Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.0 BOCC Staff Report 03.15.2010Exhibits for Public Hearing: 03/15/2010 BOCC Exhibit A Proof of Notice: Publication / Mailing / Posting B Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended C Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008, as amended D Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2000 E The City of Rifle's East Gateway Plan (by reference) F Application for SUP / LUCP submitted by Applicant G Staff Memorandum dated 03/15/10 H Letter from the Garfield County Airport Manager dated 4/17/09 Letter from the Colorado Division of Wildlife dated 6/18/08' J Memorandum from the County Vegetation Management Director 5/1/09 K Email from the CDOT dated 4/13/09 L Email from the Rifle Fire Protection District dated 4/8/09 M Letter from Leavenworth & Karp 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 Wildlife Report from WestWater Engineering dated 5, 2009 S Revised Letter from Applicant addressing New Standards dated 12/28/2009 T Revised Reclamation Plan (Map F-1) U Revised Site Plan (Map C-2) V Letter from USFWS dated 1/25/10 W Email from the DOW dated 1/26/10 X Letter from Applicant including "concessions" for the American Bald Eagle dated 1/27/10 Y Email from USFWS dated 2/22/10 Z Memo from Garfield County Vegetation Manager dated 2/5/2010 AA Bald Eagle Management Plan prepared by WestWater Engineering dated 2/5/10 BB Rifle Bald Eagle Nest Monitoring Notes prepared by WestWater Engineering dated 03/01/10 CC Minutes from Planning Commission Hearing dated 1/27/10 C'I'1"Y O.!'t IL[[ t.1. COL,ot .',T1r) I'L:A' NINC; coM llssmN RRSOLuTIDN NO. 2 SERIES OF 2008 A RJ15O1-TtTiCIN OF THE PLANN[N CI COMMISSION OF THE CITY 1)F R IF I.L: COLORADO z'ADO MTI N('GTHE RIFLE EAST GATEWAY SI'EAREANIAS El' PLAN PREPARED DY VANI)EWALLE & ASSOCIATES INC. DATED SEPTEMBER • - 22008 AS THE OFFICIAL SUBAREA MASTER PLAN POR Tr RIF[x, FAST GATEWAY PLANNING AREA. WHEREAS; recognizing the unique characteristics ofthe entrance 10 the City of -Rifle from he coot (Interstate 70 Eo0 91) (:Main Rifle Exit) and Exit 94 (Malian Creek 9, its development potential and importance to the City's image and economic base, the City of Rifle identified a planning 3u6area known gin as Rink Last Gateway Planning Arca, the hountdaries of schlep for this purpose are generalIyclopierect orr Exhibit attachedhereto and incorpnrated 11rui11 by this reference (the "Rifle East Ci0tewav ['tanning Arun"); and lyre IEREAS, the City -worked uilh planning staff and interested members of the community to identify the RilleEast Gateway PlanaiogAren as important to creating a positive City image and to determine several development goals for the Rifle East Gateway Planning Area. and contracted With plat ming consultant V;rndewalle .0 Associates. Inc. to prepare Subarea Master Plan For tl1i Rifle East Gateway Planning Area (the "Rifle East Gateway Subarea blaster Plan"): and WHEREAS. the Rifle Fast (3ai away Subarea Master Phan has been developed as a comprehensive, advisors plan to articuI:ate the objectives and t,ision statement for the Rifle last Gateway Planning Area and provide specific recommendations to guide development rend the construction of public improvements; and alail RAS_ pursuant to C.R.S. $3i-23-205(2), the City wicltcs to adapt the Rile East Gateway Subarea Master Plan as 0 part of the City's overall Comprehensive Plein, :Li may be amended from time to lime: and 9311F1RCAS, ire compliance with sate statute, on September 30. 2.0119 the Rifle Planning C'omm'ission held a duly -noticed public hearing 10 consider ailoptiw1 or the Rine. hast Gateway Subarea Master Pian; and WHEREAS. the Rifle PliInnin"Cotttntission dash=_s to adopt the Goat Rife, Fast G+1cnnv Subarea Master Plan pursuant 10 C.R.S. §31-23 209. Citi a; 1 Oo C1ae5114=ia Pt 1,,;r.;,c.,:,;1111'11 11 NOW, IIIHR G.FORE,[Dr. I1"119.901919)131' 111 f LANNiNSCOMMISSIOP10! TI lI CITY 01 RIFLE. COLORADO, "111Ai. Sactic>n 1. The foregoing recitals are inevaporalod herein us 10110 Ihrtlt in lull. Section 2. PLI 011atl1 10 CS ,S §.i 1-23-2116. the Ride Planning Commission at !i 1)490 noticed public hearing hereby adopts in its entirety the Rifle East Gateway sway Subarea Master Plan prepared bySratilowalleScAssooiatcs,lnc.dated Seploinbor- -.20119 111euff: Subarea Master Plan for the. Ride East Gateway Planning Arca. Section 3. A copy of the Rifle [Sasi Gateway Sahoree Master Plan is available for rcvicw during mrmlai business hours 11) City Hall. THIS RESOLUTION. was read. passed and adopted Ii the Rifle Maiming Commission at tl regular meeting held this 30'1 day or September, 2)198. CITY OF P199E. COLORADO PLANNING COMMISSION ( J/ Chairperson ENtJ.iill . s 12:1ic 1:ea Cl;srccoi [''.Peening 000 • TABLEof CONTENTS 1NTRODUCLION: '.HICII4WAY,6 CORRmDOR Wll41:isASut.mott,, PL/LNr* 3: GoALs €� I:RPOSEANn NTL) 3 .. LAND tis S LxiSiiN . CONDITIONS •'�:- � 1RA£I: IC.A.l�D Cl7tr;LLhI•WN PAST GATEWAY 5 UIL.1REA Go,,vs Genend Housircg Caty imago Ecarouvc' :'.. T'rrutporinkiaii Auks, Rccrc Ii , 13p i Sprrcc orad Trinls, DOWNTOWN ENTRY. - GoALS ()EJxc rivzs TRAFFIC ANL) CIRCULATION DOWNTOWN (;ATE A*O PTIONS DESIGN' ,ANT?'Use .Kcv Cheractcrtstics n/the Plan TIMING S 8 9 9 10• 11 11 AcT1oN :.-. EAST RIFLE CENTER & SUSTAINABLE C TY Oe1 itATioNS LAND USE TRA :NSI () RI:A.1'1ON SOLAR & CETT- OPERATIONS' TIMING POI -TM -5 ACTIONS COLORADO RIVER AREA PUBLIC. WORKS OPERATIONS AND RECREATION . GUALS 15 C()UNT.YAuRit; LTUR LD3NSITY 23 Policies - "'3 15. Cou'j .• 23 15 Policies 23 . . 16 k.00Dl'L+rNrFLDODI.or[) s'A1DPnM1 T 23 1Cr " Ynlicicr, 23 tt16 �lv.ndpfa[nrtctrnns: 3 2 17 .(: AND 1tti(;LA41A'rI()N !'i7'ANI7AIU) 5 Goa€s ' Polici 24. 17 8 8 RECREATION .NII Policies ,RI I'A.111AN EL47i.1'rh•A': 111 COLORAI.10 RI''KR T'RAn TRANSPORTAnora GEN7T.R- tf1 i1PPL'ND1X 18 AprENDI\ F3 L17i93 CON7'A Fri N17:N7'/INC)]'ORDSI) loN 19 brei Tca"1 Descnpfio, !y Tier ..: Tier 3' • DItiSCRWTI ON (9 12 APPENDIX B' PIIBLIC WORKS OPERATIONS AND:R3(:RE$TION 19 PoLiCLus..' : '�'-: - ': .: -, 12.'. CENTRAL BUSINESS Dr5tt '. 11n1'1SORY BOAR -0 26 24 24.. 24 24. 25 25 25 25: 25 25 26. ACTION. Mr11N RIFLE INTERCHANGE Gs1ALs ()77JT5(:TIVES LA.IV I, E PO L1CIli,S -. 2(1 Ac;•r1DNS 211.,., Mnry M CREEK INTERCHANGE 1 13 G tants 21 3 TRAFFIC AND CTRGt,LAr1O v 1 OLLLlEs 1: Aci ioNs ( LAN. -0- USE IA.NSl' O RTAT1ON INc.. P OL.MJE5 OTHER SUSAREA IMPLICATIONS 21. 21 22 ARci1I'1'YCruRAi G11IIaEL1N1I Architectural Gaidehole Actpams Lnndsiape Ocvelr.Pment Standards Lunii cape DcrcIopitutt StandrlydsPolicies, 26 26 27 • 27. I iu:d lupe Ocveloliotent Standards '.' 27,. S.R1NACi. G o1DEL114AS . 27 LIGHTING GUIDELINES - -. 2$-`. r u r •:a' • (TlY TABLE OF CURES Figure 1 City timet',; Area of Influence, EastGatewsy 3ounclary Figure 2. Tran,c Counts 1>iig7 Grpw3 ;Sce.nario in 2025 Figure3 Traffic Figure 01v town Ra le and treEastCat.wayS'obsrca Figure 5. Lit. 90 Unsencticned ':riustria1 storage facilities Figure 6' Potential Trail Development an Island Figure 7. ',City ar.dCounyZ„ni g Figured . Existing C,mcitiors • Industrial Storage Lot; Figure 9 Existing (7..,ndit:ons Figure 10 Existing nesting sites Figure 13. Far rrg Riparian Arras Figure 11. Existing Hlydric. S. uls Haure l4 Exiatsng Conciticns Uti u Figur 12 Existing Sr p S:c pus Figure 15 Ex•s ing Flondpiain Figure 16 Exis.in8 Fit me A6 :cuitu ral Soils Figurrl9. Option 1 - Large; Rouroabcut . Figure 0. Opt on 2 -Two.' Rcu,d,ocuts igtiie if. 01 C al. r,do River Bridgis; 12 Figure 13 - 51.fe Crock Trail - L Iorado Rine Crossing 12' Figure 21 Pra)ased Design Review Boundary 13 Figur 22 Downtown Existing, Cond tions So arce: Downtatvi Master Plan- 13 Figure 23 Typica: Man Street Cheacter Figunt Inerchangi 16 5 Figure.26 Highway6Overlay 6 F gure 27 Hi sway 6 commerce 1 rdeve!oonrert oi. p ices ii iii 6 Figure'10 East Rii]c Cen er.and SL cable Cily Operations Master Plaa Figure 29 0 y SnI;,r rigid L yoi,; 6 .: Fixure,30. 0 ey Parcel Sperts:Complex 7 F:€ure.31' [captionneeaed]• .; 7 ' Figaro 32: [capticn neociecil . 7iii Figaic 33 [capti .1 reeded' ii figure 34 [option rc ne;i1 17'. 18 23 24. 9FFure,35: F vcdplai . Diagram 26, y.'. Figure 36Coloraneo Geologic Survey Map of Gravel Reso cies in Catlett d Ccu,ty 76. 9 Figur; 37 R agate ;tai Opportunities 9 Daunt: 38; Land LseMap Oblique ., 27 g:mi.. 19 Futuro €ra soortation 9: Figure 40 Th=eme T Bred Urbain C.:onte..inrcierii.2 :m: 28 10 Figure 41; Draft th; e t ered lard use conru m_nt in the East Gateway S ibareu 29 12 Figaro 42: Draft Laid Use Fier Tr , sportac on Ti rs 3D 12. Figure 43. Ile: .Thr eLan,i', e and ntalsc,,u .g a[cas,Ca.eway 30 Figure. 25 . Rounda'outDesien North of Lei -slate 70 16 FAS'CAFbA'Al SI,fli,1i'.CA 015 IS II)owr rowv FN'tR';: MAIN Rti L lN'rERC11ANGE Ilic:iiti'4Ay 6 Coi R aoR t tiS,I� RIF LE C .N r.ER & S u,) G1I I11ii1 Ci`.t1'. Ol gRr1rioNS COLO .D0 ],Z1VER AREA, PUBLIC \VO.RKs: 0I?.;[LIN :tNl) 17ec.ltrXti.0N . PAAM14t CtttP'ic .1.Ni.tRCI-L\NGE HATISA SUBAREA PLAN? . . While a Comprehensive Plan provides broad general direction and a vision for the City as a whole, a Subarea Plan is a more: detailed analysis for a par titular portion of the City; The Subarea Plan continues to apply the overall', vision expressed in the Comprehensive Plan but to the unique conditions• .• and future needs in the particular Subarea.It establishes specific goals, poli- cies and objectives for the area in question:: Similar underlying geographic characteristics help delineate a subarea. The East Gateway Subarea has three defining characteristics: • 1. The area functions as a gateway to the City and Downtown Rifle, 2. The Colorado River is a prominent feature throughout the subarea, and. 3 Interstate 70 runs the length of the Subarea. P tr.RP Li SE AND. NEED• Rifle's east 'gateway' gives visitors their first impression of the City and the Downtown. Breath -taking open vistas are beginning to be marred by the: establishment of disorderly industnal storage facilities. Over time, if these facilities increase, they will detract from the natural, rural setting and convey • a disorderly, industrial image. In recent public meetings, Rifle's citizens,: City Council, and planning staff indentified the East Gateway as important to cre- ating a positive City image.: A positive appearance can help stimulate civic pride and express economic success. • The East Gateway Subarea contains two of Rifle's three interstate interchang- es.: is Exit 90 is the main entryway to downtown and connects the north' and south sides of Rifle, 2 The Marren Creek Interchange serves the. Garfield County Airport;. and will eventually connect north to Highway. 6. These two interchanges are major transportation nodes fax the community., They both provide interstate access and help circulate traffic to vital com, mercial areas that are highway/airport serving. With proper. planning, the• EastGateway can.help the City promote. a business -friendly atmosphere, • attract new,businesses, mix business. types and broaden the City's core cam mercial area as an appealing destination. The. Colorado. River flows through the center of the subarea:As Rifle grows and residential development expands, City decisions about how that growth occurs in this area will affect environmental quality, including floodplains, erosion potential and riparian habitat. ,Proper planning will position the City to accommodate growth, reduce hazards and limit environmental degrada- tion. -.; Dow r..1 ['OWN YN r•wr MtsFNiu..}iTNrr cr iv.sr. Tif¢;riwh' 6�:3AKIr)f7,i ssr Rir�rrCrNriii.St srti�N.3nFi CFFr(.)Friur[aus Rn, IAA Rrc,tr.3rir:N • ltl,: axCrrr:F:T zcncr-J i INTRODUCTION, CONT'D EXISTING. CONDITIONS . Today, most of the Subarea is outside of the. current City boundary but within. the City's 3 -mile Area of Influence, However, as Rifle gradually ex - panels in the. future, the City is likely to extend into parts of the Subarea.. The Subarea is approximately 3.75 square miles. East to west, the subarea.. is roughly 5 miles long:', • Interstate 70 parallels the River,and runs the length Of the Subareas east - west orientation. ,In 2006, on an average day, 19,000 cars traveled along this section of intersate: • Two of Rifle's three interchanges are located in the Sub•area. The east- ern most interchange at Mamm. Creek is a main entrance to the Garfield. County Airport and Rifle Airpark a 500 -acre master planned industrial park, In 2002, Garfield County average daily traffic counts recorded 327 cars per day entering and exiting Interstate 70 at this exit. The Airport • will be expanding soon, which will increasetraffic at the interchange. The City's Transportation Master Plans high growth scenario predicts the interchange will carry 3,200 cars per day by 2025. Currently, exit 90 ac- commodates 17,000. cars per day. The Transportation Master Plans high is growt .scenar o pre cts. , , cars per ay on ig way 3 nort of th interchange, and about 21,000 vehicles per day south of this interchange,;.', by 2025. This interchange is also links Rifle north oft-70.to Rifle south of -rrtii Cry_nts-.r4 ; Cr .,ir;5r .ar):6 LAST !„p•. F•b-nr $Pha.fi.ti.f'! k=i: t�S Cpp1..gADT -.--•zixii-scam -5120:"s,, a r.�n.e., Ra. tuirrx� 'r n E.11,-aelseay p.b z Rifle Colorado - Highway CDOT Annual Average Daily Traffic Count - 2006 Garfield County Average Daily Traffic Count -,2002 The Subarea has two entryways into Downtown Rifle: 1. Highways 6, which enters downtown from the East, 2 r Highway. 13, from the Exit 90 interchange Both entryways give visitors, tourists, and businesses their first impres- 27,; c(; Vision- of downtown Rifleas a shopping, touring anti business center. Both.- - entryways are experiencing high levels of congestion. "y. E �EaitGarty rraundttry,. ' 14.4 The. Subarea includes a small portion of the downtown with the boundary running parallel to Highway 6, Much of this area is ripe for redevelopment. The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) maintains a scenic rest area near,the Main Rifle Interchange. The area is a reclaimed gravel -mining site with a few ponds. It is adjacent to the Colorado River and other recreational amenities including an established trail, e boat ramp and fishing access. rra..,s Currently, heavy equipment storage facilities unsanctioned by county zoning surround th•e rest area. Materials. and equipment stored on these lots clut ter the areas natural beauty 1)0 '0.'4 f311VN r r�Y N€01.1WA6Curi:11-;rr . T.xtir'Rur,rC_r.1rt1 &CrsIyNABIr 11'1' 01'1 KA L n€:>>aeoz, KivG1t Axit;;i. t ai tE YL cwr,. Oi 1 r.[ri ms .1:!":11:1 tit 1u]vi 1 ; hrata�zCrq;L1 Iv r>:r rn� INTRODUCTION; CoN'T'D eries) combine to impart natural limitations on the land, Garfield County has primarily zoned the area AI-Agricultural/Industrial: Its agricultural zoning permits up to two houses per acre: The Colorado River and its development restrictions (i.e. flood hazards) make this an ideal location for recreation, however, this potential has not substantially developed. Currently, a trail extends from a trailhead at the CBOT rest area and loops around Lyons Pond. The Colorado River's fluvial geomorphology helped create gravel depot its along the, river While several of these areas have already been mined and many of the gravel pits are exhausted;some future mining potential exists. The Comprehensive Plan envisions that any mined areawill be subject to reclamation, including remediation and restoration. Reclama- tion's goal is to help protect environmental quality, while encouraging economicopportunity and creating quality gateways: The Railroad also runs parallel to the Colorado River on the north side of the interstate. Out of liability concerns; the railroadcurrently limits cross- ings, rossings, which results in a significant barrier to development southward from the railroad to the Colorado River. The City owns two large parcels in the subarea along Highway 6, The City's Public. Works workshop and the City's recycling center are located Cis on a former vanadium and uranium -processing site. Deed restrictions, € ,i s - due to contaminated soil, limit digging on site. A state-of-the-art biore mediation project is currently underway: An unremediated gravel pit located on the other upstream. parcel, which also houses the City's main water intake: The City plans to remediate that parcel to the proposed county standard above, The site has limited access;which requires cross- ing the railroad right-of-way. Due to liability concerns, the Railroad only. allows uses with -limited access requirements to locate across its rights -of - . :.East of the City;. along the Highway 6.corridor, is.an.industrial cluster. The area houses a junkyard, a storage business and a trailer park. The area • also has some unsanctioned heavy equipment storage facilities: • ts, Oki CO- Eeit A portion of the Subarea`' partofi'fh - dowittowii: The Subarea follow Highway 6 as rt procedesthrough�downteiWit Much of this atea is ripe for redevelopn)0nt. The City.ownsa,portion of property along the Colorado Rrver. 'The City has selected this iti,n7parcel for rel celipn of the wafer treamtment iiitacility: A 5 -acre array of solar panels will serve is; i':puiittping:station and will be located property. The Cifyxs PuttliWoiks shop and the -city s recycJifng center are located on.a torn3er.Eai n0dlum and'u anlu rn-processings[tc. Deetf:restriOni s due to ? `a 'epnted:Owled soil itmrt.;idtgging on'site,. Alctate of the art ` b,oreisiediation protecdriss Rt�omg. A =NI Interstate 70 parallels the River and rums the length of the' ;' /; Suberea's east -west orientation. In 2006, on an average day, :.`r 19,000 cars traveled along this section of interstate. i The Subarea's proximity to the Colorado River and its potential development restrictions (l.e. flood hazards} make this an ideal location for recreation This recreation potential has not i substantially developed. Currently, a trait extends from a traiihead at the CDOT rest area and loops arnurid•Lyons-Pond- _I Various county agricultural zoning Highway 6 West entering classification's provide a density Rifle is an Important rural which contraj9ctsthe City's gateway Into rite'. Currently many disordeiIy_industrial . lay down lots detract f orn the rural•o en vistas, goal of incremental growth in enefncient manner at 911- 1 he keperitarief rust h expreasted en,intereet in puroh'n§ing the' 70 acre island just West of the CDCT 1 rest area, The City pians on .-p,r irIng this option and ,encduraging development or ils.utban trail network through the area. as ova The Main Rifle Intgrchange is currently used as unsancttoned -r`•Ihdustrlal laydown lints. E1 has a Cotorade Department"ot7raF! pnrlatiBn Rest Area, Current tlshing access is `used on a regular basis. 8ecaust the Colorado River runs i, thrcurOhtie middle .otthe subarea, a teirgP'p'Trt'in-withfn the - 100 Year iloodptain. Hydric and prime ag€iOulturat soils and critical riparian habitat, I.e, eagle roosting -sites and heron rookeries combine to impart natural limitations on the land. Adjacency to the Colorado River and the subarea's geology create gravel mining potential and -attract mining actvIty. Some of the area r, has already been mined and many of the gravel pits are exhausted. but some Future mining potential exists, _. ,,..3'lamm Creeklntercinange is the main Gait eld County Airport entrance, The Airpark Master Plan. a 000 acre masker planned inestrtrail site is crirrent€y being developed. This exit is also heavily used by the extraction industry. The Area.henna' en Highway band 170 tji will renia,}n: ural In character. Low intensity -.-K1latid uses i.e. rural residential will be permitted, Much of this area hes' mining polential. w • z 0 0 ." z 0 • r?owa-rowC.'1 r htuu Ji r,e Jn rERCRAy ,r: II] iit,iv (, �u ,2!i�inz� Rn .a.Aiir lr I IC'lh':;i 01'11, -.;fl ,rcrJirsiiCE�3.E_r,,¢5 siA,E;a,s3riCirr()€Iitiro-c,us S1AstssCnFr: .511.(=I-111nCr A?1I' itf•(I lIVH INTRODUCTION, CON T'D 1c) Imnlm ',n5ff rr c q¢j C•CC I;4I, _ V 5 EAS.T•GATEWAi(SUJ3A A:.GOALS General — Create quality first impressions to welcome visitors while convey- ing a distinctive, identity. Encourage the redevelopment. of downtown to create a mixed- use core where people can live, .work., and play; a place that brings. the Rifle community togetherand attracts people to the City..: - Balance the local economy by increasing and employing sustain- able and distributed energy systems.• Expand the application ofSmart Growth Principles (such as avoiding leapfrog development and focusing development in- ward) and, traditional neighborhood design that preserves sensi- tive environmental areas and open space while providing livable, walkable neighborhoods. Expand the City/County K A to include planning in Rifle's Area of Influence, and reduce development, which precludes future land use plans. Housing Create avariety of housing options. Provide a mix of housing types that.range from attainable. workforce housing to larger single-family homes, so that Rifle is able to attract and retain a diverse population. Encourage low cost housing near the.Main. Interchange and retain existing affordable housing in the. East Rifle Center. City i»tage Improve Rifle's. image from the Interstate • Enhance the community's. appearance. Maintain and, where - necessary, improve the visual image of Rifle at its gateways and throughout the subarea. • Encourage a high design standard in, gateway areas. Prohibit equipment storage. . Preserve the historic/western elements of Rifle's Down Create an attractive downtown Economic - Create vibrant and complementary commercial nodes around the interchanges in the East Rifle Center and in Downtown Rifle. Encourage the redevelopment and expansion of Rifle's Down- town, own town. Transportation Mitigate transportation impacts of future land use. Direct truck traffic north from. Highway 13 to West Rifle Inter- change. Create a pedestrian friendly framework. Relocate the park and ride location Parks, Recreation, Open: Space and Trails. Provide a high level of environmental stewardship for the Colo- rado River corridor. Preserve fioodways and protect floodplains... Encourage and improve recreational opportunities including river access, the City's trail network and connecting to the Colo- rado River Trail. . 0 I.NTROT) UC'rIC�N MAIN RIF 1, IN1.ERCJIAN (:L' RICIN Wtiy 6 CORR(R EAST, RI IRE CENTER & SUSTAINABLE CITY" E.RATIONS C..�ULoRAi)o .KIvER AREA, PUBLIC: WORKS., OPERATIONS ..V`41.) 13,ECItJ AJ 1O; f 14THtitiv,,LRc K 1N1LRC'IANGE For planning and descriptive purposes, the Downtown Entryway is the area surrounding the Highway 13 and.6 corr€dor, the Colorado River Bridge north to the intersection of Highway 13 and Highway 6 and continues along Highway:6 as it proceed through the town core. 11 -lis . includes and a few blocks north of Highway 6 and south to the Colorado River. GOALS • Encourage theredevelopment, infill and expansion of Rifle's existing Central Business District; Coordinate public and private redevelopment;': Ensurethat any redevelopment in Downtown. Rifle is attractive and contributes to a vibrant mixed-use commercial node with appropriate amenities that draw people to live, work, play and shop; Maintain,a "main street" feel. on Highway 6 and highway 13 as . they pass through. Downtown Rifle; Encourage green design and high-performance buildings; Create a safe, pedestrian friendly framework that allows circula- tion throughout downtown; Create civic gathering places; Create an attractive gateway from the Interstate 70 off ramp through the entrance to downtown; ' — Maximize creek and river access and orient businesses.to.Rifle Creek and the Colorado River where possible; Encourage shared parking, Provide .a regional .draw for cultural events! including shopping, recreation, entertainment; health and healing; and Provide traffic improvements, 3.e. roundabouts, which reduce traffic congestion. l OBJE.CTIVES Provide a concentration and mixture of civic, office, retail,. restau- : _rant, housing and cultural land uses, broaden the retail base and increaseretail sales; Improve circulation and reduced traffic congestion at Exit 90 and the Downtown Gateway; Maintain Rifle's rich historical character,a "Main' Street' style development with a western flavor, Increase opportunities for high-density residential; • Create an entertainment district; Improve transportation infrastructure at the intersection of High- ways 6 and 13; and • Improve pedestrian infrastructure including on and off street op- tions. TRAFFIC .AND CIRCULATION Downtown Rifle has the potential to become an attractive pedestrian- orientedretail andentertainment hub., Currently, during peak travel times, there is ahigh level of congestion at the intersection of Highway 6 and Highway 13, which continues south along Highway 13 to. the Main Rifle interchange:. Two options have emerged for the Highway 6/Highway 13 intersection that relieve this congestion, provide pedestrian circulation and help meet other gateway goals: i,tivti'ltzlvN N3'11Y MAN T'iELnd 'A\ 6 Cw.Eclt)O i ,r!„4N frR QC 51.5 1 IINAEE.F ('..I.11't .i FAi.11?N4 C:chi7[017i; RIVER. AKEA',I.uxla vs,3.ri,C)}1,3:. p .43:;1,c,yl.Cnl:l:.hT�YraCiANf 3 ANA., DOWNTOWN :ENTRYCONT'JD DOWNTOWN G.A.TIEWAY.OPTIONS Two trails are proposed to connect the downtown en- tryway to the river. : The optimal locations for these two trails occur near theold CR320 Colorado River Bridge and as. Rifle. Creek. empties into the ColoradoRiver. To. avoid conflicts with the rail system crassin•es would • •• need to be either below or above grade * Traffic flows one-way around a large traffic', circle Displaced current park and ride moves' south * Opportunity for • entryway feature. *k improves•circulation *::: Two roundabout entryway,features * Displaces current park and ride and moves it south * ' Opportunity for entryway feature * Improves circulation r. I' 'a i law.:.:: .yF.u'rL.kr 9:,hitiru ftrR�.r,TnrrRcu:�cz.: H tp14av6Cu;o:1110c EANTRuEkCr iaak& NArN:3nr�CITVC2ri.q,TON, Cci:, fru ♦ZivFl Aii.nai'uail 1ti:;rn;Ciii;o-4ri.h: akS�auv1 �t.3:1;k; Iv�rR( ifrlfiGL DOWNTOWN. EN TRY) CONT DESIGN' .` To encourage a. consistent urban design,which highlights Rifle's historic character, the City will develop a design, review ordinance and create de- sign reviews review review landscaping, signage, lighting, and archi- tecture in. the Central Business. Di strict. Figure 9 illustrates the proposed design review boundary. The design review ordinance, administration • and process will help Rifle obtain a clear, consistent visual quality in the Central Business District. The standards emphasize pedestrian -friendly, human -scale developments, safety and opportunities. for social interac= tion All projects that fall within the boundary will be reviewed by an.es- tablished Design Review Board to ensure they meet the design standards. See appendixforrecommended design review process and guidelines. AND USE Proposed,Desrgn Review Boundary 2: ilia.z: i KGs i• �!:a-�' Key..Ctnracterestics of the Plan: Main Street - As Highway 6 moves through downtown, it takes • on a Man Street° feel, buildings are pushed to the street, and e • shopping experience and pedestrian circulation are emphasized•. • Retains encouraged with a mix of •off•ice and residential uses . . above the ground. floor. The River Gateway district encompasses downtown Rifle's river frontage and the downtown's primary entry point from inter- state -70. As visitors exit the Interstate, cross the river and enter thio downtown, this area provides their first view of the down- town and shapes their first impression of the community as a whole. The Creekside Neighborhood has the potential to become downtown's new, vibrant neighborhood located along Rifle Creek and integrated with the Second StreetMixed-use District." This area should be primarily residential with some mixed-use components and oriented toward the Creek and connected with the Downtown. The location and topography of this site create • the potential to develop at a somewhat higher -density with taller buildings. A trail should. follow the creek and connect to the south side of the Colorado River. The Second Street corridor, between East Avenue and the' future Park Avenue extension forms the City's most visible and important opportunity for major redevelopment to expand and enhance the downtown. Because the existing structures along this corridor are mostly. outdated and under-utilized, the Sec- ond Street corridor presents an opportunity to bring new uses and new architecture to. downtown Rifle and to create a unique, urban district that adds to the vibrancy of the existing downtown and entire community. CIS' r•(i F, l,S)'.