of insurance for a minimum of $1 ,000,000 to cover any damages to public and private property because they believe there will be a very small percentage of traffic on County roads directly from this small operation. The TIS 19 Scott Gravel Pit PC — 05/13/09 Page 20 suggests 10% of the trips will use County Roads so Staff suggests the Applicant submit evidence of insurance for a minimum of $100,000 to cover any damages to public or private roads. 4. Roads used to access the construction site from the mine will be upgraded to withstand the additional traffic, and the permittee will prevent road damage and mitigate dust, under the supervision of the Road and Bridge Director. Staff Response CDOT is requiring the Applicant to pave 2.2 miles of the frontage road from the access point on the property to the existing paved portion. This will help in keeping dust down. The Applicant shall be required to have all trucks covered as they leave the site with aggregate. The Road and Bridge Director will not have immediate jurisdiction regarding access as this is a CDOT access and road. Again, the County's overweight / oversize permitting system will address impacts from these large trucks. 5. 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 may include stop sign/s at entrance to County 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. Staff Response This will not apply as this is CDOT jurisdiction. 6. If road damage on a County Road 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. Staff Response The Applicant agrees to this requirement if it can be determined to be directly attributable to the Applicant's traffic. 20 Scott Gravel Pit PC 05/13/09 Page 21 5.17.06 Impacts to Wildlife 1. The Applicant shall demonstrate the presence or absence of Threatened and Endangered species as well as the presence or absence of critical habitats for Threatened and Endangered species. Staff Response There is no evidence in the Application that there are any identified Threatened and Endangered species on the subject property. There is a well known American Bald Eagle nest on the Lafarge property directly to the east in a cottonwood tree that is located within a 1/4 mile of the Mining Area 2. (This is northwest of Mining Area 2). While the American Bald Eagle has been delisted from the T&E list, it is still protected with recommended buffering by the US Fish & Wildlife Service and the CDOW and the legal ramifications of harassment still exist in federal law. To that end, the DOW initially provided a review of the proposal and provided the following main points: 1) Leaving the area within the ox -bow undisturbed will preserve good eagle (and other) habitat; 2) Buffers (112 mile and 1/4 mile) are recommendation from the USFWS and CDOW to protect eagle nests statewide; 3) Activity is to be limited to the "off' season when the eagles are gone within the'/ mile buffer; 4) There is to be no activity in the 1/4 mile buffer; 5) There is definitely a risk that eagles will not tolerate the new disturbance. CDOW cannot recommend the mining operation because of that possibility; and 6) CDOW will stick to the buffer recommendations as they are known to provide a safe zone for nesting. Staff fully supports the Division of Wildlife's opinion and recommends the Planning Commission require the Applicant to revise their mining plan for Area 2. As a reminder, consider Staffs review (and that of CDOW) in 2005 regarding the former mining plan: The property presently serves as a rich upland and wetland habitat with dense mature stands of cottonwoods throughout the site serving as valuable riparian habitat as well as delineated wetlands 21 Scott Gravel Pit PC — 05/13/09 Page 22 throughout the site mainly located in the Ox Bow of the Colorado River. All of this varied vegetation provides valuable habitat for numerous birds including raptors, aquatic species, and mammals (elk and deer) which are all identified in the Application as well as in the comments provided by the Division of Wildlife (DOW). The Application states that while there are impacts, they should be viewed as temporary because the reclaimed pits /mining site will provide a high quality/diverse wetland and riparian area once fully established. Staff referred the Application the Division of Wildlife (DOW) which provided the following comments as contained in Exhibit I. According to the mining plan ,and maps there will be a 100' buffer between the mining operation and the river. This will definitely be an advantage for the species that utilize the shoreline of the river. The plan also leaves the old river oxbow out of the training operation. This will provide some good habitat and wetland during and after the operation, There are several mature cotton wood trees that are to be left undisturbed as well as some willows, These trees will be an asset to the bird population for nesting and raptor hunting perches, It would be of great advantage to the wildlife if these undisturbed areas ate implemented according to the plan. It would also be an advantage to create visual and noise buffers between the mining operation and the 100' river buffer and oxbow. Buffers could consist of earthen berms or woody vegetation. The top soil that will bo removed and saved for later reclamation could be positioned as a This gravel extraction operation will have negative impacts on the habitat and the wildlife that utilizes it. The impact will start with the displacement of the wildlife which will be followed by the conversion of habitat into disturbed areas. These areas often see an infestation of non-native and noxious weeds. Strictures that are not wildlife friendly such as steep banked ponds and grravel hills void of top soil are often created. During the alining operation human presence, activities and noise will have obvious adverse effects on the wildlife. The DOW notes the presence of an established Bald Eagle nest on the adjacent LaFarge property The nest is approximately 340 yards (1020 feet) from the eastern property line of the subject property and approximately 160 yards north of Interstate 1-70. It has been in place for at least 4 years and has successfully reared young over those years with the most active nesting period being from January 15th to July 31st of each year. The DOW made the following comments regarding the Bald Eagle. The following is an excerpt from the DOW 's letter: 22 Scott Gravel Pit PC — 05/13/09 Page 23 All who are involved with this proposal realize that one of the biggest wildlife issues particular to this site is the existing Bald Eagle nest to the east of the property. The nest is approximately 340 yards from the property line. Bald Eagles are a federally protected species. As such they are protected by the .Endangered Species Act from any activities that are thus defined: "harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct." "Harass" is further defined by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to include an intentional or negligent act or omission which creates the likelihood of injury to wildlife by annoying it to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavioral patterns which include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering. The Division of Wildlife usually recommends a buffer zone around a Bald Eagle nest of %4 mile free from disturbance with a buffer of % mile during breeding and nesting season. This particular pair of eagles usually starts nesting activity after the middle ofJanuary and continues through the end of July. They have now successfully raised young from that nest for the last two years. They started nest building and breeding activities three years ago. This pair seems to be more tolerant of disturbance. Interstate 70, the Lafarge Marnm Creek Gravel Pit, and a residence/small business all occur within several hundred yards of tho nest. However, there is usually a threshold of disturbance that these species will "put up with." Once that threshold is crossed they will probably abandon the nest and any eggs or young present at the time. In order to avoid that circumstance, the Division recommends that rearing operations in Mining Arca 3 (Mine Plan Map) be started after July 30 of any given year, If the operation cannot be postponed at the following January l5th, at least the operation is in existence and the eagles can determine if they want Lo nest there as opposed to being disturbed in the middle of nesting. There was some language in the plan saying that the residence existing on the east property boundary would be demolished "if' that area was determined to be mined. If it is therefore possible to leave a buffer along the east boundary it would be highly advantageous as far as the eagle's nest is concerned. Stafffinds while the interstate represents a nearby obnoxious use, the addition of a gravel mining pit approximately 1020 feet from the nest only adds to the potential harassment of the nest and may force the Eagles to abandon the nest. The US Fish & Wildlife regulates federally protected species such as the American Bald Eagle by the Endangered Species Act. As stated in the DOW letter, the US Fish & Wildlife as well as DOW typically recommend a % mile non disturbance zone around a nest which grows to 1/2 mile during nesting and breeding season. In this case, the existing nest is located approximately 1,020 linear feet from the mining area 3 on the site plan. This is 300 feet short of the 1/4 mile distance needed for non -disturbance. Actually, as scaled on the plans, the 1/ mile distance puts the buffer somewhere in the middle of Mining Area 3 (the eastern pit). The 1/2 mile buffer from the nest extends to cover approximately 1/2 of Mining Area 2 (the middle pit) shown to the left. 23 As the DOW letter points out, the DOW recommends that no mining activi start in Mining Area 2 until after July 31st of any given year. Further, if the Scott Gravel Pit PC — 05/13/09 Page 24 mining activity cannot be postponed at the next January 151h, then at least the eagles can determine if they want to nest there as opposed to being disturbed during nesting. Staff finds this recommendation a bit perplexing. Again, the USFW definition of "harassment" is an intentional or negligent act or omission which creates the likelihood of injury to wildlife by annoying it to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavioral patterns which include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering. In Staff's opinion, if the eagles choose not to return to this established nest because mining was underway the next January 15th, one could reasonably assume the new use (gravel mining activity) was the cause of abandonment directly resulting in harassment. Staffraises the question: How is this not "harassment? " As mentioned above, the nest tree is on the neighboring Lafarge property which has mining activity occurring in Cell 3 which has its western most portion falling 200 feet within the '/ mile buffer. USFS has allowed the mining of this cell to continue so long as the eagles are not there. Once the eagles return, all activity must cease. With this as an exception, Lafarge committed to maintaining the recommended '/ mile offset from the nest while the eagles are not nesting as well as respecting the '/ mile offset when the eagles are actively nesting. (See Exhibit X) Note, the importance of protecting the bald eagle (via the Bald and Golden Eagle Act and Migratory Bird Treaty Act) as well as the dense mature cottonwood gallery along the Colorado River was reinforced by the USFS in their letter to the County dated August 25, 2006. (See Exhibit Z) Based on the forgoing, should the Board approve the SUP, Staff recommends a condition of approval be required that "no mining activity, operations staging (batch plant /office /scales /sales / etc. ), or reclamation shall be allowed in Mining Area 3 (eastern most pit) where it lies within the '/a mile buffer zone. The pit configuration shall be redesigned to acknowledge this buffer. Additionally, no mining activity, operations staging (batch plant / office / scales / sales / etc.), or reclamation shall be allowed in any mining area that lies within the % mile buffer area until after July 31st of any given year and subsequently all such activity shall stop prior to January 15th of any given year." Lastly, Staff finds the final pond configurations should be amended to add additional undulation / variation in the shoreline to enhance protective characteristics of wildlife habitat as well as visual interest. This comports with suggestions by the DOW that suggest typical engineered pond configurations add little in the way of shoreline protection for rearing waterfowl / and aquatic wildlife. As of the writing of this report, the County Vegetation Manager emailed Staff indicating that he visited the site on Friday, may 1, 2009 and observed that the eagles have fixed their nest and one was in the nest. More recently, WestWater observed 3 chic in the nest as of their June 5, 2009 report. 24 Scott Gravel Pit PC — 05/13/09 Page 25 The DOW sent in an additional letter (June 5, 2009) that indicates the applicant has revised their mining plan to 1) increase shoreline undulation, 2) added more shallow banks to 5:1, 3) removed the concrete / asphalt batch plant (except for limited CDOT / FAA projects), and kept the mining inside the'/ mile buffer to "off season: time frames when the eagles are not in the nest. There is a newly discovered Red tailed Hawk nest that could be harassed by this operation. (Exhibit 0) 2. The Application shall contain a Wildlife Impact Analysis prepared by a professional that identifies existing wildlife habitat and impacts on wildlife as a result of the project which may include but be not limited to impacts to domestic animals through the creation of hazardous attractions, alteration of existing native vegetation, blockade of migration routes, use patterns or other disruptions. Staff Response The Applicant submitted a "Wildlife and Sensitive Areas Assessment Report" prepared by WestWater Engineering, Inc dated May 2009. This report found that the following: Construction of the Rifle Scott Pit will affect site —specific native vegetation and wildlife habitat adjacent to the project site. Affects will be minimized by avoiding wetlands and limiting removal of mature cottonwoods as described in the mining plan; the project, while mining is taking place, will minimally contribute to the overall cumulative impacts to the wildlife populations of the Colorado River Valley, which are experiencing gradual habitat loss, fragmentation, alteration and displacement through development. Wildlife habitat at the site has been seriously degraded in the past by overgrazing and invasion of noxious weeds. Successful post -mining reclamation should increase both the quality and quantity of habitat for native species. Based on this analysis, WestWater recommends specific mitigation measures (pages 15 — 18) which are attached to this memorandum as Exhibit R. Staff recommends, should this project be approved, that these recommendations be included as conditions of approval. 5.17.47 Compatibility with Surrounding Land Uses The following regulations shall apply to all gravel operations in the County: 25 Scott Gravel Pit PC - 05/13/09 Page 26 1. No permit shall be approved unless sufficient distances separate such use from abutting property which might otherwise be damaged by operations of the proposed use(s). Staff Response There appears to be sufficient distances between abutting properties such that they would not be damaged by operations. 2. The equipment storage area is not placed any closer than 300 ft. from any existing residential dwelling. Staff Response There are no residences within 300 feet of the operations. 3. Loading and unloading of vehicles shall be conducted on private property and may not be conducted on any public right-of-way. Staff Response The Applicant agrees to this requirement. 4. Any storage area for uses not associated with natural resources, shall not exceed ten (10) acres in size. Staff Response The operations appear to meet this standard. 5. Any lighting of storage area shall be pointed downward and inward to the property center and shaded to prevent direct reflection on adjacent property. Staff Response The Applicant agrees to this requirement. 6. Shall be compatible with surrounding agricultural, residential, and recreational land uses by selection of location and/or mitigation. Staff Response The land to the north and east are existing gravel operations. The land to the west is an undeveloped rural parcel owned and unused by CDOT and the property to the south is the 1-70 interstate. The use is compatible with the uses to the north and east and can be mitigated from uses to the south and west with the exception of the visual impact and 26 Scott Gravel Pit PC - 05/13/09 Page 27 impact to the American Bald Eagle. 7. The proposed operation will be located a sufficient distance from other mining operations so as not to create non-mitigatable cumulative impacts to roads, air and water quality, or other resources and amenities. Staff Response The new pit will open up new ground to be exposed for 5 to 6 years as proposed; however, it is impossible to determine exactly the life of the pit for economic reasons. As viewed from the air, it would appear to "fit in" with the other pits in the area. The majority of the impacts can be mitigated or avoided (Bald Eagle 1/4 mile buffer zone) with the exception of the visual impact as seen from 1-70. While there will be a high visual impact during mining, the reclamation, if properly conducted in a timely manner could result in a visually pleasing result with ponds / lakes that also provide valuable aquatic and bird habitat. 8. Unless otherwise determined by the Board of County Commissioners, The gravel pit hours of operation will be 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday with crushing, digging, and heavy hauling allowed from 7:00 am to 6:00 pm allowing for administrative and maintenance activities to take place until 8:00 p.m. No operations except emergency maintenance to ensure the integrity of operating equipment shall take place on Sunday. Staff Response The supplemental information submitted by the Applicant revised their hours of operation to be consistent with the County's regulations. However, they will need to be adjusted to specific locations and specific seasons to address the American Bald Eagle issue. Their propose hours include: Monday - Saturday: 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM (Crushing, digging, and heavy hauling only occurring between 7:00 Am to 6:00 PM) Sunday: No operations (Except emergency maintenance) 5.17.08 Reclamation / Enforcement Reclamation shall be done to create an aesthetically pleasing site or reclaimed area that will blend with or improve upon the surrounding areas. All applications shall submit a Reclamation Plan that specifically addresses the following aspects of reclamation: slopes, vegetation, lake / pond shape & character, wildlife habitat / agriculture, phasing and berms. Additionally, the State of Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety has minimum standards for reclamation. For 27 Scott Gravel Pit PC -- 05/13/09 Page 28 example, reclaimed slopes are typically required to be 3:1 or shallower. This standard creates stable slopes but does not necessarily result in a landscape that blends with the surroundings. The same is true for other aspects of reclamation. All Reclamation plans shall follow the following design criteria: 1. Slopes a) Wetland Criteria: Varied slopes predominantly 5:1 or shallower, at least 80% 5:1, and 25% 10:1 or shallower in wetland zone. b) Dryland Criteria: Varied slopes predominantly 5:1 or shallower, seamlessly blends with surrounding landscape. Staff Response The Application only proposes slopes that are mostly 3H:1 V with some 5:1 and even less at 10:1 near wetlands which all fall short of what is required above for a variety of reasons. Staff finds this questionable as shallow slopes provide vegetation and wildlife habitat benefits as well visual benefits. The Application states it only can commit to restoring slopes with limited materials that are on site and will only encourage the import of fill materials for the final reclaim. This plan needs to be reworked to meet these regulations. 2. Vegetation a) Wetland Criteria: Variation in revegetation, revegetation to include planting of trees and/or shrubs, if seedlings or sprouts plantings occur as part of phased reclamation and not just at the end of the mine life. Established trees or shrubs in final reclamation phase are at least 8' tall or 2" caliper trees or 5 gallon shrub containers. Active irrigation shall be employed in revegetation areas during the life of the mine or until revegetation is self-sustaining. b) Dryland Criteria: Variation in revegetation, revegetation to include planting of trees and/or shrubs, if seedlings or sprouts plantings occur as part of phased reclamation and not just at the end of the mine life. Established trees or shrubs in final reclamation phase are at least 8' tall or 2" caliper trees or 5 gallon shrub containers. Active irrigation in revegetation areas during the life of the mine or until revegetation is self-sustaining. Staff Response 28 Scott Gravel Pit PC — 05/13/09 Page 29 The Application includes a reclamation plan that includes planting twenty (2 -inch caliper) cottonwood trees around each pond at intervals of 75 to 150 feet with cottonwood / willow saplings / cutting clumps between the trees and fringe wetlands on all of the lake perimeters (although the plan only shows these wetland shelves to be installed on Mining Area 2). Despite best efforts to plants trees and other vegetation near anticipated water table levels, the plan needs to incorporate an irrigation system to ensure that the vegetation takes hold and is successful over several years. The reclamation plan needs to be revised to incorporate active irrigation methods. Additionally, Staff recommends the Applicant revise their Reclamation Plan to incorporate the City of Rifle's recommended seeding methods and not allow general dry -land mix seed broadcast methods. The County Vegetation Manager reviewed the plan and provided the following comments and recommendations: ➢ The City of Rifle suggests using plant plugs (i. e. real plants) instead of broadcast seeding. The applicant does propose to plant trees, cuttings, and tublings. Research indicates that plug stock of wetland species such as sedges and rushes are more effective than broadcast seeding. Also large plug stock, over 21 inches, has been shown to be more effective than 12 inch plugs. Larger plugs can handle changing water tables better than the smaller plugs. ➢ There is a native shrub, silver -leaf buffalo berry (Shepherdia argentea) that may be confused with the noxious weed, the Russian -olive tree (Shepherdia argentea). The applicant needs to be able to distinguish between the two so that the native silver -leaf is conserved and not managed like the Russian -olive. > It is critical that the applicant implement an effective Russian -olive and tamarisk treatment program. From this department's perspective, reducing the population of Russian olive and tamarisk is not a negative impact to visual aesthetics from the corridor as is stated on page J-2. The timely treatment of all County listed noxious weeds, including Russian olive and tamarisk, is encouraged given the threat of spreading noxious weed seeds through gravel to previously uninfested areas. ➢ Staff requests the removal of crested wheatgrass from the dry rangeland mix. ➢ Again, staff appreciates the City's comments and we emphasize our concurrence with the Reclamation of the Scott Expansion to the Chambers Gravel Pit document. The topics of live -soil handling, using local plant sources for reclamation, and developing a benchmark for successful gravel pit reclamation 29 Scott Gravel Pit PC 05/13/09 Page 30 are important items and worthy of further consideration by the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners. 3. Lake / Pond Shape and Character: Reclamation with multiple ponds or lakes with substantial islands or peninsula (at least 20% of total surface) to break up surface, undulation of shorelines provides natural appearance. Staff Response The post -mining lakes have minimal undulation (Mining Area 2 being better than mining Area 1). These ponds are relatively small but could benefit from more shoreline variation. Staff suggests the possibility of a fake island in the middle of Mining Area 2 to help meet this standard. 