� .,bC. 13 ', DDSP:4'iOW?3 ENTAY MAIN RLELAJNIc rttvc} H a r4\A 6 wr 1)4)0.. E.urFiirrr..C.NI¢.r+` 01 ) r�rwen�Nw- '.or.votn�.ft:Y ��Aiii t,_ I'M?! fc'vY:,ri [3i. r.ra,'tu,�e4 Yn[v it-f.r krt7 torn h7nsiK CRfC.K.IN1tRJrnncz _ DOWNTOWN ENTRY;CONT'n TIMING, Redevelopment in the. downtown can begin today, the Mixed Use Enter- tainment District and the Creekside Neighborhood are currently unde- rutilized and this presents an opportunity to begin redevelopment and add to the vibrancy of the existing downtown • The. City supports the adoption and upholding of a. Design Re- . iew. Ordinance. (see. appendix) The City will encourage a mix of condominiums, apartments, and office space above ground Floor commercial. Historic buildings will be, protected and preserved. • Highway 6 / 24 should become an urban street, and the south side of Highway 6124 (the Rifle Depot) should relate to down town -to the extent possible: The City will attempt to construct all new municipal buildings to a minimum of LEED silver development standards: Maximize view sheds of the Colorado River,, the Rocky, Mountains and Rifle,Creek, for existing and future development. — Building heights will gradually increase with distance from the . historic downtown, peaking at a maximum of eight stories in the Creekside Neighborhood., RIFLE DOWNTOWN • Di.tricrs Master Pian LrvucNu 1,0l;»k1 m.� 14 ACTIONS: Make entryway improvements to the Downtown Gateway from m one of. the two options provided Adopt design review guidelines. Adopt a design review ordinance Establish design review board: Update .development review processes to reflect requirements, of design review. Update the.development review process in the Downtown Entry toinclude athree-dimensional model to review. of any proposed'': development to ensure protection of view sheds,.and consis tency. Nti F'.'101,; Gt�hts C�RIFr.i1L'E LtNDU r RAP. 1L.:.•lNl Cl. LA.. POLICIES .• N'FRO1) UC'11OC' 1DOWNTOWN ENTRY -11(T-tWA' ( CORRIDOR RIbLE CENTER & a'uS1,,\tN:17;Sk Cri'y C71=Exnt'totvS :CoLORAp .RIVERAREA, r'litic:' CRCs OPERATIONS TIONS AND' RECREATION Mik•MM' C•RF•FiC INTERCHANGE For planning and descriptive purposes, the Main Rifle. Interchangeis the area between interstate 7C and the Colorado River from 200 feet east of Highway 13 to the Subarea Boundary west of Highway l 3.' Create an attractive "natural° landscaped gateway.... Improve the image of Rifle as viewed from the, Interstate. He define the entrance to Rifle with landmark structure or .. . feature:' Protect critical riparian areas and floodplains. Encourage and improve recreational opportunities, Connect downtown to the recreational opportunities in the Exit 90 area. - Encourage high quality lodging'and regional destination oppor- tunities.' OBJECTIVES Reduce traffic congestion. Building character,, i.e. architecture and site design of gas stations, franchise locations, must be unique to Rifle. Increase medium to high-density housing opportunities with a' low-cost workforce -housing. component.• Connect Colorado River Trail to Downtown Rifle. Orient buildings to highway frontage and the Colorado River, LAID USE The main Rifle interchangeis to becomean attractive gateway into Down- town Rifle. The City will emphasize the development of lodging and recreation -oriented commercial on buildable land between Interstate 70 and the Colorado River. Medium to high density residential and office ses may be intermixed when "appropriate. Quality design will be a key, component of development approval. A kayak park will be developed north of this commercial area, The .ap- propriate location has yet to be determined, but it should be located near the historic CR 320 Bridge. A large portion of this area will remain open space No development will occur on the northeast corner of Interstate 70 and Highway 13. 'This area is owned by the Colorado Department of Trans- portation and will be maintained as a rip anan area The area east of High- way -13 between the Interchange and Downtown will retrain open space. 1YBAFFIC AND CIRCULATION Currently, congestion is occurring at the westbound off -ramp of interstate 70and the Main. Rifle Interchange Highway 13 also connectsdowntown rifle to Rifle south of Interstate 70. At the interchange, there are multiple intersections in close. proximity. Roundabouts are under construction on the south side of the interchange;. one serves east bound 170 and. the oth- er serves Airport Rd. Currently funding does not exist to.build a round- about to serve westbound 1-70 and the rest area. This will be constructed when funding becomes available. The roundabouts will not only improve traffic flows, but will be generously landscaped and incorporate public art installations. This is a time -proven way in which to upgrade the entrance to a community. Many similar examples of aesthetic improvements can be found throughout the 1-70 corridor.` The CDOT rest area will remain. Along the old alignment of CR 320, a trail willconnect the recreation area to the Downtown. Adjacent to the trail's river crossing, the City will developa kayak park. The Colorado River Trail. will connectunder the Highway 13. Bridge and continue fol- lowing the Colorado River to the east and west. The Aspen Valley Land Trust is attempting to gain control of a large.island in the area. The City will connectthis island to the City's urban trail net- work and the Colorado River trail. To the east of the lodging/commercial • development, will be medium to high-density residential development. The residential development will be oriented towards the river and take advantage of open space. This area will provide both community and workforce housing taking advantage of close proximity to the highway and open space. 15 T]cw 11WN.r~, J I LY, !IAcn IC.ri.f TNZrRr i .vu. rii: f1L1E1tibn (i �.n1:it1r!c .4 cr.CrivO i,annYti. 1?e1xir Y","�ii,� C�rrr-�;.ni.�s �,rn RrcuFn10 ,R�d Gi,Ft Ckt:.E., MAIN RIFLE.IN.TBRCBANGE; CONT'O 7.77 'i auY oura3 16 esi,n nt • POLICIES Require a "front door" level of design quality for all develop Ment. -- Building character -1 earchitecture and site design of gas stations,•' franchise locations, must be unique to Rifle. Orient residential development toward the River/Open Space. The Citywill require that all development is screened and/or buffered from the highway. Protect riparian. habitat on east side of Highway 13 between . H I ghway 6 and l -7p - Encourage commercial development surrounding the inter-, change to be lodging or recreation oriented commercial. Encourage lodging. ACTIONS, .Create a'kayak park in close prnxlmlty to where old CR 320 bridge crosses the Colorado River. -- Improve the I-70 off ramp, COOT rest area — Downtown: Trans- portation infrastructure. Commission graphic artist or signage consultant to confirm gateway signage locations, develop design concepts, and cost estimates, —GOALS ILMI) I.1,4 rIM.EFIC AND CII C_.tILATION PO IC1ES AC .r TRCO?7UCTI ON. .LO44NTOWNf 1 N'I'RY MAIN RIFLEINJERCI-HANGS EAST RIFLE CENTER Si SUSTAINABLE CITY Cil'ERATIONS COLOAAI:(7'RIVER 'J1-\. PUBLIC WO KS OPlMTlnNs RECREATION CREC.K.I I"tERCIIANCE For planning and descriptive purposes, the Highway 6 Corridor is the: area surrounding Highway 6 from the eastern edge of the subarea, until Highway 6 enters Downtown Rifle. Go.S Preserve rural feel of the I-ighway 6 entrywayinto town. Discouragetypical strip -commercial development, .r Encourage cluster development. LA/q1). -USE Future: development along the Highway 6 corridor should preserve or: create a rural appearance. Appropriate development will be encour- aged, but must convey the presence of open space. To ensure that this isthe case, the subarea includes the area 240 feet north of.the Highway 6 right-of-way. In.the future, typical strip, commercial will be discouraged. Commercial development should be set back and screened from the road. Clustering development will be encouraged to preserve open spaces betweende- velopment nodes;: Parking will be located behind the building or hidden via a berm. The cluttered character of current industrial storage facilities will be discouraged. •.DO "COWN FvrEzv • H.I.Lifiwv (i 0-11:14.11:)(71; • ,hls[NRui•e,T\rr clz.ti.v e EVA[ R [E LE• rr:EtEr5csi,iN;tii CEEvt)EE[,aEx\v+ Err[Ec:1ti:,Ec UrEE:,r;EE. s;s.NE.rtc,r.t:i;, 5t.rt+ihtCi..ek.;T Er[u-1EA C4 HIGHWAY 6 CORRIDOR. CONT'I 18 TRAFFIC AND :.CIRCULATION- • Currently, the highway serves as a connection between Rifle and Silt. • Increasingly, trucks are using the highway; In 2006, the highway had over • 5,600 vehicle trips per day. Access points should be .consolidated where possible: POLICIES Large.setbecks (100 ft or greater) accompanied by naturally land • scap.ed berms are required. to shielcl development from highway travel. Consolidate access points to reduce potential conflicts Cluster:development will be encouraged:in order to reduce the appearan.ce,ofone long strip of retail. Discourage disorderly industrial storage facilities: ACTIONS Through a City/County intra -governmental agreement, create an overlay to ensure proper setbacks/buffering in the Highway 6 corridor until such time that the City annexes the corridor, G aiLs LAND. 1_Jyj. 71-RANs1,L)R" i l"[ )N SOLAR AND C,.t1'X. ()Pt IzArION,S PL�LK IFS iii"'17u�n,w INTRODUCTION... IJOWN7"O? ' 1 N-rTtvi MAIN Ru=i>: IN I E8,0l'.\s }Lail \ 6 CO)RR] xott CULOl l.t)C) B.IVEIL AtcEA, ..£'UBLIC.: VV[1RK.5 OriIRA 't(7.NS.t\ND 14,11CRtfVI'l(:iN .JAUl M CRtl:K INr.ERC HAN.OE Nigh Density Raidentie Recall - - aFxn Swce iftaff IndnSiria4 Graham Mesa, Mile Pond Road, Peterson Lane and: the Colorado River bound the East Rifle Center and:5ustainable City Operations. Gabu,S Improve and create a mixed-use center that provides both jobs and housing. —' rovide regional.retail. Improve the appearance of,city-owned parcels... Increase renewable and distributed energy. systems. Create vibrant commercial nodes. • Create an. attractive gateway: LD USE Current uses in this area include a. manufactured home park, a storage business and various industrial and agricultural uses.; Some County Ag- riculturalllndustnal zones in the subarea are utilized as industrial storage facilities. This area will retain its residential and industrial uses but add a regional retail center. Where appropriate, the City would like to see these uses transition into compact and screened industrial uses. In an effort to minimize hillside excavation, the escarpment adjacent to Mile Pond Road will remain open space and will have a maintained trail. In the future, East Rifle Center will become a regional retail center near the highway, effectively replacing the current junkyardand trailer park, sewage plant A high-density residential area between the retail area and the open space on the escarpment to the north will replace the trailer park: Affordable housing will be a component of any redevelopment. Mixed-use light industrial/business parks uses cap the retail and residen- tial areas on the east and west. industrial and business uses at this.loca- tion allow truck access to major roads without creating additional conges- tionin the City. The East Rifle Center will serve as a job hub keeping jobs and their related benefits within the City. Asa mixed-use center with . jobs. and retail within walking distance of residential uses,: the East Rifle Center wilt encourage a healthy and sustainable community. 19 DoLv N:r.h;1WN ENTRY. M1CsrN1t�1,rYTNrt c.i..lNC H rc 11-SVA45, 6 CORT,-. oua Esv1 R1i=1i �.rNrf']t,MTSN4i [ 1'i 1 (11 OFTALA C°e,iknitnn i'1111 F"cr {)tr1 rk,Ns R€<€tr::gru)N II,n�arCarr: Tv1cRE:rfancr EAST RIFLE CENTER & SUSTAINABLE .CIT OPERATIONS, CONT'L 8 7 - PRCL€MINARY MOO, C LAYOUT I.;l:f ?4 :,;Y.r.l<. Fr-16.L��-u; A trail will connect the open space on Graham Mesa with the Colorado River through the City's land. TRANSPORTATION A regular network of roads will tie into existing road sections and provide interconnected circulation patterns throughout the area. Development will focus around this network of walkable streets. SOLAR &•CEFY.OPERATIONS Across from the East Rifle Center, the City owns a large parcel. Itis cur- rently constructing a 600 -Kilowatt solar array on that land, The array is scheduled :for_completion in the fall of 2008 and will power the City's water intake pumps. The. City also,plans to. build a water.treatment plant •at this location. The water treatment plant and the solar array should be screened from Highway 6 in order to maintain Its rural character. Part of the property is currently a non-remediated gravel pit, which the City relies onfor water intake. This is cntical resource, any development. or remediation must protect this facility. Due to potential evapotranspira- ' tion, the City plans on using nprap around this gravel pit: — Redevelopment. of the East Rifle Center will.depend on the con- struction of the I-70 highway 6 connection; .and Redevelopment of the City,Parcels may occur at any time de- pending on City needs for water and recreation: POLICI S Any redevelopment in the East Rifle Center will occur along a gridded street network. 6efore.the City annexes the East Rtfle Center, the, City supports increasing screeningrequirernents to reducevisual.clutter. ACTIONS The. City should develop a proposed street network for the East Rifle Center... t�cn,�tti DESCPlI Li1N V1rc»ii.5 011., 11Jt�\S thr Rki_ EAFION POl,1,C'iFy NTRODU,C1iO,N IDOWNTOWN ENTR' MAIN RIFLE NT LIZC.FfAN(.,E 1 1(1E- <r�v. 6 Cc�RRrnnn E,\,s•rRIFLE CENTFB ter SUST IN,'BIE CITY OPERATIONS AILAMM. CREEK INI-iRCIJA.N(.4 For planning and descriptive purposes the Colorado River area is de- fined as the area between Highway 6 and Interstate 70 bounded by • Highway 13 to the west and the: subarea boundary to the east. GOALS mp)ove the appearance of City -owned parcels. Protect river: corridor. -- _ Protect floodplains and preserve floodways. • Protect wildlife habitat and riparian systems, Improve recreational opportunities, access to river. DES cRTION The Area between Highway 6 and Interstate 70 will remain rural in char- acter. Low intensity land uses (i.e. rural residential) will be permitted. The City would like to see the Colorado River trail span the entire subarea. Most' of the area will remain open space with agricultural uses being de- velopable at 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres. If increased density is desired, clustering development t an option. As the railroad separates a large portion of this area from Highway 6, de- velopment between the railroad and the Colorado River is unlikely until, the Highway 6.Interstate 70 connection is completed. at preserves S acres of open space per unit is P UBLIC WORKS OPRRA.TIONS AND C -. ATION The City owns a parcel along the river located along.Highway6 between nowntown.and the East Rifle Center. It currently houses a public works maintenance yard, the City. Recycling Center and associated buildi•ngs. As • •• •the main entrance to town,. the, site must be well kept and any outdoor storage should be screened.' • Public Works only uses a porkion of the property. The unused.portion is ideal.fora lighted sports complex as it is does not affect a residential area.: This cannot occur:untl1 the Department of Energy concludes research as- sociated with ground water rernediation.: 2 DOWN ri]4YN- EN CRY ▪ Iaa�R-3.irR i 4;r HILL WA 6.( iii!ioif'' 4`c,3cstloq Rpt .it Ai ��i l?iin�ic. W �u ()33.�=.5'rrr w -'i , Ric 1ie;ci1,3.N1 • Ehs3 Tt ri C 3 ri7t,ii;_ � S33. 3A31‘1,u i E Cr()3 r.RATIONS �4sa 4t Ca�:b.t iu i act -1 s, CoLORA_Do RIVER AREA PUBLIC WORKS: OPERATIONS AND RECREATION, CONT.'D POLICIES Any development in the Colorado River area will consider the future Colorado River Trail net -or -wax, Development will bevery low density. Clustering development -will be encouragedto preserve open spaces. ACTIONS The City will construct a sports complex adjacent to the Public Works Building. 2 • G. au I,ANDUsE;: Fr<AN`,1 (..-)Rri ["ION T.€r\ALNG INTROI)11C-€ON.--= DOWNTOWN EN .2.I ;N Ri>:r.s INr Rct .. GE• j.tC.lkiwAy iY CORRIL30 Z{15TRti:i,e.Cr,-N-aER& Stl:gAI. 7ABLE Cil Op RA iON,S C'gt.ORAno RtrrERAREA..PT?B. We ntts: Or.ERr r€ONS atv1) BJECREN.FIOry The Mamm Creek interchange is defined by drainages and a potential' connection north over the rive to State highway 6. (uQALS Develop highway commercial, uses a•nd •provide tax coll•ection for • the City oFRifle. Restrict,developmentto maintain urban containment. • Protect the river corridor, protect the floodway and preserve the floodplain. Increase recreational opportunities. Improving citywide circulation by creating an alternative entry- way into Rifle. LAND USE Due to the presenceof the interchange: and; the impending airport expansion, this area is likely to experience considerable development pressure. Currently, the area lacks utilities. As the City wants to avoid leapfrog development, the area will remain primarily agricultural..A small - amount of highway commercial development will be encouraged on the north side of the interchange. As the road connecting between the in • - terchange and Highway 6 develops, the area oF commercial development will expand, but the: commercial.,character-will remain the same. The thiamin Creek interchange is another gateway welcoming Inter- state -70 westbound travelers into Rifle. As the airport expands,. the Mamm Creek interchange will get an aesthetic upgrade. Rifle will capital- ize ori outstanding views of the Roan Plateau: and. create "gateway" entry signage inassociation with aesthetic bridge upgrades at the Mamm. Creek Interchange.These improvements will create anew image and positive visitor impressions. This highly visible bridge is a real opportunity to cre- ate' 'a re-ate''a great first impression" of Rifle to westbound I-70.travelers. Devel- opment in the area should be screened from the highway. ' TRANS P ORTATI ON A proposed road will connect the interchange with Highway 6. Due to a steep grade drop-off at thenorth side of the interchange and a Colorado River crossing, a bridge of significant size will be required to span this stretch. This was identified in the:2003 Rifle Transportation Plan as the singular highest transportation priority. The cost was identified at 25 million dollars, excluding land acquisition, requiring state and federal support before it canbe constructed. ".' The importance of a road connection between the. Mamm Creek Inter- change and Highway 6 is twofold 1 it can provide welcomed relief to Highway 13 (Railroad Avenue) for eastbound travelers, and 2, it opens up the north side of the Marnm Creek Intercha development; increasing the tax base of the city ge to.,'. The areas' proximity to the river and development restrictions together. suggests that this area may be ideal for recreational opportunities. A trail will connect south of interstate 70 via the drainage just north of the interchange; the trail will connect to the commercial area and follow the drainage north to the river. 'When the I-70/Highway 6 connection is con- . strutted; the trail will joint with the road, cross the river and join the Colo- rado River Trail. Tie point where the trail and the road cross the river is an ideal area for fishing, general river access and associated parking. TIMING G In the near term, the area will have a small amount of commercial to serve the Interstate and Airport traffic. City sewer will not be extended; so all development will be dependent on septic. 2 As the population of Rifle increases and a road is needed to connect the 1-70 interchange north to Highway 6, the highway commercial designation may be expanded. Highway commercial Mayexpand west across the area's north -south drainage and to. the east side of the new road north. 23'_ ,1)(lwN I',1ll'N FN I'I(Y MJ EN 1LCI,2 fN'rrRc LALVt;k Hl�.urri'.11''6 1..i/miclnett 1`4rr Til(rr [I�?&rir S{SE,l(,_ INAPEI C ..)IIld11()y4 L'.[1i,47 fL117C� F.14 jk A ltr.t; i11.IR11c: C.11 ()I L1:2?,I0Ny 4Nr? fiF( 41:.)T1UN .. t4S135�11CILI�t.�\lh}1C11itRl:r zgo "i�;uie 32;1. Ic Wei�m r:eI POLICIES The: City wilt not extend sewer and water to this area until contig- uous development reaches the area and it will not be considered leapfrog development. — - Development in the area should be screened from the highway" The Mamm Creek development will be limited by septic capacity until contiguous development brings sewer and water,' The agricultural area north of the river should remain very law - density residential development. 24 Coil'r • Ac1itic-it IDCzvNTowN 11,1).uN RIFLE INTERC}1hNC3E C,srtr�c7ct EAST RFFLE CEN°J'i t: & Suv:rArtvraxi,> CITY (.)PF.RA IONS Cc)J;c'J Avci RIVER lRLA, I t lilJc.4�'c)i OPERA ANI) RECRE-d Ii. NLr\rrtnt,.CREEK INTE'RC t NCE CQNTRICULTLIISITYI The county zoning designation in and around the subarea permits 1 -unit per 2 acres. 'this contradicts current and future City goals. It Is a goal of the City of Rifleto focus growth inward and keep the area surrounding the. City, including this agricultural zoning, ata much lower density. Spe- cifically, the City encourages the area north of Highway 6 to be devel- oped at 1 unit per 20 acres. This will encourage development within the City and preserve a rural -Peel between communthes. Policies 1. The City encourages the area north of Highway 6 to be devel- oped at 1 unit per 2D acres. COUNTY AGRICULTURAL/INDLTSTL U, L ZON- Ii51 Throughout the subarea, the County's agrrculturallindusirial zone is uti- lized as industrial for unsanctioned equipment storage facilities. Gener- ally; these Facilities give visitors a disorderly image of the City. To improve the City's image, these areas should be screened from viewsheds. Policies 1„ The City will discourage disorderly industrial storage facilities. PLO oDDPLAIN/ILOOfl AYiJEVEL.O1 flNT Much of the, area is in the floodplain, While it possible to develop in the floodplain using fill, if done haphazardly, this process can increase flood hazard downstream. The City will preserve the floodway and pro- tect the floodplain. Policies: 1. Development will not be permitted in the Foodway. 2. The City of Rifle will enforce its adopted floodplain regulations and encourage property owners to comply with stateand fed eral floodplain: regulations. r n J J 1 • L The City recognizes the need to minimize losses, both public and private, from flooding and erosion, and the.natural and fiscal benefits of preserving natural floodplain to convey floodwaters.:. The City's policy is to discourage any develeprnentwithin the 100 -year floodplain, Exceptions can be made for uses compat- ible with periodicflooding, such as trail systems, golf courses, t7ntvN rZst�N FN vtvr T-fr a-ns�ni 6 C orqu;s,r, MAIN 4 ElssRttEECr.Nr¢:c,,C Sllsr\EN:ij$1, CEsvCiErrarcclNs6 (_'.OLotc\np-R!�rEiAx :c;i v n.I. h-1 ai ev Cr.€r.tiTrti'ztv:fEn,nr.r: 44c -r r..E)rFrATI NNANL, OTHER SUBAREA IMPLICATIONS, CONT'J and other public or private uses tha • of floodwaters. will permit the free passage: GR vEL: MINI DARDS Goals Development should beset back at least 50 feet from .top of canals, irrigation ditch banks and from the mean high water line of water bodies, both natural and man-made,. to maintain natural • buffers. • The City. encourages preservation of natural washes, streams and. • rivers, and discourages the channelization of.natural drainage ways. 6 Much of this area is within Rifle's watershed, which requires all development be done in compliance with Rifle's Watershed Development Ordinance. • Floodplain Actions:' 1. Developers shall be required, in the subdivision development process, to provide accurate FEMA floodplain data as it pertains to the development. 'The City's Planning Department shall review current submittals to evaluate the appropriate timing in the plan- ning process that this data will be required. G AND RECLAYLATION. TAN" - Mitigate negative impacts during and after mineral extraction, Minimize and eliminate the negative visual and operational ef- fects of mining on the gateways and biological systems. Encourage land uses that recognize the environmental sensitivity; of the land. Protect watersheds and floodplains. It is the intent of the City to minimize the impact of any mining on the environment and surrounding. Rife gateways. E 1 s Cird,,,:,irri 26 F _ur i rl.;r:,:rr oC.?IcS. . rc1�F ECrisr.:',ar ci,(iefr.:SCUrC,f n o nC ,il E i.,„E ',I f rC^‘...,E.::,.;o Policies 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 &. Regu-. lations Regarding Gravel Extraction Operations." The County's proposed regulations outline a regulatory frame- work 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. crush- ing, asphalt processing or concrete operations between Mamm Creek and Exit 90. EXPLANATION Permitted rand and gravel operation Historic sand end gravel apt -rattan er borrow pis Sample isnaslion and number Reseal reel Category 1 - high Potential Category 2 - Goad Poteetiat Category 3 - Moderate- Potential Cntegory 4 - Low Potential Resource averiasin by more limn 5 it of loess (wind-blown silt) T?.n vmoSv'N EN I!47 I h[iIN R7rr,F Thr7Rc7 A.\.Sr Hl tla5yn5 G. Om:UPluu r rRvrlC7,NE ..SGNTALNAp.I.E. Cc,y)Mna Rr I AKr:e;.1 71.1.1[(-ii'nl L?vr�;,ti'rl ,,ns 3yEx.Kl l ,e�.crw.y: RECREATION AN THS COLORADO RIVER TRAIL A centerpiece of the subarea is the Colorado River. Due to hazards, gravel mining reclamation and. associated development restrictions, the area has many recreational opportunities:, Policies . The .City 'ail] encourage the completion of the Colorado River trail in its planning area, East Gateway Subarea-'Recreatio: Opportunities RIPARIAN HABITAT An. analysis of the effects on riparian habitat ment.in the. Subarea. - s necessary for any develop-'. TRANSPOR1A[ION CENTER Currently, the Subarea. contains a Park -and -Ride, We suggest moving this Park -and -Ride southto make room for an entry feature, i.e. roundabout of some type; This will encourage the urban fabric to develop around the entry feature., A pull -off near the gateway area will retain the Park - and -Ride function and enable the seamless transition into a moredevel- oped transportation center. Eventually, this transportation center will link the Park-and-Rtde .to the railroad as it enters into Downtown Rdle.. 7 A `.E AMA' .1�.r�rtr.1 :'JNti.r" E',L?.[sic, S1"ANL)t,s ID64vri1(_-)1,A11,1 ENra? LI tAtN J . r• i F IN rl i c'r IANC J LJG.[Pvxlk 6 1..ur.liiL)c1R E.45 '. itn-ti CENTER, &,,SusJAIN/NEL Clt' 0I.ICATIONSi COI:O1 .\I ) R1d'ettl tu';. PUBI,rC We.)t:,s; OPE itx€k)N'AND .IdCR.EArLON 11i., 1A. CREEK 1NTFRCtsANGF the p 0 c sasiet gwph ca sh e 0 f th eg Ppa tti iibeTa n re � ems. -E eway Proces for SF rf-4.i E h'.f!l APPENDIX A'- EARLY PUS SIC INPUT: FUTURE LAND USE AND THE :COM- PR1HENSTV1:PI-AN ,.UPDATE .During the Subarea planning process,. the City was updating its Compre- • hensive Plan. In the process, the City developeda draft.lar d use plan: While...-. the plan was not thoroughly reviewed, it was useful as a starting point for the ...East Gateway Subarea Plan. URBAN GoNT.A.1NM3 N T Aran JURISDTcal N Much of the Subarea falls outsideof the City's current boundary and proposed future annexation areas (urban growth tiersin Figure 2), but within the 3 -mile Area of Influence. The downtownportlon of the Subarea falls in the proposed Downtown Advisory Board boundary, the area proposed for review by a Design Advisory Board.;. The draft comprehensive plan employed a growth tiers approach to city expansian..Growth tiers helped ensure that new growth happens in a planned and logically sequenced. manner. The western portionof the Subarea is part of Rifle's downtown, In general, development will be encouraged downtown first and then eastward Urban Containment - Tier. 1: Priority Growth Area (2006 . 2015) Urban Containment-- Tier 2: Secondary Growth. Area (2016 2025) Urban Containmen' serve.(2026-2D40)' Tier Text Description Tier.1 Tier 3: Rural Preservation /Planning Re Traffic improvemer is at.Exit 9i] were implemented.to reduce, congestion from i-70, These improvements increased traffic flow from Downtown to the City south of the Interstate.' Prop. • sedDesign Advrotr H a xnfiii"aundary ur, 4I)E Nan i n ec. .n6Ivr,p,psvN5N1 aY i1Y1f lZuir•3Nrrc< fF3.N 5. 1"11, iI mA} 6 rx7 . 4 EArc A:f ] Cry KJ, g 4iiti aiN.tuf L 71' 0p1,101 uiNs Cz,7.rK,r)fsHivrR•Aeci_i�.I.iTh1.Ic c=� OiruxK -Ncttrrur.tn��N`:: q .'b3.lwstntG [:[kl�z r.