4. To the extent permitted by law, unless all disturbance created by the mining operation is covered by a reclamation bond underjurisdiction of the Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety, or by the federal government on federally owned lands, a bond or other acceptable financial performance guarantee shall be submitted in favor of Garfield County in an amount of at least 150 percent of the cost of restoration of the site and access roads. The required amount of such financial performance guarantees may be increased at the discretion of the Board of County Commissioners to account for inflation. A bid for site restoration acceptable to the permittee and Garfield County shall be submitted to the Planning Department as evidence of the cost of reclamation for bond setting purposes. Staff Response The County will request a copy of the bond put in place with the DRMS. 5. To the extent permitted by law, the Board of County Commissioners may require a financial performance guarantee in addition to that required by the Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety to insure that certain conditions of a permit will be complied with. The required amount of such financial performance guarantees may be increased at the discretion of the Board of County Commissioners to account for inflation. The County will not require financial guarantees that are duplicative of that required by the DRMS. Staff Response Presently, there is no County requirement for an additional security for other provisions beyond the scope of the mining. 30 Scott Gravel Pit PC - 05/13/09 Page 31 6. The operator will submit an annual report to the County Building and Planning Department with GPS measurements shown on a map showing the current disturbance, what areas have been backfilled, where topsoil stockpiles are located, all site structures, what areas have been seeded, mulched and what is planned for the ensuing 12 months. Staff Response Applicant has agreed to this requirement. 7. 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. Staff Response Applicant has agreed to this requirement. 8. 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. Staff Response Applicant has agreed to this requirement. 9. 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 303-692-3150 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 Staff Response Applicant has agreed to this requirement. 10. 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. 31 Scott Gravel Pit PC 05/13/09 Page 32 Staff Response Applicant has agreed to this requirement. 11. The Operator acknowledges that the County has performance standards in place that could lead to revocation of the Special Use Permit if continued violations of the permit occur over a period of time. Staff Response Applicant has agreed to this requirement. 12. 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 municipal Watershed Permit, CDPHE, USACE, NPDES, Division of Water Resources (approved well permits and plan for augmentation), etc. Staff Response Applicant has agreed to this requirement. 13. 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 bond shall need to be calculated to cover this plan and secured with DRMS to cover its implementation. Staff Response Applicant has agreed to this requirement. 14. 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 al! county listed noxious weeds found on site. This weed management plan shall be submitted to the County Vegetation Manager for approval prior to the issuance of a SUP. Staff Response Applicant has agreed to this requirement. 32 Scott Gravel Pit PC 05/13/09 Page 33 IX. STAFF REVIEW SUMMARY The plan has been significantly reduced since the last submittal by eliminating the mining activity inside the ox -bow which will significantly reduce the wildlife / habitat, wetlands, and visual impacts on the site from the mining activity. Many, if not most, of the technical issues (floodplain, stormwater run-off, process water discharge, SPCC, flood monitoring) can be met. However, there remain the following issues with the proposal that the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners are required to address and make a finding. These involve specific conditions that are written as mandatory using the word "shall." The proposed mining plan does not adhere to several of these as stated below: 1. Section 5.17.004 (Visual Impacts) New longterm (more than one year) mining operations will minimize visual impacts along entryways to growth centers. Planning Commission and/or the Board of County Commissioners will determine sufficiency of minimization. Staff Finding: This shall need to be a finding by the Planning Commission. 2. Section 5.17.09 (Impacts to County Road System) The Applicant shall submit evidence of insurance for a minimum of $1,000,000 to cover any damages to public and private property, and Garfield County shall be named as an additional insured. Staff Response: The Applicant does not wish to submit evidence of insurance for a minimum of $1,000,000 to cover any damages to public and private property because they believe there will be a very small percentage of traffic on County roads directly from this small operation. The TIS suggests 10% of the trips will use County Roads so Staff suggests the Applicant submit evidence of insurance for a minimum of $100,000 to cover any damages to public or private roads. This standard has not been met. 3. Section 5.17.16 (Reclamation Plans regarding Slopes for Wetland Criteria) The project shall have varied slopes predominantly 5:1 or shallower, at least 80% 5:1, and 25% 10:1 or shallower in wetland zone. Staff Response: The proposed reclamation plan proposes very limited slopes of 5:1 which falls far short of the 80% required. Further, the plan is deficient on requiring at least 25% of the wetland areas have 10:1 slopes. The DOW appears to be satisfied with the revised undulation and slopes; however, the County Airport is concerned about the creation of additional waterfowl habitat (encouraged by shallow slopes) that will create an aviation hazard. The plan appears to be a good compromise; 33 Scott Gravel Pit PC - 05/13/09 Page 34 however, the standard requires certain percentages of slopes. This standard has not been met. 4. Section 5.17.16 (Revegetation & Irrigation) Active irrigation shall be employed in revegetation areas during the life of the mine or until revegetation is self-sustaining. Staff Response: The plan does not propose any "active" irrigation and instead indicates that the close proximity to the water table will better provide ground irrigation to the reclamation vegetation. Further, the application will state that adding active surface irrigation will actually have a negative affect on Tong -term survivability of the vegetation. Again, the standard requires "active" irrigation which is not proposed. This standard is not met. 5. The proposed Application requires a finding by the Planning Commission regarding the County's Comprehensive Plan Goal to: Ensure that development and overall land use policies occurring in the County that will affect a municipality are compatible with the existing zoning and future land use objectives of the appropriate municipality; and 6. Further, the mining activity is a significant issue within the City of Rifle's East Gateway Plan where a finding should be made regarding the following goals and policies in that plan: 1) Mitigate negative impacts during and after mineral extraction. 2) Minimize and eliminate the negative visual and operational effects of mining on the gateways and biological systems. 3) Encourage land uses that recognize the environmental sensitivity of the land. 4) Protect watersheds and floodplains. 5) It is the intent of the City to minimize the impact of any mining on the environment and surrounding Rifle gateways. Policies 1) The City adopts the guidance outlined in the County's proposed regulations and policies for gravel extraction operations drafted in 34 Scott Gravel Pit PC 05/13/09 Page 35 November 2007 entitled, "Goals, Objectives, Policies & Regulations Regarding Gravel Extraction Operations." 2) The County's proposed regulations outline a regulatory framework that ensures mining activities limit their adverse affect on environmental and visual quality, and reduce potential land uses and traffic impacts. In addition to these regulations, the City will discourage any gravel mining operations, which contain crushing, asphalt processing or concrete operations between Mamm Creek and Exit 90. Staff Response: Staff believes that the proposed mining plan goes a long way to reduce the impacts to the gateway area of the City of Rifle by reducing the mining plan considerably by eliminating mining within the ox -bow, eliminating the asphalt / concrete batch plants, and does not create adverse traffic impacts to the City. The visual impact will remain as the main outlying concern, although these two mining areas are less than 22 acres (broken into two small areas) with a short mining time -frame which means reclamation would occur sooner. X. STAFF RECOMMENDED FINDINGS 1. Proper posting and public notice was provided as required for the meeting before the Planning Commission. 2. The meeting before the Planning Commission was extensive orcomplete, that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted and that all interested parties were not heard at that meeting. 3. The above stated and other reasons, the proposed Special Use Permit has been determined to be in the best interest of the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County. XI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff finds that with modification, the plan is an approvable plan. Technically, the Planning Commission could find that the application, as presently proposed, cannot be supported with a recommendation of approval to the Board of County Commissioners because of the mandatory language in the standards pointed out above. (There are remedies available to the applicant to properly amend the currently adopted standards via a text amendment to these standards in the Land Use Code. There may be very good reasons to vary from the currently approved regulations; however, they are still the existing regulations.) 35 Or. Rick Krueger USFWS RE: Concessions at Scott Pit for USFW for new eagle nest Rick: I have spoken with United Companies and I have received authorization to make the following commitments regarding the Scott Pit application in Garfield County: 1. United commits to not starting any activity on site until after June 15, 2010. At that time, topsoil will be stripped and the gravel mining operation will start in Mining Area 1. Portable crushers and screens will be brought on site to process gravel. 2. United commits to not conducting any mining inside the 1/4 mile buffer (very little is proposed in both pits) until the eagles have left the area and are not likely to return soon. 3. United commits to conducting as much mining and processing as possible from the pit itself, which is approximately 25 feet below the current ground level. The majority of the gravel in both pits can be mined and processed this way. 4. United will try to conduct as much mining and processing in the off season for the eagles (when they are not present). 5. United has committed to no permanent asphalt or concrete plant on site. Any of these plants that would be moved on site would be placed for a specific job, which would be temporary. The plants would also have a much smaller footprint since they are portable. 6. The life of the operation (based on the much smaller proposed mining area) is only 5.7 years, which is somewhat variable due to demand, but nevertheless, it is a much smaller operation with the removal of the oxbow riparian area from the mine plan. In response to the commitments outlined above, please let me know if Creed Clayton can state at the hearing that USFWS will not oppose the pit. If not, Garfield County will likely deny the application. We already know that Fred Jarman is changing his recommendation to denial based on the new nest and the USFWS letter recently sent. Greg Lewicki, P.E. o 04> cam..- • ! I ,..1) F--) 7 /21 2...._ ......— ....) , lvj t . 7b 17)-����/. • Rick Krueger USFWS • r4/ RE: Concessions at Scott Pit for USFW for new eagle nest Rick: I have spoken with United Companies and I have received authorization to make the following commitments regarding the Scott Pit application in Garfield County: 1. United commits to not starting any activity on site until after June 15, 2010. At that time, topsoil will be stripped and the gravel mining operation will start in Mining Area 1. Portable crushers and screens will be brought on site to process gravel. 2. United commits to not conducting any mining inside the 1/4 mile buffer (very little is proposed in both pits) until the eagles have left the area and are not likely to return soon. 3. United commits to conducting as much mining and processing as possible from the pit itself, which is approximately 25 feet below the current ground level. The majority of the gravel in both pits can be mined and processed this way. 4. United will try to conduct as much mining and processing in the off season for the eagles (when they are not present). 5. United has committed to no peaaanent asphalt or concrete plant on site. Any of these plants that would be moved on site would be placed for a specific job, which would be temporary. The plants would also have a much smaller footprint since they are portable. 6. The life of the operation (based on the much smaller proposed mining area) is only 5.7 years, which is somewhat variable due to demand, but nevertheless, it is a much smaller operation with the removal of the oxbow riparian area from the mine plan. In response to the commitments outlined above, please let me know if Creed Clayton can state at the hearing that USFWS will not oppose the pit. If not, Garfield County will likely deny the application. We already know that Fred Jarman is changing his recommendation to denial based on the new nest and the USFWS letter recently sent. Greg Lewicki, P,E. 1-7j 01i4L 1 TeM-C 6#- Oe.m.4, [ 1-ra-krA.,t)-- ) 4 Pito S 1 oAUL my v si;, vAst-Go "4961 1 1 i, �+ 45'- ad ieg 140 TG E70,441AsE [t`i i -4U/e, /z) 1 �-�' .�f/ilk 1/1/6 Z6� 7E-- 7-64/5- trc19,4 aid f -/s', .W t 0, TYPE OF REVIEW EXHIBIT 01/27/10 (Continued from 6/24/09, 9/23/09, and 10/28/09) (Applicant Re -noticed for 01/27/10) FJ PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS Special Use Permit for 1) "Processing, Storage and Material Handling of Natural Resources" & Special Use Permit for 2) "Development in the Floodplain" APPLICANT River's Edge, LLC LOCATION The subject property is located % mile east of the main interstate intersection of Rifle Colorado between the Colorado River and Interstate 70. (Section 15, Township 6 South, Range 93 West) SITE INFORMATION Approximately 93 acre parcel (mining / disturbing 25 acres) ZONING Agriculture / Industrial (Al) I. BACKGROUND As the Planning Commission will recall, Staff presented its findings to the Planning Commission which ultimately concluded that Staff could not support the Application because the proposal did not meet specific code standards and that either the Applicant needed to change their proposal to meet the standards or propose a text amendment to change the standards. The Applicant decided to ask the County to change the standards and that they would continue to propose their Application as previously submitted. The County approved their request to change specific standards and this revised memorandum outlines these specific changes and the Applicant's response to them. Regarding the current Application, the mining plan has been significantly reduced since the last submittal by eliminating the mining activity inside the ox -bow which will significantly reduce the wildlife / habitat, wetlands, and visual impacts on the site from the mining activity. Most of the technical issues (floodplain, stormwater run-off, process water discharge, SPCC, flood monitoring) can be met. However, there remain the following issues with the proposal that the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners are required to address and make a finding. The unresolved issues from the last time the Planning Commission met on this Application are outlined here: Scott Gravel Pit PC -01/27/10 Page 2 1. Section 5.17.04 (Visual Impacts) New long-term (more than one year) mining operations will minimize visual impacts along entryways to growth centers. Planning Commission and/or the Board of County Commissioners will determine sufficiency of minimization. Staff Finding: This shall need to be a finding by the Planning Commission. The recent text amendment did not address this issue. The site remains at close proximity to the entrance to Rifle being about 1 -mile from the main 1-70 interchange into Rifle. The mining operation will be highly visible as it sits 20-25 feet below the surface of 1-70. The current plan will expose about 25 acres in an industrial operation prior to reclamation. To better address this visual impact issue, the Applicant has 1) eliminated the concrete / asphalt batch plant from the plan, 2) has committed to a "reclaim as you go" approach and 3) the expected timeframe for the entire project has been greatly reduced from its original plan. These are points that the Planning Commission and BOCC might contemplate for their decision. 2. The original standard (Section 5.17.05 or 7-840(E) of the ULUR: Impacts to County Road System) required that the Applicant shall submit evidence of insurance for a minimum of $1,000,000 to cover any damages to public and private property, and Garfield County shall be named as an additional insured. The approved text amendment modified this requirement such that it only applies to "public property" and "if the Applicant demonstrates its operation will not require a Garfield County access permit this insurance shall not be required." Staff Response: The Applicant does not plan to submit proof of insurance. There is no County access permit required for this application because the direct access is onto the State Highway frontage road for 1-70. The Applicant does not wish to submit evidence of insurance for a minimum of $1,000,000 to cover any damages to public property because they believe there will be a very small percentage of traffic on County roads directly from this small operation. The Applicant's TIS suggests only 10% of the trips will use County Roads. This standard has been met. 3. The original standard (Section 5.17.08 of the GCZR or Section 7-840(H) of the ULUR: Reclamation Plans regarding Slopes for Wetland Criteria) required that the project shall have varied slopes predominantly 5:1 or shallower, at least 80% 5:1, and 25% 10:1 or shallower in wetland zone. 2 Scott Gravel Pit PC— 01/27/10 Page 3 The approved text amendment modified this requirement such that it provides some flexibility as follows: 4) An alternate plan for the shoreline area which modifies the standards above may be proposed by an applicant to accommodate special needs for: a) Water based recreation amenities; b) Reducing wildlife habitat along certain sections of shoreline due to proximity to an airport; c) Fishing embankments; or d) Other special needs or uses may that be proposed by the applicant. 5) Any modification of the listed standards requires the recommending or decision making body to provide a separate finding and reason for waiving or modifying the Wetland Slope standards and that the modifications are in conformance with the purpose statement above: to create an aesthetically pleasing site that blends with the surrounding area, to provide for wildlife habitat and, to provide for future re -use of the site. Original Slog Topsoil Replaced General Cross Section Reclaimed Pit Lake Areas I rtiNC AWLfi-(I Urylend Slope (Stole Length Vt+riea Depending on Ground Water Level) 6' Wetland Slope Approximate Zone 6' Mit W etland Slope Close Up Water Leve Cottonwood Snplings Or Trtoos Planted Just Origlnol Crow Id Aho Wetland Stops r✓ rj Minimum 3H.:TV Slope Requlrod Until 10 Voltltal Feet Bellow Water Level Water. Lev I 2H -1V Nhmmrni Irn Slone Length Vanes Uepen4(ng On Site Conditions P11 Flew 3 Scott Gravel Pit PC 01/27/10 Page 4 Staff Response: The proposed reclamation plan proposes very limited slopes of 5:1 which falls far short of the 80% that is recommended. Further, the plan is deficient on requiring at least 25% of the wetland areas have 10:1 slopes. The DOW appears to be satisfied with the revised undulation and slopes; however, the County Airport is concerned about the creation of additional waterfowl habitat (encouraged by shallow slopes) that will create an aviation hazard. The Applicant provides the following justification to support their plan: a) The Garfield County airport shows that they are very concerned about encouraging waterfowl habitat within 10,000 feet of the runway. As measured, the edge of the eastern pit is within 3500 feet of the runway and in direct path with it. This exception is specifically covered in Section 7-840 H Reclamation and Enforcement 1. Slopes a) Wetland Slope Areas 4) a) as shown above. As has been revealed in the media since the New York City incident in 2009, waterfowl interference with airplanes is a common occurrence and is now receiving significant attention. The CDOW is spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to eliminate waterfowl within 2 miles of DIA in Denver due to the safety threat. See attached article. We believe the safety of the planes cannot be compromised. This location, so close to the airport runway, is simply not the best location to be encouraging this type of habitat. Also, the Garfield County airport is being expanded, which further increases the safety threat. b) The pit has been drastically reduced in size from earlier proposals to minimize all impacts. c) As a compromise measure trying to balance the safety issue of the airport with the desire of the CDOW to have wetlands and mild slopes, approximately 21.5% of the 2441 feet perimeter of Lake 1 is 5:1 slope, and approximately 3.3% is 10:1 slope. In Lake 2, approximately 20.5% of the total perimeter of 3348 feet is 5:1 slope and 2.4% is 10:1 slope. The remainder of all slopes will be no steeper than 3:1. See Map F-1 of the application for the layout of these areas. d) Approximately 0.79 acres of wetlands will be created, all of which are new; since an insignificant amount of wetlands will be disturbed. e) As stated in Item 3b) for Dryland Slope Areas, there may be an exception if no fill is available for backfilling. At this site, there is virtually no overburden on top of the gravel deposit that can be used for backfilling the slopes during reclamation. Also, this gravel is so clean that there is no reject material produced during the processing operations that could be used for backfilling. 4 Scott Gravel Pit PC — 01/27/10 Page 5 f) As stated in the 7-840 Regulations, reclamation should be done to create an aesthetically pleasing site. This is integral to the requirement for 5:1 slopes. The intent is to prevent deep excavations that do not blend into the surrounding relatively flat areas. On this site however, the vertical distance between the lake water level and the top of mild slope is generally only 4-7 feet. We know this from test excavations that were done on the site, showing the shallow water table. Therefore, the difference between a 3:1 slope and a 5:1 slope for this small a vertical distance is not a significant visual difference. The site will blend into the surroundings aesthetically. g) Significant undulation has also been added to the lake surfaces, as shown on the revised Map F-1. We believe that the shorelines look natural for visual appearance. The undulation is being achieved by backfilling and since there is no reject material from the excavated gravel, this material must come from another source. United is committing to the undulation shown on Map F-1. Reference staff report - page 30. Staff Response: it appears that the Applicant's responses present a reasonable approach to support their proposed plan. Staff suggests requiring the following points above as actual conditions: 1) When reclaimed, at least 21.5% of the 2,441 feet perimeter of Lake 1 shall be constructed to a 5:1 slope, and at least 3.3% of the shoreline on lake 1 shall be constricted to a 10:1 slope. In Lake 2, at least 20.5% of the total perimeter of 3, 348 feet shall be constructed to be a 5:1 slope and at least 2.4% of the shoreline shall be constructed to be a 10:1 slope. The remainder of all slopes will be no steeper than 3:1. See Map F-1 of the application, for the layout of these areas. 