�c.ri;tinr �._. OTHER SUBAREA`. IMPLICATIONS, CONT'D I' The Cityfocused on downtown, Tier2 Tier ating a pedestrian friendly, attractive Aregional commerciall.and light Industrial center develops at the'; Mamm Creek Interchange. �`. As, traffic flow increases and an alternative: entryway. into the City• .: are needed, the Highway 6 — Interstate. 70 connectionis built Finally, in tier three, thesecond commercial node, the East Rifle .industrial Area was expanded. ,Transportation improvements recommended for.the subarea include: A connector between Interstate 70 and Highway 6 at the Mama Creek:Interchange; Roundabouts at Exit 90 and the. Downtown Gateway; And agridded street networkat.the East Rifle Business! Indus- trial Park. • Tier 1 transportation improvements include trail improvements:that connect Exit 90 to the downtown and to the Colorado River Trail and intersection improvements at Exit 90 and the Downtown Gateway. Next., ,, during tier two, the I70/Highway 6 connection road and associated trail will be constructed near the Mamm Creek Interchange.. Trails connect the Main Interchangeand downtown at the old highway 13 -river and .rail- road crossings and from highwaysix up the escarpment behind the East Rifle Industrial Center. In Tier 3, the East Rifle Industrial Area will contain a network. of griddedd street, planned and implemented during redevel- opment..The Colorado River Trail becomes fully develop through the subarea, another. southern connection leads under 1-70 at the underpass on the west boundary of the airport. ip 1L 3 ri�Mr1 ( ,kn'G..• • 9 Q E _ �I WN1i1VN FN`rsY M.. w (FL IarrkclIAN F 1'lE �r15'4r41 1 nun,: x. T.'.�ti'rR:iiC�NIu @Gsa,[N s i C'i n i f.'1.> ."sEncas. C.01,i,[cux, Hrti nARE', vl.rsj,e Cn.rcrhrurrru-ku1nr;i APP.ENDIX;B --DESIGN STANDARDS.. CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT DESIGN AD "VIS ORY BOARD (CB3DD ) Note:'this section includes in depth recommendations for constructing Boardand establishing Guidelines and recommended guidelines for (Architecture, Landscape, Signage and lighting) The following central business district design guidelines for architecture,': landscaping, signage, and lighting could form the basis far and evolve into a formal design guideline ordinance. u GUIDELINES The intent of the key architectural guideline principals is to ensure a base level of quality architecture and encourage proposals that will fit within and contribute to the established western architectural context of Rifle. Rifle should attempt to revitalize existing buildings that are inconsistent, with the Town's rustic western.style,, Establishing a facade grant program through the town of up to S 1,000 and paint grants. of 5100 can induce owners to improvetheir buildings A low-interest loan pool by a con- sortium of Garfield County banks an be even a greater incentive than free money (from grants). Local [regional architects can be recruited to provide design assistance. Key architectural design guideline principals include:: i'-,— Facade materials and. treatment r",— All sides of a building should express consistent architectural detail and character Building entrances should be designed to be visually prominent with distinguishing facade variations, recesses, projections, or" other integral building forms, . Consist of durable, long lasting materials that will keep if s ap- pearance over time, Building frontages should .exhibrthuman scale detailing on the ground floors, Use reveals, projections, and other subtle changes in texture and color of wall surfaces. Building colors should emphasize natural, muted earth tones. Windows" 50% of the facade that faces the street should be composed of transparent materials- to the extentpossible that ,tis compatible with the proposed use, Should be deep set and utilize mullions, Should be well lit to facilitate a,positive merchandising environ - meat, Should incorporate clear glass on storefronts, windows and doors. Highly reflective or mirrored glass should not be allowed. Roofs Use of "false. fronts" [ parapets on commercial buildings in the central business district is encouraged to screen flat roofs. False frontsshould be designed to screen mechanical and HVAC equipment from the street level. Flat roofs, if utilized, shall be designed to accommodate maxi,- mum snow loading conditions. —• -Infill / building additions in the central business district When anew use (infill)/ addition is proposed to,an existing commercial development the newly constructed portion of the building should appear as an originally conceived part of the design. The new additions should match the scale and reflect the: proportions of the anginal structure where they adjoin or are adjacent. New construction of a different height and bulk, than that of the original structure, should not occur abruptly. New additionsshould match the existing approved architecture of the existing central business district. The extension of canopy elements, lighting, boardwalks, planting areas,. fenestration (win- dow) patterns, structural rhythms, and use of materials should exhibit e seamless transition betweenexisting and new construc- tion. Large setbacks from the street night -of -ways should be ducour aged for new building construction. New construction should not incorporate precise replication of existing City architecture but utilize similar colors, materials, textures, pattern repetition, rhythm and proportions.to achieve architectural unity. Architectural GuidelineActtWsS The City should consider the costs / benefits of establishing an ordinance to proactively facilitate storefront rehabilitations - such as a 25% rebate of project costs to correct building code - violations. City Manager to explore the recruitment of local banks/ financial institutions to create a low-interest loan pool for business facade improvements. The City should consider the costs / benefits of recruiting (local) architectsldesigners.to provide free design /technical assistance to local businesses to facilitate quality (re)development. Landscape Development Standards The city will benefit from the adoption of,a robust package of landscape. development standards. The intent of such standards is to preserve Rifle's special character, and integrate andenhance rlew development by pro- moting quality landscape design that: -- Reinforces' the identity of the community and each neighbor- hood, Provides tree -lined streets inurban areas, • Dimly}71v' .NFIw 1vIN ktrLrtv'raucl� 101 6 t„,_Sgt. n( is EiY1 RSI C_Iurii;GSiAI.5rNARIi C`In'O rl.krrk�.�s C,i r;v ono k v :LAKtA,.l nxlu"-4S''�;I Qri,i.�; it ns ,5v;a I�i,c ,u crni ,• Anchors new buildings in the landscape, Provides shade from tree coverage in paved and hardscape areas, and • s:.environmentally sound by preserving existing trees, using water conservation techniques, planting native species (when appropriate), and enhances valuable habitat: The city should establish landscape development standards that are tied to the development application process. Submittal standards for land- scape plans should be established at the following development stages a. Sketch Plan, :. b Preliminary Plat / PUD, Final Plat 1 PUD, • d. Conditional Use Review,"and e. Site Plan • A combination of Conceptual, Preliminary and Final Landscape Plan submittal requirements should be created for each of the development stages listed above_All development applications should be accompa- nied by an appropriate landscape plan. Building permit applications for individual single-family residences would not require landscape plans. . However,: all landscaping within the communit•y should comply with the • intent of these regulations A series of general categoriesfor inclusion m the landscape development standards follow. Street trees, Site landscape design, Environmental considerations, New buildings and paved areas, Plant materials, SI_ 1;eY.C'5. Irrigation, Guarantee of installation, and Maintenance Additionally, two key sections for inclusion in the landscape development standards follow: . 1: Landscaping Design Standards a. Landscaping within right-of-ways and required common open space;, b.. Small lot single-family residential landscaping standards, • c. Multi -family and mixed use landscaping standards, d. Large lot single-family landscaping standards, e. . Business 1 Commercial and Industrial development land- scaping standards, , f. ':- Interstate 70 and State Highway (6)13 and 24) corridor land- scaping standards, , g. Central Business District landscaping standards, and • h; Parking lot landscaping standards. Storm Drainage Facilities a. The intent of these standards is to promote Innovative and effective land and water management techniques that pro-. tett and enhance water quality. Landscape Devetopni ent Standards Policies: 1'. The City supports the establishment of landscape development • standards for universal application. Landscape Deve; ohm ent.Staa}dar-dsActions 2 City planner to engage landscape architect/ planning firm to cre- ate unique and enforceable landscape development standards .for the City of Rifle.f• Commercial signage plans should reflect a balance between allowing adequate signage to conduct a business while adding to,the overall:.. design. theme and protecting the visual aesthetic of Rifle's central business • district. Itis recommended that the signage throughout Rifle be of a rustic west- ern style, building on the City's thematic architecture. The signs should utilizenative materials as much as possibleincluding wood, stones and incorporate natural / earth -tone colors. Signage should be consistent: throughout the City and should tie the business district together. City Funded signage could set a precedent and designate specific landmarks within the City (such as for City Buildings). City initiated signage should be of same forms and materials as those signs proposed for the central . business district entries. Key Signage design guideline principals include:.. Central business district signage All signage should be architecturally,integrated into their sur- roundings in terms of shape,size,.color, texture, and lighting so that they do not visually cornpete with the architecture of the building and design of the site. Signs should be integrated as. such they become a natural part of the building facade. Signs shall be constructed of durable, high quality architectural materials. Treated wood, stone, brick and stucco, are the pre- ferred materials for. signs. Select colors carefully. Sign colors shall compliment the colors used on the building and the project as a whole. Colors or com-. binations of colors that are: harsh and disrupt the visual harmony ', .fc wN'rr)ivN FNr€cv .. MAIN lir, i,i; Tarr c'r ANC.".c.•..' H .ct;€aw,wG C_omei)erx F .rr'Tt!E rr�I F:r1&S v lN. pFi illi 01Et Zi I[}-Vti Cr�u)i nrr<, R sElk AKE_A;I izh€€C'..1�'cn C)rrrsn nti t•!;> r:€�cvr�c3h -i'.ti rl,F4,t CP].t.t, I'.n ACI1114 - , and order of the street are unacceptable. — Use contrasting colors. Provide a substantial contrast between the .color and the material of the. background and the letters or. symbols to make the sign easier to read during the day and night. Light letters on a dark backgroundor dark letters on a light back - round are most legible: Businessidentity, either by accent bands, paint or ether applied.. color schemes, signage, parapet detailing, decorative roof details or materials should not be the dominant architectural feature of abuild€ng. Accent colors should be used judiciously. - New construction design should anticipate: signage. Designs should provide logical sign areas, allowing flexibility for new us- ers; as the building is re -used over time. Signs should be installed' at similar heights to create a unified sign band, should not obscure architectural detailing and should use a. combination of awnings,: wall. and projecting signs for visual inter - , est, Locate wall signs at the first floor level only for retail uses. -- Pedestrian oriented sign are encouraged. These signs are de- signed for and directed toward pedestnans so they can easily and comfortably read the sign as they stand adjacent of the bus]- , Hess Projecting signs (any sign supported by a building wall and projecting there from at feast twelve (12) inches or more hori- zontally beyond the surface of the building to which the sign is attached) should be located so they generally align with others in the block. Projecting sigris must have eight (8) feet clearance, and may not extend mare than four (4).feet from the building wall. The size of projecting signs is limited to three (3) feet wide and; :.. six (6) square feet. The number of projecting signs is limited to one per business. Flashing rotating, blinking, chasing or moving signs (except for time and temperature), animated signs, searchlights, inflatable freestanding signs, tethered balloons or. signs that create the illu sion of movement should be prohibited. Signage illumination Use illuminationonly if necessary Sign illumination shall complement, not overpower, the overall composition of the site. — , Use.a direct light source. All lighted signs shall have their lighting directed in such a manner as to illuminate. only theface of the sign. When external light sources are directed at the sign surface, the light source must be concealed from pedestrians: and motor- ists' of site The use of individually, cut', backlit letter Signs is encouraged. LIGHTING GUJIDELIN:ES Site lighting, security lighting and architectural / landscape lighting should provide the user with illumination levels appropriate for the designed activity€.parking,walkin dining). Illumination levels should Ce, g, outdoor g also be reasonably uniform throughout the site and strive to minimize glare, . Uniform lighting styles should be utilized throughout the Rifle central business district. Lights should be designed to be of pedestrian scale and consistent with Rifle's western/rustic style.: Lights should be designed to protect the night sky from light pollution. Key Signage design guideline principals Include: Central business district lighting -- Recommended light level guidelines and uniformity ratios estab- lished by the Illumination Engineering Society of North America (IESNA) in the j ENSA Lighting Handbook (current addition) should be considered along with predominant lighting charac- teristics of the surrounding area when determining appropriate solutions to lighting design. Use high quality light. White light (i.e. metal halide, compact fluo- rescent, and inductive) is recommended over orange or yellow light (i.e, low and high pressure sodium, and mercury vapor). Light glare or excess brightness should be minimized. Cut-off fixtures, mounting heights, and the elevation of potential viewers must be considered for effectively controlling glare by directing light below the horizontal, Lights should -be directed to shine downward and shall be shielded from emitting light upwards, - Lights should be shielded so that concentrated rays of light will not shine'directlyonto other properties. Shielding or aiming fix- tures away from adjacent businesses should control light trespass beyond property lines. Light trespass should notexceed ambient levels. Lights should: only be placed where they are needed and the intensity of light shall be no more than the minimal amount need by the land use, - Obtrusive (lights "trespassing" onto adjacent properties) lights should be avoided, Public facilities should not be illuminated unless they are being utilized, and — Commercial Irghting.shouid be turned off after, businesses have closed : . - Landscape feature lighting and lighting at the pedestrian level is encouraged, Architectural lightingshould be used to highlight special features only. Lighting of expansive wall planes or the use of architectural lighting that results in hotspots on walls or roof planes should be avoided. sr 3 TYPE OF REVIEW APPLICANT LOCATION SITE INFORMATION L c4" -22 PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS EXHIBIT 61 03/15/10 FJ Land Use Change Permit for 1) Extraction of Natural Resources 2) Development in the 100 -year Floodplain River's Edge, LLC The subject property is located % mile east of the main interstate intersection of Rifle Colorado between the Colorado River and Interstate 70. (Section 15, Township 6 South, Range 93 West) Approximately 93 acre parcel (mining / disturbing 25 acres) ZONING Rural 1. GENERAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Applicant requests a Land Use Change Permit for 1) Extraction of Natural Resources and 2) Development in the 100 -year Floodplain for a Gravel Pit operation on approximately 25 acres of a 93 -acre property known as the "Scott Pit." This request is for an expansion of an existing mining permit currently in place with the Division of Reclamation, Mining, and Safety (the DRMS) on the north side of the Colorado River. 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 current Scott Gravel Pit BOCC -- 03/15/10 Page 2 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 requests approval 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 up to 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) Proposed Site Plan Scott Gravel Pit BOCC --- 03/15/10 Page 3 II. GENERAL LOCATION / 51TE DESCRIPTION The subject property is located % 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. HI. 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 Rural similar to the subject property. (The map on the front cover of this memorandum illustrates the surrounding zoning.) IV. AUTHORITY & APPLICABILITY The application was originally submitted under the provisions of the Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended (known as the "Old Code") but has continued through a long review during which time the County adopted the Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008, as amended (the New Code). Therefore, this review originally focused on the standards in the Old Code, but also has reviewed the application against the more applicable standards related to gravel extraction in the New Code. As a result, this application has essentially been reviewed against the Old and New Code and has been found to be consistent with the applicable standards in those codes. 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 3 Scott Gravel Pit BOCC -- 03/15/10 Page 4 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 paves 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 pair on the property. Most of the initial review letters recommended 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. (Exhibits 6. US Fish and Wildlife Service: USFWS is happy with the plan and don't have any problems with them pursuing the permits and extracting the gravel so long as they follow the Bald Eagle Management Plan. (Exhibit _). 7. Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment: No Comments received. 8. Colorado Division of Water Resources: No Comments Received from the County Referral. 9. 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) 10. Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining & Safety: No Comments Received from the County Referral. 4 Scott Gravel Pit BOCC -- 03/15/10 Page 5 11. US Army Corps of Engineers: No Comments Received from the County Referral. 12. 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 in the wetland areas. 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 Reclamation of the Scott Expansion to the Chambers Gravel Pit document provided by the City of Rifle. 13. Garfield County Airport: Indicated that the "placement of bird attractant ponds' are not compatible within 10,000 feet of the airport due safety hazard conflicts with aircraft. Does not see that ponds will create glare problems for departing or landing aircraft. The airport director also noted that the project will not have any impact within the Airport Overlay area. (Exhibit G) 14. County Project Review Engineer: Found no significant concerns with the proposed mining plan. 5 Scott Gravel Pit BOCC — 03/15/10 Page 6 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. 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. 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. 6 Scott Gravel Pit BOCC — 03/15/10 Page 7 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 M 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 floadplains. 5) It is the intent of the City to minimize the impact of any mining on the environment and surrounding Rifle gateways. 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: 7 Scott Gravel Pit BOCC — 03/15/10 Page 8 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, Staff found this application is not consistent with the City of Rifle's East Gateway Plan because of the concrete / asphalt batch plants. The City of Rifle found that elimination of those plants would bring the application closer to being consistent with their plan. However, the Planning Commission made a finding that the proposed project was consistent with the County's Comprehensive Plan of 2000 and allowed the batch plants to remain in the application because there are existing batch plants on the neighboring property to the east and how can the County allow those but eliminate these? (See minutes from the Planning Commission, attached.) More specifically, the Planning Commission made a finding that the gravel extraction proposal is compatible with the existing zoning and future land use objectives (including the City of Rifle's East Gateway Plan) of the City of Rifle. 8 Scott Gravel Pit BOCC — 03/15/10 Page 9 VII. REVIEW CRITERIA FOR SPECIAL USE / LAND USE CHANGE PERMITS (SECTION 5:03 & 5.17 OF THE OLD CODE & SECTION 7-840 OF THE NEW CODE) 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 direct access to the property 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 Land Use Change Permit, Staff suggests that no mining work / 9 Scott Gravel Pit BOCC - 03/15/10 Page 10 site prep be allowed to begin until the improvements required by CDOT have been installed and approved by CDOT according to their permit. 3. Design of the proposed use is organized to minimize impact on adjacent uses of land through installation of screen fences or landscape materials on the periphery of the lot and by location of intensively utilized areas, access points, lighting and signs in such a manner as to protect established neighborhood character. 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 one of the last 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 Land Use Change 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 LAND USE CHANGE PERMIT SUPPLEMENTARY GRAVEL EXTRACTION REGULATIONS The following section reviews the application against the County's new gravel extraction regulations in the Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008, as amended. (For the ease of the reader, the regulations are in bold italics followed by a Staff response.) Section 7-840(A) Water Quantity & Quality Impacts Floodplain Impacts If a gravel pit is located within the floodplain there is a reasonable chance that it could be 10 Scott Gravel Pit BOCC — 03/1 5/10 Page 11 flooded during its operational life. Equipment, machinery, fuel etc could 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. 11 Scott Gravel Pit BOCC — 03/15/10 Page 12 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 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. 12 Scott Gravel Pit BOCC — 03/15/10 Page 13 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. 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 reining 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 13 Scott Gravel Pit BOCC — 03/15/10 Page 14 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: 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 14 Scott Gravel Pit BOCC 03/15/10 Page 15 occur. This plan shall demonstrate that the discharge will not exceed state standards for discharge into a water course or wetland. 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. Section 7-840(B) 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. 15 Scott Gravel Pit BOCC -- 03/15/10 Page 16 2. Impacts on adjacent land from the generation of vapor, dust, smoke, or other emanations. All applications shall demonstrate how they will meet County, 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. Section 7-840(C) 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. 16 Scott Gravel Pit BOCC — 03/15/10 Page 17 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 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. 3. Zone 7amto7pm 7pmto7am t Residential 55 dB(A) 50 dB(A) v Commercial 60 dB(A) 55 dB(A) e Light Industrial 65 dB(A) 70 dB(A) r 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 71dB(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. Section 7-840(D) Visual Impacts All applications for gravel extraction shall address the following: 1. Al! 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. 17 Scott Gravel Pit BOCC 03/15/10 Page 18 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 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 Targe 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. 18 Scott Gravel Pit BOCC --- 03/15/10 Page 19 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 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. 19 Scott Gravel Pit BOCC — 03/15/10 Page 20 Section 7-840(E) 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 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 11 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 Targe 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 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. (Resolution 2009-88) 20 Scott Gravel Pit BOCC — 03/15/10 Page 21 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 I-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. 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. (Resolution 2009-88) 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. 21 Scott Gravel Pit BOCC 03/15/10 Page 22 Staff Response The Applicant agrees to this requirement if it can be determined to be directly attributable to the Applicant's traffic. Section 7-840(F) 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 An active American Bald Eagle nest is located on this property along the Colorado River in the cottonwood Gallery which contains a pair of eagles that lost their nest to a wind storm last year (June 2009) on the property to the east (Lafarge's Mamm Creek Gravel Pit). Both the Division of Wildlife (DOW) and the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) recommend that no mining activity should occur within the % mile buffer from the nest and that activity be allowed in the 1/4 mile buffer area only outside of the nesting / fledgling times (generally from January to July of any given year). (See the graphic below.) There has been much discussion on this issue and ultimately the Planning Commission required the Applicant work with the DOW and the USFWS to create a mutually acceptable "Bald Eagle Management Plan." This has been accomplished and is attached as Exhibit _ and contains provisions for operation that are acceptable to the Applicant and supported by the DOW and the USFWS. Staff recommends the BOCC adopt the provision of this plan as conditions of approval. 22 Scott Gravel Pit BOCC — 03/15/10 Page 23 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 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. Section 7-840(G) 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). 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. 23 Scott Gravel Pit BOCC — 03/15/10 Page 24 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. 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 24 Scott Gravel Pit BOCC — 03/15/10 Page 25 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. Staff notes that allowing concrete / asphalt batch plants does result in a cumulative visual impact because of the plants located nearby of the adjacent Labarge Mamm Creek mining property. However, the Planning Commission felt they should be allowed to have one since their neighbor has one. (See minutes of the Planning Commission). 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 proposed 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) Section 7-840(H) 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 blends with the surroundings. The same is true for other aspects of reclamation. All Reclamation plans shall follow the following design criteria: 25 Scott Gravel Pit BOCC — 03/15/10 Page 26 1. Slopes (See illustration below) (Resolution 2009-88) 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 "Wetland Slope Close -Up Illustration" below). 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. 26 Scott Gravel Pit BOCC — 03/15/10 Page 27 >• Trees Avoided General Cross Section Reclaimed Pit Lake Areas Cottonwood Saplings 7 Or Trees Planted Just Above Wetland Slapei Topsoil Replaced Original Ground Water. Level Dryland Slope (Slope Length Varies Depending on Ground Wates Level) Wetland Slone ,Approximate Zone 6' Wide Wetland Slope Close Up Water Level 3' r Minimum 31-1:1V Slope Required Until 2H:1V Minimum Slope 10 Vertical Peet Length Varies Depending On E Below Water Level Site Conditions Pit Floor Wetland Slope Close Up Illustration b) Dryland Slope Areas: 1) Dryland Slopes shall be predominantly 5:lwith 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 Slop in the post -mine land use that will predominantly be used for rangeland grazing and wildlife habitat. 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: 27 Scott Gravel Pit BOCC — 03/15/10 Page 28 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. Staff Comments 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 28 Scott Gravel Pit BOCC — 03/15/10 Page 29 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. 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 materia! 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. 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. 29 Scott Gravel Pit BOCC — 03/15/10 Page 30 2) When reclaimed, at least 0.79 acres of wetlands shall be created and their location shall be shown on a map. 2. Vegetation: Al! re -vegetation efforts shall occur as part of phased reclamation. (Resolution 2009-88) 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; 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: i. 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. 30 Scott Gravel Pit BOCC — 03/15/10 Page 31 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 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. (Resolution 2009-88) Staff Comments As the BOCC will remember, they recently approved a text amendment modifying 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. 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. b) 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 mining 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. 31 Scott Gravel Pit BOCC — 03/15/10 Page 32 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 5' 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 filling 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. b) Dryland Criteria: 1) All dryland areas on a reclamation plan shall include re -vegetation with appropriate dryland plant species based an the written recommendation of a qualified professional consistent with 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 tackifier 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. 32 Scott Gravel Pit BOCC — 03/15/10 Page 33 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 wetland 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. (Resolution 2009-88) 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 Application does not provide for any "active" irrigation to the site. The Application provides the following response to these 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 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: 33 Scott Gravel Pit BOCC — 03/15/10 Page 34 ➢ 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 1-2. 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. 4. To the extent permitted by law, unless all disturbance created by the mining operation is covered by a reclamation bond under jurisdiction 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. 34 Scott Gravel Pit BOCC — 03/15/10 Page 35 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 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. 35 Scott Gravel Pit BOCC — 03/15/10 Page 36 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. 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. Staff Response Applicant has agreed to this requirement. 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. Staff Response Applicant has agreed to this requirement. 13. The reclamation plan approved by Garfield County in the Land Use Change Permit shall be resubmitted to the DRMS to become the only reclamation plan (tasks / timetables) used 36 Scott Gravel Pit BOCC — 03/15/10 Page 37 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 an 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. RECOMMENDED PLANNING COMMISSION FINDINGS On Wednesday, January 27, 2010, the Planning Commission forwarded a recommendation of "Approval with Conditions" to the Board of County Commissioners for a Land Use Change Permit for 1) Extraction of Natural Resources and 2) Development in the 100 -year Floodplain on a property known as the "Scott Pit" for River's Edge, LLC with the following findings and conditions: 1) Proper posting and public notice was provided as required for the meeting before the Board of County Commissioners. 2) The meeting before the Board of County Commissioners 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 proposal has adequately addressed the visual impacts for the proposed mining operations along the entryway to Rifle. 4) The wetland slopes, may be reduced (as proposed and shown on Map F-1) from the ^ requirements in Section 7-840(H) of the ULUR which results in the reduction in wildlife habitat along certain sections of shoreline due to proximity to the Rifle Airport. It has been determined that these modifications will allow for an aesthetically pleasing site 37 Scott Gravel Pit BOCC — 03/15/10 Page 38 that blends with the surrounding area, provides for wildlife habitat and, provides for future re -use of the site. 5) That t e irrigation requirements Thay be modified from the requirements in Section 7- 840(H)(2) of the ULUR. It has been determined that these irrigation modifications will allow for an aesthetically pleasing site that blends with the surrounding area, provides for wildlife habitat and, provides for future re -use of the site. 6i rs � !/WL 414--1 44 t/19 7 I M.' 6) It has been determined that the gravel extractn propos isco mpatiblewith the existir►g2ontng-an-d future land use objectives (including ti(e City of Rifle's East Gate—Way Plan) of the City of Rifle. 4 7) The review of the [ evelo ment within the 100 -year Floodplain -(normally reviewed as an administrative review) has been reviewed as part cif -this reviand has been found to meet the requirements in the Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008, as amended and shall be issued as a Land Use Change permit under this review. 8) The above stated and other reasons, the proposed Land Use Change Permit has been determined to be consistent with the standards and provisions of the Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008, as amended and is in the best interest of the health, safety, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County(so long as all of the conditions of approval are meta X. RECOMMENDED PLANNING COMMISSION 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. 2) The Applicant shall obtain a new State Highway Access Pe.r..mit_from CDOT to be submitted to Garfield County prior to the issuance of a Land Use Change Permit and any conditions required by that permit shall be conditions also required 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. 38 ekp /4 1� �1 "Ver elfA 1 ) Ili � psir,. Lu y1 N f e Scott Gravel Pit BOCC — 03/15/10 Page 39 7 3)\The use of concrete / asphalt batch _p nts_shal-I._o-nly be allowed on the property (� r floodplain) betwe n July 15th and November 15th of any given year in order to !avoid !the nesting / fleIg ing period for the resident American Bald Eagles. ""I Tl,iH J �,�+N I• �, ' ){� tc�..a J z�,wi •-%,r,r s Cw�� )4„4,-, k di, �v . I be/ rGc ",„,rwJ" .#74' L Li) C �x•` c , f o -'N 4) This Land Use Cliange Permit approval shall be limited to a term of eight yearsirom the date of approval of the Land Use Change Permit. If the operations are to extend beyond this time frame, the property owner shall be required to return to the BOCC to demonstrate that the mining operations comply with any new regulations adopted by Garfield County. - 5) There shall be no bulk 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 Land Use Change 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 shall occur in enclosed equipment that is equipped with wet scrubbers (water spray facilities) to keep the 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 Land Use Change Permit. 8) All 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. 9) The Operator or Property Owner shall submit an annual re ort 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. 39 Scott Gravel Pit BOCC — 03/15/10 Page 40 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. f. CDPHE Air Quality Control 303-692-3150 g. CDPHE Water Quality Control 303-692-3500 h. US Army Corps of Engineers 970-243-1199 1. Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety 303-866-3567 j. CDOT Grand Junction office 970-248-7000 12) The Property Owner and Operator acknowledge that the County has the following performance standards that could lead to revocation of the Land Use Change Permit: A. All fabrication, service and repair operations shall be conducted within an enclosed building or obscured by a fence, natural topography or landscaping. B. All operations involving loading and unloading of vehicles shall be conducted on private property and shall not be conducted on a public right-of-way. C. All industrial wastes shall be disposed of in a manner consistent with statutes and requirements of CDPHE. D. Every use shall be operated so that the ground vibration inherently and recurrently generated is not perceptible without instruments at any point of any boundary line of the property E. Every use shall be so operated that it does not emit heat, glare, radiation or fumes which substantially interfere with the existing use of adjoining property or which constitutes a public nuisance or hazard. Flaring of gases, aircraft warning signal and reflective painting of storage tanks, or other legal requirements for safety or air pollution control measures shall be exempted from this provision. 40 Scott Gravel Pit BOCC 03/15/10 Page 41 13) The County shall be invited to any bond release inspection of the State Division of Reclamation, Mining -a 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 2A% of the shoreline shall be constructed to be a 10:1 slope. The rernainder of all slopes will be no steeper than 3:1. See Map F-1 of the application for the layout of these 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) in wetland slope reclamation; 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. T €-Applira.wXsha-la-meet with -the --County, _Vegetati n-Marrager,- pricrtrsche-d-uling-the heeririg before-the-BOCC, to-a-gr-ee-on._ a vialale program. — (Staff Note: This was completed as required by the Planning Commission.) 41 Scott Gravel Pit BOCC — 03/15/10 Page 42 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 Final Reclamation Plan approved via Land Use Change Permit shall be resubmitted to Garfield County prior to the issuance of a Land Use Change Permit as well as 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 implementation. Proof of a recalculated bond shall be provided to the County prior to issuance of a LUCP. 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. 14);Prior to the hearing before the Board of County Commissioners, the Applicant shall prepare and present to Staff an "American Bald Eagle Management Plan" (Eagle Plan). This Plan shall incorporate the provisions of Exhibits Z and BB (attached hereto) and which Plan shall be agreed to by the Applicant (and the Applicant's professional wildlife consultant) and the US Fish and Wildlife Service. (Staff Note: This was completed as required by the Planning Commission.) New Conditions Recommended by Staff: 42 Scott Gravel Pit BOCC — 03/15/10 Page 43 �'15) The Applicant shall adhere to the commitments contained in the "Bald Eagle Management Plan" which shall serve as conditions of approval attached as Exhibit (As such, condition #14 above may be eliminated.) 16) The Applicant shall obtain all local, state, and federal permits prior to the issuance of '''''''---the Land Use Change Permit by Garfield County. � 0) X1. RECOMMENDED MOTION "I move to approve the Land Use Change Permit for 1) Extraction of Natural Resources and 2) Development in the 100 -year Floodplain on a property known as the "Scott Pit" for River's Edge, LLC with the following findings and conditions as proposed by the Planning Commission" (51 Co- 64--;51--- 0 43 April 17, 2009 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. Weiland 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. Airport Director 0375 County Road 352, Building 2060 I Rifle, Colorado 81650 I p (970) 625-1091 f f (970) 625-8501 RifleAirport@gmail.com I www.RequestRifle.com 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 wildlife.stale.co.us June 18, 2008 Peter! Siegmund Vice President United Companies 2273 River Road PO Box 3609 Grand Junction, CO 81502 (970)243-4900 RE: The United Companies' Scott Gravel Pit Revision Pian Mr. Peter Siegmund, For lklllfe- 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 e-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 Y 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 Y2 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 Y2 mile buffer. The areas loser 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 Y3 mile buffer. There is to be no activity within the 14 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 Y2 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 McAneliy • Richard Ray • Robert Streeter Ex Officio Members, Harris 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 much 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•disturbingthe 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, 1 JT Romatzke — Acting Area Wildlife Manager cc. M. Konishi, Velarde, Broderick, Fetch, Klute, File MEMORANDUM To: Fred Jarman From: Steve Anthony Re: Scott Pit/Rivers Edge/SUP 11408 Date: May 1, 2009 b S s 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? 2. The City of Rifle suggests using plant plugs (i.e. re& 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 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 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 un infested areas. 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,USI 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 i Fred Jarman From: Jason Clark [jaclark©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. Thanksr Jason Clark Fire Inspector Rifle Fire Protection District Office: 970-625-1243 Mobile: 970-379-0303 1 EXHIBIT � L 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 ZUMBRENNEN LEA'VENWORTH & 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) 9454336 lel@lklawfirrn.com Board of County Commissioners County of Garfield 108 811' Street Glenwood Springs CO 81601 February 26, 2009 RE: Scott Gravel Pit Special Use Permit Dear Commissioners: 5 EXHIBIT M DENVER OFFICE:* 700 WASHINGTON ST. STE 702 DENVER, COLORADO 80203 Telephone: (303) 825-3995 *(Please direct all correspondence to our Glenwood Springs Office) CE1VED FEB 2 62009 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 Iocated on the City's website at www_ri fleco.org. 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. f;u9ientslhifk13009146.Planning.60411.gerenziCa 60CC672467.wpd LEAVENWORTH & KARP, P.C. Page 2 Thank you for your consideration. L' EL: ers Enclosure cc: Matt Sturgeon Fred Jarman City Council Very truly yours, LEAVENWORTH & KARP, P.C. 1 E. Leake orth CITY OF RIFLE, COLORADO PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2 SERIES OF 2008 ARESOLUTION 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 (Marnm 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 determine 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 staternent 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. ixirolt a0:L006110-Plminfng-494VieeolmicianT4 ,02.npd 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 1. 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 30'}' day of September, 2008. By I:tCiicateallkl2008VI 13-Piansiing-40asRtrointons1PRZ02wpd CITY OF RIFLE, COLORADO PLANNING COMMISSION Chairperson EXHIBIT A Rifle East Gateway Planning Area • . "We 43S / • :460151, • .,•._.•.--.. vgp, 'ma • 0. • • • " ,otB • "fg?.."'` teetto :4•11r0 •r ' s• irm .. , . a , April 24, 2009 Mr. Fred Jarman, Director Garfield County Building and Planning Dept. 108 e Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: SUP 11408 or Scott Pit Project Dear Mr. Jarman: _ zoos GAR%vdl_2)INC NIELD TNG 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 1-70 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 application, 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 cumulative impactsof-gravei pits on the Colorado River riparian system, and has requested Garfiild County stuffy these irnpacts More closely before approving additional gravelextraction activities within the drainage. This position remains unchanged. The Scott Pit presents a more direct'concern to the City of Rifle;'•First and foremost there is concern regarding the potential impact to ourwatershed. 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 the City of Rifle residents - - - - the mire f�5�caenta os they pertain to the foiiowing rrtaI!'er5:' . . 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 iliustrate 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 plantsirrrilar 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 fraveling the 1.-70 corridor visiting Rifle or contemplating'reside'ntial and/or commercial ' invetitrr;ent 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 1308 • R1FLE, 'CO 81650 970-625-2121 - WWW, RI FLECO.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-D 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 people 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 oftWe impacts to the City's principle gateway; e fi at phase of their operations demonstrates they can mine t e material an transpo f 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 from 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. EXHIBIT STATE, OF COL 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 SLLANE, Sec. 15, T6S, R93W May 4, 2009 Mr. Fred Jarman Garfield County Building and Planning Department 109 8t Street, Suite 201 Glenwood 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 1 1 EXHIBIT Greg Lewfield And Associates, PL 1115-41 W qtr rirr. "Freer Court 0ite 2,03 f ,;.1.6_51Y -o E'ar, l,er, CO P. S : rI [-ev May 28, 2009 Fred Jarman Garfield County Building and Planning Department 108 8th Street Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: Response to Scott Pit Staff Report Dear Fred: Enclosed are responses to your staff report on the Scott Pit dated May 13, 2009. Many additional changes have been incorporated based on the new issues raised in the report. We are also expecting that the CDOW will issue a new comment letter to Garfield County based on the letter that I sent to them on May 18, 2009. I spoke to Will Spence on the phone, and he thought that the changes were very favorable. A Wildlife Assessment has also been recently prepared by Westwater of Grand Junction. This report is attached. We have made the additional commitments in this submittal based on the staff report and our phone conversations. We sincerely hope that these items will allow you to recommend the project. Thanks, Fred. cc: Pete Siegmund cc: Bill Bailey 1 Sincerely, Le4 Greg Lewicki, P. E. Greg Lewicki and Associates Changes to Commitments for Scott Pit of Oldcastle SW Group dba United Companies of Mesa County - May 28, 2009 All of the changes described below are in response to the Staff Comments dated May 13, 2009. 1) No permanent asphalt plant or concrete plant will be located on site. No portable plants of either type are allowed unless it is needed for a specific CDOT or FAA job beneficial to the community for a limited time frame. No job of this type has occurred in the area for years and it is not likely that it will occur for the expected short 5-6 year time frame of this permit. This addresses in major part the concerns of the City of Rifle with the East Gateway Plan, the visual impact concerns of the County and also, potential risks to disturbance of the eagle nest east of the pit. 2) As discussed in the reclamation plan, there is a specific sequence of mining and reclamation to minimize visual impacts. Also, the elimination of the oxbow mining area is a very large reduction in the impacts. We accept as a condition of approval that the reclamation plan proposed in the Special Use Permit be resubmitted to the DRMS and become the only reclamation plan for the site. A new reclamation bond will be calculated and submitted by United as part of this new plan. Reference staff report - page 9. 3) United commits to installing the staff gages on concrete bases with painted vertical pipes to ensure their permanence. Reference staff report - page 11. 4) The elimination of the permanent concrete and asphalt plants will further reduce dust on the site, since there will be much less material handling, loading, etc. Reference staff report - page 15. 5) A Berming, Screening and Buffering Plan is also attached. Reference staff report - page 18. 6) United agrees to furnish evidence of insurance for a minimum of $100,000 per staff recommendations. 7) Regarding the eagle nest located east of the Pit, we have revised the mining plan to eliminate the permanent asphalt plant and concrete plant, which was a large concern to the CDOW. We have also added undulation to the shorelines, provided 5H:1 V slopes, added some wetland shelves and changed the dryland seed mix slightly, as requested by CDOW. As pointed out in the Staff Report on page 24, La Farge is allowed to mine within the 1/4 mile buffer in their Cell 3 until the eagles return. United is committing to a much stricter level of activity. The CDOW letter of April 28, 2009 recommends that the area inside the 1/4 mile buffer be avoided from January 10 to July 10. Mike Klish of Westwater Engineering has advised us that the eagles have been known to come back sooner than January 10. For this reason, United is self imposing a limit of mining activity within the 1/4 mile buffer to 2 seasons, and activity will be avoided between December 20 and July 10 of those years. This mitigates the possibility that United will affect these eagles. Reference staff report - pages 20-25. It is our understanding that Will Spence and JT Romatske will be issuing a new letter regarding the wildlife impacts of the proposed project. 8) A Wildlife Impact Analysis has been prepared by Westwater Engineering and is attached to this report. A red tail hawk's nest has been identified in the report. Additional measures are outlined to mitigate this nest. United will abide by the recommendations in this Wildlife Impact report. Reference staff report - page 25. 9) The gravel pit hours of operation will be from 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM, 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 PM. No operations except emergency maintenance to insure the integrity of the operating equipment will take place on Sunday. 10) Slopes above the lake have been reduced to 5H:I V for approximately 525 linear feet along Lake 1 and 685 feet along Lake 2. These are the only areas where this could be done. As shown on Map F-1, the distance from the lake level to waterline is in most cases from 5' to 6' from the surface. There are also areas of 35 feet length of 10H: I V slope in each lake. These very shallow areas will be wetland shelves. Wetland fringes around the lakes will be constructed as previously described in the application. Taking into the account the concerns for creating extensive waterfowl habitat by the Garfield County Regional Airport, we believe that the amount of wetland fringe and shelves is a good compromise between the desires of the CDOW and the desires of the Airport. The safety issue with regard to bird impacts should not be taken lightly. It is a serious issue and is resulting in large expenditures to lessen the risk at many airports. The Garfield County letter specifically states that the water surface is not as big an issue as mild lake slopes are. Reference staff report - page 28. 11) Along the slopes of the lakes, 2" caliper cottonwood trees as well as cottonwood 3 saplings and willow clumps will be planted. Our past experience at other wet pit sites has shown that when the trees or clumps 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, saplings and clumps. 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. Reference staff report - page 29. 12) Regarding the County Vegetation Manager's comments, Reference staff report - page 29, the following information is presented: a) I am unaware of any gravel pit or any other mine that has employed plugs in reclamation in Colorado. It is simply not necessary. There have been numerous awards given to excellent reclamation using drill seeding, hydroseeding and even broadcast seeding in Colorado. I have two of these awards: one where broadcast seeding was used (Apex #2 Mine near Oak Creek) and the other where hydroseeding was used (Meeker Mines near Meeker). This site has excess topsoil, flat terrain and reasonable moisture. There is no reason why this site will not produce excellent reclamation using the methods proposed. Also, United cannot get their bond back until the reclamation is satisfactory. b) Seeding in the Spring or Fall of a given year has worked very well for many sites in similar terrain in Colorado. Hydroseeding or drill seeding will be used on the reclaimed areas. Broadcast seeding will not be used. c) There is a carefully evaluated weed control program already in the application. d) Topsoil will be stripped and placed in its final location in almost all cases. This is the least expensive way to handle the soil and is also the best environmentally, as pointed out in the City of Rifle's letter. This cannot be done with initial disturbance since there is no final place to put the soil. A stockpile will be needed for this initial disturbance. e) Seeds will come from local sources to the extent possible. f) The native shrub, silver leaf buffalo berry, will be distinguished from russian olive during all weed spraying activities. This work is usually contracted and the contractor will be made aware of this issue. g) Crested Wheatgrass has been replaced with western wheatgrass and slender wheatgrass. This will be changed in the DRMS permit, along with all other changes, once County approval is granted. Again, the DRMS has jurisdiction concerning reclamation and the commitments above will be made part of the DRMS permit, therefore, United cannot get their bond back until these items are satisfied. 13) Significant undulation has 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. 5 Berming, Screening and Buffering Plan Scott Pit Oldcastle SW Group dba United Companies of Mesa County May 28, 2009 by: Greg Lewicki, P.E. 1. Site Details The Scott property sits on an elevated terrace on the south side of the Colorado River and immediately north of I-70. On the north and east sides of the property, large cottonwoods exist which provide screening to properties in those directions. Gravel pits exist north and east of this property. See new Map B-1 attached. The property is elevated approximately 20 feet higher than the westbound lanes of I-70, therefore site berming will not provide any visual benefits. See Map C-2 of the permit application showing the ground contours. 