2) When reclaimed, at least 0.79 acres of wetlands shall be created and their location shall be shown on a map.. 4. The original standard (Section 5.17.08 of the GCZR or 7-840(H)(2) of the ULUR: Revegetation & Irrigation) required that active irrigation shall be employed in revegetation areas during the life of the mine or until revegetation is self-sustaining. The approved text amendment modified this requirement such that 1) if required, provide for adequate irrigation, and 2) any modification of the standards listed above requires the recommending or decision making body to provide a separate finding and reason for waiving or modifying the wetland revegetation standards and that the modifications are in conformance with the purpose statement above; to create an aesthetically pleasing site that blends with the surrounding area; to provide for wildlife habitat and; to provide for future re -use of the site. 5 Scott Gravel Pit PC — 01/27/10 Page 6 The Applicant provides the following justification in support of their proposal for deviating from the recommended standards for irrigation for the wetland criteria: a) The wetlands, including species and number of plantings are shown on map F-1. The wetlands to be restored are also shown to scale on Map F-1. The wetland seed mix is shown in the SUP Application. h) Irrigation, this site cannot be practically irrigated prior to each lake filling. Also, no one should want it to be irrigated prior to lake filling. The total depth of the pit will be approximately 25 feet. Attempts at irrigating this wetland area would result in water traveling down the pit slope, which would cause erosion and would also erode the seed into the ruining pit. Backfilling from 2:1 mining slope to 3:1 reclamation slope will occur around the entire perimeter on an ongoing basis, during the mining operation. Some areas will be restored to 5:1 and some will be restored to 10:1 slopes. There are specific timeframes for the amount of unbackfilled and untopsoiled areas allowed at any one time, as shown on Map C-2. Once the pit is fully mined and all areas have been backfilled, the wetland areas will be seeded, the pit pump will be withdrawn and the lake will be allowed to fill. Once this occurs, the wetland areas will be naturally irrigated. c) As shown on map F-1, the 2" caliper trees will be planted just above the water level, after the lake has reached equilibrium. This is done to ensure that the trees will be planted at the right elevation. If they are planted too high, they will not get enough natural water from the lake and they will die. If they are planted too low, they will get too much water from the lake and they will drown. d) Our past experience at other wet pit sites has shown that when the trees are planted from 6" to 12" above water level, the success rate is 90% to 100%. In order to ensure that this level is met, these plantings will occur within 60 days of the lake filling to ensure that the determined water levels are accurate. We know what the approximate water levels will be at both lakes since the area was pot holed using an excavator years ago. Water levels were recorded and in all cases, the water was within 5' to 6' of the surface. The water surface elevations on Map F-1 represent this testing. We know that this site will not result in a large excavation with very little water. For these reasons, irrigation is not needed to ensure the success of the trees. In addition, tree saplings and willow clumps will be planted at a level determined after lake falling to take advantage of the natural irrigation. Also, United cannot get their bond back if this vegetation is not successful, therefore, the County is already protected against any failure for this item. 6 Scott Gravel Pit PC — 01/27/10 Page 7 The Applicant provides the following response to the dryland revegetation criteria: a) All criteria outlined in the newly adopted text amended regulations will be followed. The reclaimed dryland areas will be graded, re-topsoiled, and seeded using drill seeding with crimp mulching or hydro -seeding with wood fiber mulch. Areas will be seeded and mulched within 60 days after topsoiling. b) Supplemental irrigation will be added in the summer months if drought conditions exist. Irrigation will only be provided on the dryland areas to simulate normal average precipitation of the area. It will not be done to the extent that it will crowd out dryland species with wetland species that will die once the irrigation is removed. Staff Response: Staff believes the Applicant's justification adequately addresses the irrigation issue; however, the Applicant's commitment to provide supplemental irrigation to dryland vegetation in drought conditions is subjective and difficult to enforce. Staff suggests either requiring permanent irrigation or not at all. The challenge will be that the revegetation may "take" initially enough for bond release, then it may all die with no recourse to resemble what the approved reclamation plan included. The County Vegetation Manager reviewed the plan and provided the following comments and recommendations: ➢ The City of Rifle suggests using plant plugs (i.e. real plants) instead of broadcast seeding. The applicant does propose to plant trees, cuttings, and tublings. Research indicates that plug stock of wetland species such as sedges and rushes are more effective than broadcast seeding. Also large plug stock, over 21 inches, has been shown to be more effective than 12 inch plugs. Larger plugs can handle changing water tables better than the smaller plugs. ➢ There is a native shrub, silver -leaf buffalo berry (Shepherdia argentea) that may be confused with the noxious weed, the Russian -olive tree (Shepherdia argentea). The applicant needs to be able to distinguish between the two so that the native silver - leaf is conserved and not managed like the Russian -olive. ➢ It is critical that the applicant implement an effective Russian -olive and tamarisk treatment program. From this department's perspective, reducing the population of Russian olive and tamarisk is not a negative impact to visual aesthetics from the corridor as is .stated an page 1-2. The timely treatment of all County listed noxious weeds, including Russian olive and tamarisk, is encouraged given the threat of 7 Scott Gravel Pit PC — 01/27/10 Page 8 spreading noxious weed seeds through gravel to previously uninfested areas. ➢ Staff requests the removal of crested wheatgrass from the dry rangeland mix. ➢ Again, staff appreciates the City's comments and we emphasize our concurrence with the Reclamation of the Scott Expansion to the Chambers Gravel Pit document. The topics of live -soil handling, using local plant sources for reclamation, and developing a benchmark for successful gravel pit reclamation are important items and worthy of further consideration by the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners. The proposed Application requires a finding by the Planning Commission regarding the County's Comprehensive Pian Goal to: Ensure that development and overall land use policies occurring in the County that will affect a municipality are compatible with the existing zoning and future land use objectives of the appropriate municipality; and Staff Response: As noted in previous comments from the City of Rifle, the mining activity is a significant issue within the City of Rifle's East Gateway Plan where a finding should be made regarding the following goals and policies in that plan: A. Mitigate negative impacts during and after mineral extraction. B. Minimize and eliminate the negative visual and operational effects of mining on the gateways and biological systems. C. Encourage land uses that recognize the environmental sensitivity of the land. D. Protect watersheds and floodplains. E. It is the intent of the City to minimize the impact of any mining on the environment and surrounding Rifle gateways. Policies A. The City adopts the guidance outlined in the County's proposed regulations and policies for gravel extraction operations drafted in November 2007 entitled, "Goals, Objectives, Policies & Regulations Regarding Gravel Extraction Operations." 8 Scott Gravel Pit PC — 01/27/10 Page 9 B. The County's proposed regulations outline a regulatory framework that ensures mining activities limit their adverse affect on environmental and visual quality, and reduce potential land uses and traffic impacts. In addition to these regulations, the City will discourage any gravel mining operations, which contain crushing, asphalt processing or concrete operations between Mamm Creek and Exit 90. Staff Response: Ultimately, Staff found that with the recent modifications to the standards (via the text amendment), the plan is an approvable plan. The Applicant presented good reasons to vary from the strict standards due to site-specific circumstances such as the waterfowl / airport conflict, non -direct connection to a County Road, and practical irrigation challenges. (It should also be noted that the initial conflict with the American Bald Eagle's nest no longer exists since the nest and tree fell into the Colorado River.) Staff believes that the now significantly reduced mining plan goes a long way to reduce the impacts to the "gateway area" of the City of Rifle by not impacting the floodway portion of the 100 -year floodplain, reducing the mining plan considerably by eliminating mining within the ox- bow and its impact to wetlands, eliminating the asphalt / concrete batch plants, and does not create adverse traffic impacts to the City. The visual impact will remain as the main outlying concern, although these two mining areas are less than 22 acres (broken into two small areas) with a short mining time -frame which means reclamation would occur sooner. 11. RECENT TEXT AMENDMENT ACTION BY PLANNING COMMISSION The Planning Commission continued the public hearing on the Special Use Permit to afford the Applicant time to process a text amendment to the County's land use regulations that might better address issues raised by the Applicant with the current SUP standards. On October 14, 2009, the Planning Commission made the following recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners which was heard on December 7, 2009 and approved via Resolution 2009-88. Note, the Board approved the Planning Commission's recommendation without change. 111. STAFF REVIEW SUMMARY The plan has been significantly reduced since the last submittal by eliminating the mining activity inside the ox -bow which will significantly reduce the wildlife / habitat, wetlands, and visual impacts on the site from the mining activity. Many, if not most, of the technical issues (floodplain, stormwater run-off, process water discharge, SPCC, flood monitoring) can be met. 9 Scott Gravel Pit PC - 01/27/10 Page 10 As stated earlier, Staff finds that with the recent modifications to the standards (via the text amendment), the plan is an approvable plan. The Applicant has presented good reasons to vary from the strict standards due to site-specific circumstances such as the waterfowl / airport conflict, non -direct connection to a County Road, and practical irrigation challenges. (It should also be noted that the initial conflict with the American Bald Eagle's nest no longer exists since the nest and tree fell into the Colorado River.) Staff believes that the now significantly reduced mining plan goes a long way to reduce the impacts to the "gateway area" of the City of Rifle by not impacting the floodway portion of the 100 -year floodplain, reducing the mining plan considerably by eliminating mining within the ox- bow and its impact to wetlands, eliminating the asphalt / concrete batch plants, and does not create adverse traffic impacts to the City. The visual impact will remain as the main outlying concern, although these two mining areas are less than 22 acres (broken into two small areas) with a short mining time -frame which means reclamation would occur sooner. IV. STAFF FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATION A. Proper posting and public notice was provided as required for the meeting before the Planning Commission. B. The meeting before the Planning Commission was extensive or complete, that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted and that all interested parties were not heard at that meeting. C. 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. D. Staff recommends the Planning Commission forward a recommendation of "Approval with Conditions" to the Board of County Commissioners for a Special -Use -Permit for 1) "Processing, Storage and Material Handling of Natural Resources" & Special Use Permit for 2) "Development in the Floodplain" on a property known as the "Scott Pit" for River's Edge, LLC with the following conditions: 1) Hours of Operation: The gravel pit shall be allowed to operate Monday -- Saturday from 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM with crushing, digging, and heavy hauling only occurring between 7:00 Am to 6:00 PM. There shall be no operations on Sunday except emergency maintenance. 10 Scott Gravel Pit PC— 01/27/10 Page 11 2) CDOT Access Permit: The Applicant shall obtain a new State Highway Access Permit from CDOT and adhere to any conditions required by that permit as conditions of any Special Use Permit approved by Garfield County. No mining work / site prep shall be allowed to begin until the improvements required by CDOT have been installed and approved by CDOT according to their permit. 3) Prohibition of Concrete / Asphalt Batch Plants: These plants shall be prohibited on this property. 4) Mining Plan Phasing Plan: This Special Use Permit approval shall be limited to a term of4sot-years from the date of approval of the Special Use Permit. If the operations are to exten beyond this time frame, the property owner shall be required to return to the BOC to demonstrate that the mining operations comply with any new regal-ations adopted by Garfield County. 5) There shall be no storage of fuel on site that is located within the 100 -year floodplain. 6) The Applicant shall install flood monitoring system through the use of "staff gauges" that will provide an early warning system to allow the removal of all equipment / fuel tanks from areas where flooding might occur. These gauges be installed with cement bases and painted vertical pipes (gauges) to ensure their permanence. No Special Use Permit shall be issued by the County until such gauges have been installed and verified by a site visit with County Staff. 7) Due to the close proximity to 1-70, all crushing��g�shall occur in enclose equipment that is equipped with wet scrubberswater spray facilities) to keep th aggregate moist. Further, the Applicant shall submit all the air emission permits for the equipment to be used on site to the County prior to issuance of the SUP. 8) Ali noise generated from the operation shall not exceed the Industrial Zone noise standards defined in the CRS such that noise shall not exceed 80 dB(A) from 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM and 75 dB(A) from 7:00 PM to 7:00 AM. 11 Scott Gravel Pit PC — 01/27/10 Page 12 9) Annual Progress Report: The Operator or Property Owner shall submit an annual report to the County Building and Planning Department with GPS measurements shown on a map showing the current disturbance, what areas have been backfilled, where topsoil stockpiles are located, all site structures, what areas have been seeded, mulched and what is planned for the ensuing 12 months. 10)The County can request a site inspection with 24 hour's notice to the Operator or Property Owner. Full access to any part of the site will be granted. On request, all paperwork must be shown. 11) A full list of all other permits shall be provided to the County within 24 hours of their request. Any person at any time can call the following agencies directly and request an inspection if they believe a condition of that agencies permit is being violated. a. CDPHE Air Quality Control 303-692-3150 b. 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 12) The Property Owner and Operator acknowledge that the County has performance standards in place that could lead to revocation of the Special Use Permit. 13) The County shall be invited to any bond release inspection of the State Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety. The County will have the opportunity to demonstrate that any item of the permit has not been complied with and that bond should not be released. Specifically, the Final Reclamation Plan (Map F-1) shall include the following components: A. When reclaimed, at least 21.5% of the 2,441 feet perimeter of Lake 1 shall be constructed to a 5:1 slope, and at least 3.3% of the shoreline on Lake 1 shall be constricted to a 10:1 slope. In Lake 2, at least 20.5% of the total perimeter of 3,348 feet shall be constructed to be a 5:1 slope and at least 2.4% of the shoreline shall be constructed to be a 10:1 slope. The remainder of all slopes will be no steeper than 3:1. See Map F-1 of the application for the layout of these 12 Scott Gravel Pit PC — 01/27/10 Page 13 areas. This shall be required to be shown on the Final Reclamation Plan (Map F- 1) approved herein and tendered to the DRMS. B. When reclaimed, at least 0.79 acres of wetlands shall be created and their location shall be shown on a map. This shall be required to be shown on the Final Reclamation Plan (Map F-1) approved herein and tendered to the DRMS. C. The Applicant shall use plant plugs (i.e. real plants) i .. - T"g; D. There is a native shrub, silver -leaf buffalo berry (Shepherdia argentea) that may be confused with the noxious weed, the Russian -olive tree (Shepherdia argentea). The Applicant needs to be able to distinguish between the two so that the native silver -leaf is conserved and not managed like the Russian -olive. E. The Applicant shall implement an effective Russian -olive and tamarisk treatment program in order to prevent the threat of spreading noxious weed seeds through gravel to previously uninfested areas. The Applicant shall meet with the County Vegetation Manager, prior to scheduling the hearing before the BOCC, to agree on a viable program. F. The Applicant shall remove crested wheatgrass from the dry rangeland reseeding mix. G. 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 commenced in six months or has been completed within eighteen (18) months, all mining operations on the property shall stop until the reclamation / revegetation has occurred to the satisfaction of the County. Completion shall include but not be limited to top -soiling, seeding, mulching, sapling planting, and water filling of the lake. H. The proposed Reclamation Plan approved via Special—Use-Permit shall be resubmitted to the DRMS and shall be the only reclamation plan (tasks / timetables) used by both the County and DRMS. Additionally, a new bond be calculated to cover this plan and secured with DRMS to cover its 13 Scott Gravel Pit PC — 01/27/10 Page 14 implementation. Proof of a recalculated bond shall be provided to the County prior to issuance of a SUP. I. The Reclamation Plan shall be revised to include planting 2 -inch caliper cottonwood trees around each pond at intervals of 75 feet with cottonwood / willow saplings / cutting clumps between the trees and fringe wetlands on all of the lake perimeters. MI1/ hr G��•T jam_ �� 2 4k izve /11 -p -f"-' /1141P61/1 A/7 ( 4 t h ill ISjil CkA \ A- vvt (---" 14 1 �P1�f�19Mdr 1Y J,,.iYt'.1flhm'.rii�lT 1rrin,..,f..f Recep€.ions#' 779126 1211512009 02:57,38 PM Jean 1 of 7 Rec Fee:$U.00 Doe FeeL STATE OF COLORADO County of Garfield ico GARFIELD COUNTY CO )ss EXHIBIT At a regular meeting of the Board of County Commissioners for Garfield County, Colorado, held in the Commissioners' Meeting Room, Garfield County Courthouse, in Glenwood Springs on Monday the 7`s of December, 2009, there were present: John Martin , Commissioner Chairman Mike Samson , Commissioner Tresi Haupt , Commissioner Deborah Quinn , Assistant County Attorney Jean Alberico , Clerk of the Board Ed Green (absent), County Manager when the following proceedings, among others were had and done, to -wit: RESOLUTION NO. 2009-88 A RESOLUTION CONCERNED WITH THE APPROVAL OF A TEXT AMENDMENT TO AMEND THE TEXT OF ARTICLE 7 OF THE UNIFIED LAND USE RESOLUTION OF 2008, AS AMENDED, REGARDING MODIFYING THE STANDARDS OF SECTION 7-840 E, IMPACTS TO COUNTY ROAD SYSTEM, AND SECTION 840 II, RECLAMATION 7-840 I PARCEL NO# NIA Recitals A. The Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County, Colorado, received a Text Amendment application from Rivers Edge, LLC to Amend the Text of Article 7, of the Land Use Resolution of 2008. C. On October 14, 2009 the Garfield County Planning and Zoning Commission forwarded a recommendation of approval with changes by a vote of 5-0 to the Board of County Commissioners. D. On December 7, 2009, the Board of County Commissioners opened a public hearing upon the question of whether the Text Amendment should be approved, approved with changes, or denied at which hearing the public and interested persons were given the opportunity to express their opinions regarding the issuance of said Text Amendment. E. The Board of County Commissioners closed the public hearing on December 7, 2009 to make a final decision. Page 1 of 7 Mill Ai' rEitTir rrw i INA ii i.l`n%i'y AT&MIli Reception#: 779126 12/15/2009 02:57:3$ PM Jean ,rico 2 of 7 Rec fee_$0.00 Doc Fee, .0 GARFIELD CDUNTY•C0 F. The Board on the basis of substantial competent evidence produced at the aforementioned hearing, has made the following determinations of fact: 1. That the hearings before the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners was extensive and complete, that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted and that all interested parties were heard. 2. That the application has met the public notice and public hearing requirements of the Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008, as amended. 3. That the proposed text amendment can be determined to be in the best interest of the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County. 4. The proposed text amendment is consistent with applicable standards of the Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008, as amended, and complies with the Garfield Count Comprehensive Plan of 2000, as amended. 5. The proposed text amendment does not conflict with State statutory provisions regulating land use. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County, Colorado, that the Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008, and identified as its Resolution No. 08-115, as subsequently amended by this Board, shall be and hereby is amended as shown on the attached Exhibit A and said language will be incorporated into the codified Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution adopted on October 13`h, 2008: ADOPTED this 1 `ft -t' ATTEST: day of �� , 2009 GARFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF COM 1 _ _ ONERS, GARFIELD CO ► OLORADO Page 2 of 7 U LI li IF1111 ■ 11411.141I TM.17'fa }I}1NA'1 ti1Vtllro.Tr til 4H Receptionii: 779126 12115!2009 0257:38 P11 Jean P 3 of 7 Res Fee :$0.00 Doc Fee •0 GARca FIELD COUNTY CO Upon motion duly made and seconded the foregoing Resolution was adopted by the following vote: Mike Samson Tresi Houpt John Martin STATE OF COLORADO ) )ss County of Garfield ) , Aye , Aye , Aye I, , County Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners, in and for the County and State aforesaid, do hereby certify that the annexed and foregoing Resolution is truly copied from the Records of the Proceeding of the Board of County Commissioners for said Garfield County, now in my office. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said County, at Glenwood Springs, this day of _, A.D. 2009. County Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners Page3of7 �Ilf rl`��i�1 I I�1rf �iriMP mink @411E ReceptiortI 779126 12/15/2009 02,57 -Re PM Jean Pco A of 7 Rec Fee.$0.00 Doc Fee.0_ CRRFIE1,6 COUNTY CO EXHIBIT A Text Amendment-TXl!'T-6010 ARTICLE VII STANDARDS Section7-840, Additional Standards Applicable to Gravel Extraction E. Impacts to County Road System 3. The Applicant shall submit evidence of insurance for a minimum of $1,000,000 to cover any damages to public property, and Garfield County shall be named as an additional insured_ If the applicant demonstrates its operation will not require a Garfield County access permit this insurance shall not be required. 4. Expected haul routes from the mine will be upgraded to withstand the additional traffic, if determined by the traffic study or recommendation by the County Engineer, and the permittee will prevent road damage and mitigate dust, under the supervision of the Road and Bridge Director. F1) Reclamation/Enforcement 1. Slopes (See Graphic Below) a) Wetland Slope Areas: 1) Wetland Slopes shall be predominantly 5:1 or shallower, with at least 80% 5:1 and 20% 10:1 or shallower. The percentage of Wetland Slope is calculated along the perimeter of the reclaimed lakes. 2) For the purpose of this section, the Wetland Slope is defined as three (3) feet above the shoreline and three (3) feet below the shoreline (see graphic), 3) Wetlands shall be included in the reclamation plan, for all shoreline areas. 4) An alternate plan for the shoreline area which modifies the standards above may be proposed by an applicant to accommodate special needs for: a) Water based recreation amenities; b) Reducing wildlife habitat along certain sections of shoreline due to proximity to an airport; c) Fishing embankments; or d) Other special needs or uses that may be proposed by the applicant. 5) Any modification of the listed standards requires the recommending or decision making body to provide a separate finding and reason for waiving or modifying the Wetland Slope standards and that the modifications are in conformance with the purpose statement above: to create an aesthetically pleasing site that blends with the surrounding area, to provide for wildlife habitat and, to provide for future re -use of the site. b) Dryland Slope Areas: 1) Dryland Slopes shall be predominantly 5:1 with at least 85% of the slopes 5:1 or shallower, 2) For the purpose of this section, the Dryland Slope area is defined as any area above a Wetland Slope in the post -mine land use that will predominantly he used for rangeland grazing and wildlife habitat. Page 4 of 7 Il1117iFIKitliiKLm'°n Ili 114 Reception#: 775126 12.115i-2009 02.57:38 PM Je. 5 of I Rem Fee.$0.0O Pon Fe, herico 05 GARFtELD COUNTY CO 3) An alternate slope plan for the dryland area which modifies the standards above may be proposed by an applicant to accommodate special needs when: a) The existing terrain slope is steep (greater than 5:1) or, b) Where there is little or no available on-site backfill material; c) Other special needs or uses that may be proposed by the applicant. 4) Any modification of the listed standards requires the recommending or decision making body to provide a separate finding and reason for waiving or modifying the Dryland Slope standards and that the modifications are in conformance with the purpose statement above: to create an aesthetically pleasing site that blends with the surrounding area, to provide for wildlife habitat and, to provide for future re -use of the site. General Cross Section Reclaimed Pit Lake Areas Trees Avoided "::�... •.ear:. .:y5 (C Topsoil Replaood • Cottonwood Sepre06 Or Trees P hast Originol Lound Above Weiland Slope Weber Level Slope ARpmmirriate gene s' wide Wetland Slope Close Up X lrro 3Fi_'1V Slope Hemi Until art IV hiliniPr im Slope 10 Vertical Feet Length Varies Deng on Below Wafer Level Silo Conditions P11 Floor 2. Vegetation All re -vegetation efforts shall occur as part of phased reclamation. a) Wetland Criteria: 1) All Wetland Slopes on a reclamation plan shall include re -vegetation with appropriate species shown on a landscape plan prepared by a qualified professional consistent with Section 4-502 A, Professional Qualifications_ The plan shall; a) Show the reclaimed wetland area to scale; Page 5 of 7 ,1if 11fl11il1 Ir7M=ikt4�1i[irit i'i i II IIA Ir&i Ertl ifaa fn• �i 4+ Reception4: 779126 12/1572009 02:57.39 PM Jean erico 6 of 7 Rec Fee:$0,00 Doc Fee JO GRRFTELD COUNTY CO b) Identify the species and number of plantings; c) If required, provide for adequate irrigation; d) Provide for adequate species diversity to enhance wildlife habitat; e) Other site specific requirements may be identified through the public hearing process. 2) Wetland seeding shall occur immediately prior to lake filling using the following methods; a) Seeding shall be done by drilling or by hydro -seeding methods. Broadcast seeding is not permitted. b) Re -vegetation of wetlands shall also include planting of trees, willows and/or shrubs. c) Existing trees may be included in the plan if they are a minimum of 8 feet in height and 2 inches in diameter. d) All new tree plantings shall be accomplished immediately following lake filling and be; 1) A minimum of 8 feet in height and 2 inches in diameter. ii) Located immediately above the Wetland Slope area. 3) Shrubs identified on the plan shall be a minimum of 5 gallon shrub containers - a) If required, adequate irrigation shall be employed in re -vegetated areas during the life of the mine or until re -vegetation is self-sustaining based on the advice of the qualified professional preparing the landscape plan. 4) Any modification of the standards listed above requires the recommending or decision making body to provide a separate finding and reason for waiving or modifying the wetland revegetation standards and that the modifications are in conformance with the purpose statement above; to create an aesthetically pleasing site that blends with the surrounding area; to provide for wildlife habitat and; to provide for future re -use of the site. b) Dryland Criteria: I) All dryland areas on a reclamation plan shall include re -vegetation with appropriate dryland plant species based on the written recommendation of a qualified professional consistent with Section 4- 502 A, Professional Qualifications.. The plan shall: a) Include a mixture of grasses, forbs and shrubs. b) Seeding methods shall either use drilling with crimp mulching or hydro -seeding. i) Mulch shall be weed free and shall be applied at a rate of no less than 3000 pounds per acre. ii) Hydro -seeding with hydro -mulching and tackifies shall be used on steep (greater than 5:1) slopes. Hydro -mulching shall be a minimum rate of 2000 pounds of wood fiber per acre. iii) If required, adequate irrigation shall be employed in re -vegetated areas during the life of the mine or until re -vegetation is self-sustaining based on the written recommendation of a qualified professional. 2) Any modification of the standards listed above requires the recommending or decision making body to provide a separate finding and reason for waiving or modifying the dryland re -vegetation standards and that the modifications are in conformance with the purpose statement above: to create an aesthetically pleasing site that blends with the surrounding area, to provide for wildlife habitat and, to provide for future re -use of the site. Page6of7 11i Pi l/I PF fall I I il1irVi rn10ii`ilarili oulwi iii m mtE Recepfrxon#: 779126 l2it5/2009 02;57.38 PM Je; berino 7 of 7 Rec Fee:S0_DO Doc Fe 00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO Section 7-840 Reclamation / Enforcement 11. The Operator acknowledges that the County has performance standards in place that could lead to revocation of the Land Use Change Permit if continued violations of the permit occur over a period of time. 12. The County shall not issue a Land Use Change Permit until all required local, state, and federal permits have been obtained and submitted to Garfield County including but not limited to the municipal Watershed Permit, CDPHE, USACE, NPDES, Division of Water Resources (approved well permits and plan for augmentation), etc. Exhibits for Public Hearing: 06/24/2009 Planning Commission Exhibit A Proof of Publication B Proof of Mailing C Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended D Special Use Permit Application E Staff Memorandum F Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2000 G Letter from the Garfield County Airport Manager dated 4/17/09 H Letter from the Colorado Division of Wildlife dated 6/18/08' 1 Memorandum from the County Vegetation Management Director 5/1/09 J Email from the CDOT dated 4/13/09 K The City of Rifle's East Gateway Plan (by reference) L Email from the Rifle Fire Protection District dated 4/8/09 M Letter from Leavenworth & Kar. dated 2/26/09 N Letter from the City of Rifle dated 4/24/09 O Letter from the Colorado Geologic Survey dated 5/4/09 P Revisions to Application by Applicant dated 5/28/09 Q Letter from the DOW dated 6/5/9 R Wire Report from WestWater Engineering dated 5, 2009 L f9 , 'A N PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS TYPE OF REVIEW 06/24/09 FJ Special Use Permit for 1) "Processing, Storage and Material Handling of Natural Resources" & Special Use Permit for 2) "Development in the Floodplain" APPLICANT River's Edge, LLC LOCATION The subject property is located 1/2 mile east of the main interstate intersection of Rifle Colorado between the Colorado River and Interstate 70. (Section 15, Township 6 South, Range 93 West) SITE INFORMATION Approximately 93 acre parcel (mining / disturbing 25 acres) ZONING Agriculture / Industrial (Al) I. GENERAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Applicant specifically requests a Special Use Permit for "Extraction, Storage, Processing, and Material Handling of Natural Resources" for a Gravel Pit operation on approximately 25 acres of a 93 -acre property. This request is for an expansion of an existing mining permit currently in place with the Division of Reclamation, Mining, and Safety which also requires a Special Use Permit from Garfield County. The Applicant proposes to specifically mine gravel out of two areas where Area 1 consists of 7.1 acres and is located on the west end of the site and Area 2 consists of 13.9 acres and is located on the east end of the site. The remainder of the property would remain in its Scott Gravel Pit PC - 05/13/09 Page 2 current condition. The gravel would be mined down to approximately 25 feet with up to 5 feet of overburden to be removed. The Applicant intends to install a small office, scale, sanitation tank, portable toilets and a fuel bunker. The Applicant intends to also operate semi-portable concrete and asphalt plants and fuel tanks with this mining operation to be located in the bottom of mining area 2. Similarly, the crusher and screen is proposed to be located in the bottom of Area 2. The Applicant anticipates an average production (to vary based on market conditions) at 200,000 tons / year for approximately 5.96 years. The general hours of operation are proposed as the following: Monday - Saturday: 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM (Crushing, digging, and heavy hauling only occurring between 7:00 Am to 6:00 PM) Sunday: No operations (Except emergency maintenance) 11. GENERAL LOCATION / SITE DESCRIPTION The subject property is located 1/2 mile east of the main interstate intersection of Rifle Colorado between the Colorado River and Interstate 70. The map on the front page illustrates the location of the proposed gravel pit. The 93 -acre site is a relatively flat property in the Colorado River / Valley floor containing mature established riparian vegetation along the Colorado River, significant established wetlands along an older river corridor through the site known as the Ox Bow, as well as historically irrigated pasture / grazing fields all of which contain stands of mature dense cottonwood stands throughout the property. III. ZONING & ADJACENT USES The property to the east is the active LaFarge Mamm Creek Gravel Pit; the property to the north is the Colorado River with the nearly finished Chambers Gravel Pit on the north bank across the river; the property to the west is vacant undisturbed pasture, and the property to the south is CDOT right-of-way containing the frontage road and east and west bound lanes of Interstate 1-70. All of the surrounding adjacent properties are zoned Agricultural / Industrial (now Rural) similar to the subject property. (The map on the front cover of this memorandum illustrates the surrounding zoning.) IV. 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 2 Scott Gravel Pit PC 05/13/09 Page 3 public hearing thereon in conformance with all provisions of the Zoning Resolution. V. REVIEW AGENCY AND OTHER COMMENTS Comments have been received from the following agencies / community groups and are integrated throughout this memorandum as applicable. 1. Bookcliff Soil Conservation District: No Comments Received from the County Referral. 2. City of Rifle: The City prefers this area not be mined as it is a valuable vista at the entrance to the City of Rifle from 1-70 as defined more fully in their East Gateway Plan. They believe this heavy industrial use will negatively affect the City's image and economic development. Should the County approve the mining request, they suggest a variety of reclamation measures. Specifically, the City recommends eliminating the asphalt / concrete batch plants from the application, requiring the Applicant to produce a 3-D model of the mining phases and reclamation, and requiring an enforceable reclamation plan to restore the site to curvilinear lakes and better wildlife habitat. (Recommended reclamation standards attached) (Exhibit N) 3. Rifle Fire Protection District: Indicated they had no comments on the proposal. (Exhibit L) 4. Colorado Department of Transportation: CDOT issued a highway access permit for 335 average daily trips with the main condition that the Applicant pave a 2.2 mile portion of the CDOT frontage road that provides access to the subject parcel. That permit has expired, but CDOT anticipates re -issuing the permit. (Exhibit J) 5. Colorado Division of Wildlife: Provided comments largely focused on the presence of the American Bald Eagle adjacent to the property (on the east) on the Lafarge (Mamm Creek) property. The CDOW recommends the Applicant revise their plan to honor the 1/2 mile and 1/4 mile buffers and timing restrictions so as to not over harass the Eagles. (Exhibit H) The DOW sent in an additional letter (June 5, 2009) that indicates the applicant has revised their plan to 1) increase shoreline undulation, 2) added more shallow banks to 5:1, 3) removed the concrete / asphalt batch plant (except for limited CDOT / FAA projects), and kept the mining inside the'/ mile buffer to "off season: time frames when the eagles are not in the nest. There is a newly discovered Red tailed Hawk 3 Scott Gravel Pit PC — 05/13/09 Page 4 nest that could be harassed by this operation. (Exhibit Q) 6. Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment: No Comments received. 7. Colorado Division of Water Resources: No Comments Received from the County Referral. 8. Colorado Geologic Survey: indicated they found no geologic hazard that would appreciably affect this mine operation and it would appear that the water quality and pit -wall stability concerns have been addressed in the Application. Provided all relevant permits are in place, the CGS has no concerns with the mine as it is intended. (Exhibit 0) 9. Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining & Safety: No Comments Received from the County Referral. 10. US Army Corps of Engineers: No Comments Received from the County Referral. 11. Garfield County Vegetation Management: Agrees with the City of Rifle suggestions regarding the use of plant plugs (i.e. real plants) instead of broadcast seeding. The applicant does propose to plant trees, cuttings, and tublings. Research indicates that plug stock of wetland species such as sedges and rushes are more effective than broadcast seeding. Also large plug stock, over 21 inches, has been shown to be more effective than 12 inch plugs. Larger plugs can handle changing water tables better than the smaller plugs. There is a native shrub, silver -leaf buffalo berry (Shepherdia argentea) that may be confused with the noxious weed, the Russian -olive tree (Shepherdia argentea). The Applicant needs to be able to distinguish between the two so that the native silver -leaf is conserved and not managed like the Russian -olive. it is critical that the Applicant implement an effective Russian -olive and tamarisk treatment program. From this department's perspective, reducing the population of Russian olive and tamarisk is not a negative impact to visual aesthetics from the corridor as is stated on page J-2. The timely treatment of all County listed noxious weeds, including Russian olive and tamarisk, is encouraged given the threat of spreading noxious weed seeds through gravel to previously uninfested areas. Staff requests the removal of crested wheatgrass from the dry rangeland mix. Staff appreciates the City's comments and we emphasize our concurrence with the 4 Scott Gravel Pit PC — 05/13/09 Page 5 Reclamation of the Scott Expansion to the Chambers Gravel Pit document provided by the City of Rifle. The topics of live -soil handling, using local plant sources for reclamation, and developing a benchmark for successful gravel pit reclamation are important items and worthy of further consideration by the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners. (Exhibit 1) 12. Garfield County Airport: Indicated that the use is compatible in the vicinity of the airport. Does note see the resulting ponds as creating a waterfowl nuisance and does not believe the ponds will create glare problems for departing or landing aircraft. (Exhibit G) 13. County Project Review Engineer: Found no significant problems with the proposed mining plan. VI. RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The proposed mining activity is located in an area of the County just outside the City of Rifle (the City) which is described as the Area of Urban Influence. The County and the City have entered into an Intergovernmental Agreement (1GA) which agreed that proposed land uses in the County that fall within this area would be referred to each jurisdiction for comments. The following comments include a review of Section 10.0: "Area of Urban Influence" of the County's Comprehensive Plan's Goals, Policies, and Goals and the City of Rifle's formal review comments. 10.0 URBAN AREA OF INFLUENCE ISSUES: Primary issues identified during the Comprehensive Plan process can be summarized as follows: • County land use decisions, particularly those immediately adjacent to municipal boundaries have, in some cases, created compatibility problems; • Due to the wide variety of Uses -By -Right within the County's current Zoning Resolution, planning staff has no discretionary review authority to prevent incompatibility situations with an adjacent municipality. 5 Scott Gravel Pit PC — 05/13/09 Page 6 GOALS: Ensure that development and overall land use policies occurring in the County that will affect a municipality are compatible with the existing zoning and future land use objectives of the appropriate municipality. Allow for comments on community impacts including cases which fall outside the community's sphere of influence. Staff Comments The Applicant was referred to the City of Rifle meeting one of these goals. In doing so, the City has provided comments indicating they would prefer this mining activity did not occur because of its location at the entrance or "gateway" to the City. In 2008, the City adopted the "East Gateway Subarea Plan" which identifies this project area as located squarely within that gateway area as the entrance to Rifle. It would appear that gravel mining activity that is as highly visible as this project will negatively impact the entrance to Rifle resulting in "detracting from the natural, rural setting and convey a disorderly, industrial image" certainly during the mining activity. Gravel mining is a permitted use the Al zone district in Garfield County but appears to be incompatible with Rifle's future land use objectives. Consider the "Gravel Mining & reclamation Standards in their East Gateway Plan: A. Goals 1) Mitigate negative impacts during and after mineral extraction. 2) Minimize and eliminate the negative visual and operational effects of mining on the gateways and biological systems. 3) Encourage land uses that recognize the environmental sensitivity of the land. 4) Protect watersheds and floodplains. 5) It is the intent of the City to minimize the impact of any mining on the environment and surrounding Rifle gateways. 6 Scott Gravel Pit PC - 05/13/09 Page 7 B. Policies 1) The City adopts the guidance outlined in the County's proposed regulations and policies for gravel extraction operations drafted in November 2007 entitled, "Goals, Objectives, Policies & Regulations Regarding Gravel Extraction Operations." 2) The County's proposed regulations outline a regulatory framework that ensures mining activities limit their adverse affect on environmental and visual quality, and reduce potential land uses and traffic impacts. In addition to these regulations, the City will discourage any gravel mining operations, which contain crushing, asphalt processing or concrete operations between Mamm Creek and Exit 90. The City acknowledges that the proposed plan is a significant reduction in activity from the previous application; however, they believe the activity is still highly visible and highly impactful and have the following key points: 1) Eliminate the asphalt / concrete batch plants from the application; 2) Applicant should be required to produce a 3-D model of the mining phases and reclamation; 3) Require an enforceable reclamation plan to restore the site to curvilinear lakes and better wildlife habitat; (Recommended reclamation standards attached) OBJECTIVES: 10.5 Retain rural character outside of community limits. Staff Comment The site's present conditions are the epitome of "rural character." An industrial gravel mining operation on this land directly contradicts this objective. POLICIES: 10.1 Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Resolution revisions, Zone District Amendments and individual projects within defined Urban Areas of Influence, will be consistent with Local municipal land use policies. Staff Comment As proposed, this application is not consistent with the City of Rifle's East Gateway Plan. Eliminating the batch plants will bring the application closer to being consistent with their plan. 7 Scott Gravel Pit PC — 05/13/09 Page 8 VII. REVIEW CRITERIA FOR SPECIAL USE PERMITS (SECTION 5:03 & 5.17) 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 to provide water and sanitation service for the employees on the site by using potable water service and portable toilet service during the 6 -year life of the mining operations. Because of the temporary nature of the activity, the County has allowed this type of service to support the employees rather than requiring the construction of a permanent ISDS and well system. Staff finds this is an acceptable method for the provision of water and sanitation service. 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. Staff Response The only vehicle access to the area is provided directly off of an existing CDOT frontage road that dead ends at the subject property. Presently, the road is paved from the 1-70 interchange (County Airport Interchange) to the LaFarge Mamm Creek Pit entrance. It is a gravel surface from that point to the entrance of the subject property. The frontage road lies within CDOT's jurisdiction. Staff referred the Application to CDOT which stated they had "signed an access permit for 335 daily trips on January 23, 2006. This permit did include highway improvements which primarily include paving the frontage road from the end of the existing pavement at the entrance to LaFarge to the access point for this property. CDOT had not received the Notice to Proceed at this point." Staff has attached the signed permit as well as the list of conditions that have to be met before any mining operation can begin. [Note: CDOT noted that this permit has expired, but CDOT expects to re -issue the permit on the original findings and conditions.] While the specific access does not involve Garfield County, the act of hauling gravel on the County's road system does require the Applicant to be aware of heavy haul routes and over sized / weight requirements required by the Road and Bridge Department. Should the Board approve this Special Use Permit, Staff suggests that no mining work / site prep be 8 Scott Gravel Pit PC 05/13/09 Page 9 allowed to begin until the improvements required by CDOT have been installed and approved by CDOT according to their permit. 