2. Screening and Buffering Plan The following items are presented which mitigate the site from visual impacts: During Mining a) Eliminate the permanent asphalt and concrete plants, which would have been located on the highest (and most visible) ground in the southeast corner of the property. b) Eliminate the mining of the area inside the oxbow, which was by far the largest mining area and would result in the greatest visual impact. c) We have only designated 2 relatively small pits to be mined and we applied strict reclamation timetables so that there is only a 6 month overlap from the time the 1st pit (Mining Area 1) is reclaimed to the time that the 2"d pit (Mining Area 2) is started. The 2"d pit also has a strict timetable for its reclamation. Of a total property of 96 acres, only 21 acres will be disturbed. Of this amount, only 14.1 will be disturbed at any one time. d) The only plants that are planned to be on site are the crusher, screen plant and wash plant, will be located at the bottom of the pit for the majority of the life of the operation. This elevation is approximately 25-30 feet lower than the original ground, which will provide some screening. e) As shown on Map B-1, the vast majority of large cottonwoods on the property are not planned to be disturbed, thus providing a significant buffer to the north, west and east. f) The mine life has now been lowered to 4 to 6 years, after which the site will be more pleasing visually than the original site was. After Mining a) Two lakes will be constructed as shown on the revised Map F-1, which have considerable undulating shorelines and 5H:1V slopes, which will have a very pleasing appearance. b) Some wetland shelves and fringe areas have been incorporated to enhance wildlife use, as desired by the CDOW. c) Cottonwood trees of 2" caliper will be planted along both lakes as shown on Map F-1. d) Cottonwood and willow saplings will be planted in addition to the 2" caliper trees. See Map F-1. e) All dryland areas will be topsoiled, seeded and mulched according to the approved reclamation plan. f) All existing weeds, such as tamarisk, russian olive, knapweed and others will be sprayed and removed from the site. Weeds will not be present in the reclaimed site. The bond placed with the DRMS cannot be released until all of these measures are completed. We firmly believe that the final site will be an asset to the City of Rifle and will greatly enhance their "Eastern Gateway" from 1-70. STATE OF COLORADO Bili. 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 8`h Street, Suite 401, Glenwood Springs frediarman@garfield-countv.corn (970) 945-8212 RECEIVED JUN 1 2 2009 GARFIELD COUNTY BUILDING & PLANNING Re: 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 onif 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, mportant changplan is the removal of the concretel as halt plant from Mining Area 2,,_The plant would have been constant sou ce ofnaise, traffic, human activity and dust, all w thin the 'A mile buffer of the a nest and next to the 'A if e buffer. The removal of that plant goes a on toward making this a wildlife friendly project, particularly in the case o t e ea_. e nes •u m •. other wildlife using the area.- The company -as- statedtrarthey infend to pfl a to aporary 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 'A mile perimeter. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recommendations call for no activity within a 'A mile buffer of an eagle nest and no activity within a'/x mile buffer during the time that the eagles are present. That recommendation is still the safest way to avoidharassing,the eagles..; i4owever, it_isclear that.these particular eagles are more tolrant, of human disturbance than are other: eagles:. _They;originally built the nest within 1/I mile of other gravel pits, a DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, Harris D. Sherman, Executive Director WILDLIFE COMMISS1ON, Brad Coors, Chair* Tim Glenn, Vice Chair • Dennis Buechler, Secretary Members, Jeffrey Crawfonl • Dorothea Farris • Roy McAnally • John Singletary • Mark Smith • Robert Streeter Ex Officio Members, Harris Sherman and John Stull) 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 1/4 mile buffer. The small northeast comer 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 IT Romatzke, Area Wild ife Manager cc. Velarde. Petch Spence Rifle Scott Pit Wildlife and Sensitive Areas Assessment Report Garfield County Conditional Use Permit Application 3 EXHIBIT R Cover Photo: Formerly irrigated field at Mining Area 2 Turkeys in the distance Prepared for United Companies of Mesa County Prepared by WestWater Engineering, Inc. 2516 Foresight Circle #1 Grand Junction, CO 81505 May 2009 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Project Description United Companies of Mesa County has proposed mining sand and gravel from a site along the Colorado River near Rifle. The proposed Rifle Scott Pit is located on private land approximately one-half mile east of the I-70 Rifle interchange between I-70 and the Colorado River (Figure 1). The site totals 117 acres with approximately 72 acres being riparian woodlandlshrubland. Of the 117 acres, only 25.2 are proposed for mining. Mining will be confined to the two formerly irrigated fields on the property, Mining Area 1 located west of the oxbow and Mining Area 2 southeast of the oxbow. After reclamation, a small lake will occupy each of these mine sites. Life of the project {mining through successful reclamation) is estimated at slightly less than six years. 1.2 General Survey Information WestWater Engineering (WWE) biologists surveyed this property May 10, 2009, for plant communities and wildlife use. In preparation for developing the following report, WWE biologists performed field surveys and assessments of wildlife, wildlife habitats, and habitats for sensitive plant species on the proposed project area. The purpose of the surveys was to determine the wildlife and sensitive plant species that occupy the project area at varying periods during the year, and species that would potentially be impacted as a result of pit construction and operational activities. Factors considered include: 1) soil type and texture; 2) existing land management; 3) absence or presence of wildlife and plant species, including raptors and other sensitive bird species; 4) special designations by federal and state wildlife agencies; and 5) the existing natural vegetation community. 2.0 LANDSCAPE SETTING 2.1 Vegetation The 117 -acre parcel on which the proposed pit is located was once a combination of irrigated pasture or hayfield and riparian woodland. A residence and outbuildings are also found on the property. The entire 117 -acre property was surveyed. Two species of cottonwood, Populus angustifolia and Populus deltoids subsp. wislizenii, dominate the woodland, although Siberian elm, Ulmus pumila, and Russian olive, Eleagnus angustifolia, are also present. Shrubs include tamarisk (Tamarix ramosissima), sumac (Rhus trilobata), rabbitbrush (Chr ysotharnnus nauseosus), big sage (Artemisia tridentata), greasewood (Sarcobatus vermiculatus), coyote willow (Salix exigua), and seep willow (Baccharis salicina). Cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) provides the bulk of the ground cover in the wooded areas. The agricultural lands have not been irrigated recently and the grasses and forbs which once covered these areas are being replaced with weedy annuals. Five species of noxious weed, Russian knapweed (Acroptilon repens), Scotch thistle (Onopordurn acanthum), and whitetop (Cardaria draba), plus the tamarisk and Russian olive mentioned above, were noted throughout. Two additional species, houndstongue (Cynoglossum offrcinale) and burdock (Arctium minus), are present at the western end of the property. WestWater Engineering Page 1 of 19 May 2009 Legend * Active Raptor Nests Roads nRaptor Nest Buffers Property Boundaries Project Location COLLB AI1 Ctp Figure 1 United Companies Rifle Scott Pit Biological Survey May 2009 WestWater Engineering Consulting Engineers & Scientists Miles 0 0.125 0.25 0.5 roMrp.Source Z+ibvted6G\ScottProperty,2GUy%Gi-StWildlifeAnaiysismxd May18. 'N�iDycIv Wetland vegetation is found on the site; these wetlands total approximately 21 acres and have been described in a separate report prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Most of the wetland is associated with the oxbow/backwater, but approximately 0.1 acre in Mining Area 2 appeared to be due to irrigation. This wetland area is disappearing following the cessation of irrigation. Wetlands are dominated by coyote willow, but cattail (Typha latifolia), hardstern bulrush (Scirpus pallidus), eleocharis (Eleocharis palustris), saltgrass (Distichlis spicata), and arrowgrass (Triglochin marithna) are also common. 2.2 Soils According to the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS 2008), soil types include loams and sandy -to -gravelly loams typical of river bottoms in that area. Bedrock consists of shales and sandstones of the Wasatch Formation. 2.3 Terrain The site lies in the flood plain of the Colorado River at an elevation of 5,300 feet and is virtually flat except for an oxbow/overflow channel, which provides a backwater over much of its length. Deposition at the upstream end of this oxbow prevents river water from entering in all but the highest flow events; however, the downstream end is still connected to the river so the wetland character of this area is preserved. The oxbow also appears to benefit from irrigation water run- off from upstream. 3.0 WILDLIFE AND PLANT SURVEY 3.1 Background Information Descriptions of critical habitats for federally -listed threatened, endangered and candidate fish and wildlife species were reviewed in the Federal Register, U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). Wildlife habitat (activities) maps, provided via the Internet by the Colorado Division of Wildlife's (CDOW) "Natural Diversity Information Source" (NDIS) were reviewed and incorporated into this report in reference to mule deer, elk and state -listed threatened, endangered and species of "special concern"(CDOW 2008). A list of Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) and their habitats was reviewed. This list is published by the FWS through a Memorandum of Understanding with the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), which places high conservation priorities for BCC species (FWS 2008). Not all of these BCC species occur regularly in Colorado, some are present only as seasonal migrants. Of those known to breed in Colorado, only a portion are known or suspected to breed within the vicinity of the proposed pit. Avian literature sources such as the `Birds of Western Colorado Plateau and Mesa Country" (Righter et aI. 2004) and the "Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas" (Kingery 1998) were reviewed to determine the likelihood for species occurrence within the project area. Bird identification and taxonomic nomenclature are in accordance with that applied by the Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas Project (Kingery 1998). WestWater Engineering Page 3 of 19 May 2009 The determination of the presence/absence of suitable habitat for threatened, endangered and sensitive species (TESS) plants was based on previous WWE observations of typical habitat occupied by BLM or USFS sensitive plants, the Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP) Rare Plant Field Guide (Spackman et al. 1997), and locations of species documented in the CNHP statewide database. 3.2 Survey Methods A preliminary review of the project area using aerial photography maps was conducted to familiarize personnel with vegetation types and terrain and as an aid to help determine the likelihood of the presence of threatened, endangered or sensitive wildlife and plant species. Field data, including general project location, boundaries and reported features, were verified and/or recorded with the aid of a handheld global positioning system (GPS) receiver utilizing NAD83/WGS84 map datum, with all coordinate locations based on the Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinate system within Zone 12. WWE biologists conducted pedestrian surveys of the area to identify and locate wildlife species, wildlife sign (tracks, fecal droppings, and vegetation disturbance), vegetation communities, and wildlife habitats. Vegetation types were determined through field identification of plants, aerial photography, and on -the -ground assessments of plant abundance. Identification of plant species was aided by using pertinent published field guides (Whitson et al. 2004, Weber and Wittman 2001, CWMA 2007, Kershaw et al. 1998). Field work took place May 10, 2009. Photographs were taken of the general project location, surrounding vegetation and terrain (Cover Photo). Table 1 is a list of wildlife species which could be expected to be observed on or from the site during the breeding season. Wildlife species observed on the day of inspection are noted in bold type. Table 1. Potential Wildlife Occurrence Checklist for Rifle Scott Pit Common Name Scientific Name Occurrencex Abundance** Amphibians Northern leopard frog Rana pipiens Known to occur Uncommon Tiger salamander Ambystoma tigrinum Known to occur Common Woodhouse's Toad Bufo woodhousii Known to occur Common Birds American Coot Fulica Americana Known to occur Fairly Common American Crow Cornus brachyrhynchos Known to occur Fairly Common American Goldfinch Carduelis tristis Known to occur Uncomrnon American Robin Turdus migratorius Known to occur Abundant American Kestrel Falco sparverius Known to occur Fairly Common American Wigeon Anas Americana Known to occur Uncommon American Woodcock Scolopax 177 in or Known to occur Rare Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Known to occur Uncommon Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica Known to occur Common Belted Kingfisher Ceryle alcyon Known to occur Uncommon Black -billed Magpie Pica pica Known to occur Common WestWater Engineering Page 4 of 19 May 2009 Table 1. Potential Wildlife Occurrence Checklist for Rifle Scott Pit Common. Name ,' ScientifcName Occurrence*;; Abundance** Black -capped Chickadee Poecile atricapillus Known to occur Fairly Common Black -chinned hummingbird Archilochus alexandri Known to occur Fairly common Black -headed Grosbeak Plreucticus melanocephalus Known to occur Uncommon Brewer's Blackbird Euphagus cyanocephalus Known to occur Common Broad -tailed Hummingbird Selasphorus platycercus Known to occur Fairly common Brown -headed Cowbird Molothrus ater Known to occur Common Canada Goose Branta canadensis Known to occur Common Blue -winged Teal Anas querquedula Known to occur Uncommon Bushtit Psaltriparus inirnirnus Known to occur Uncommon Common Grackle Quiscalus quiscula Known to occur Uncommon Common Merganser Mergus merganser Known to occur Uncommon Common Nighthawk Chordeiles minor Known to occur Common Common Raven Corvus corax Known to occur Fairly Common Common Snipe Gallinago gallinag Known to occur Uncommon Common Yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas Known to Occur Fairly common Cooper's Hawk Accipiter cooperii Known to occur Uncommon Downy Woodpecker Picoides pubescens Known to occur Uncommon Eastern Kingbird Tyrannus tyrannus Known to occur Uncommon Eurasian Collared Dove Streptopedia Known to occur Common European Starling Sturnus vulgaris Known to occur Abundant Gadwall Anas strepera Known to occur Uncommon Gray Catbird Durrretella carolinensis Known to occur Uncommon Great Blue Heron Ardea herodius Known to occur Uncommon Great Horned Owl Bubo virginianus Known to occur Uncommon Green -winged Teal Anas crecca Known to occur Uncommon Hairy Woodpecker Picoides villosus Known to occur Uncommon House Finch Carpodacus mexicanus Known to occur Common House Sparrow Passer domesticus Known to occur Common House Wren Troglodytes aedon Known to occur Common Killdeer Charadrius vociferous Known to occur Fairly Common Lewis' Woodpecker Iklelanelpes lewis Known to occur Uncommon Loggerhead Shrike Lanius ludovicianus Known to occur Uncommon Long-eared Owl Asio otus Known to occur Uncommon Mallard Anas platyrhynchos Known to occur Common Mourning Dove Zenaida nracroura Known to occur Common Northern Flicker Colaptes auratus Known to occur Fairly Common Northern Harrier Circus cyaneus Known to occur Uncommon Northern Oriole Icterus galbula Known to occur Fairly Common Northern Pintail Anas acuta Known to occur Uncommon Northern Shoveler Anas clypeata Known to occur Uncommon Osprey Pandeon haliaetus Known to occur Uncommon Redhead AythyaAmericana Known to occur Rare WestWater Engineering Page 5of19 May 2009 Table 1. Potential Wildlife Occurrence Checklist for Rifle Scott Pit Common Name- Scientific Name. Occurrences .. Abundance * Red-tailed Hawk Buteo_ja►naicensis Known to occur Fairly Common Red -winged blackbird Agelais phoeniceus Known to occur Fairly Common Ruddy Duck Oxyura jalllaicensis Known to occur Rare Say's Phoebe Sayornis soya Known to occur Fairly Common Song Sparrow Melospiza Known to occur Fairly Common Sora Porzana carlina Known to occur Rare Turkey Meleagris gallopavo Known to occur Fairly common Rock Dove Columba livia Known to occur Common Spotted Sandpiper Arctius macularia Known to occur Uncommon Vesper Sparrow Pooecetes gramineus Known to occur Common Violet -green Swallow Tachycineta thalassina Known to occur Common Western Bluebird Sialia Mexicana Known to occur Rare Western Kingbird Tyra►znus verticalis Known to occur Fairly Common Western Screech Owl Otus kennicottii Known to occur Rare Western Wood Pewee Contopus sordidulus Known to occur Uncommon White -breasted Nuthatch Sitio carolinensis Known to occur Uncommon Yellow -breasted Chat Icteria vixens Known to occur Uncommon Yellow Warbler Dendroica petechia Known to occur Common Yellow-rumped Warbler Dendroica corollate Known to occur Common Warbling Vireo Vireo Gilvus Known to occur Uncommon Western Meadowlark Sturnella neglecta Known to occur Common Mammals Beaver Castor Canadensis Known to occur Fairly common Big Brown Bat Eptesicus fuscus Known to occur Common Common muskrat Ondatra zibethicus Known to occur Common Common porcupine Erethizon dorsatulu Known to occur Uncommon Coyote Canis latrans Known to occur Abundant Deer Mouse ,Peromyscus maniCulatus Known to occur Abundant Desert Cottontail Sylvilagus audubozzii Known to occur Common Hoary Bat Lasiurus ciiiereus Known to occur Uncommon Long-tailed vole Microtus longicaudus Known to occur Common Long-tailed weasel Mustelafrenata Known to occur Uncommon Mink Mustela vison Known to occur Uncommon Mule Deer Odocoileus hen:ionus Known to occur Abundant Raccoon ,Procyon lotor Known to occur Abundant Red Fox Vulpes vulpes Known to occur Uncommon Silver -haired Bat Lasionycteris noctivagans Known to occur Uncommon Striped Skunk ,Mephitis mephitis Known to occur Abundant Townsend's Big -eared Bat Plecotus townsendii Known to occur Uncommon Reptiles Bull Snake Pituophis catenifer Known to occur Uncommon Corn Snake Elaphe guttata Known to occur Uncommon Fence Lizard Sceloporus undulatus Known to occur Common WestWater Engineering Page 6of19 May 2009 Table 1. Potential Wildlife Occurrence Checklist for Rifle Scott Pit Common Name eienhfieName Occurrence's Abundance** Milk Snake Lampropeltis triangulum Known to occur Uncommon Racer Coluber constrictor Known to occur Uncommon Western Terrestrial Garter Snake Thamnophis elegans Known to occur Common * Occurrence is for Garfield County in similar habitat at similar elevation and not necessarily this site as edited by WWE. **Abundance is for where found in Garfield County, not necessarily this site. Many additional species could be expected on the property during migration and winter. 4.0 RESULTS OF SURVEY 4.1 TESS Plants There is no habitat in the project area for any federally listed endangered, threatened, or candidate plant species. Nor is there habitat for any plant species listed as sensitive by the State of Colorado, the USFS, the BLM, or the CNHP. 4.2 Federal Listed Wildlife Species No federal threatened, endangered, or candidate species are known to occur on or near the proposed pit. The oxbow/backwater on the property could provide spawning habitat for the federally -listed Colorado River fish species (pikeminnow, razorback), but designated critical habitat begins downstream from the site (http://www.fws.gov/coloradoriverrecovery/Crrpch.htm). The Yellow -billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) is a federal candidate species. Its habitat is lowland riparian forest and urban areas with tall trees (Andrews and Righter 1992); however, there are no nesting records for Garfield County (Kingery 1998, Righter et al. 2004). 4.3 State Listed Threatened, Endangered, and Species of Concern The northern leopard frog is a state species of concern. There is habitat for this species in the project area as well as historic records (Hammerson 1999), but no individuals were seen during this latest survey, nor was this species noted during past WWE work in this area. 4.4 Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) 4.4.1 Raptors Raptors are birds of prey (hawks, eagles, owls). Of those raptor species listed in Table 1, only Bald Eagle is a BCC. There is an active Bald Eagle nest 969 feet east of the Scott Pit eastern boundary (Figure 1). There were three chicks in this nest May 10. The project area lies within state -designated Bald Eagle winter range and a winter forage area; there is also a winter roost in the cottonwoods at the west end of the property (Figure 2). WestWater Engineering Page 7 of 19 May 2009 Legend Roads ® Property Boundaries Bald Eagle Winter Range (NDIS) Bald Eagle Winter Forage (NDIS) Bald Eagle Roost Silos (NDIS) 114 mile Nest Buffer 1/2 mile Nest Buffer (NDIS) u 5.41 7ACHUTEL? COLLBRAN Project Location Figure 2 United Companies Bald Eagle Habitat Rifle Scott Pit Biological Survey May 2009 NestWater Engineering Consulting Engineers & Scientists Miles 0 0.1 0.2 0.4 M p SutJr L.'�Undrd3c, �'��colt f ropeity1<UJ9kCil$1Wrldli a nalysrs I iyure 2.ntr.d May 21., _OU.r am 4.4.2 BCC Other Than Raptors Lewis' Woodpecker is the only BCC species, other than Bald Eagle, for which nesting habitat is found on the site of the proposed pit. Lowland riparian forest, especially adjacent to agricultural lands, is this species' preferred habitat (Andrews and Righter 1992). No individuals were observed during field work. 4.5 Terrestrial Wildlife Species 4.5.1 American Elk and Mule Deer The site is located within designated elk winter range; it is near elk severe winter range and near an elk winter concentration area (Figure 3). No sign of elk winter use was noted during field work. It is unlikely elk use the site except in the most severe winters. Interstate 70 on the south and the Colorado River on the north are barriers to most elk movement. Four mule deer were observed during the May 10 survey and abundant fecal pellet groups indicate year-round use. The property is within mule deer winter range and near mule -deer severe winter range; it is also near a mule deer winter concentration area (Figure 4). 4.5.2 Other Mammal Species Desert cottontail was observed during field work. Tracks and other sign indicated the presence of coyote, raccoon, striped skunk, and beaver as well (Table 1). Several species of bats are likely present, including little brown bat, silver -haired bat, big brown bat, hoary bat, and Townsend's big -eared bat. These species are known to roost in trees or buildings. Other bat species probably use the area for foraging. 4.5.3 Birds 4.5.3.1 Raptors An active Red-tailed Hawk nest is present in a cottonwood near the western end of the property (Figure 1, Photo 2) at UTM 13S 262635 4378972 NAD 83. This nest contained one or more chicks on the day of the survey. An active Osprey nest lies directly across the river from this site (Figure 1, Photo 2) on the forrner Chambers Pit. The nest is on a platform specifically erected for this purpose. American Kestrel probably nests on the site; suitable nesting habitat (tree cavities) is present and several individuals were observed during field work. 4.5.3.2 Other Bird Species Turkey and Canada Goose were observed during field work (Cover Photo) ; these species probably nest on or near the property. The property is surrounded by designated Canada Goose feeding and wintering areas (GarCo 2002). (http://www.garfield-county.com/docs/62932291200426wildlife.pdf) WestWater Engineering Page 9 of 19 May 2009 Legend Roads OProperty Boundaries Elk Winter Concentration Area (N DIS) DElk Severe Winter Range (NaIS) Elk Winter Range (NDIS} 12 PARACHUTE MESA COUI ITY COLLBRAN• Project Location 5 Figure 3 United Companies Elk Habitat Rifle Scott Pit Biological Survey May 2009 ‘a NestWater Engineering Consulting Engineers & Scientists Miles 0 0.2 0.4 0.8 Map Source. Z_IUnhedSZG\Scott Property52O2.OlGISIWOfIdeAnalysis FPaure 3.mxd May 21. 2009 am Legend Roads Property Boundaries Mule Deer Winter Concentration Area (NDIS) Mule Deer Severe Winter Range (NDIS) EDMule Deer Winter Range (NDIS) nMule Deer Critical Winter Range (NDIS) 12 13 7 PARACHUTE • CCLLBRAN .' IJf 1T 1 Figure 4 United Companies Mute Deer Habitat Rifle Scott Pit Biological Survey May 2009 _:\NVestWater Engineering Consulting Engineers & Scientists Miles 0 0.2 0.4 0.8 Map Soak l_IrlitedS&GtScott Propenyl; 0091GISAMIdhlea naly sis Priiure 4.m.“.1 May 21. 2009 aril Photo 1: Active Red-tailed Hawk nest on property Photo 2: Osprey nest on platform north of proposed development WestWater Engineering Page 12 of 19 May 2009 Riparian woodland such as that found on the site provides breeding habitat for a large number of migratory and non -migratory bird species (Table 1). Many more species may be found there during migration and winter. 4.5.4 Reptiles and Amphibians The lack of rocky habitat limits the number of reptile species found on the site; the eastern fence lizard was the only species noted during field work. However, habitat is present for several species of snake. The western terrestrial garter snake is most likely to be encountered, but the literature suggests bull snake, racer, milk snake, and corn snake could also be found (Hammerson 1999). The on-site wetlands provide breeding habitat for tiger salamander, Woodhouse's toad, and northern leopard frog. 4.5.5 Fish Carp were spawning in the backwater on the property during the survey May 10. It is likely other fish species use this backwater at various times. 5.0 AFFECTS ON WILDLIFE 5.1 Wildlife Impact Assessment 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 quantity and quality of habitat for native species. 5.1.1 Terrestrial Species 5.1.1.1 Elk and Mule Deer Potential affects include the temporary loss of a small amount of elk and mule deer winter range. There will also be increased disturbance from human activity during the life of the project. Vehicle collisions with big game on the pit access road, especially during the winter months, may be expected. 5.1.1.2 Birds Migratory Birds: The project will result in a temporary reduction in nesting, foraging, and wintering habitat. Disturbance related to mining may render adjacent lands less attractive to some bird species. Successful reclamation, which includes the creation of additional wetlands and control of noxious weeds, should increase the quality and quantity of habitat for many species, especially waterfowl and shorebirds. WestWater Engineering Page 13 of 19 May 2009 Raptors: The Bald Eagle nest located east of the property (Figure 1) and the Bald Eagle roost site at the west end of the property (Figure 2) will not be directly affected by mining operations at the Rifle Scott Pit. Disturbance from 1-70 and recent mining operations upstream and across the river from the nest have had no observable affects on the birds' behavior to date, so this pair appears highly tolerant of the kinds of disturbance associated with a mining operation. With the reclamation of the Chambers Pit across the river, and the winding down of operations at the LaFarge Maimn Creek Pit upstream, the Scott Pit should not exceed those activity levels to which the birds have apparently become accustomed. WWE biologists have noted that other nesting Bald Eagles along the Colorado River at Rulison and DeBeque show a high degree of tolerance for both raining and oil and gas development activities. The cottonwoods between the nest and Mining Area 2 should provide a visual screen, which will partially shield the nest from potential disturbance. Mitigation measures are discussed in the next section. Successful reclamation will result in the maintenance of existing Bald Eagle roost sites and an increase in Bald Eagle foraging habitat. The Osprey nest located north of the proposed Rifle Scott Pit will not be directly affected. This species has shown itself quite tolerant of human activity; this nest is at the site of a pit now being reclaimed. Successful reclamation will result in an increase in Osprey foraging habitat. Cottonwoods will screen this nest from mining activity. One Red-tailed Hawk nest site is located in the cottonwood grove directly west of the oxbow (Figure 1). The nest will not be directly affected since it is outside the area of disturbance. This species is also quite tolerant of human activity. WestWater biologists are aware of numerous instances of Red -tail Hawks nesting within less than 100 feet of human activities such as mining operations, well drilling and housing. The tolerance to human presence varies between individual birds. Successful reclamation, including control of noxious weeds, should result in an increase in foraging habitat. This nest will also be screened from potential disturbance by cottonwoods. 