3. Design of the proposed use is organized to minimize impact on adjacent uses of land through installation of screen fences or landscape materials on the periphery of the lot and by location of intensively utilized areas, access points, lighting and signs in such a manner as to protect established neighborhood character. Staff Response The existing established neighborhood character can be characterized as industrial (gravel mining to the north and east), 1-70 (CDOT highway) to the south, and natural rural -riparian river bottom to the west at the entrance to the City of Rifle. The property itself serves as a natural unimproved buffer (on the south side of the river) separating the City of Rifle's main entrance from LaFarge's gravel pit operation. The site is highly visible from west -bound traffic on 1-70 because it is elevated at least 20 feet above the property. Some of the vegetation (mature cottonwood stands) on the property actually serve as a visual buffer (as well as for sound) between the City and the LaFarge gravel pit. This property also serves as the last and most significant natural / unimproved properties along the river and 1-70 corridor as one approaches the City of Rifle from the east. As portions of this property are mined, it will change the character of the area as seen primarily from 1-70 on the approach to the City of Rifle. In order to further minimize the visual impact, he Applicant proposes on-going reclamation ("reclaim as you go") as the mining continues but this activity will be highly visually impacting and will permanently change the character of the area. Staff suggests as a condition of approval that the proposed reclamation plan in the Special Use Permit be resubmitted to the DRMS and becomes the only reclamation plan (tasks /timetables) used by both the County and DRMS. Additionally, a new bond be calculated to cover this plan and secured with DRMS to cover its implementation. VIII. REVIEW CRITERIA FOR SPECIAL USE PERMITS (SECTION 5.17) SUPPLEMENTARY GRAVEL EXTRACTION REGULATIONS The following section reviews the application against the County's new gravel extraction regulations. (For the ease of the reader, the regulations are in bold italics followed by a Staff response.) 5.17.01 Water Quantity & Quality Impacts / Floodplain Impacts If a gravel pit is located within the floodplain there is a reasonable chance that it could be flooded during its operational life. Equipment, machinery, fuel etc could 9 Scott Gravel Pit PC -- 05/13/09 Page 10 become pollutant sources in the case of a flood. In addition, if the pit is located near the floodway of a river there is the possibility that in a flood a gravel pit could alter the natural course of a river. This can have negative impacts on a river ecosystem and unknown impacts on nearby landowners. Every Application for gravel extraction shall address the following: 1. When the proposal is near a river or stream the Applicant is required to submit an analysis by a professional engineer showing the boundaries of the floodplain and the floodway in the area of the pit. Staff Response The mining area falls within the 100 -year floodplain of the Colorado river. The Application contains maps C-1: "Baseline Conditions" and C-2 "Mining Extents" which show the boundaries of the floodplain and the floodway in the area of the pit. 2. Provide a Stormwater Management Plan that demonstrates how the project will not adversely affect surface or groundwater resources. Additionally, provide a Sediment and Erosion Control plan that demonstrates what best management practices will be used in the project. Staff Response The Applicant has submitted a Combined NPDES Combined Process & Stormwater Permit and Stormwater Management Plan to CDPHE and to the City of Rifle. The Applicant intends to slope the operations such that all stormwater run-off from disturbed areas will drain into the pits. The project will have a discharge permit from CDPHE that allows for process -water and stormwater to be discharged into the Colorado River with certain protection measures to filter sediment put in place including gravel filter check dams to maintain TDS levels between 35 and 70 miligrams per liter. The plan appears to have these safeguards in the proper operational places. 3. In all cases, an application for a gravel mining operation shall include a Spill Prevention Counter Measure and Control Plan (SPCC) that provides a program that handles spills of hazardous materials as well as local contact information for responsible personnel at the facility. Staff Response The Application contains an adequate SPCC plan for the project in Appendix A. 4. No application shall be accepted by the County without a letter from the applicable fire protection district stating that the proposed project has been adequately designed to handle the storage of flammable or explosive solids or 10 Scott Gravel Pit PC — 05/13/09 Page 11 gases and that the methods comply with the national, state and Local fire codes. Staff Response Staff referred the Application to the Rifle Fire Protection District for their review. They provided comments which indicated that they had no additional comments. The Application does discuss the fuel storage on site which ranges based on what types of equipment are on site. The tanks themselves have secondary containment up to 110% of capacity and are stored outside of the 100 -year floodplain. In all cases, storage of these fuel tanks are required to meet national, state, and Local fire codes. 5. 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. Staff Response It appears the Application contains a monitoring method through the use of "staff gauges" that will provide an early warning system to allow the removal of all equipment / fuel tanks from areas where flooding might occur. Staff suggests these gauges be installed with cement bases and painted vertical pipes (gauges) to ensure their permanence. If personnel are properly trained and the equipment is properly maintained, this system can work. 6. Development in 100 year Floodplain: Floodways - located within areas of special flood hazard established in Section 6.03.02, are areas designated as floodways. Since the floodway is an extremely hazardous area due to the velocity of flood waters which carry debris, potential projectiles and erosion potential, the following provisions shall apply: a) Encroachments are prohibited, including fill, new construction, substantial improvements and other development within the adopted regulatory floodway unless it has been demonstrated through hydrologic and hydraulic analyses performed in accordance with standard engineering practice that the proposed encroachment would not result in any increase or decrease in flood levels within the County during the occurrence of the base flood discharge. b) !f Section 6.09.02 (1) (to be inserted when formatted) above is satisfied, all new construction and substantial improvements shall comply with all applicable flood hazard reduction provisions of Section 6.09. 11 Scott Gravel Pit PC 05/13/09 Page 12 c) Under the provisions of 44 CFR Chapter 1, Section 65.12, of the National Flood Insurance Regulations, the County may permit encroachments within the adopted regulatory floodway that would result in an increase in base flood elevations, provided that the Applicant obtains a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) for a floodway revision through FEMA and that no mining activity shall occur until FEMA has approved a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR). d) In all cases, there shall be no storage of fuel or hazardous materials including concrete / asphalt batch plants within the floodway. Staff Response Much of the property falls within the 100 -year floodplain of the Colorado River. The Applicant, by way of TetraTech, has conducted hydraulic analysis in order to determine that the proposed mining plan will not affect the 100 -year floodplain. TetraTech submitted (on behalf of Garfield County) a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) to FEMA in 2007 based on the previous three -pit application. FEMA approved the CLOMR. Since then, the plan has been reduced to 2 pits. TetraTech conducted a further analysis based on the reduced plan and found that the floodway mapping approved by FEMA on the three -pit version was unchanged with the revised version. TetraTech states that "The CLOMR, sated October 2007, submitted to FEMA also presented a revised floodway based on the changes in the floodplain due to the gravel mining in the three separate pits. This floodway is unchanged under the alternate gravel mining condition." Ultimately, the Applicants are required to submit a final Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) once all of the post -mining / reclamation is completed so that FEMA can issue revised 100 - year floodway maps. The Application shows proposed asphalt / concrete batch plants, and fuel tanks are to be located outside of the 100 -year floodway as depicted on the Applicant's Map C-1. 7. Standards for Areas of Shallow Flooding: Located within the areas of special flood hazard established in 6.03.02 are areas designated as shallow flooding also known as the flood -fringe. These areas have special flood hazards associated with base flood depths of 1 to 3 feet where a clearly defined channel does not exist and where the path of flooding is unpredictable and where velocity flow may be evident. Such flooding is characterized by ponding or sheet flow; therefore, the following provisions apply: 12 Scott Gravel Pit PC — 05/13/09 Page 13 a) All new construction and substantial improvements of residential structures have the lowest floor (including basement) elevated above the highest adjacent grade at least as high as the depth number specified in feet on the community's FIRM (at least two feet if no depth number is specified). b) All new construction and substantial improvements of non-residential structures; 1. have the lowest floor (including basement) elevated above the highest adjacent grade at least as high as the depth number specified in feet on the community's FIRM (at least two feet if no depth number is specified), or; 2. together with attendant utility and sanitary facilities be designed so that below the base flood level the structure is watertight with walls substantially impermeable to the passage of water and with structural components having the capability of resisting hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads of effects of buoyancy. c) A registered professional engineer shall submit a certification to the County Floodplain Administrator that the standards of this Section, as proposed in 6.08.02 (1) a., have been fully satisfied. d) Require within Zones AH or AO adequate drainage paths around structures on slopes, to guide flood waters around and away from proposed structures. 1. The proposed operation will be located a sufficient distance from other mining operations so as not to create cumulative impacts to the integrity of the water course. The Board of Commissioners will determine sufficiency of distance. 2. In -stream mining is not permitted. 3. All applications shall provide a de -water / discharge plan that provides a detailed graphic representation of how dewatering operations shall occur. This plan shall demonstrate that the discharge will not exceed state standards for discharge into a water course or wetland. 13 Scott Gravel Pit PC — 05/13/09 Page 14 4. In al! cases, the Application shall contain proof that the operation has adequate legal and physical water for the proposed application. Staff Response There are no mapped areas of Zones AH or AO on the property and there will be no in - stream mining. The application properly details how dewatering will occur to state standards as well as discharge to wetlands. Regarding required distances from other gravel mines to avoid a cumulative impact to the water course, the areas to be mined are small relative to the other previously mined areas. The eastern pit (Area 2) will not likely affect the Colorado River as it is isolated from the areas in Lafarge that are not in the floodplain. The existing ox -bow will likely carry floodwaters south of that area. The western area has been designed with an inflow / outflow structure that will allow for the pit to be captured and then remain unchanged as the river recedes. The dewatering into the wetlands and Colorado will keep the wetlands wet and have TDS levels at lower levels that the existing level. Staff does not see that the post -mining / reclaimed site will result in a negative cumulative impact with the vegetated land buffers and pit designs that are proposed. The Application contains a stamped and signed statement from Greg Lewicki, P. E. (licensed to practice in the State of Colorado) that that the standards of this Section have been fully satisfied. Finally, the State Division of Water Resources has approved the well permits via a court approved augmentation plan. 5.17.02 Air Quality Fugitive dust from disturbed areas is one of the primary causes of gravel pit air pollution. The potential for soil erosion potential also increases proportionate to the amount of disturbed area. Gravel Pits should make an active effort to reduce disturbed area through phased reclamation, efficient operations, and landscaping. Disturbed acreage can also provide a measure of visual impact when the operation is located on valley floor and there are residences on nearby hillsides. Opacity not to exceed 20%. 1. All gravel operations in the County shall comply with applicable County, State, and Federal regulations regulating air pollution and shall not be conducted in a manner constituting a public nuisance or hazard. 2. Impacts on adjacent land from the generation of vapor, dust, smoke, or other emanations. All applications shall demonstrate how they will meet County, 14 Scott Gravel Pit PC — 05/13/09 Page 15 State, and Federal air pollution regulations. Any repair and maintenance activity requiring the use of equipment that will generate odors beyond the property boundaries will be conducted within a building at any time or outdoors during the hours of 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM, Monday - Saturday. 3. The proposed operation will be locateda sufficient distance from other mining operations so as not to create cumulative impacts to air quality. 4. No application shall be approved until the Applicant submits evidence that all plants and processing equipment shall have current Colorado Department of Public Health and the Environment (CDPHE) Air Pollution Permits and shall meet current CDPHE emissions standards for air and water. Staff Response The Applicant has stated that this operation will comply with applicable County, State, and Federal regulations regulating air pollution and shall not be conducted in a manner constituting a public nuisance or hazard. The pit is a "wet" gravel mine which generally produces much less dust than "upland" gravel pits as this pit will need to continuously be dewatered as it is mined below water table. The augmentation plan also allows for the use of this water as dust suppression on site. The crusher / screen facility and asphalt and concrete batch plant have air emission permitting requirements by the state. Staff is concerned with dust generation due to the very close proximity to I-70. The crusher / screener is enclosed and equipped with wet scrubbers (water spray facilities) to keep the aggregate moist. The nearest crushing activity nearby is at least 1/3 miles to the east in the Lafarge site which staff believes is a sufficient distance so as to not create a cumulative air quality impact if the mitigation measures are properly implemented which include ensuring the machines are operating to their air permit designs. As a condition of approval, the Applicant shall submit all the air emission permits for the equipment to be used on site. 5.17.03 Noise / Vibration All gravel extraction operations in the County shall comply with applicable County, State, and Federal regulations regulating noise pollution and shall not be conducted in a manner constituting a public nuisance or hazard. Volume of sound generated shall comply with the standards set forth in the Colorado Revised Statutes at the time any new application is made. 1. An Applicant shall submit a noise study that demonstrates the proposed gravel operation can meet the requirements in the matrix below based on measuring the sound levels of noise radiating from a property line at a distance of 25 feet or more beyond the subject property. (The image to the 15 Scott Gravel Pit PC 05/13/09 Page 16 right shows a dashed line at 25 feet beyond the subject property where noise shall be measured.) 2. Note, the dB(A) threshold shown below shall be that of the receiver and not that of the emitter. For example, while the grave! operation would be considered an industrial operation, the dB(A) levels shown below are measured according to the neighboring uses so that if a residential use was located adjacent to the operation, sound levels could not exceed 55 dB(A) from 7 AM to 7 PM and 50 dB(A) from 7 PM to 7 AM. Zone 7amto7pm 7pmto7am V Residential 55 dB(A) 50 dB(A) e Commercial 60 dB(A) 55 dB(A) r Light Industrial 65 dBIA) 70 dB(A) ,.. Industrial 80 dB(A) 75 dB(A) 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. Staff Response The Applicant prepared a noise analysis (by Ryan Ellis, Environmental Engineer) which states that at full operation during the day, the noise generated from the mining activity would not exceed 71 dB(A) at 25 feet from the permit site which is more restrictive than the outer boundaries of the property. This level I still below the maximum thresholds in the table above from the state statutes and it appears this can be met. The Application does not intend to use explosives to mine any of the aggregate. The vibration would come from the crusher and asphalt mix / concrete batch plant that will not be perceptible at the property's boundaries. This standard is met. 5.17.04 Visual impacts All applications for gravel extraction shall address the following: 1. All gravel operations proposed to mine areas greater than 30 acres shall be designed in multiple phases in order to minimize the visual impact of the gravel pit primarily by logical "sequencing" and "overall layout" of the pit's design. Staff Response The total area to be mined is approximately 21 acres; however, it will occur in two small pits where the Applicant proposes to mine those pits in a sequence. The Application proposes 16 Scott Gravel Pit PC -- 05/13/09 Page 17 to mine Area 1 (7 acres) first so that it can be reclaimed first as it is closer to the City of Rifle. Then Are 2 is to be mined in four phases from west to east. Mining Area 1 is to be "reclaimed" which includes backfilling, grading, topsoil replacement, reseeding, and water refilling prior to mining Area 2 which will significantly reduce the overall extraction impact that is open at one time. 2. Design of the proposed use including the storage of heavy equipment is organized to minimize impact on adjacent uses of land through installation of screen fences, berming, and/ 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. Staff Response This is a difficult property to hide. The most viewable perspective is from 1-70 westbound as you approach the Rifle exit as it is right next to the interstate. It is problematic to screen because the site is well below the 1-70 road platform and could not effectively be screened from that view point. From the other vista, there are either other gravel pits or fairly mature vegetation (cottonwood galleries) that screen portions of the property already. This will be a highly visible gravel operation as you approach the City of Rifle exit. 3. 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. Staff Response This operation is going to generate large / tall piles of aggregate and will have large machinery on site to mine and crush the gravel. Additionally, the Application proposes asphalt and concrete batch plants that are to be located at grade in the southeast portion of the property and will be highly visible until they could be located in the Mining Area 2. Staff believes that since they are not necessary to the mining activity and are highly visible, they be eliminated from this application to help reduce the severe industrial visual impact. 4. New long-term (more than one year) mining operations will minimize visual impacts along entryways to growth centers. Planning Commission and/or the Board of County Commissioners will determine sufficiency of minimization. Staff Response This mining plan is for approximately 6 years with the caveat that it is also based on market conditions which means it is anyone's guess how long it will really take. Because this site is located in the County's Comprehensive Plan's Area of Urban Influence and within the City of Rifle's East Gateway Plan, Staff recommends eliminating the asphalt and concrete batch 17 Scott Gravel Pit PC — 05/13/09 Page 18 plants to help reduce the industrial nature of the activity. 5. All application shall include a "Berming, Screening, and Buffering Plan" to aid in visual screening. Provisions in this plan shall be in place prior to commercial mining. Prior to site disturbance, the Applicant shall obtain a grading permit from Garfield County. The Applicant shall invite the Staff from the County Building and Planning Department to the site to inspect that the installation occurred pursuant to the plan presented to the Board of County Commissioners prior to the commencement of any commercial activity and issuance of the SUP. Staff Response The Application does not contain a "Berming, Screening, and Buffering Plan" because the Application states that there is nothing that can be done to screen from 1-70 and the other view points are relatively screened. Further, these are small reining areas that will be reclaimed as lakes once mined. This standard has not been met as no plan was submitted. 6. All lighting shall be the minimum necessary, directed inward and downward towards the property. Staff Response Applicant agrees to comply with this standard. 7. Unless otherwise determined by the Board of County Commissioners, 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 commenced in six months or have been completed within eighteen (18) months, all mining operations on the property shall stop until the reclamation / revegetation has occurred to the satisfaction of the County. Completion, including but not limited to top -soiling, seeding, mulching, sapling planting, and water filling of the lake, shall be determined by the provisions contained within the reclamation plan approved by the Board of County Commissioners. Staff Response Applicant agrees to comply with this standard. 5.17.05 impacts to County Road System 1. All applications for a gravel extraction operation shall submit a traffic impact study prepared by a professional traffic engineer that identifies projected 18 Scott Gravel Pit PC — 05/13/09 Page 19 volumes of traffic through the life of the project, expected haul routes and any improvements street improvements adequate to accommodate traffic volume generated by the proposed use and to provide safe, convenient access to the use, These improvements shall either be in place or shall be constructed in conjunction with the proposed use. Staff Response Application contains a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) prepared by Kimley Horn. Access to the site is by way of the CDOT frontage road that connects to the Mamm Creek (Rifle Airport) Exit and Mamm Creek Road. As mentioned earlier, the CDOT access permit has expired, but CDOT intends to re -issue that permit for 335 daily trips with a main condition that the Applicant pave that portion for the frontage road from the property to the existing paved portion. The TIS was originally prepared in 2005 and Staff required that it be revised to fit the terms of this application which as completed and included in Appendix D. Ultimately, the TIS believes that the generated trips will primarily use 1-70 with approximately 10% using County Roads due to historic users. In any event, there will be a minimal impact to the CDOT interchange at Mamm Creek. Staff cannot guess as to what market conditions will exist that determines that the gas companies south of 1-70 will not use gravel for their efforts from this pit versus Lafarge which directly impacts County roads. However, it appears that there are not any direct adverse impacts to the County road system. Further, the County will assess an overweight / oversize tax on these large trucks. 