5.1.1.3 Small Mammals The project will result in a temporary decrease in habitat for small mammals. Removal of any cottonwoods or the buildings at Mining Area 2 will reduce the number of roost sites available for bats and possibly reduce the amount of foraging habitat available. Mining activities may cause some species to avoid the area during such activities. Direct mortality for some species, especially rabbits, due to vehicles on the access road is to be expected. Successful reclamation should result in a long-term increase in small mammal habitat. 5.1.1.4 Reptiles and Amphibians The amount of available habitat for reptiles and amphibians will be reduced during the life of the project. Siltation and spills of fuels and chemicals may reduce reproductive success of amphibian species. Access road mortality of snakes and toads is likely. Successful reclamation should result in a long-term increase in reptile and amphibian habitat. WestWater Engineering Page 14 of 19 May 2009 5.1.2 Aquatic Species 5.1.2.1 Endangered Fishes The Colorado pikeminnow and the razorback sucker are both federally listed species that occur in the Colorado River. Potential impacts from the proposed pit include: water depletion, sedimentation of the Colorado River, and spills of chemicals and fuels from equipment. Designated critical habitat, which begins at the I-70 bridge west of the Rifle interchange, will not be directly affected. 5.1.2.2 Other Fish Species Affects on native and non-native Colorado River fish species will be similar to those on federally -listed species. 6.0 AFFECTS ON TESS PLANT SPECIES No TESS plant individuals, populations, or their habitats will be affected by the proposed Rifle Scott Pit. 7.0 MITIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations for mitigation are presented for maintenance and improvement of wildlife habitat quality and prevention of human -caused impacts to resources. 7.1 Maintenance and Restoration of Habitat Riparian woodlands, characterized by cottonwoods, provide important wildlife habitat in an otherwise arid state. The large number of species listed in Table 1, demonstrate the importance of these areas. Past and present development has removed mature cottonwood trees; disruption of traditional Colorado River flows through diversions for agricultural and municipal uses has reduced cottonwood regeneration. As a result, many remaining cottonwood stands are over mature with few young trees replacing older trees which die off. Wetlands are even more vital to wildlife in Colorado. Federal legislation has set a goal of no net loss of this important resource. Reclamation of the Rifle Scott Pit should maintain and potentially increase the area of this critical wildlife habitat. Shores of the ponds created by mining should be graded so that emergent vegetation may become established. This operation will increase the total wetland area on the property. Control of noxious weeds on the site, both during mining operations and reclamation, will ensure that long-term habitat restoration is successful. Post -mining land uses should be conducted in such a way that reclaimed wildlife habitat is not degraded. Reclamation recommendations include the following: 1. Seeding of native trees, shrubs, forbs, and grasses should be part of the re -vegetation plan and should begin immediately after cessation of mining activities. Separate seed mixes for upland and wetland sites should be used. WestWater Engineering Page 15 of 19 May 2009 2. Ongoing control of noxious and invasive weeds is recommended as an additional method to maintain native vegetation communities and favorable wildlife habitats. Due to the severity of the noxious weed infestation at the site, and the fact that many sources of weed seed exist off-site, weed monitoring may need to be continued indefinitely. 3. Mitigation for wetland impacts will be provided in accordance with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers standards. 7.2 Planning for Sensitive Time Periods and Areas 7.2.1 Mule Deer and Elk Disturbance associated with construction equipment and personnel may cause elk and mule deer to select habitats in more secluded areas away from the pit. Mining activities during the winter months will impact deer and elk winter range as mapped by CDOW (Figures 3 and 4). Elk are unlikely to use the area except possibly in the most severe winters; 1-70 on the south and the Colorado River on the north are barriers which discourage elk movement onto the site. During the winter, collisions with vehicles on the access road can be addressed by enforcing low speed limits and minimizing vehicle trips during early morning and late afternoon. Domestic dogs should be excluded from the site. Land use post -mining will be recreation; the ponds created by mining will be stocked with fish, and public use will be permitted. Restricting human access during the winter will minimize disturbance of wintering deer and elk. 7.2.2 Migratory Birds In order to comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act by showing a good faith effort to reduce potential impacts on nesting birds, developers should conduct land -clearing operations outside periods of peak nesting activity (April 1 to July 31). 7.2.3 Raptors Activities associated with the proposed project have the potential to impact raptor populations. In order to reduce the potential affects on nesting raptors, it will be important that the project proponent schedule construction activities such that they do not interfere with breeding, nesting and brood rearing activities. CDOW's (Craig 2002 and Klute 2008) recommended raptor nest site avoidance standards for raptors likely to nest in the project area are summarized below (Table 2). Table 2. Timing and buffer recommendations for active raptor nests Species Buffer Zone Seasonal Restriction Red-tailed Hawk 0.33 mile 15 February - 15 July Cooper's Hawk 0.25 mile 1 April - 15 August American Kestrel * * Bald Eagle 0.50 mile 15 October - 30 July Northern Harrier 0.25 mile 1 April - 15 August Long-eared Owl 0.25 mile 1 March - 15 July WestWater Engineering Page 16 of 19 May 2009 Table 2. Timing and buffer recommendations for active raptor nests Species Buffer Zone Seasonal Restriction Great Horned Owl * * Osprey 0.25 mile 1 April - 31 August * Great Horned Owls and Kestrels are relatively tolerant of human activity. Keep activity to a minimum during breeding season. The aerial photo (Figure 1) shows cottonwoods between the eagle nest and proposed mining area; these cottonwoods provide partial screening of the nest from activities on the property. This screening may be sufficient to allow activity during the nesting season, especially considering the birds' historic tolerance of mining activities at the nearby Chambers and LaFarge Pits. In any case, work should take place during the non -nesting season if possible. WWE biologists have been monitoring this nest plus other Bald Eagle nests at Rulison, DeBeque, and Grand Junction for the past 3-5 years. These observations indicate nesting begins in January. Chicks begin to leave the nest between June 10 and June 20, but they generally remain in the vicinity of the nest for approximately two additional weeks. By July 10, chicks have usually dispersed. CDOW may modify recommendations listed in Table 2 in specific cases; the proponent has agreed to follow any such CDOW guidelines. In a letter of April 28, 2009, CDOW indicated that mining will be permitted in that portion of Mining Area 2 located within the 0.25 -mile buffer if such activity is confined to the non -nesting season (CDOW 2009). The letter also identifies a nesting season of January 10 through July 10. The proponent has also voluntarily agreed to cease mining activities by December 20 to protect the eagles (WestWater 2009). In view of the foregoing observations, WWE makes the following recommendations: 1. Mining activity could begin in the 1/4 mile nest buffer after July 10 and should cease no later than December 20. 2. If nesting does not occur by May 15, it is unlikely to occur in that year. If nesting does not occur in any given year, mining could begin before July 10. 3. Applicant should explore all feasible noise -reduction strategies. For instance, effective mufflers should be installed on all equipment and tailpipes should be pointed in the opposite direction from the nest. Steps may be taken to minimize use of Jake Brakes on trucks. 4. Humans on foot create a greater disturbance than humans in vehicles for many species. Walking along the access road or along the river near the nest should be discouraged. 5. If night lighting is necessary, light beams should be directed away from the nest. 6. Each year during the life of the project, a qualified wildlife biologist should determine the status of this nest. The first visit should take place in early to mid-January and continue monthly until a definitive finding regarding nest activity, in consultation with CDOW, can be made. Mining Area 1 is almost completely within the 0.33 -mile buffer suggested for the red-tailed hawk nest in the cottonwood grove immediately west of the oxbow (Figure 1). Ideally, work WestWater Engineering Page 17 of 19 May 2009 here should also be carried out only during the non -nesting season (July 15 through February 15). As in the case of the Bald Eagle nest, humans on foot should be kept well away from this Red-tailed Hawk nest once it is determined to be active. The cottonwood grove should be off- limits to employees during the nesting season, except for emergencies. The following measures are recommended to protect the Red-tailed Hawk nest: No work within the CDOW recognized buffer zone during 2009 nesting season. 2. Mining development can start during the July 15 to February 15 time frame. If mining development cannot start prior to February 15, a qualified biologist will perform onsite surveys of raptor activity. If no nests or nesting behavior is observed, mining development can begin during the nesting season. 3. Restrict employees from entering the cottonwood gallery located between the mining area and the occupied nest site during the nesting season except during emergencies. 4. If birds choose to nest in the vicinity of the mining area in subsequent years they can be assumed to be tolerant of human presence and are unlikely to be affected by the mining operation. The Osprey nest at the old Chambers Pit will be well -screened by cottonwoods from both mining areas, so no specific recommendations are necessary. 8.0 REFERENCES Andrews, R., and R. Righter. 1992. Colorado Birds: A Reference to Their Distribution and Habitat. Denver Museum of Natural History, Colorado. CDOW. 2008. Colorado Division of Wildlife. Natural Diversity Information Source. http://ndis.nrel.colostate.edu/wildlife.asp. CDOW. 2009. Letter dated April 28, 2009 from Colorado Division of Wildlife to Garfield County regarding the proposed gravel mining operation. Craig, Gerald R. 2002. Recommended Buffer Zones and Seasonal Restrictions for Colorado Raptors. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver. CWMA. 2007. S. Anthony, T. D'Amato, A. Doran, S. Elzinga, J. Powell, I. Schonle, and K. Uhing. Noxious Weeds of Colorado, Ninth Edition. Colorado Weed Management Association, Centennial. FWS. 2008. Birds of Conservation Concern 2008. U.S. Department of Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, Virginia. [Online version available at http://w-ww.fws.govlmigratorybirdsl] GarCo 2002. Garfield County, Colorado. Wildlife Habitat Profile http://www.garfield- county.com/docs/62932291200426wildlife.pdf WestWater Engineering Page 18 of 19 May 2009 Hammerson, Geoffrey A. 1999. Amphibians and Reptiles in Colorado. The University Press of Colorado, Niwot. Kershaw, Linda, A. MacKinnon, and J. Pojar. 1998. Plants of the Rocky Mountains. Lone Pine Publishing, Auburn, Washington. Kingery, H. E. 1998. Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas. Colorado Bird Atlas Partnership, Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver. Klute, D. 2008. Recommended Buffer Zones and Seasonal Restrictions for Colorado Raptors. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver. Maddux, H., L. Fitzpatrick, and W. Noonan. 1993. Colorado River Endangered Fishes Critical Habitat. Biological Support Document. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Utah/Colorado Field Office, Salt Lake City, Utah, 225 pp. NRCS. 2008. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Web Soil Survey: http:Ilwebsoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov/. Righter, R., R. Levad, C. Dexter, and K. Potter. 2004. Birds of Western Colorado Plateau and Mesa Country. Grand Valley Audubon Society, Grand Junction, Colorado. Spackman, S., B. Jennings, J. Coles, C. Dawson, M. Minton, A. Kratz, and C. Spurrier. 1997. Colorado Rare Plant Field Guide. Prepared for the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Forest Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service by the Colorado Natural Heritage Program. WestWater. May 22, 2009. WestWater personal telephone conversation with Peter Siegmund of United Companies of Mesa County regarding raptor protection buffers and dates. Weber, W. A., and R. C. Wittman. 2001. Colorado Flora Western Slope, Third Edition. University Press of Colorado, Boulder. Whitson, T. D. (editor), L. C. Burrill, S. A. Dewey, D. W. Cudney, B. E. Nelson, R. D. Lee, and Robert Parker. 2004. Weeds of the West, Ninth Edition. Western Society of Weed Science in cooperation with Cooperative Extension Services, University of Wyoming. Laramie. WestWater Engineering Page 19 of 19 May 2009 Greg L ick And .Ass c December 28, 2009 11541 Warrington Court Phone (303) F £?.,: !iii ii :t : ('p s} +6.6934 Parker, CO LISA 801.38 E-Mail:greC„ (ii lewicki.biz Fred Jarman Garfield County Building and Planning Department 108 8`h Street Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: Narrative on Compliance with Text Amendment changes for Scott Pit. Dear Fred: Prior to the last Scott Pit hearing at the P&Z Commission on September 23, 2009, the P&Z Commission had stipulated that we write proposed text amendment changes. Based on the earlier hearing, it seemed like there was a consensus that the Text Amendment was the logical way to address the issues since the current regulations allow no exceptions to strict requirements. At the September 23, 2009 hearing, there were basically three outstanding issues: 1) Impacts to the County Road system regarding insurance, 2) reclamation slopes and 3) requirement for irrigation. The P&Z Commission worked on the Text Amendment language at the hearing, but it was ultimately tabled so that we could work together on revised language. We met in your office on October 2, 2009 to work on the language together. This language was recently approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission at the subsequent hearing on October 14, 2009 and also adopted by the County Commissioners on December 7, 2009. The enclosed narrative discusses how the Scott Pit complies with the adopted Text Amendment changes Thanks, Fred. Sincerely, Greg Lewicki, P. E. Greg Lewicki and Associates cc: Pete Siegmund cc: Bill Bailey Narrative on Compliance of Scott Pit with New Section 7-840 Regulations revised through Text Amendment in late 2009. By: Greg Lewicki, P.E. 12/28/09 Issue 1) Insurance The new language for Section 7-840 E would result in no insurance requirement from the applicant. We have no problem with this result. Issue 2) Section 7-840 11 Reclamation and Enforcement 1- Wetland Slope Areas and Dryland Slope Areas The current Text Amendment language (now adopted by the County Commissioners) is given below: 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 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 Page 1 of 10 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 be used for rangeland grazing and wildlife habitat. 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 may that 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, Page 2 of 10 General Cross Section Reclaimed Pit Lake Areas '[ ttom AN 01 Wetland Slope Close Up Water Levet 3 1 FFE �,ter }r-Rp['l �- 1,F sssyui,E.10 Urfa 1QVr'-tkz! FEW, f cor 4i` ? l.trai, Rf VIA -0111p- 5;7 -co Cali4"141.61 Ott F!F For the Scott Pit, we believe that the following reasons result in justification for a modification to the slope standard: a) The attached letter from 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 Page 3 of 10 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 .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 depsoit 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. t) 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. Page 4 of 10 Issue 3) Vegetation The current Text Amendment language (as adopted by the County Commissioners) is given below: 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; 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 falling and be; i) 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. Page 5 of 10 b) Dryland Criteria: 1) 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 tackifier 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. Regarding the Text Amendment changes and revegetation of the Scott Pit, the following narrative is provided. a) Wetland Revegetation Criteria: In response to Wetland Criteria, la) and 1b), the wetlands, 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. In response to lc) 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 mining 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. Page 6 of 10 Also, 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. 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 filling 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. Reference staff report - page 29. b) Dryland Revegetation Criteria: 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 hydroseeding with wood fiber mulch. Areas will be seeded and mulched within 60 days after topsoiling. 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. Page 7 of 10 arn re,. rtding to # €-4-ytidtt. t farnfo-u i n ton t ..&- pro 0:,,ed S tt: OrrAv y Pit may afic<1 al< pt-eaiir',i of the (insfirici Rt ;1{i a1 Airlxsi "i1 t mous cafte # t rot- the isir 'anti gum f, ixrd 1,1.E cts tpaibilile'. L':ii. l}fes gi a3 €i. Mt agriracni arsb9 According k rl't Ait rt Nuisc s txr i zissrl i . Use Compaq hilit 5.966..)2 i '`raise; irrlPo a_ res,aurcr. f; _kiuction And e tr tk r( 1]'fc vkir it' ,of 'tax Ci ,rficl.;3 f urat Ke.gitYmt Ritp?s1. W'i1 Ef : If* rri Mart3tem: AC !,5,G,'521:1{1 psttvi.dm w„tidunoa =til ° eneears:ing the t :l i;n rt :int rtt v aldfift t4tt« nt isvi - ri tli vicinity " of an airrKpl., Wtttand or rpt} t type rat bird atttat p)1id;s would ani 1;t canvIti]stc, Len t11otl t1ei tc- .t cif tbc PVsi:vr-ay,. ' : FAA hos; found that eva3xtralion potvis, with s:1 ..:p -sib or rip -rap li[ii-t ti„sib are actually tt thIcirrrat to many bird.N dt i Chi t y or pond kv'i ti not ii i €Sct r t)_ • at.t.met. �v71 itc hum -di in the vic.itttty t.i1g )11..: Lris.'tt r ss f iim.td 4sf j'xx s. feta_ r<ilft-livicy feorzt. .tiv”. nde. s8im the iriiri i art i laid d in. .the ta?plir. tit n.1156 ; ,tak inc-reas< tri: pot<rati;lI rcl rti.v' '-urt c s o nal r r , ,3r ttat't ,a:li}' fsaiA w#Ptrt s prt sznay tfaa•:ra.. In Add t .tw runv:ar, i chrA;it to. tom. r it t d in 7061.0 mewing ait'st&a : t i€crastl tn=: fiatftcr from';hk 4+:'ta. In itis cri k`€t vr' nt1 q Yi' i ot1 4:L"fi;al hoige of the ntw ruttws }' fipItF" Catt development, rrf€ri„li vit ; did.nr,;t : ttr 'sc<: tet, , et=nc.e.m., orA 1 ux'rsg:ld. cxptct the tt1a rrz.Gt.lt if it ;ser stkic! ,. w i vartijvcicii c+vct tht :,stiltatislays ti.fl e t ti p t ihrse reIzti Yr. }' €tutJ1. ai s1 tni ght add. lo tl,< sirs s: I ;mate you tis; a 01'14't`tltaon tif6efUl izna have <ott<ilt.I d Bial. tls"i . ii alga lE +;Flat rata• an, 1.14.t hazards tib tiia?a ;re tt tx,teit t* "F]ri t the ". i91"tCi ammli't1.c'in- 20filltn ~ ate in, Plc91 mr. know t`1 c;Irt Citi Priv° lush. Lf}p, €t Pktclor p 24/7 Colaado RockiesMrpor Page8of 10 "EE ra i -z ca i Page 9 of 10 lent gunoi Page 10 of 10 APPROVALS: APPROVED: PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR DATE REVIEW IS FOR GENERAL COMPLIANCE WITH THE CITY OF RIFLE PUBLIC WORKS MANUAL AND RIFLE MUNICIPAL CODE, LATEST EDITIONS. SOLE RESPONSIBILITY FOR COMPLETENESS AND/OR ACCURACY OF THESE DOCUMENTS SHALL REMAIN WITH THE REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER SEALING THESE PLANS. THE CITY DOES NOT ACCEPT LIABILITY FOR FACILITIES DESIGNED BY OTHERS. PREPARED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF: DATE: Arty _• ii.er••• •• ••• •• •••• 0.5'••a441iiiiiiiiiii••4i0•iii••••444litt 1 4 Approximate normal River Level: 5305' 49' 45' 10' Wetland Buffer Top of Bank 31 / 5302' Inflow/Outflow Structure Longitudinal Section NOT TO SCALE / II IIII IIII III IIII 3 1 Inflow/Outflow Structure Cross sectio nt- smIPIPR OMIII ••• I0IiVj!•...•4:���•�•:•;�:•:•ii► rage Surface Elevation: 5305 ••• 80'_,•••••••••••��•• �•��j•••5302•�• 36" D•Uwith bedding '••� CDOT Specifications esigned by TetraTech RECEIVED JAN 1 9 2010 GARFIELD COUNTY BUILDING & PLANNING 18" Do and Bedding CDOT Specifications .// / /// / / Lake from Previous Gravel Mining // //I / 5335''-�/'fir' 26 S3 S3 /��%%,'%%ice///i�//r. _A ._ _ _ _ _Hp............._______,__ 12.1 ' cres 5315 Backfilled For Undulation te 120' BLr Closest Potn of La Farge Excavation (Likely to remain unmine d) Graded Slope / 5H 1V :• I n ali• ertr. e Legend Permit Boundary Existing Cottonwood Existing Shrub [:1 Existing Wetlands 2008 CLOMR Floodway 2008 CLOMR Floodplain Roads Fringe wetland created Cottonwood or Willow Sapling/Cuttings Clump 2" Caliper Tree Notes: Revisions By Date County Comments + CDOW RE 5/10/09 Drawn by:BL Checked by: GL Approved by: GL Date 1/30/09 Scale 1":150' Greg Lewicki And Associates, PLIC: 11541 Warrington Court Parker, CO USA 80138 Phone (303)-346-5196 E -Mail - info@lewicki.biz Map F-1: Reclamation Plan Scott Expansion to the Chambers Pit United Companies United States Department of the Interior 1N REPLY REFER TO; ES/CO:COE TAILS 65413-2010-1-0039 FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Ecological Services 764 Horizon Drive, Building B Grand Junction, Colorado 81506-3946 January 25, 2010 Fred Jarman Staff Planner Garfield County Planning and Building Department 108 8th Street, Suite 201 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Dear Mr. Jarman: EXHIBIT On January 21, 2010, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) became aware of a new bald eagle nest located near the proposed Rivers Edge Gravel Mine. A hearing for the mine is scheduled for January 27, 2010. A Google Earth image of the nest location with a '/4 mile circle drawn around it is enclosed for your reference. Bald eagles and their nests are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Within the definition of the Bald and Golden Eagle Act it is illegal to "Take" a bald or golden eagle. The definition of "Take" includes pursue, shoot at, poison, wound, capture, trap, collect molest or disturb. In addition a more definitive definition for "disturb" was adopted which states: disturb means to agitate or bother a bald or golden eagle to a degree that causes, or is likely to cause, based on the best scientific information available, 1) injury to an eagle, 2) a decrease in its productivity, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior, or 3) nest abandonment, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior. The Service and the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) both suggest that a 1/4 mile radius buffer be provided around all active bald eagle nests where no activity or occupancy should occur at any time. The Service and CDOW also suggest that during the nesting season (November 15- July 15) that a 1/2 mile radius buffer be provided around active nests to reduce the likelihood of disturbance. These suggested buffers are recommendations used throughout the West to reduce the likelihood of disturbance to eagles by providing them the opportunity to perform their natural biological cycle without being "disturbed". There was a bald eagle nest located just upstream of this new nest for a number of years (see the attached image and the red circle). The nest tree blew down last June and we believe this pair relocated to the new site. The Rivers Edge Gravel pits, as described in the hearing notice, shows the mining operations on the edges of the 1/4 mile buffer. An access road also crosses inside the '/ mile buffer. There is potential for this mining operation to adversely impact this nesting pair • ; 7 or• ."1$"Asa :'. 41- V -'• '_lt Fred Jarman From: Spence, Will [WiII.Spence@state.co.us] Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2010 9:44 AM To: Fred Jarman Cc: Romatzke, JT; Rick__Krueger@fws.gov Subject: scott pit/ eagle nest Attachments: Rifle BE nest.pdf EXHIBIT \iv Fred, Sorry I didn't get this sent to you yesterday evening. After talking to you on the phone I got tied up with another call_ I'll send a couple of excerpts from comments submitted on the gravel pit from last year, 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, all within the 1/2 mile buffer of the eagle nest and next to the 1/4 mile buffer. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recommendations call for no activity within a 1/4 mile buffer of an eagle nest and no activity within al/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 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 % 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. The plan proposes activity inside Phase 3 to be limited to the 6 month season that the eagles are not utilizing the nest. This timing limitation will be beneficial. The plan calls for guidance from the CDOW_in establishing the dates for the timing stipulation. The area inside the1/4 mile buffer should be avoided fron1.1anuary 10 to Jufy to avoid the nesting activity of this particular pair of bald eagles. CDOW will stand by these former comments. In summary, the company should stay out of the % mile buffer with all activity except when the eagles are not present. fudging from the aerial photos supplied by Rick Krueger and my recollection of the most recent mining plan, it appears that most of the mining operation will be outside the1/4 mile buffer. The exception would be part of the area adjacent to the SE corner of the oxbow. The wooded area running along the west side and outside of the oxbow should be left undisturbed to aid as a buffer from the activity and as preserved wildlife habitat. It seems that these eagles may tolerate activity inside the %z mile buffer. However, any major disturbances, such as an asphalt plant, should be established outside the %z mile buffer. Having said that, the safest route is still to follow the USF&W Service's recommendations. If the company decides to risk disturbing the eagles and moves forward with mining inside the %z mile buffer during the nesting season, they will be responsible for any take of the nest. The new nest is located in the "oxbow" portion of the property. This area was not to be mined according to the most recent mining plan. The new location will be more beneficial as the trees and vegetation in the oxbow will shield the eagles from more of the mining activity and traffic disturbances. The company will probably want to mine the open area next to which the old nest was located. That area appears to be outside the % mile buffer, therefore the options appear better for the mining company now. Please give me a call if I can clarify anything or if you have any other questions. Thanks, Will Spence 1 EXHIBIT x 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. Greg Lewicki, P.E. Fred Jarman From: Rick_Krueger@fws.gov Sent: Monday, February 22, 2010 2:57 PM To: Fred Jarman Cc: Creed_Clayton@fws.gov Subject: RE: United Co. Scott Pit Bald Eagle plan EXHIBIT Fred, I assume they (United and contractors ) will share the plan with you when they are happy with reviewers comments. I wanted to let you know that we are happy with the plan and don't have any problems with them pursuing the permits and extracting the gravel. I'll let them contact you with their plan at which time I imagine they will ask for the permit to proceed. Rick Krueger U.S. FWS 764 Horizon Drive, Bldg. B Grand Junction, CO 81506 Phone: (970) 243-2778 X-17 Fax: (970) 245-6933 e-mail: Rick_Krueger@fws.gov 1 MEMORANDUM To: Fred Jarman From: Steve Anthony Re: Scott Pit/Rivers Edge/SUP 11408 Date: February 5, 2010 EXHIBIT The applicant has provided a weed management plan that has been revised from their April 2009 permit application. The revised plan addresses this department's earlier concern as stated in my 5/1/09 memo to you. The revised plan is acceptable. Scott Gravel Pit Application to Garfield County Life of Mine Weed Treatment Program Date: February 5, 2010 There are significant areas of Russian alive, tamarisk and knapweed on the site. These plants have been present for many years. The intent of the program is to remove current noxious weeds, Russian olive and tamarisk on the property, including those areas that will not be mined, as well as maintain an ongoing program for removal of these plants for the life of the operation through bond release of the reclaimed areas. Current areas of these undesirable species are shown on Map C-1. In 2010, the planned startup year, the following efforts will take place: a) all noxious weeds will be sprayed with a herbicide from the access road area and a buffer of 40 feet on either side leading to Mining Area 1, b) all Russian olive and tamarisk will be removed from the entire access road area and a buffer of 40 feet on either side. This work will be done using the cut stump and herbicide method where the trees will be cut near ground level and an herbicide is then applied to the stump to help eliminate new plants from sprouting. Cut material will either be burned or placed in the clumps piles on areas shown on the revised Map C-1. These piles are good habitat for small mammals. The herbicide used in Item a) and b) above must be approved by the Garfield County Vegetation Manager. Also, in 2010, the initial portion of mining Area 1 to be disturbed will be delineated. The area 40 feet outside this boundary will be treated as outlined in a) and b) above. After 2010, a 3-4 year program of Russian olive and tamarisk removal will be executed, where the cut stump and herbicide method will be used to eliminate these plants on approximately 7-10 acres per year. All areas outside the mining areas will be targeted for this planned work, including the entire area inside the oxbow. It is planned to use the Rifle Correctional Facility (SWIFT) program to provide the labor for the work. If the SWIFT crew is unable to do the work, United will make arrangements with alternative labor sources to assure that the work is done. United commits to working with the County Vegetation Manager and completing the work on at least 7 acres per year for as many years as necessary until the trees are eradicated. United will also monitor the areas that were cut to look for young tree saplings that may still sprout from the stumps. Any new saplings found will be removed and/or treated with herbicide. Also, every year after 2010, a noxious weed survey (including tamarisk and Russian olive) will be done each mid-April and the work identified for that year will be determined and submitted to the County Vegetation Manager. This will be called the Scott Pit Annual Weed Control Plan. Noxious weed spraying with herbicide will take place 2x per year or whatever interval is necessary, as determined by the County Vegetation Manager. The timing of this spraying is also decided by the County Vegetation Manager, although the work must be coordinated with the wildlife specialist of Westwater consultants in Grand Junction, to ensure that the eagle pair and their young are not disturbed by any weed or tree removal activities. These activities will take place on the disturbed and undisturbed areas, as required. It is known that significant areas of Russian knapweed occur on the site and have been in place for many years. This is the principal target of the spraying program, although other noxious weeds will be treated in the same way. For the work from 2100 through 2014, it is expected that the major eradication of approximately 7-10 acres per year of tamarisk and Russian olive will be part of the annual plan. The areas of the eradication for that year will be shown on a map submitted with the plan. The annual plan will be continued throughout the reclamation of the property and afterwards until the full bond is released. As topsoil is replaced on the slopes for final reclamation, and as both lakes are filled as part of this reclamation, care will be taken to identify any noxious weeds or tamarisk or Russian olive trees within the reclaimed area. These will be sprayed by backpack sprayer or 4 -wheeler using herbicide approved for use by the Garfield County Vegetation Manager. This will be done within 2 weeks after the inspection when the weeds are most vulnerable. Care will be taken to spot spray where possible to avoid killing desirable broadleaf plants. The backpack sprayer or 4 wheeler is used since desirable broadleaf plants are part of the reclamation plan in the wetland areas as well as the upper dryland reclaimed slopes, and blanket spraying would kill these desirable plants. UNITED COMPANIES OF MESA COUNTY SCOTT GRAVEL MINE BALD EAGLE MANAGEMENT PLAN EXHIBIT Ar4 Bald Eagle nest east of the town of Rifle, Colorado along the south bank of the Colorado River Prepared for United Companies of Mesa County Prepared by WestWater Engineering 2516 Foresight Circle #1 Grand Junction, Colorado 81505 February 5, 2010 INTRODUCTION Project Description United Companies of Mesa County (United) is proposing to mine sand and gravel from a site along the Colorado River near Rifle. The proposed Rifle Scott Pit is located on private land approximately one-half mile east of the I-70 Rifle interchange between 1-70 and the Colorado River (see map). The site totals approximately 117 acres with approximately 72 acres being riparian woodlands. Of the 117 acres, 25.2 acres are proposed for mining. Mining will be generally concentrated in the area of two formerly irrigated pasture fields on the property; Mining Area 1 is located west of the oxbow and Mining Area 2 is southeast of the oxbow (see map). After reclamation, a small lake will occupy each of these mine sites. Bald Eagles During late December 2010, Garfield County planning department staff contacted the local Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW), Rifle District Wildlife Manager inquiring about the status of Bald Eagles, which had been nesting near the proposed gravel mining site. The CDOW indicated that an active Bald Eagle nest had been observed during January 2010 within the boundary of the gravel -mining lease. The presence of the Bald Eagle nest became a concern associated with the startup and operation of the Scott gravel mine. At the Garfield County Planning and Zoning Commission hearing on January 27, 2010, United agreed to formulate and submit a Bald Eagle Management Plan to county, state and federal representatives. The plan would address Bald Eagle protection and mitigation for potential disturbance factors associated with the gravel -mining operation. PURPOSE OF THE MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR BALD EAGLE This goal of this management plan is to provide year-round protection for Bald Eagles that may inhabit habitat within the Scott Pit gravel mine boundaries. Its development is a collaborative effort between WestWater Engineering (WestWater) biologists, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and CDOW. At the request of United Companies (United), WestWater developed this management plan as part of Garfield County's gravel mining permitting process. Background During the final stages of Garfield County's permitting process for the Scott Pit, a pair of Bald Eagles was found to have constructed a new nest within United's lease holdings. The recently (November -December 2009) constructed nest lies within 0.25 -mile and 0.50 -mile buffer zones where the CDOW and USFWS recommends limiting potential disturbance to Bald Eagles; this protection includes nest sites. WestWater Engineering 1 2/9/2010 In order to address concerns with potential impacts to nesting Bald Eagles, United agreed to monitor the Rifle Bald Eagle nest to provide background information, which would facilitate project development that is schedule to begin by United on June 15, 2010. Biological information collected during implementation of the management plan regarding the progress of Bald Eagle nesting during 2010 would be cooperatively shared with Garfield County, CDOW and USFWS. Overview of Bald Ea2le Status and Protection The Bald Eagle is a protected wildlife species; federal and state natural resource agencies as well as Garfield County have developed measurers to reduce the likelihood of adverse impacts to this species. The concern is that disturbance due to the initiation of gravel mining may negatively affect nesting Bald Eagles resulting in possible nest failure and subsequent loss of reproductive potential. Possible Bald Eagle disturbance factors associated with the mining project include the operation of mining equipment, machinery and the presence of personnel within the recommended protective buffer zones. Since being delisted, the Bald Eagle no longer receives protection under the Endangered Species Act (1973), but still receives protection under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The Bald Eagle is also protected under Colorado State statutes. The protection of Bald Eagles prohibits the taking of Bald Eagles, which includes the birds, nests or eggs. Take is defined as "pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, molest, or disturb. Disturb means to agitate or bother a Bald Eagle to a degree that causes, or is likely to cause, based on the best scientific information available, 1) injury to an eagle, 2) a decrease in its productivity, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding or sheltering behavior, or 3) nest abandonment by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding or sheltering behavior. In addition to the above protective measures, the USFWS and CDOW have published guidelines on how to minimize the risk of a take or disturbance to Bald Eagles. With regards to nesting Bald Eagles, the guidelines recommend: 1) keeping a distance between the activity (gravel mining) and the nest (distance buffers), 2) maintaining preferably forested (or natural) areas between the activity and around nest trees (landscape buffers), and 3) avoiding certain activities during the breeding season. The buffer areas serve to minimize visual and auditory impacts associated with human activities near nest sites. For mining operations near Bald Eagle nest sites, the National Guidelines recommend that if the activity will not be visible from the nest and there is a similar activity closer than 1 mile from the nest a distance of 330 ft may be an appropriate buffer to consider. However, in Colorado the USFWS recommends that companies follow the CDOW recommended buffer zones and seasonal restriction for raptors. The CDOW recommends a year-round closure to surface occupancy within a 1/4 -mile radius of Bald Eagle nest sites and no human activity within a V2 -mile radius of a nest site between October 15 through July 31. The USFWS recommendations in western states vary from the National Guidelines due to the characteristic of the vegetation, which is less often less forested habitat and little topographical relief to serve as protective buffers. WestWater Engineering 2 2/9/2010 BALD EAGLE NEST MONITORING AND REPORTING Objectives One objective of this monitoring program is to gather information on the nesting chronology of the Bald Eagles as the 2010 breeding season progresses. Primary information to be gathered includes final nest construction and pre -nesting activities/behavior, determine the date when egg(s) are laid, determine hatching dates, and fledging dates. Information gathered would be used by United to make an informed decision on when to begin their project development. Since the Rifle Bald Eagles are resident birds, the data collected could be used by United and the CDOW/USFWS for future gravel mining operations. Monitoring Area and Nest Site The Rifle Bald Eagle nest is located about 1 mile east of Rifle, CO on the south bank of the Colorado River (see map). The nest is near the top of a large cottonwood tree that is part of a large cottonwood gallery. The area is composed of typical riparian vegetation and the Bald Eagle nest site is in similar habitat and proximity to the Colorado River as other Bald Eagle nests along the Colorado River in this area. The nest is a new site and was constructed by a pair of resident Bald Eagles that have nested in the general area for at least the past three years and probably longer. The historic nest site was destroyed on or about June 18, 2009 when erosive actions of the Colorado River undercut the banks and the nest tree fell into the river. Three eaglets, which were within approximately 5 to 7 days of fledging, were in the nest when it fell into the river; one chick survived the loss of the nest tree. Bald Eagle Monitoring Personnel: Monitoring of the Rifle Bald Eagle nest will be conducted by wildlife biologists (Van Graham or other qualified biologists) who are associated with WestWater Engineering, Grand Junction, CO. Methods: The formal nest -monitoring program is scheduled to be initiated in early February 2010 and continue through fledging and post -fledging of eaglets, which is likely to occur during June and continue into July 2010. Observations at the nest site are scheduled to occur once a week during February and March when eggs will be laid (February) and hatching (March) will most likely occur. Both dates are important to predict an accurate fledging date. After eaglets hatch, monitoring during April and May could be reduced to once every 10 days. During June, monitoring should be increased to at least once per week. After each monitoring event is completed, results will be e-mailed to United, Garfield County, CDOW and USFWS. Information recorded during each monitoring event will include the following. • Beginning and ending time of observations (generally 2-4 hrs), • Weather conditions, • Bald Eagle activity in and around the nest, WestWater Engineering 3 2/9/2010 • Number of Bald Eagle observed, • Behavioral characteristics of Bald Eagles with emphasis on reactions to the presence of human activity in the general area, • Nest building/maintenance activities, • Estimated date of initiation of egg incubation, • Estimated date of hatching of eaglets, • Eaglet and pertinent biological data including survival during pre -fledging period, • Fledging dates (usually 10-12 weeks after hatching) • Post -fledging monitoring (2-3 weeks after eaglets leave nest). Recommendations: WestWater will provide pertinent information and a recommendation on project development to United, CDOW and USFWS during June as eaglet fledging approaches. This information can be used by United to plan its project development. Additional mitigation measures may be developed based on observations and Bald Eagle use of the area, which would provide added security to Bald Eagles if fledging has not occurred by June 15, 2010. Monitoring Report: Results of the monitoring will be documented in a final summary report to United, which will be shared with Garfield County, CDOW and USFWS. General Contents of Final Summary Report I. Introduction II. Monitoring Area and Monitoring Methods III. Results of Monitoring • Summary of Bald Eagle nesting activity at the Rifle nest site, • Nesting chronology for the Rifle Bald Eagle nest, • Bald Eagle roosting sites within the project area (including appropriate maps). IV. Discussion • An analysis of appropriate project scheduling for human activities (mining, natural gas exploration, etc.) relative to Bald Eagle nesting. • Effects of human activities on Bald Eagles V. Recommendations for mitigation of potential impacts to Bald Eagles nesting along the Colorado River relative to human disturbance factors. VI. Justification for recommendations. VII. Appendices of monitoring results (narrative of observations) and appropriate photographs and maps. WestWater Engineering 4 2/9/2010 BALD EAGLE ADAPTATION TO HUMAN PRESENCE Rifle Bald Eagles The new Rifle Bald Eagle nest is located in the top of a mature cottonwood tree approximately 50-60 above the ground. The vegetation surrounding the nest is composed of a mature cottonwood gallery with an understory of Russian olive, tamarisk and various riparian shrubs and grasses. It is highly likely that this is the same pair of Bald Eagles that occupied the former nest. This pair of Bald Eagles has adapted to and successfully nested in the presence of significant human activity. The former nest site was located approximately 0.14 miles (730 ft) from vehicular traffic on I-70; within 0.25 and 0.50 miles of two active gravel mining operations; within 0.43 mile of the Union Pacific Railroad; within 0.42 miles of the City of Rifle's water treatment facility; and within 0.25 miles of industrial sites south of I-70. The USFWS National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines indicate that Bald Eagles are unlikely to be disturbed by routine use of roads, homes, and other facilities where such use pre -dates the eagles' successful nesting activity in a given area. It goes on to indicate that in most cases, on- going existing use may proceed with the same intensity with little risk of disturbing Bald Eagles. The new Rifle Bald Eagle nest is located along the south bank of the Colorado River approximately 0.5 miles downstream of the former nest site. However, it is in the presence of similar human disturbance factors with I-70 at 0.23 miles; within 0.67 and 1.0 miles from gravel mining operations; within 0.2 miles of the Union Pacific railroad; 0.23 miles from the City of Rifle's water facility; and 0.33 miles from industrial sites south of I-70. Previous Bald Eagle Nest Monitoring WestWater's biologists have been monitoring four Bald Eagle nests along the Colorado River between Rifle and DeBeque for the past 2 years. This monitoring has provided valuable information regarding Bald Eagle response to human and industrial disturbance factors. Results of this monitoring have shown that Bald Eagles adapt to human activities near nest sites that are well within USFWS and CDOW recommended buffer zones. The following is a summary of observation made during Bald Eagle nest monitoring. 1. Three of the Bald Eagle nest sites are located adjacent to gravel mining operations. At two of the mine sites, Bald Eagles occupied new nest sites while the mines were actively producing gravel. The following is a summary of nests located adjacent to gravel mine sites. • Average distance from edge of mine pit to nest = 776 ft (0.15 mile). The closest is 400 ft and most distant is 1,895 ft. • Average distance of nest to rock crusher = 1,549 ft (0.29 mile). • All three gravel -mining operations were active during the 2009 nesting season. All three nests successfully fledged eaglets in 2009. WestWater Engineering 5 2/9/2010 2. None of three nest sites located adjacent to gravel mining pits has topographic buffers and minimal visual (vegetation) buffers to limit the view of the nest. All three nests are within the USFWS recommended 0.25 -mile no surface occupancy buffer. 3. The forth nest site is located in riparian vegetation with active natural gas drilling and production close to the sites and eaglets have successfully fledged during 2007, 2008 and 2009. However, no large-scale natural gas development has occurred until after eaglets have fledged. Bald Eagles have reoccupied the existing nest site in 2010 after a well pad was constructed and wells were completed (outside nesting season) within 400 ft (0.08 mile) of the nest. At the same site, Bald Eagle fledglings still using the nest (approx. 21 days post -first flight) displayed little to no response to construction of a well pad using large earth moving equipment which included 2 bulldozers (D-9 cats) and one trackhoe. Noise associated with this project did not appear to affect the eaglets. UNITED COMPANIES MINING PLAN For business reasons, it is necessary for United to begin its gravel mining operation by June 15, 2010. Protection of nesting Bald Eagles is a high priority for United as it develops its mining operation. United recognizes that delaying access road construction and gravel mining until eaglets have been fledged and off the nest for approximately three weeks would provide the best protection for the birds. The following data and information combined with the on-going nest monitoring data provides a biological basis with which United's will make an informed decision with regards to commencing operations on June 15, 2010 and still allow for protection for Bald Eagles. Based on information collected at the former Rifle Bald Eagle nest in 2009, fledging of eaglets was likely to occur around June 20-25. Unfortunately, the nest tree fell into the river on about June 18; one eaglet managed to survive, however, subsequent observation indicate the other two eaglets did not survive. If 2010 nesting is successful, it is likely that fledging would occur at or about the same time as last year—June 20-25. United has consulted with the USFWS and current USFWS nest protection recommendations for project construction (presented below: number 2) partially conflict with United's mining plans by approximately 3-4 weeks at the end of the breeding season. United's development of this management plan is intended to help resolve concerns with Bald Eagle nest protection. CONSERVATION MEASURERS AND DISTURBANCE MITIGATION USFWS Site Specific Conservation Measurers The following is a summary of USFWS recommended primary conservation measures for the new Bald Eagle nest near Rifle for United's Scott gravel pit (Clayton and Krueger 2010). 1. Monitor nesting activities to determine key dates, including fledging, number of young fledged, eagle response to project activities, etc. Provide a copy of the report to USFWS after fledging, WestWater Engineering 6 2/9/2010 2. Start operations less than 0.25 miles from nest after fledging & eaglets are no longer dependent on nest (fledging + 3 weeks), 3. Complete mining activities closer than 0.25 miles from nest during non -nesting season (Non -nesting season approx. 7/15 — 11/30; Nesting season approx. 12/1 — 7/15), 4. Maximize distance to nest for any processing, asphalt, concrete, etc. equipment; possibly use screening, 5. Minimize cutting of mature cottonwoods for access road and keep it as close as possible to 1-70, 6. United will keep workers out of the oxbow area during nesting season to avoid disturbing the eagles. United Companies Conservation Measurers United's proposed gravel pits are located for the most part outside a 0.25 -mile buffer of the nest site. The access road to Mining Area 1 is within the 0.25 -mile recommended buffer zone and at it closest point approximately 1,000 ft (0.19 miles) from the nest. Approximately 1,600 ft (56 %) of the 2,850 ft new access road would be constructed within 0.25 miles of the nest. No other alternative access roads are available to United. Based on information collected by WestWater Engineering regarding Bald Eagle adaptations to human disturbance, it is highly unlikely that initiation of project construction during mid to late June would jeopardize successful fledging of Bald Eagle eaglets. However, it should be noted that WestWater can not state unequivocally that construction activities associated with the Scott pit will not adversely affect Bald Eagle nesting. The following information summarizes the evidence that supports the opinion that Bald Eagles are unlikely to be affected by project development. • The closest construction activities (pre -fledging) are approximately 1,000 ft away from the nest, • Activities are similar to historic disturbance factors that this pair of Bald Eagles have adapted to, • The mature cottonwood gallery provides a visual barrier between gravel mining operations and nest site. • Access road construction will be adjacent to 1-70 and likely will not be perceived by the Bald Eagles as a significant treat, • The Bald Eagle nest is in the top of a tall cottonwood tree, which provides added security (National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines). • Activities at the gravel pit will occur late in the breeding season. As eaglets mature, when parental bonds between the young and adults increase, which reduces the likelihood of nest abandonment, • It is unlikely that noise levels of equipment will greater than that of traffic on 1-70 and the Union Pacific railroad, WestWater Engineering 7 2/9/2010 • Activities at the mine site and access road generally conform with recommended distance buffers (330 ft. if mining activity will not be visible from nest) USFWS National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines, • Implementation of United's recommended conservation measurers as presented and discussed below. United Companies has made the following commitments regarding the protection of Bald Eagles on the Rivers Edge property for the Scott Pit application in Garfield County. 1. United commits to not starting any activity on site until June 15, 2010, and only if the behavior of the eagles, as determined by a qualified wildlife biologist, is conducive to startup. At that time, the access road to Mining Area 1, which is parallel and adjacent to I-70, would be improved, topsoil will be stripped and the gravel mining operation will start. Portable crushers and screens will be brought on-site to process gravel. A wildlife biologist(s) will monitor the behavior of the eagles during this time and if, in the biologist's professional opinion, the operation must be slowed down or stopped, construction will be stopped. United commits to following the recommendations of the wildlife biologist at all times. 2. United commits to starting the initial mining no closer than 1,800 feet from the nest in the western corner of Mining Area 1, as shown on the attached Ball Eagle protection map. The view of this area from the nest is obstructed by a mature cottonwood gallery located between the nest and the mining area. 3. United commits to not conducting any mining inside the 114 mile buffer (very little is proposed in both pits) until the eaglets have fledged (fledging + 21 days). This permission must be approved by the wildlife biologist, working with the USFWS. 4. United commits to conducting as much mining and processing as possible from the pit itself, which will be approximately 25 feet below the current ground level. The majority. of the gravel in both pits can be mined and processed in this manner. 5. United and the landowner, Rivers Edge LLC, commit to not allowing any human activity, including foot travel, 50 feet beyond the disturbed area of Mining Area 1, the access road and the area for the scale and office as shown on the attached Eagle Protection Map, unless the activity is approved by the wildlife biologist approved by the USFWS. Weed spraying is a main activity that falls in this category. 6. United will try to conduct as much as possible of the mining and processing during the non -nesting season for Bald Eagles. 