2. Truck traffic will not access the mining operation through residential, or commercial areas, or such traffic will be mitigated. Staff Response There are no commercial or residential areas associated with the direct access of this property. 3. The Applicant shall submit evidence of insurance fora minimum of $1,000,000 to cover any damages to public and private property, and Garfield County shall be named as an additional insured. Staff Response The Applicant does not wish to submit evidence of insurance for a minimum of $1,000,000 to cover any damages to public and private property because they believe there will be a very small percentage of traffic on County roads directly from this small operation. The TIS 19 Scott Gravel Pit PC — 05/13/09 Page 20 suggests 10% of the trips will use County Roads so Staff suggests the Applicant submit evidence of insurance for a minimum of $100,000 to cover any damages to public or private roads. 4. Roads used to access the construction site from the mine will be upgraded to withstand the additional traffic, and the permittee will prevent road damage and mitigate dust, under the supervision of the Road and Bridge Director. Staff Response CDOT is requiring the Applicant to pave 2.2 miles of the frontage road from the access point on the property to the existing paved portion. This will help in keeping dust down. The Applicant shall be required to have all trucks covered as they leave the site with aggregate. The Road and Bridge Director will not have immediate jurisdiction regarding access as this is a CDOT access and road. Again, the County's overweight / oversize permitting system will address impacts from these large trucks. 5. The Applicant shall obtain driveway access permitls 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 may include stop sign/s at entrance to County 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. Staff Response This will not apply as this is CDOT jurisdiction. 6. If road damage on a County Road 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. Staff Response The Applicant agrees to this requirement if it can be determined to be directly attributable to the Applicant's traffic. 20 Scott Gravel Pit PC -- 05/13/09 Page 21 5.17.06 Impacts to Wildlife 1. The Applicant shall demonstrate the presence or absence of Threatened and Endangered species as well as the presence or absence of critical habitats for Threatened and Endangered species. Staff Response There is no evidence in the Application that there are any identified Threatened and Endangered species on the subject property. There is a well known American Bald Eagle nest on the Lafarge property directly to the east in a cottonwood tree that is located within a '/a mile of the Mining Area 2. (This is northwest of Mining Area 2). While the American Bald Eagle has been delisted from the T&E list, it is still protected with recommended buffering by the US Fish & Wildlife Service and the CDOW and the legal ramifications of harassment still exist in federal law. To that end, the DOW initially provided a review of the proposal and provided the following main points: 1) Leaving the area within the ox -bow undisturbed will preserve good eagle (and other) habitat; 2) Buffers (1/2 mile and Y4 mile) are recommendation from the USFWS and CDOW to protect eagle nests statewide; 3) Activity is to be limited to the "off" season when the eagles are gone within the 1/2 mile buffer; 4) There is to be no activity in the 1/4 mile buffer; 5) There is definitely a risk that eagles will not tolerate the new disturbance. CDOW cannot recommend the mining operation because of that possibility; and 6) CDOW will stick to the buffer recommendations as they are known to provide a safe zone for nesting. Staff fully supports the Division of Wildlife's opinion and recommends the Planning Commission require the Applicant to revise their mining plan for Area 2. As a reminder, consider Staffs review (and that of CDOW) in 2005 regarding the former mining plan: The property presently serves as a rich upland and wetland habitat with dense mature stands of cottonwoods throughout the site serving as valuable riparian habitat as well as delineated wetlands 21 Scott Gravel Pit PC — 05/13/09 Page 22 throughout the site mainly located in the Ox Bow of the Colorado River. All of this varied vegetation provides valuable habitat for numerous birds including raptors, aquatic species, and mammals (elk and deer) which are all identified in the Application as well as in the comments provided by the Division of Wildlife (DOW). The Application states that while there are impacts, they should be viewed as temporary because the reclaimed pits / mining site will provide a high quality/ diverse wetland and riparian area once fully established. Staff referred the Application the Division of Wildlife (DOW) which provided the following comments as contained in Exhibit 1. According to the mining plan and maps there will be a 100' buffer between. the mining operation and the river. This will definitely be an advantage for the species that utilize the shoreline of the river. The plan also leaves the old river oxbow out of the mining operation. This will provide some good habitat and wetland during and after the operation. There are several mature cotton wood trees that arc to be left undisturbed as well as some willows. These trees will be an asset to the bird population for nesting and raptor hunting perches. It would be of great advantage to the wildlife if these undisturbed areas are implemented according to the plan. It would also he an advantage to create visual and noise buffers between the wining operation and the 100' river buffer and oxbow, Buffers could consist of earthen berms or woody vegetation. The top soil that will be removed and saved for later reclamation could be positioned as a This gravel extraction operation will have negative impacts on the habitat and the wildlife that utilizes it. The impact will start with the displacement of the wildlife which will be followed by the conversion of habitat into disturbed areas. These areas often see an infestation of non-native and noxious weeds, Structures that are not wildlife friendly such as steep banked ponds and gravel hills void of top soil are often created. During the mining operation human presence, activities and noise will have obvious adverse effects on the wildlife. The DOW notes the presence of an established Bald Eagle nest on the adjacent LaFarge property The nest is approximately 340 yards (1020 feet) from the eastern property line of the subject properly and approximately 160 yards north of Interstate 1-70. It has been in place for at least 4 years and has successfully reared young over those years with the most active nesting period being from January 15th to July 31st of each year. The DOW made the following comments regarding the Bald Eagle. The following is an excerptfrom the DOW's letter: 22 Scott Gravel Pit PC — 05/13/09 Page 23 All who arc involved with this proposal realize that one of the biggest wildlife issues particular to this site is the existing Bald Eagle nest to the east of the property. The nest is approximately 340 yards from the property line. Bald Eagles are a federally protected species. As such they arc protected by the Endangered Species Act from any activities that are thus defined: "harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct." "Harass" is further defined by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to include an intentional or negligent act or omission which creates the likelihood of injury to wildlife by annoying it to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavioral patterns which include, but arc not limited to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering. The Division of Wildlife usually recommends a buffer zone around a Bald Eagle nest of % mile free from disturbance with a buffer of % mile during breeding and nesting season. This particular pair of eagles usually starts nesting activity after the middle of January and continues through the end of July. They have now successfully raised young front that nest for the last two years. They started nest building and breeding activities three years ago. This pair seems to be more tolerant of disturbance. Interstate 70, the Lafarge Mann Creek Gravel Pit, and a residence/small business all occur within several hundred yards of the nest. However, there is usually a threshold of disturbance that these species will "put up with." Once that threshold is crossed they will probably abandon the nest and any eggs or young present at the time, In order to avoid that circumstance, the Division recommends that mining operations in Mining Arca 3 (Mine Plan Map) be started after July 31' of any given year. If the operation cannot be postponed at the following January 15`h, at least the operation is in existence and the eagles can determine if they want to nest there as opposed to being disturbed in the middle of nesting. There was some language in the plan saying that the residence existing on the east property boundary would be demolished "if' that arca was determined to be mined. If it is therefore possible to leave a buffer along the east boundary it would be highly advantageous as far as the eagle's nest is concerned. Staff finds while the interstate represents a nearby obnoxious use, the addition ofa gravel mining pit approximately 1020 feet from the nest only adds to the potential harassment of the nest and may force the Eagles to abandon the nest. The US Fish & Wildlife regulates federally protected species such as the American Bald Eagle by the Endangered Species Act. As stated in the DOW letter, the US Fish & Wildlife as well as DOW typically recommend a I// mile non disturbance zone around a nest which grows to 1/2 mile during nesting and breeding season. In this case, the existing nest is located approximately 1,020 linear feet from the mining area 3 on the site plan. This is 300 feet short of the / mile distance needed for non -disturbance. Actually, as scaled on the plans, the I/a mile distance puts the buffer somewhere in the middle of Mining Area 3 (the eastern pit). The 1/2 mile buffer from the nest extends to cover approximately %Z of Mining Area 2 (the middle pit) shown to the left. As the DOW letter points out, the DOW recommends that no mining activity start in Mining Area 2 until after July 31St of Scott Gravel Pit PC — 05/13/09 Page 24 any given year. Further, if the mining activity cannot be postponed at the next January 15th, then at least the eagles can determine if they want to nest there as opposed to being disturbed during nesting. Staff finds this recommendation a bit perplexing. Again, the USFW definition of "harassment" is an intentional or negligent act or omission which creates the likelihood of injury to wildlife by annoying it to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavioral patterns which include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering. In Staff's opinion, if the eagles choose not to return to this established nest because mining was underway the next January 15th, one could reasonably assume the new use (gravel ruining activity) was the cause of abandonment directly resulting in harassment. Staff raises the question: How is this not "harassment? " As mentioned above, the nest tree is on the neighboring Lafarge property which has mining activity occurring in Cell 3 which has its western most portion falling 200 feet within the '/ mile buffer. USFS has allowed the mining of this cell to continue so long as the eagles are not there. Once the eagles return, all activity must cease. With this as an exception, Lafarge committed to maintaining the recommended'/ mile o fset from the nest while the eagles are not nesting as well as respecting the / mile offset when the eagles are actively nesting. (See Exhibit X) Note, the importance of protecting the bald eagle (via the Bald and Golden Eagle Act and Migratory Bird Treaty Act) as well as the dense mature cottonwood gallery along the Colorado River was reinforced by the USFS in their letter to the County dated August 25, 2006. (See Exhibit Z) Based on the forgoing, should the Board approve the SUP, Staff recommends a condition of approval be required that "no mining activity, operations staging (batch plant/office/scales/sales /etc.), or reclamation shall be allowed in Mining Area 3 (eastern most pit) where it lies within the'/ mile buffer zone. The pit configuration shall be redesigned to acknowledge this buffer. Additionally, no mining activity, operations staging (batch plant/office /scales/sales/etc.), or reclamation shall be allowed in any mining area that lies within the 1/2 mile buffer area until after July 31st of any given year and subsequently all such activity shall stop prior to January 15th of any given year. " Lastly, Stafffrnds the final pond configurations should be amended to add additional undulation / variation in the shoreline to enhance protective characteristics of wildlife habitat as well as visual interest. This comports with suggestions by the DOW that suggest typical engineered pond configurations add little in the way of shoreline protection for rearing waterfowl / and aquatic wildlife. As of the writing of this report, the County Vegetation Manager emailed Staff indicating that he visited the site on Friday, may 1, 2009 and observed that the eagles have fixed their nest and one was in the nest. More recently, WestWater observed 3 chic in the nest as of their June 5, 2009 report. 24 Scott Gravel Pit PC — 05/13/09 Page 25 The DOW sent in an additional letter (June 5, 2009) that indicates the applicant has revised their mining plan to 1) increase shoreline undulation, 2) added more shallow banks to 5:1, 3) removed the concrete / asphalt batch plant (except for limited CDOT / FAA projects), and kept the mining inside the'/4 mile buffer to "off season: time frames when the eagles are not in the nest. There is a newly discovered Red tailed Hawk nest that could be harassed by this operation. (Exhibit 0) 2. The Application shall contain a Wildlife Impact Analysis prepared by a professional that identifies existing wildlife habitat and impacts on wildlife as a result of the project which may include but be not limited to impacts to domestic animals through the creation of hazardous attractions, alteration of existing native vegetation, blockade of migration routes, use patterns or other disruptions. Staff Response The Applicant submitted a "Wildlife and Sensitive Areas Assessment Report" prepared by WestWater Engineering, Inc dated May 2009. This report found that the following: Construction of the Rifle Scott Pit will affect site —specific native vegetation and wildlife habitat adjacent to the project site. Affects will be minimized by avoiding wetlands and limiting removal of mature cottonwoods as described in the mining plan; the project, while mining is taking place, will minimally contribute to the overall cumulative impacts to the wildlife populations of the Colorado River Valley, which are experiencing gradual habitat loss, fragmentation, alteration and displacement through development. Wildlife habitat at the site has been seriously degraded in the past by overgrazing and invasion of noxious weeds. Successful post -mining reclamation should increase both the quality and quantity of habitat for native species. Based on this analysis, WestWater recommends specific mitigation measures (pages 15 — 18) which are attached to this memorandum as Exhibit R. Staff recommends, should this project be approved, that these recommendations be included as conditions of approval. 5.17.07 Compatibility with Surrounding Land Uses The following regulations shall apply to all gravel operations in the County: 1. No permit shall be approved unless sufficient distances separate such use from abutting property which might otherwise be damaged by operations of the proposed use(s). 25 Scott Gravel Pit PC — 05/13/09 Page 26 Staff Response There appears to be sufficient distances between abutting properties such that they would not be damaged by operations. 2. The equipment storage area is not placed any closer than 300 ft. from any existing residential dwelling. Staff Response There are no residences within 300 feet of the operations. 3. Loading and unloading of vehicles shall be conducted on private property and may not be conducted on any public right-of-way. Staff Response The Applicant agrees to this requirement. 4. Any storage area for uses not associated with natural resources, shall not exceed ten (10) acres in size. Staff Response The operations appear to meet this standard. 5. Any lighting of storage area shall be pointed downward and inward to the property center and shaded to prevent direct reflection on adjacent property. Staff Response The Applicant agrees to this requirement. 6. Shall be compatible with surrounding agricultural, residential, and recreational land uses by selection of location and/or mitigation. Staff Response The land to the north and east are existing gravel operations. The land to the west is an undeveloped rural parcel owned and unused by CDOT and the property to the south is the 1-70 interstate. The use is compatible with the uses to the north and east and can be mitigated from uses to the south and west with the exception of the visual impact and impact to the American Bald Eagle. 26 Scott Gravel Pit PC — 05/13/09 Page 27 7. The proposed operation will be located a sufficient distance from other mining operations so as not to create non-mitigatable cumulative impacts to roads, air and water quality, or other resources and amenities. Staff Response The new pit will open up new ground to be exposed for 5 to 6 years as proposed; however, it is impossible to determine exactly the life of the pit for economic reasons. As viewed from the air, it would appear to "fit in" with the other pits in the area. The majority of the impacts can be mitigated or avoided (Bald Eagle 1/4 mile buffer zone) with the exception of the visual impact as seen from 1-70. While there will be a high visual impact during mining, the reclamation, if properly conducted in a timely manner could result in a visually pleasing result with ponds / lakes that also provide valuable aquatic and bird habitat. 8. Unless otherwise determined by the Board of County Commissioners, The gravel pit hours of operation will be 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday with crushing, digging, and heavy hauling allowed from 7:00 am to 6:00 pm allowing for administrative and maintenance activities to take place until 8:00 p.m. No operations except emergency maintenance to ensure the integrity of operating equipment shall take place on Sunday. Staff Response The supplemental information submitted by the Applicant revised their hours of operation to be consistent with the County's regulations. However, they will need to be adjusted to specific locations and specific seasons to address the American Bald Eagle issue. Their propose hours include: Monday Saturday: 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM (Crushing, digging, and heavy hauling only occurring between 7:00 Am to 6:00 PM) Sunday: No operations (Except emergency maintenance) 5.17.08 Reclamation / Enforcement Reclamation shall be done to create an aesthetically pleasing site or reclaimed area that will blend with or improve upon the surrounding areas. All applications shall submit a Reclamation Plan that specifically addresses the following aspects of reclamation: slopes, vegetation, lake / pond shape & character, wildlife habitat / agriculture, phasing and berms. Additionally, the State of Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety has minimum standards for reclamation. For example, reclaimed slopes are typically required to be 3:1 or shallower. This standard creates stable slopes but does not necessarily result in a landscape that 27 Scott Gravel Pit PC — 05/13/09 Page 28 blends with the surroundings. The same is true for other aspects of reclamation. All Reclamation plans shall follow the following design criteria: 1. Slopes a) Wetland Criteria: Varied slopes predominantly 5:1 or shallower, at least 80% 5:1, and 25% 10:1 or shallower in wetland zone. b) Dryland Criteria: Varied slopes predominantly 5:1 or shallower, seamlessly blends with surrounding landscape. Staff Response The Application only proposes slopes that are mostly 3H:1 V with some 5:1 and even less at 10:1 near wetlands which all fall short of what is required above for a variety of reasons. Staff finds this questionable as shallow slopes provide vegetation and wildlife habitat benefits as well visual benefits. The Application states it only can commit to restoring slopes with limited materials that are on site and will only encourage the import of fill materials for the final reclaim. This plan needs to be reworked to meet these regulations. 2. Vegetation a) Wetland Criteria: Variation in revegetation, revegetation to include planting of trees and/or shrubs, if seedlings orsprouts plantings occur as part of phased reclamation and not just at the end of the mine life. Established trees or shrubs in final reclamation phase are at least 8' tall or 2" caliper trees or 5 gallon shrub containers. Active irrigation shall be employed in revegetation areas during the life of the mine or until revegetation is self-sustaining. b) Dryland Criteria: Variation in revegetation, revegetation to include planting of trees and/or shrubs, if seedlings orsprouts plantings occur as part of phased reclamation and not just at the end of the mine life. Established trees or shrubs in final reclamation phase are at least 8' tall or 2" caliper trees or 5 gallon shrub containers. Active irrigation in revegetation areas during the life of the mine or until revegetation is self-sustaining. Staff Response The Application includes a reclamation plan that includes planting twenty (2 -inch caliper) cottonwood trees around each pond at intervals of 75 to 150 feet with cottonwood 1 willow saplings / cutting clumps between the trees and fringe wetlands on. all of the lake 28 Scott Gravel Pit PC — 05/13/09 Page 29 perimeters (although the plan only shows these wetland shelves to be installed on Mining Area 2). Despite best efforts to plants trees and other vegetation near anticipated water table levels, the plan needs to incorporate an irrigation system to ensure that the vegetation takes hold and is successful over several years. The reclamation plan needs to be revised to incorporate active irrigation methods. Additionally, Staff recommends the Applicant revise their Reclamation Plan to incorporate the City of Rifle's recommended seeding methods and not allow general dry -land mix seed broadcast methods. The County Vegetation Manager reviewed the plan and provided the following comments and recommendations: ➢ The City of Rifle suggests using plant plugs (i.e. real plants) instead of broadcast seeding. The applicant does propose to plant trees, cuttings, and tublings. Research indicates that plug stock of wetland species such as sedges and rushes are more effective than broadcast seeding. Also large plug stock, over 21 inches, has been shown to be more effective than 12 inch plugs. Larger plugs can handle changing water tables better than the smaller plugs. ➢ There is a native shrub, silver -leaf buffalo berry (Shepherdia argentea) that may be confused with the noxious weed, the Russian -olive tree (Shepherdia argentea). The applicant needs to be able to distinguish between the two so that the native silver -leaf is conserved and not managed like the Russian -olive. ➢ It is critical that the applicant implement an effective Russian -olive and tamarisk treatment program. From this department's perspective, reducing the population of Russian olive and. tamarisk is not a negative impact to visual aesthetics from the corridor as is stated on page J-2. The timely treatment of all County listed noxious weeds, including Russian olive and tamarisk, is encouraged given the threat of spreading noxious weed seeds through gravel to previously uninfested areas. ➢ Staff requests the removal of crested wheatgrass from the dry rangeland mix. ➢ Again, staff appreciates the City's comments and we emphasize our concurrence with the Reclamation of the Scott Expansion to the Chambers Gravel Pit document. The topics of live -soil handling, using local plant sources for reclamation, and developing a benchmark for successful gravel pit reclamation are important items and worthy of further consideration by the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners: 29 Scott Gravel Pit PC — 05/13/09 Page 30 3. Lake / Pond Shape and Character: Reclamation with multiple ponds or lakes with substantial islands or peninsula (at least 20% of total surface) to break up surface, undulation of shorelines provides natural appearance. Staff Response The post -mining lakes have minimal undulation (Mining Area 2 being better than mining Area 1). These ponds are relatively small but could benefit from more shoreline variation. Staff suggests the possibility of a fake Island in the middle of Mining Area 2 to help meet this standard. 4. To the extent permitted by law, unless all disturbance created by the mining operation is covered by reclamation bond underjurisdiction of the Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety, or by the federal government on federally owned lands, a bond or other acceptable financial performance guarantee shall be submitted in favor of Garfield County in an amount of at least 150 percent of the cost of restoration of the site and access roads. The required amount of such financial performance guarantees may be increased at the discretion of the Board of County Commissioners to account for inflation. A bid for site restoration acceptable to the permittee and Garfield County shall be submitted to the Planning Department as evidence of the cost of reclamation for bond setting purposes. Staff Response The County will request a copy of the bond put in place with the DRMS. 5. To the extent permitted by law, the Board of County Commissioners may require a financial performance guarantee in addition to that required by the Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety to insure that certain conditions of a permit will be complied with. The required amount of such financial performance guarantees may be increased at the discretion of the Board of County Commissioners to account for inflation. The County will not require financial guarantees that are duplicative of that required by the DRMS. Staff Response Presently, there is no County requirement for an additional security for other provisions beyond the scope of the mining. 6. The operator will submit an annual report to the County Building and Planning Department with GPS measurements shown on a map showing the current disturbance, what areas have been backfilled, where topsoil stockpiles are 30 Scott Gravel Pit PC — 05/13/09 Page 31 located, all site structures, what areas have been seeded, mulched and what is planned for the ensuing 12 months. Staff Response Applicant has agreed to this requirement. 7. 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. Staff Response Applicant has agreed to this requirement. 8. 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. Staff Response Applicant has agreed to this requirement. 9. 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 303-692-3150 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 Staff Response Applicant has agreed to this requirement. 10. 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. Staff Response Applicant has agreed to this requirement. 31 Scott Gravel Pit PC — 05/13/09 Page 32 11. The Operator acknowledges that the County has performance standards in place that could lead to revocation of the Special Use Permit if continued violations of the permit occur over a period of time. Staff Response Applicant has agreed to this requirement. 12. 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 municipal Watershed Permit, CDPHE, USACE, NPDES, Division of Water Resources (approved well permits and plan for augmentation), etc. Staff Response Applicant has agreed to this requirement. 13. 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 bond shall need to be calculated to cover this plan and secured with DRMS to cover its implementation. Staff Response Applicant has agreed to this requirement. 14. 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. This weed management plan shall be submitted to the County Vegetation Manager for approval prior to the issuance of a SUP. Staff Response Applicant has agreed to this requirement. IX. STAFF REVIEW SUMMARY The plan has been significantly reduced since the last submittal by eliminating the mining 32 Scott Gravel Pit PC — 05/13/09 Page 33 activity inside the ox -bow which will significantly reduce the wildlife / habitat, wetlands, and visual impacts on the site from the mining activity. Many, if not most, of the technical issues (floodplain, stormwater run-off, process water discharge, SPCC, flood monitoring) can be met. However, there remain the following issues with the proposal that the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners are required to address and make a finding. These involve specific conditions that are written as mandatory using the word "shall." The proposed mining plan does not adhere to several of these as stated below: 1. Section 5.17.004 (Visual Impacts) New long-term (more than one year) mining operations will minimize visual impacts along entryways to growth centers. Planning Commission and/or the Board of County Commissioners will determine sufficiency of minimization. Staff Finding: This shall need to be a finding by the Planning Commission. 2. Section 5.17.09 (Impacts to County Road System) The Applicant shall submit evidence of insurance for a minimum of $1,000,000 to cover any damages to public and private property, and Garfield County shall be named as an additional insured. Staff Response: The Applicant does not wish to submit evidence of insurance for a minimum of $1,000,000 to cover any damages to public and private property because they believe there will be a very small percentage of traffic on County roads directly from this small operation. The TIS suggests 10% of the trips will use County Roads so Staff suggests the Applicant submit evidence of insurance for a minimum of $100,000 to cover any damages to public or private roads. This standard has not been met. 3. Section 5.17.16 (Reclamation Plans regarding Slopes for Wetland Criteria) The project shall have varied slopes predominantly 5:1 or shallower, at least 80% 5:1, and 25% 10:1 or shallower in wetland zone. Staff Response: The proposed reclamation plan proposes very limited slopes of 5:1 which falls far short of the 80% required. Further, the plan is deficient on requiring at least 25% of the wetland areas have 10:1 slopes. The DOW appears to be satisfied with the revised undulation and slopes; however, the County Airport is concerned about the creation of additional waterfowl habitat (encouraged by shallow slopes) that will create an aviation hazard. The plan appears to be a good compromise; however, the standard requires certain percentages of slopes. This standard has not been met. 33 Scott Gravel Pit PC - 05/13/09 Page 34 4. Section 5.17.16 (Revegetation & Irrigation) Active irrigation shall be employed in revegetation areas during the life of the mine or until revegetation is self-sustaining. Staff Response: The plan does not propose any "active" irrigation and instead indicates that the close proximity to the water table will better provide ground irrigation to the reclamation vegetation. Further, the application will state that adding active surface irrigation will actually have a negative affect on long-term survivability of the vegetation. Again, the standard requires "active" irrigation which is not proposed. This standard is not met. 5. The proposed Application requires findin y the Planning Commission regarding the County's Comprehensive Plan Goal to: Ensure that development and overall land use policies occurring in the County that will affect a municipality are compatible with the existing zoning and future land use objectives of the appropriate municipality; and 6. Further, the mining activity is a significant issue within the City of Rifle's East Gateway Plan where a finding should be made regarding the following goals and policies in that plan: 1) Mitigate negative impacts during and after mineral extraction. 2) Minimize and eliminate the negative visual and operational effects of mining on the gateways and biological systems. 3) Encourage land uses that recognize the environmental sensitivity of the land. 4) Protect watersheds and floodplains. 5) It is the intent of the City to minimize the impact of any mining on the environment and surrounding Rifle gateways. Policies 1) The City adopts the guidance outlined in the County's proposed regulations and policies for gravel extraction operations drafted in November 2007 entitled, "Goals, Objectives, Policies & Regulations Regarding Gravel Extraction Operations." 34 Scott Gravel Pit PC -- 05/13/09 Page 35 2) The County's proposed regulations outline a regulatory framework that ensures mining activities limit their adverse affect on environmental and visual quality, and reduce potential land uses and traffic impacts. In addition to these regulations, the City will discourage any gravel mining operations, which contain crushing, asphalt processing or concrete operations between Mamm Creek and Exit 90. Staff Response: Staff believes that the proposed mining plan goes a long way to reduce the impacts to the gateway area of the City of Rifle by reducing the mining plan considerably by eliminating mining within the ox -bow, eliminating the asphalt / concrete batch plants, and does not create adverse traffic impacts to the City. The visual impact will remain as the main outlying concern, although these two mining areas are less than 22 acres (broken into two small areas) with a short mining time -frame which means reclamation would occur sooner. X. STAFF RECOMMENDED FINDINGS 1. Proper posting and public notice was provided as required for the meeting before the Planning Commission. 2. The meeting before the Planning Commission was extensive or complete, that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted and that all interested parties were not heard at that meeting. 3. The above stated and other reasons, the proposed Special Use Permit has been determined to be in the best interest of the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County. XI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff finds that with modification, the plan is an approvable plan. Technically, the Planning Commission could find that the application, as presently proposed, cannot be supported with a recommendation of approval to the Board of County Commissioners because of the mandatory language in the standards pointed out above. (There are remedies available to the applicant to properly amend the currently adopted standards via a text amendment to these standards in the Land Use Code. There may be very good reasons to vary from the currently approved regulations; however, they are still the existing regulations.) 35 \EQUEST, I __Garfield County Regional Airport April 17, 2009 1 EXHIBIT I am responding to a request for information concerning how the proposed Scott Gravel Pit may affect the operation of the Garfield County Regional Airport. The areas of concern for the airport are Land Use Compatibility, Wildlife Hazard Management and reflectivity. According to the Airport Noise Control and Land Use Compatibility Study, AC 150/5020-1 "mining and fishing, resource production and extraction" are compatible in the vicinity of the Garfield County Regional Airport. Wildlife Hazard Management AC 150/5200 provides guidance only concerning the placement of wildlife attractants in the vicinity of an airport. Wetland or other type of bird attractant ponds would not be compatible within ten thousand feet of the runway. The FAA has found that evaporation ponds with steep -sided or rip -rap lined basins are actually a deterrent to many birds and this type of pond would not significantly attract wildlife hazards in the vicinity of the airport. Lastly is the issue of possible reflectivity from new ponds. From the information included in the application, the total increase in potential reflective surfaces does not increase dramatically from what is presently there. In addition, the runway is scheduled to be relocated in 2010 moving aircraft operations further from this area. In the engineering and environmental assessment phase of the new runway alignment development, reflectivity did not surface as a concern, and I would expect the same results if a new study was conducted over the cumulative effect that these relatively small ponds might add to the area. I hope you have found this information useful and have concluded that this proposed operation would not increase the hazards to any great extent beyond the current condition aircraft operate in. Please let me know if I can assist any further. Sincerely, to � 641( Bnan Condie C.M Airport Director 0375 County Road 352, Building 2060 I Rifle, Colorado 81650 I p (970) 625-10911f (970) 625-8501 RifleAirport@gmail.com 1 www.RequestRifle.corn Your 24/7 Colorado Rockies Airport STATE OF COLORADO Bill Ritter, Jr., Governor DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF WILDLIFE AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Thomas E. Remington, Director 6060 Broadway Denver, Colorado 80216 Telephone: (303) 297-1192 wilafife. state.co. as June 18, 2008 Peter J Siegmund Vice President United Companies 2273 River Road PO Box 3509 Grand Junction, CO 81502 (970)243-4900 RE: The United Companies' Scott Gravel Pit Revision Plan Mr. Peter Siegmund, For Wildlife - For People You and Greg Lewicki met with District Wildlife Manager, Will Spence, a couple months ago regarding the Scott Pit and a new development plan. You asked the CDOW to look at the new plans to determine whether the pit would adversely affect the nearby eagle nest. Greg Lewicki also provided Spence with further stipulations to the development via a -mail that you will be adding to your proposal when you re -submit the plan. It is our understanding that you would like CDOW's recommendation of the project before going through with creating a new submittal to the City of Rifle. The new mining plan would be better than the first plans in that there will be a lot of good habitat preserved that was originally planned to be mined. The oxbow is now removed from the mining plan which is an important habitat area for the eagles as well as various other waterfowl, raptors, songbirds, and mammals. The e-mail additions to the plan submitted by Lewicki call for undulating shore lines on the resulting lakes, use of fill material if available in creating shallow shelves around the edges, leaving some structures such as the access road into the pit that will also provide shallow water, and creating a berm with the top soil that will act as a visual and sound barrier between the pit and the eagle nest. The plan calls for mining within the 'A mile buffer only when the eagles are away for the season. However, activity including mining, crushing, and an asphalt plant will persist all year within the /z mile buffer. Spence suggested moving the asphalt plant, crusher, and other facilities to the far west side of the property where it would be out of the %2 mile buffer. The areas closer to the nest could be mined while the eagles are absent and operations could move back to the western side while the eagles are present. However, it is apparently impossible to do so because of flood plain issues. It seems the only place to put the plant is on the east side of the property nearer the nest. The buffers are recommendations given by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Colorado Division of Wildlife to protect eagle nests statewide. Activity is to be limited to the "off' season, when the eagles are gone, within the % mile buffer. There is to be no activity within the 'A mile buffer. Both the CDOW and the USFWS recognize that this particular pair of eagles seems to be more tolerant to disturbance than most eagles are. This pair chose the nest site despite the disturbance of 1-70, county roads, gravel mining, a residence, and businesses, all within the % mile buffer. However, all wildlife species have a threshold of disturbance. They can adapt to or put up with disturbance up to a certain level. When that threshold is reached they will leave the area. Where DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, Harris D. Sherman, Executive Director WILDLIFE COMMISSION, Robert Bray, Chair • Brad Coors, Vice Chair • Tim Glenn, Secretary Members, Dennis Buechler • Jeffrey Crawford • Dorothea Farris • Roy McAnally • Richard Ray • Robert Streeter Ex Officio Members, Hams Sherman and John Stulp that threshold is for this particular pair of eagles is uncertain. At some point they will probably decide that there is too rnuch activity and either abandon the nest during breeding and nesting season or simply decide to move to a new location when they migrate back for breeding season. At that point some activity must be held responsible for finally breeching the threshold of disturbance. Because these particular eagles are so tolerant to the disturbances around their nest it is probable that the Scott Pit could be mined according to the proposed plan without causing them to leave the nest site. The reclamation plan will result in good habitat for the eagles and other wildlife. However, there is definitely a risk that the eagles will not tolerate the new disturbance. CDOW cannot recommend the mining operation because of that possibility. if mining operations go according to the plan and the Scott Pit is determined to be the cause of the eagles abandoning the nest then United Companies would be liable for taking of the nest and subject to legal and possibly civil actions. The CDOW will stick to the buffer recommendations as those recommendations are known to provide a safe zone for nesting. Please note that the buffers are simply recommendations. CDOW is not stating that the mining operation cannot be accomplished without disturbing the eagles. However, the risk of disturbing the eagles remains the responsibility of the company. When the new mining plan is finished or in draft stage the CDOW would appreciate the opportunity to take another look at it and determine if there is anything else that can be done to minimize impact to the eagles or aid in developing a successful reclamation plan. if you have any questions please call District Wildlife Manager, Will Spence, at (970) 985-5882. Sincerely, 3T Rornatzke — Acting Area Wildlife Manager cc. M. Konishi, Velarde, Broderick, Petch, Klute, Pile MEMORANDUM To: Fred Jarman From: Steve Anthony Re: Scott Pit/Rivers Edge/SUP 11408 Date: May 1, 2009 EXHIBIT Thanks for the opportunity to comment. In addition to reviewing the permit application, I have looked at the City of Rifle's comments, including Matt Sturgeon's letter and the document entitled Reclamation of the Scott Expansion to the Chambers Gravel Pit. I concur with the comments in the latter document and will be referring to some of them in my review here. 1 The applicant has presented an approval letter for this project from the Division of Minerals and Geology dated August 31, 2004. Is an approval letter that is almost 5 years old still acceptable to the County? The 2004 letter also accepts a reclamation bond estimate of $212,000. Is there a current estimate that reflects 2009 costs? The City of Rifle suggests using plant plugs (i.e. real plants) instead of broadcast seeding. The applicant does propose to plant trees, cuttings, and tublings. Research indicates that plug stock of wetland species such as sedges and rushes are more effective than broadcast seeding. Also large plug stock, over 21 inches, has been shown to be more effective than 12 inch plugs. Larger plugs can handle changing water tables better than the smaller plugs. 3. There is a native shrub, silver -leaf buffalo berry (Shepherdia argentea) that may be confused with the noxious weed, the Russian -olive tree (Shepherdia argentea). The applicant needs to be able to distinguish between the two so that the native silver -leaf is conserved and not managed dike the Russian -olive. 4. It is critical that the applicant implement an effective Russian -olive and tamarisk treatment program. From this department's perspective, reducing the population of Russian olive and tamarisk is not a negative impact to visual aesthetics from the corridor as is stated on page J-2. The timely treatment of all County listed noxious weeds, including Russian olive and tamarisk, is encouraged given the threat of spreading noxious weed seeds through graves to previously uninfested areas. 5. Staff requests the removal of crested wheatgrass from the dry rangeland mix. 6. Again, staff appreciates the City's comments and we emphasize our concurrence with the Reclamation of the Scott Expansion to the Chambers Gravel Pit document. The topics of live -soil handling, using local plant sources for reclamation, and developing a benchmark for successful gravel pit reclamation are important items and worthy of further consideration by the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners. EXHIBIT Fred Jarman From: Roussin, Daniel[Daniel.Roussin@DOT.STATE.CO.USJ Sent: Monday, April 13, 2009 4:38 PM To: Fred Jarman Cc: Siegmund, Pete (Four Corners Materials) Subject: Scott. Gravel Pit Fred — CDOT has been working with the applicant for the last three years on this application. CDOT did issue an access permit 305272. Unfortunately, the access permit has expired. I have contacted the applicant and notified them that the access permit has expired. CDOT doesn't have any issue in re -permitting this access with most of the original terms and conditions of the older permit. I will let you know when we have a new access permit for this location. If you have any questions, please let me know. Thanks Dan Roussin R3 Permit Manager 222 South 6th Street, Rm 100 Grand Junction, CO 81501 970-683-6284 970-683-6290 Fax 1 Fred Jarman From: Jason Clark ijac!ark@riflefiredept.org] Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 3:11 PM To: Fred Jarman Subject: Rivers Eedge LLC / SUP 11408 Fred, We have no comments on the Gravel Pit east of Rifle. Thanks! Jason Clark Fire Inspector Rifle Fire Protection District Office: 970-625-1243 Mobile: 970-379-0303 i A EXHIBIT LOYAL E. LEAVENWORTH SANDER N. KARP JAMES S. NEU KARL J. HANLON MICHAEL J. SAWYER JAMES F. FOSNAUGHT ANNA S. ITENBERG CASSIA R. FURMAN JENNIFER M. SMITH ROSALIE C. OLSON T. DAMIEN Zi JIVIBRENNEN LEAVENWORTH & KARP, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW EST. 1980 201 14TH STREET, SUITE 200 P. 0. DRAWER 2030 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81602 Telephone: (970) 945-2261 Facsimile: (970) 945-7336 lel@lklawfirm.com Board of County Commissioners County of Garfield 108 8111 Street Glenwood Springs CO 81601 February 26, 2009 RE: Scott Gravel Pit Special Use Permit Dear Commissioners: 3 EXHIBIT DENVER OFFICE:* 700 WASHINGTON ST. STE 702 DENVER, COLORADO 80203 Telephone: (303) 825-3995 *(Please direct all correspondence to our Glenwood Springs Office) RECEIVED FEB 2 6 2009 GARFIELD COUNTY BUILDING & PLANNING I represent the City of Rifle. The City has asked me to write to you concerning Item 1C on your 1:15 agenda on Monday, March 2, which is entitled "Consider Referring a Special Use Permit from Scott Gravel Pit to the Planning Commission." On behalf of the City of Rifle, the City strongly believes this matter should go to the Garfield County Planning Commission for review and recommendations. This property is located at the Gateway to the City and deserves careful and deliberate consideration for any land use approval. You should also be aware that the Planning Commission in Rifle adopted Resolution No. 2, Series of 2008, on September 30, 2008, an unsigned copy of which is attached. We will provide a signed copy at the time of the Planning Commission hearing but I wanted to get this letter off to you quickly. Resolution No. 2 adopts a Subarea Master Plan for the Rifle East Gateway Planning Area which is defined on Exhibit A of the Resolution and includes the property upon which the special use permit has been requested. The Subarea Master Plan is located on the City's website at www.rifleco.ora. We will outline in detail our concerns that the proposal does not comply with the Subarea Master Plan as adopted for the Planning Commission hearing, but this is another reason the matter should be referred to the Planning Commission. Lel i ne130491111-P10 nn'ng.6445Lc uerslGmCc, ©OCC a226a9,wpd LEAVENWORTH & KARP, P.C. Page 2 Thank you for your consideration. LEL: ers Enclosure cc: Matt Sturgeon Fred Jarman City Council IaCI'Lenisiai11e00091 I B-Planning.GW 4Lruns\CnrCn ROCC 022609,0 Very truly yours, LEAVENWORTH & KARP, P.C. L r :1 E. Lea,e orth CITY OF RIFLE, COLORADO PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2 SERIES OF 2008 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RIFLE, COLORADO, ADOPTING THE RIFLE EAST GATEWAY SUBAREA MASTER PLAN PREPARED BY VANDEWALLE & ASSOCIATES, INC. DATED SEPTEMBER 2008 AS THE OFFICIAL SUBAREA MASTER PLAN FOR THE RIFLE EAST GATEWAY PLANNING AREA. WHEREAS, recognizing the unique characteristics of the entrance to the City of Rifle from the east (Interstate 70 Exit 90 (Main Rifle Exit) and Exit 94 (Mamm Creek)), its development potential and importance to the City's image and economic base, the City of Rifle identified a planning subarea known as Rifle East Gateway Planning Area, the boundaries of which for this purpose are generally depicted on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (the "Rifle East Gateway Planning Area"); and WHEREAS, the City worked with planning staff and interested members of the community to identify the Rifle East Gateway Planning Area as important to creating a positive City image and to detetmine several development goals for the Rifle East Gateway Planning Area, and contracted with planning consultant Vandewalle & Associates, Inc. to prepare a Subarea Master Plan for the Rifle East Gateway Planning Area (the "Rifle East Gateway Subarea Master Plan"); and WHEREAS, the Rifle East Gateway Subarea Master Plan has been developed as a comprehensive, advisory plan to articulate the objectives and vision statement for the Rifle East Gateway Planning Area and provide specific recommendations to guide development and the construction of public improvements; and WHEREAS, pursuant to C.R.S. §31-23-206(2), the City wishes to adopt the Rifle East Gateway Subarea Master Plan as a part of the City's overall Comprehensive Plan, as may be amended from time to time; and WHEREAS, in compliance with state statute, on September 30, 2008 the Rifle Planning Commission held a duly -noticed public hearing to consider adoption of the Rifle East Gateway Subarea Master Plan; and WHEREAS, the Rifle Planning Commission desires to adopt the final Rifle East Gateway Subarea Master Plan pursuant to C.R.S. §31-23-206. IhCiienlslRillel00811B-Planning-404UirsnlwionslP&Z-02. vlxl City of Rifle, Colorado Planning Commission Resolution No. 2; Series of 2008 Page 2 of 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RIFLE, COLORADO, THAT: Section I. The foregoing recitals are incorporated herein as if set forth in full. Section 2. Pursuant to C.R.S. §31-23-206, the Rifle Planning Commission at a duly noticed public hearing hereby adopts in its entirety the Rifle East Gateway Subarea Master Plan prepared by Vandewalle & Associates, Inc. dated September 2008 as the official Subarea Master Plan for the Rifle East Gateway Planning Area. Section 3. A copy of the Rifle East Gateway Subarea Master Plan is available for review during normal business hours at City Hall. THIS RESOLUTION, was read, passed and adopted by the Rifle Planning Commission at a regular meeting held this 30th day of September, 2008. By MI W81113•PImming-604,Rcsol11lionsT CZ-02,wpd CITY OF RIFLE, COLORADO PLANNING COMMISSION Chairperson EXHIBIT A Rifle East Gateway Planning Area ib 0 April 24, 2003 Mr. Fred Jarman, Director Garfield County Building and Planning Dept. 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: SUP 11408 or Scott Pit Project Dear Mr. Jarman: uif lttiG ;-LANNING The City of Rifle appreciates the referral regarding this matter and does wish to offer comments. The project sets approximately 1 mile east of the main 170 entrance to Rifle and directly north of the Rifle Business Park. The proposed gravel pit would have a direct impact on Rifle's gateway. Before commenting on the specifics of this appiication, staff wishes to restate the City's overall position regarding the topic of gravel mining in general. The Rifle City Council has voiced concerns over the c urniilative imparts of gravel pits on the Colorado River riparian system, and has requested Garfield County study these impacts more closely before approving additional gravel extraction activities within the drainage. This position remains unchanged. The Scott Pit presents a more direct contei n to the City of Rifle. First and foremost there is concern regarding the potential impact to our watershed. We have been working with the applicant's consultants regarding this issue, and a watershed permit application has been filed with the City. It is our understanding the county permit hearings will occur in advance of the watershed permit hearing, therefore the city wants to remind the county that this property does set within Rifle's watershed district boundaries. The city is requiring a watershed permit before activities occur on this site. Please note Rifle's jurisdiction covers the operations related to protecting our watershed. Rifle has no general land use authority over this project, and our process will not allow the city to address any of the topics staff will raise in the remainder of this letter. The city must rely upon the county to protect the interests of f Rifle ._ the City of Rifle i eiieriGnts as ;hey per ',lain lU the T0110wing rrlar:iFts. The proposed pit and associated industrial operations will have a 4-6 year impact on county residents residing within the corporate boundaries of Rifle. The city appreciates that the applicant significantly reduced the scope of the mining activity from what was proposed in the previous special use permit application. However, the city remains opposed to the proposed processing activities. The application fails to illustrate the 4-6 year condition of the property during the operation of the asphalt and concrete plants. The best representation available for comparison is United's current operations on Highway 6, east of Rifle. The introduction of a highly visible concrete batch plant and asphalt plant—similar to what is visible along Hwy 6—at this location along 1-70 will place an unfair hardship on numerous business sectors operating within the City. People traveling the i-70 corridor visiting Rifle or contemplating residential and/or commercial invesi ment in Rifle will associate Rifle with this industrial activity during the life of the project. While CITY OF RIFLE 202 RAILROAD AVENUE • P.O. BOX 1908 • RIFLE, Co 81650 970-625-2121 * WWW.RIFLECO.ORG City of Rifle Comments Re: Scott Pitt SUP April 29, 2009 Page 1 2 asphalt and concrete are necessary products, the method of production is highly visual and often perceived in a negative way. Right or wrong, this negative perception will affect real estate sales in the Rifle area, particularly near the rest area and adjacent to 1-70 in the Rifle Business Park. The secondary impact will be to contractors who may lose out on potential construction projects that might have otherwise occurred on these highly sought after 1-70 corridor properties. While this may only be a risk, the county should consider requiring the material be processed at a less visible location. At a minimum, the city requests Garfield County require the applicant model the visual impacts of the processing facilities so the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners can truly understand what they are considering. The City of Rifle mandates all new developments provide 3-0 modeling so neighbors and elected officials can understand the true scale and impact of a project. It is a highly useful tool, and often alleviates hypothetical concerns raised by trying to visualize what is represented on a two dimensional drawing. The BoCC & P&Z will be able to see what the landowners and business owners will see from the Rifle Business Park as well as automobile traffic traveling 1-70. The cost to the applicant is minimal given the scope of the project and the potential impacts to surrounding landowners and businesses as well as peopie investing in Rifle's future in a way that is dependent on a positive image of the community. With regard to the gravel mining operation itself, it is critical Garfield County guarantee the disturbed area get reclaimed to the property's pre -mining biological condition or better. Monitoring and enforcement of proposed methods of mitigation and reclamation cannot be left to State agencies. These agencies are located in Denver, lack resources, and don't have the same vested interest in the reclamation outcomes. The City requests the County place sufficient conditions on the permit that allow County staff to ensure proper management practices are occurring. Additionally, the City requests the reclamation plans be modified to require curvilinear lakes that have a more natural appearance; the proposed lakes are linear and will appear out of context. Other gravel operations in the area have produced natural appearing lakes such as Lyon's Pond adjacent to the rest area. Lastly, we are attaching a list of reclamation processes the City believes is appropriate for this location. in summary, the City of Rifle would prefer not to see another gravel pit along the Colorado River in advance of some cumulative impact study being complete that comprehensively evaluates the impacts occurring to the Colorado River riparian area and the hydrology of the river. Should the county elect to approve this pit, the City strongly requests that the applicant not be allowed to place a concrete batch plant or asphalt plant at this location because of the impacts to the City's principle gateway; the final phase of their operations demonstrates they can mine the material and transport it elsewhere for processing. Finally, the City hopes the county will condition the permit with comprehensive reclamation standards that are enforceable by county staff in addition to state agencies. Thank you for considering the City of Rifle's concerns regarding this highly visible and impactful land use application. Sincer- ly, Matt Sturgeon, Assistant City Manager c. City Council, Rifle Planning Commission, City Manager Reclamation of the Scott Expansion to the Chambers Gravel Pit 1. Reclamation efforts must return hydrology and ecology in the area to as functional a state as existed prior to the disturbance. Specifically, the type of wetlands present and the diversity of animals and plants inhabiting the area prior to its disturbance must be able to return to the site as soon as possible and in the least impacted manner possible. 2. In order to ensure that the full range of native plants and animals found on the site pre -disturbance return, a biological assessment by a reputable firm should be performed, if this has not occurred already. 3. Restoration techniques are crucial in restoring the proper diversity of animal and plant life. Specifically, plants should be restored by plug rather than seed, for the most part, due to the long dormancies required by many seed types. Broadcast seeding is the least effective method of reclamation with respect to native plant propagation and proliferation. We strongly support plugging as a primary method so that the success of reclamation efforts can be established quickly and results that do not meet expectations fixed. As far as seeding, we support actually injecting seeds into the ground by drill seeding methods rather than ineffective broadcast seeding. We are also concerned that the landscaper will only be responsible to monitor results for a few months after planting. Particularly if seeding is utilized, this will not allow success of the project to be assessed adequately in light of the fact that some seeds take three years to germinate. We are requesting assurances that the developer and/or landscaper will be responsible for revegetation at the sites over an adequate period of time, which will be determined by the replanting techniques used. 4. Adequate consideration must be given to the timing and nature of restoration in terms of budget and scheduling so that the right work occurs at the correct time following the disturbance. A reclamation plan developed by a reputable firm should be in place prior to extraction. It would be helpful to utilize a successful reclamation project in the region as a benchmark, if such a project exists. 5. A successful weed control program must be a major part of the reclamation effort. Any disturbance of the areas will result in a weed influx, so management is crucial. 6. All disturbed soil should be life -handled in order to maintain its living components and health. Live handling involves stock piling the native soil in small piles so that internal microorganisms are not damaged. If handled correctly, the soils can be used to reinoculate the site. 7. Plants utilized in reclamation efforts should come from local sources to avoid introducing genetic pollution or erosion. 8. The reclamation plan must give proper consideration to the reproductive biology and migratory patterns of resident animal and waterfowl populations. The timing of disturbance and reclamation is paramount for nesting species such as blue herons, eagles, etc. 9. River banks should not be excluded froth designated "Disturbance Areas" because these areas will be disturbed. Impacts include constant vibration of the ground, pollutants from machinery, adverse impact to wildlife habitat, and disruption of wildlife activity that maintains and promotes ecology by dispersing seeds, conditioning soil, stimulating plant growth, and advancing decay of dead plant matter. Because of this disturbance, we request that the banks be fortified with willow and cottonwood stakes, along with planting of grasses, grass -likes, and native shrubs. COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY— serving the people of Colorado Department of Natural Resources 1313 Sherman Street, Room 715 Denver, CO 80203 Phone: (303) 866-2611 Fax: (303) 866-2461 CGS LUR No. GA -09-0010 S%NE, Sec. 15, T6S, R93W May 4, 2009 Mr. Fred Jarman Garfield County Building and Planning Department 109 8t Street, Suite 201 GIenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: Scott Pit Special Use Permit Geologic Hazards Review Dear Fred, COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Bill Ritter, Jr. Governor Harris D. Sherman Executive Director Vincent Matthews Division Director and State Geologist Thank you for the land use application referral. At your request, this office has reviewed the special land -use application submitted by your office and considered the geologic hazards and geologic conditions that may affect the proposed gravel mine. CGS conducted a site inspection on April 30, 2009. Please consider the following observations in you review this special use permit. The proposed mine site is on the Colorado River flood plain between Interstate 70 and the main trunk of the Colorado River about one mile east of the Rifle Exit. There are two pits proposed on each side of an abandoned oxbow meander, which appears to flow water at flood stage. We find no geologic hazard that would appreciably affect this mine operation and it appears that water quality and pit -wall stability concerns have been addressed in the SUP application. Provided all relevant mine permits are in place, we have no concerns with the mine as it is intended. If you have any questions about the content of this geologic hazard review letter, please contact this office at (303) 866-2611 x8331 or e-mail: jonathan.white@state.co.us Sincerely, Jonathan L. White Senior Engineering Geologist Owner: Representative: Property Location: Property Size: Zoning: Access: Current Use: Proposed Use: Proposal Rivers Edge, LLC Greg Lewicki & Associates East of Rifle / South of Colorado River 93.46 acres (21 ac) Agricultural / Industrial (AI) HW 6 & 24 and I-70 frontage Pasture & SUP (Porta -john Storage) Sand & Gravel Extraction Hours of Operation Noise Life of Mining Activity/ Staging Dust Lighting Fumes/ Odors Vlbratlon Affects on Wildlife Loss of Habitat Vegetation Water Quality Impacts Loss of Floodplain integrity General Visual Impact to area Traffic /access Locat Watershed Impacts Reclamation J Revegetation Mining & Concrete Batch Plant: Impacts 12/29/2009 Scott Gravel Pit Special Use Permit Extraction & Material Handling of Natural Resources & Development in 100 -Year Floodplain Planning Commission June 24, 200g 6:30 PM Zoning / Location EXPLANATION • P.,,wwa..Intuaaa.a ..ns.ne w«.aoo«rn„ewpit e'e SA.*Yatiw Gravel Resource Map 3 -_tea ;A111.EY elf ascii %'t 1 Existing View of Property at Entrance 12/29/2009 2 12/29/2009 3 Existing Conditions map Originally Proposed Site Plan Map 12/29/2009 Proposed Site plan Map Additional Permits Required 1. Division of Reclamation Mining & Safety 2. City of Rifle: Watershed Permit 3. Garfield County: Special Use Permit for Development t in Floodplain & Extraction, Processing, storage, and Material Handling of Natural Resources a. CDPHE Permit: Discharge to Groundwater, Stormwater Management Plan, Air Emissions s. DWR: Approval of water plan to till ponds 4 Proposed Reclamation / Re vegetation Wetland Shelf Resign: For ,,_aararilaeect:: to �.ktlrc aa.:xjs t Cctlano c$:pin`v9lanla¢ C4 L' JfJnn nreta Av, 4d Y anti 5n.W1 1 syl NaWsrac SWrela^a Fnn7a le 13con ' lir A-1,21,17.10 lake S:rtare Sa.enFs an3fixrcs Plawa n aloe s,w7, !w Flea aa,wt Main Project Challenges :W �' rp tn'Cnontyd System: y d evidence1.bond Podamation Plant Proposed slaps do neito4et rewired standlinds 5 patibIlity Sn mprebei1 ea : PC is- toquIred to maree a finding that 6 prorimid way& pt Is COMPBtibla Wjitiexiteg Ond , r la�� the monitolitytitheeA;:ea of UrbanT[)fluence Ore. CIty. ffrro) 6 ramble With City's Gateway n 7. n Bald Eagle L a edFFFr5e vdtCijn toe Y4 rile ie uffe the 12/29/2009 Proposed Reclamation / Re vegetation rar-xi�+Hrc feW+e imtl*Ms GEr ry afcsAw ��lm I.y.�IIFh�'zee 51uVlevt acrossCWoradoYo expansion ale : :: 5 12/29/2009 Staff Recommendation: lie these te" tapproval 8 have adequately 4 the reposed it?a� age with the ealsana ;Tree 4, minable. with the Citsit eatewaY Plan 6 STATE OF COLORADO Bill Ritter, Jr., Governor DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF WILDLIFE AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Thomas E. Remington, Director 6060 Broadway Denver, Colorado 80216 Telephone: (303) 297-1192 wildlife.state.co.us Fred Jarman Garfield County Building and Planning Dept. 108 8th Street, Suite 401, Glenwood Springs frediarman@garfield-county.com (970) 945-8212 RECELVED JUN l 2 2000 GARFIELD COUNTY BUILDING & PLANNING Be: Rivers Edge LLC/ SUP 11408: Scott Pit June 5, 2009 Mr. Jarman, For Wildlife - For People In response to CDOW's last comments on the Scott Pit, Greg Lewicki has provided an updated map of the proposed pit along with a letter describing recent decisions concerning the pit. The update has addressed some of the concerns expressed by the Division of Wildlife. The reclamation map now shows some undulation of the shore lines of the ponds which will aid in creating more suitable habitat for waterfowl, shore birds, and aquatic species. The company has stated that they will endeavor to create as much undulation in the shore line as possible depending on if they are able to acquire top soil and material from other sources. Another positive change to the plan is the addition of several places where the graded slope into the pond will be a 5:1 slope rather than the minimum 3:1 slope that was originally mapped. There are also several areas that are mapped as shelf wetland and wetland fringe areas. The proposed seed mix has been modified to a more wildlife friendly mix as requested. The most important change to the plan is the removal of the concrete/ asphalt plant from Mining Area 2. The plant would have been a constant source of noise, traffic, human activity and dust, alI within the %2 mile buffer of the eagle nest and next to the '/4 mile buffer. The removal of that plant goes a long way toward making this a wildlife friendly project, particularly in the case of the eagle nest but also for other wildlife using the area. The company has stated that they intend to put a temporary plant in the pit in the event that they are awarded a contract to do CDOT or county work on the interstate or highways. They have stated that the chance of such a job becoming available in the next few years is slim. In the event that a contract is awarded and a plant is installed, a timing stipulation should be applied limiting the plant production to the months that the eagles are not present. Another option would be to install the plant outside of the '/2 mile perimeter. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recommendations call for no activity within a'/4 mile buffer of an eagle nest and no activity within a'/2 mile buffer during the time that the eagles are present. That recommendation is still the safest way to avoid harassing the eagles. However, it is clear that these particular eagles are more tolerant of human disturbance than are other eagles. They originally built the nest within 1/2 mile of other gravel pits, a DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, Harris D. Sherman, Executive Director WILDLIFE COMMISSION, Brad Coors, Chair • Tim Glenn, Vice Chair • Dennis Buechler, Secretary Members, Jeffrey Crawford • Dorothea Farris • Roy McAnally • John Singletary • Mark Smith • Robert Streeter Ex Officio Members, Harris Sherman and John Stulp residence, businesses, and Interstate 70. It is probable, particularly with the removal of the plant, that the eagles will not abandon the nest if the mining activity is outside of the 'A mile buffer. The small northeast corner of Mining Area 2 that is inside of the buffer is to be mined during the "off season" when the eagles are not present. Although the company has gone to great lengths to minimize disturbance to the eagles, there is a chance that the activity could cross the threshold of the amount and type of disturbance these eagles will tolerate. The company will remain liable for the take of the eagle nest if indeed the activity causes the eagles to abandon the nest. A recent wildlife survey found an active Redtail Hawk nest about 100 yards from Mining Area 1. Redtails have been known to tolerate substantial human disturbance. Literature confirms that the hawks will continue to nest within 200 yards of disturbance. Because of the local population levels and the tolerance of the hawks to disturbance, CDOW will not offer comment on the hawk nest except to declare its presence and warn that the company could be held liable for take of the nest if their activity causes abandonment. The updated plan reflects great effort to address all of the wildlife issues raised by the Division. Given the particular dynamics of this project it is probably as wildlife friendly as it can be and still remain profitable. Because of the timing stipulations and the removal of the concrete plant, the pit can probably be mined without causing the eagles to abandon their nest. However, the ultimate responsibility for that will remain with the company. Please contact District Wildlife Manager, Will Spence, at (970)985-5882 if you have any questions or require further comment. Thank you for the opportunity to be involved throughout the permitting process of the Scott Pit. Si - JT Romatzke, Area Wild ife Manager c cc. Velarde Petch Spence