7. Any asphalt or concrete batch plants that would be moved on site would be a smaller footprint and portable and would only be moved on site for a specific Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), County or Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) job, which would be temporary. They could only be placed on site after the approval of the wildlife biologist. The plants must be removed by November 15 of each year. 8. Weed spraying on the site can only take place after the Bald Eagles have fledged, as determined by the wildlife biologist, as described above. WestWater Engineering 8 2/9/2010 United Companies Scott Pit Gravel Mine Rifle Bald Eagle Nest Monitoring Monitoring Notes March 1, 2010 EXHIBIT I /3 The resident pair of Bald Eagles in the territory of the pervious nest (tree fell into Colorado River June 18, 2009) likely began constructing the new nest in November or December 2009. My first observation of the nest was on 12/27/2009 and at that time it appeared to be a completed nest. A call (February 2010) to a local Rifle area individual who is interested in the Bald Eagles, indicated that nest construction began sometime around November 1, 2009. However, this information is based on the recollection of the individual and has not been verified to date. Based on the observation of a completed nest by 12/27/2009 and the time it would take to construct a nest, it can be surmised that at a minimum nest construction began sometime early in December 2009 and perhaps sometime during November 2009. 1. December 27, 2009: First observation of the new Rifle Bald Eagle nest on this date. Did not stop to observe, but saw the nest, which appeared to be a large and almost a complete nesting structure. This observation was done on my own time while in the Rifle area. 2. December 1, 2010: The nest appears to be almost complete. This observation was conducted on my own time. I observed both adults carry sticks into the nest structure at 4:00 p.m.. During the nest building, I observed one of the adults fly from a perch on a limb of a large cottonwood, fly into the cottonwood gallery to the south out of my view, and then reappear with a large branch in its talons. The large branch was broken off while the bird was in flight. This bird landed on a large cottonwood branch, broke off a smaller twig, and flew to nest and deposited the twig. 3. February 3, 2010: Calm, 31 degrees, high thin clouds. 1:05 p.m.: Nest appears to be completed. One adult observed about 0.25 miles upstream of nest perched in a cottonwood snag. 1:12 p.m.: The second adult lands next to first adult and vocalizes. Second adult then flies to nest, arranges materials, gets into an incubation position for several minutes and then stands, and works on the nest. I do not believe any incubation is occurring. 1:23 p.m.: The adult assumes an incubation position again. 1:25 p.m.: The adult male flies into the nest, the female stands and the male rearranges sticks and grass -both birds are standing. 1:33 p.m.: Both adult still standing the male is working on the nest. Definitely, no incubation is occurring and no eggs. No copulation observed. 1:35 p.m.: The male flies off to the southeast towards the Garfield County airport, female still on nest rearranging grass in nest. Still standing at 1:27 p.m. WestWater Engineering 1 3/1/2010 1:38 p.m.: The female flies from the nest to the south and disappears into the cottonwood gallery... she may have left the area out of my view. Lots of interest in the nest, but no eggs. Concluded observation on north side of river. 1:42 p.m.: Drove to the south side and observed the nest near the west end of the service road. The nest is visible from this point, but some limbs obstruct the view. 1:58 p.m.: Still no eagles on the nest or in view. 2:40 p.m.: Concluded stint with no eagles in view. 4. February 10, 2010: 40 degrees, partly cloudy, <5 mph. 1:30 p.m.: No BE observed on arrival at monitoring site. Definitely no birds on nest. I talked to an angler who was fishing along the railroad ROW below my observation point (0.3 miles northwest of nest) said the eagles were at the nest earlier in the day, by they flew upstream. 2:25 p.m.: No BE observed. Definitely no incubation, left at 2:30 p.m. 5. February 17, 2010: 41 degrees F, high thin clouds, wind <5mph. 1:32 p.m.: One adult on nest in an incubation position, bird facing to the northeast. The other adult is upstream about 120 yds in a dead cottonwood snag where the birds often perch. Probably a good hunting perch. 1:43 p.m.: The adult in the snag flies off to the north across Highway 6 and disappears from view. Adult on nest still in incubation position (Bird on nest was determined to be the female). 1:48 p.m.: The adult on the nest stands up, appears to tend to a possible eggs or something below where the bird had been resting, then repositions to the southeast and appears to settle down on an egg(s). When settling down the adult moved its torso in a side-to-side motion ("wiggle"), which it a typical movement for Bald Eagles when they are positioning on eggs for incubation. The motion helps get the egg(s) close to the body for maximum warmth. 1:52 p.m.: The bird on the nest appeared to reposition to the north. 2:06 p.m.: The adult on the nest stands up, tends to something under the body, and then repositions to the northwest, when settling down I observed the same "wiggle" movement of the body and tail. 2:09 p.m.: The adult again repositions to the south with same actions as observed previously. 2:12 p.m.: The adult repositions to the north. 2:14 p.m.: The adult flies from nest to the river and catches a fish with only the talons contacting the water. Flies to a branch below the nest and feeds. Nest is now empty. WestWater Engineering 2 3/1/2010 2:18 p.m.: Adult return to nest (could not see if the fish was taken) and settles down in the same location as previous observations, but facing to the southwest. The female was gone from the nest for 4 minutes. 2:21 p.m.: Amtrak train passes going to the west with no response by BE in nest. 2:29 p.m.: The second adult reappears back at same upstream snag, the adult on the nest then flies to the snag and copulation occurs. 2:45 p.m.: Male flies to water and catches a fish, the Bald Eagle floats on the water (like a duck) for about 7 seconds, then flies from the water with a fish to a limb on lower portion of the snag. The male feeds on the fish for a short time. 2:49 p.m.: Both adults return to the nest and feed on the fish while standing up. May not be eggs on nest due to long time from incubation?? Some concern on my part that egg(s) may not be in nest due to length of time gone from possible incubation. 3:01 p.m.: The female goes back to same nest location of possible egg and settles down. The other adult flies to cottonwood 20 yd east of the nest and then flies away out of view. All indications that there are egg(s) in the nest, female was gone from nest for 32 minutes. During early incubation, adult may leave eggs unattended for longer periods; I have observed this at other nest sites during initial incubation. I still believe that there are egg(s) in the nest. No incubation was observed at last monitoring on 2/10/2010. I estimate first egg likely laid 2/15 or 2/16/2010. 3:16 p.m.: A coal train passes to the east -no reaction from BE. 3:23 p.m.: The adult on the nest stands up, appear to tend to egg, consumes part of fish on nest and settles back down at 3:25 p.m.. In an incubation position and typical egg positioning body movements. 3:47 p.m.: The male flies from snag to the nest, and then flies away at 3:57 p.m.. During this time, the other adult remains in an incubation position. 3:58 p.m.: The adult on the nest (that I finally determined was the female) stands up, rearranges nesting material and then settle back into an incubation position all within about 30 seconds. 4:02 p.m.: The male arrives back at the nest and both birds stand up. 4:04 p.m.: The female flies from the nest to a cottonwood tree about 75 yds downstream of the nest; the male follows and copulation occured. 4:08 p.m.: The male flies back to the nest and lands on a limb above the nest. 4:11 p.m.: The male chase an immature BE that was flying downstream and returns to the cottonwood where the female is still perched. No birds on the nest. 4:16 p.m.: The male flies off to an unknown location and the female is still in the cottonwood. 4:19 p.m.: The female returns to the nest and at 4:20 p.m. settles into incubation position at the same location in the nest where she has been during the observation period. The female was gone from the nest for 18 minutes. 4:25 p.m.: Concluded the observation period and left the area with the female still on the nest. WestWater Engineering 3 3/1/2010 Summary: It is estimated that the BE began nesting on 2/15 or 211612010. 6. February 23, 2010: 34 degrees, 5 mph, clear. 3:01 p.m.: Arrived at 3:01, one adult on nest in same location as last week's observation. Definite incubation in progress. 3:11 p.m.: The adult on the nest stands up, repositions, and then settles down on eggs with a typical "wiggle" motion. 3:28 p.m.: The adult arises, tends to eggs for about 10-15 seconds and then settles down facing to the west. 4:34 p.m.: The second adult showed up and perched in the upstream cottonwood snag. 4:35 p.m.: The second adult flies to nest (the first adult leaves and flies to a cottonwood downstream). The arriving bird sits on eggs at about 4:37 p.m. 4:39 p.m.: The BE first observed chases an immature BE about 0.25 miles upstream (appear to touch in a mid-air talon -to -talon encounter) and then returns to the nest. Both birds stand up and the male flies away upstream and at 4:42 p.m. The female settles back down on eggs. Two immature BE have been observed in the area, generally the adults don't seem to care except for the one chase mentioned above. One of the immature BE appears to be molting into adult plumage. 4:45 p.m.: Ended stint with one adult on eggs. Estimated Fledging Date: Based on the time of first incubation, it is estimated that eggs may hatch on or about March 22, 2010; second egg on March 24, 2010 (this pair is known to have had three eggs/eaglets in prior years). Fledging is estimated to occur around June 14 or 15, 2010. WestWater Engineering 4 3/1/2010 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FROM JANUARY 27, 2010 PC Members Present Staff Present Phil Vaughan Cheryl Chandler John Kuersten Lauren Martindale Michael Sullivan EXHIBIT 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, Sean Martin, Adolfo Gorra, and Greg McKennis. The first item on the agenda tonight is a continued public hearing from June 24, September 23, and October 28, 2009. The Applicant has totally re -noticed this application for tonight's hearing date. Request is for review of a Special Use Permit to allow for Processing, Storage and Material Handling of Natural Resources and a Special Use Permit for Development on the Floodplain. The applicant for a Gravel Pit is for property located % mile east of Rifle between the Colorado River and 1-70. The Applicant is River's Edge, LLC. Present tonight representing the Applicant are Greg Lewicki of Lewicki and Associates and he is the Project Engineer for the Applicant. Also present is Pete Sigman with United Company, representing property owner. Phil Vaughan explained the process we will follow for this item tonight. Only the four Planning Commissioners that were present when application was opened can participate in the vote for this item. All members present can participate in the discussion. Deborah Quinn reviewed noticing with the applicant. Greg Lewicki answered questions about noticing. Proof of publication was provided showing a publication date of December 24, 2009 in the Rifle Citizen Telegram. Notice posted in the newspaper included the property owner's name, a legal and practical description of the property, and a description of the request, the date, time and place of the hearing. Posting of the site occurred on December 22, 2009 and was still in place as of 10 days ago. Greg Lewicki stated that they used the Garfield County records during the first week of December to obtain the names and addresses of adjoining property owners and any mineral owners. Notice of hearing was sent to all of these people by certified return receipt letter. Six of the letters were returned and Greg Lewicki said they were all mailed to the address that was last listed with the Assessor's office. Deborah Quinn stated that based on evidence and testimony given it is okay to proceed tonight. 1 Phil Vaughan swore in all speakers for this item. Fred Jarman wanted to enter the exhibits into the record. Exhibits A — W are listed with your staff report and he wanted to add to that list the following exhibits: Exhibit X: 2008 Land Use Resolution, as amended Exhibit Y: Email dated 1/26/2010 from Will Spence with the Colorado Division of Wildlife Exhibit Z: Letter dated 1/25/2010 from Patricia Gelatt with the US Fish & Wildlife Service Exhibit AA: Letter from Greg Lewicki which is concerning concessions at the Scott Pit for USFW for new eagles nest (Mr. Jarman dated that document today) Exhibits A -- AA are accepted into the record. Fred Jarman will make his presentation next and he will try to be brief just because we have already covered a lot of these issues. This is a request for a Special Use Permit for processing, storage and material handling of natural resources and a Special Use Permit for development in the floodplain. The applicant is River's Edge. LLC and the subject property is located 1/2 mile east of the main interstate intersection of Rifle between the Colorado River and 1-70. The parcel is approximately 93 acres in size which 25 of those acres will be disturbed for mining. The zoning on the property is Agriculture/industrial (A/I). Slides of the site and surrounding areas were shown. An existing condition map was shown. The proposed site plan map and the original site plan maps were also shown. Operations and staging center were pointed out on site plan. A drastic change was made from the original proposal and that is mining area 1 is to the west and mining area 2 is to the east. The area for the supporting infrastructure was pointed out noting that it's out of the flood plain but also as part of the proposal that they have committed to a prohibition on batch plants or this mining activity and that is a concession that is important to note for a number of reasons but primarily with the City if Rifle being about a mile down the road with their main entrance a gateway and that was a big issue of theirs. Additional State Permits are required from specific agencies and have yet to be obtained. Copies of those permits shall be provided to the County. Applicant is looking to develop in the flood fringe and a map amendment has been approved by FEMA to correct the floodway boundaries. Typical reclamation/re-vegetation site plan was shown. The main project challenges discussed back at the June 24th meeting included: •Visual Impacts •lmpacts to County Road system 2 • Reclamation Plan and proposed slopes `Question of irrigation • Compatibility with Comprehensive Plan •Compatible with the City of Rifle's Gateway Plan •American Bald Eagle A slide of the currently proposed Reclamation Plan was shown next. There will be two mining areas. An internal road connects both of the mining areas. Mining area consists of 25 acres. There are a number of reclamation conditions that staff thought was important. Some of the most important ones were timing of when certain things had to happen. Staff also wants to make sure that whatever gets approved that is the reclamation plan that both Garfield County operates on and also the Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety (DRMS). Special Use Permit will be valid for six (6) years from the date of approval by the BOCC. At the end of six years the applicant would come to the Board and apprise the Board of where they are with their mining plan and that would give the Board another opportunity to take a look at the operation and make sure either it can be continued as an extended project or there are issues that need to be addressed. Fred Jarman showed slide of general Cross Section next. This item is in your Land Use Code. Slopes need to be designed with this schematic in mind. The original staff recommendation was that we could not support because of the key issues that Fred Jarman had mentioned before. Since that time, the text amendment was processed and approved by the Board. No changes were made from what the Planning Commission had proposed to them. Planning Commission must still make finding for: •Visual Impacts: Need finding for the sufficiency of the minimization of impacts because it is close to Rifle. •Wetland criteria for the slopes: The applicant is proposing different set of slopes than what the Code recommends here and they have in their application reasons why they believe that their set of slopes makes sense. Lauren Martindale has a question about the Airport comment that was submitted. Were those submitted based on the understanding that there would be a 5:1 or a 3:1 slope? Fred Jarman said they didn't even ask us. Lauren Martindale clarified that it basically made no difference to them as to what the slope would be. Fred Jarman said that is correct. 3 • Irrigation is the next issue: Fred Jarman said if you believe in what their proposal is for the irrigation for the reclamation plan then you have the authority to vary from that standard so long as you state the finding as to why you think it's a good idea. • To ensure that the development and overall land use policies within the county that will affect the municipalities are compatible with the existing zoning and future land use objectives of that municipality. That's the City of Rifle Gateway issue. The staff report that was written for tonight gives a recommendation of approval with a set of conditions. After Fred Jarman wrote this report he decided to call the DOW to make sure that the eagle was a no -issue still because we knew the tree had fallen into the river before. It turns out that the eagles actually are back. Not only have they come back but they are on the subject property now. Slides of the eagles nest present and past location were shown. Rings shown on the site plan indicate the 1/4 mile and 1/2 mile distance away. Planning Commission members took a few minutes to read the new exhibit letters. Fred Jarman said these eagles seem to be a pretty tolerant pair. There are on-going industrial uses occurring in this area already. All the riparian area on this property is buffered by the Oxbow. Will Spence with the CDOW could not be here tonight but he tendered a letter and you will see some of these themes in both of the letters and some of the conversation. Certainly the classic recommendation is no disturbance within the 1/4 mile buffer and limited within the % mile buffer area. You will recall earlier on that the applicant had committed to remove the batch plant out of the proposal. USFWS review. The US Fish & Wildlife and the Colorado Division of Wildlife suggest a 1/4 mile buffer be provided around all active bald eagle nests and a 1/2 mile buffer during nesting season. (November 15 —July 15) (No activity or occupancy should occur within that radius at anytime). The safest route is still to follow the US Fish and Wildlife recommendations if the company decides to risk disturbing the eagles and moves forward with mining inside the 1/2 mile they will be responsible for a Take. According to CDOW the nest is in the Oxbow portion, this area is not to be mined and the new location will be more beneficial as the trees and vegetation will shield the eagles from the activity and traffic disturbances. Exhibit AA are the applicants response to the CDOW and US Fish & Wildlife comments and recommendations. Fred Jarman stated that the staff's revised recommendation is exactly the same as his previous recommendation with the one change and that is regarding the American Bald Eagle. Staff 4 recommends the Planning Commission accept the recommendations of the US Fish & Wildlife Service. Cheryl Chandler has a question about an item on page 7 of the staff report that said something about the retaining the rural character and it said this piece of ground is the epitome of rural character. She wanted to know who wrote that statement. Fred Jarman asked where she was reading from. Cheryl Chandler said Exhibit E on page 7. Fred Jarman said he's sure he wrote that. Ms. Chandler said this is more of a weed patch than the epitome of rural character. Fred Jarman said there is a serious weed problem on this property and Steve Anthony has discussed that in his comments of this application. Lauren Martindale asked are there fines associated with the Taking of a nest. Deborah Quinn said there are criminal and civil penalties and she stated what those are. Lauren Martindale said so then the only oversight or enforcement with the agreements that United will secure as far as no operations during nesting seasons really that only enforced if they die. There's no oversight that basically says to guarantee that they will not be mining during nesting season. Fred Jarman said you can make that recommendation. You could limit what the time frame is for mining so it falls outside of the nesting season. Creed Clayton with the US Fish & Wildlife Service will speak next. He is stationed in Silt and he typically works with oil and gas operations. It does make a difference to the nesting eagles. If it's a disturbance that shows up while they are nesting like a new disturbance while they are nesting versus an on-going disturbance and they choose to nest there despite. That makes sense. The financial penalties for violating the bald and golden eagle protection act his understanding is the fines can be larger. He thinks up to $100,000 per Take for eagles. Fred Jarman said there is a definition of harassment in his memo. Phil Vaughan said the first paragraph in Mr. Kruger's letter details that out. Deborah Quinn said that definition comes from the Federal Code of Regulations. Mr. Clayton said it boils down to basically you can't injure an eagle. You cannot injure, kill or cause them to reduce their productive output. Phil Vaughan said we take these comments from Mr. Clayton as referral agency comments. Phil Vaughan has a question for Mr. Clayton about the two different dates in the memos related to nesting season. Phil referred to the US Fish & Wildlife Service letter where Mr. Kruger noted the dates of November 15 through July 15 as the nesting season and then Mr. Spence with the CDOW stated in his letter the dates ofianuary 10 to July 10. Mr. Vaughan wants to ask the question as to which one is accurate or is this a matter of opinion or did he read the letter wrong. Mr. Clayton said that is the first time he has seen the January 10 date used. There are a number of dates to pin point the nesting season and the DOW's own recommended buffers has a slightly difference from most which are October 15 through July 5 31St and are in their written guidelines. The important thing is on the latter date is when the birds fled and the chicks are no longer dependent on that nest. Moved to the applicant for their presentation next. Greg Lewicki will speak first and he is the Project Engineer for the Scott Pit for United Company. Mr. Lewicki gave a summary of the 2006 application and what was included at that time. The new application has: •A reduced mining area from 63 to 21 acres •Avoids Oxbow mining area •Has an approved CLOMAR showing no detrimental changes to the floodway • It removes the permanent asphalt & concrete plants for visual and wildlife impacts (that was especially a concern for the City of Rifle) •We also addressed the new Gravel Regulations as well as the Text Amendment • We have increased wildlife mitigation over the original plan • We have strict reclamation timeframes • We have pit capture mitigation • We have an expected mine life reduction from 10 years to 5.7 2009 Mine Plan Map was shown next. 1/4 mile &1/2 mile rings to the old nest were pointed out. The Mine Plan in respect to the new nest was shown next. The red ring shown is area within the 1/4 mile circle. The applicant is showing that they do slightly intersect mining area 1. You can see that we barely touch both mining areas inside the 1/4 mile ring. Mr. Clayton stated that he made the first map that the Commission saw and the nest location was based on his best guess. He did not GPS it he only estimated it from the road so he could be slightly off from the nest tree. Greg Lewicki said we could be a little of too. Visual Impacts were discussed next. The site is screened from the north due to the river and the 100 -foot buffer with the mature trees which will remain untouched especially in the Oxbow area. The Lafarge/Mamm Creek Pit is adjacent to the east, an unused CDOT parcel is to the west, to the south 1-70 is adjacent and elevated and screening options are limited here. Only the west bound lanes will see the pit. Mitigation of visual impacts. These are commitments they have made in order to try and address concerns that were raised here at the County level over the past three years. • The amount of mine slopes allowed to be present that is not backfilled to 3:1 or more at any given time is a 1000 -feet. •The amount of backfilled slope that is not topsoil is limited to 400 -feet. •Top soiling is required on all surface areas down to 5 -feet below the expected water level. 6 •The seeding & mulching according to the approved plan will occur in all topsoil areas each spring or fall no matter how small the area is. • Within 6 months of finishing mining in any mining designated area (which really only means mining area 1) that area must be fully reclaimed including top soiling, seeding, mulching, tree planting, wetland preparation, and water filling of the lake. So basically for the life of the pit the maximum disturbance which is mining area 2 is 13.9 acres. • 100 -foot buffer of trees will be left along the Colorado River and that is in addition to the entire Oxbow area. • By strictly reclaiming previous mined areas and limiting the maximum disturbance to 13.9 acres the westbound cars on 1-70 will really only see that disturbance for about 8 seconds. •Added (20) 2 -inch caliper trees along each lake at the time of lake filling. In addition willow clumps and cottonwood saplings have been added to the plan. • The permanent asphalt and concrete plants have been removed from the plan. Applicant wants to reserve the right to have a "temporary" asphalt or concrete plant for a specific job. It would be on the site for one job and would be required to be removed. A slide of the existing site was shown next. A slide of what the site would look like after being reclaimed was shown. Applicant agrees that the DRMS permit will be amended (there is an existing DRMS permit) to reflect every single condition that's agreed to in the Garfield County Special Use Permit. Protection of the City of Rifle Water Intake. Have been working with the City of Rifle on this item. Wildlife impacts. New eagles nest location about 1/4 mile from each of the mining areas. Will not go in the 1/4 mile ring when the eagles are there. Slide of 2010 Mine Plan and aerial image of nest were shown. Greg Lewicki thinks it's pretty obvious that these eagles are pretty tolerant of things already happening in the 1/4 mile and 1/2 mile radius zone. Mr. Lewicki gave their reasons to allow this plan as proposed: •Buffered by thick cottonwood grove. • Worked with CDOW. •United Company is committed to no permanent asphalt or concrete batch plant. •Two seasons only of mining in 1/4 mile radius when eagles are not present. • Pair of eagles doesn't seem to mind gravel mining activity. Removal of Oxbow mining area allows project to last only 5.7 years. • Will avoid sensitive time for eagles during first of the year which will last until June. 7 •United will make its best effort to mine and process as much material as possible while the eagles are not present. • All processing will occur outside of the % mile radius from new eagles nest. •New nest will experience more noise from railroad. New commitments: •Amend time period. United will not start any activity until June 15th and will start at far western area of mine 1. • Mining & processing will be for the most part about 25' below ground level. •Conduct as much as possible in the off season when the eagles are not present. •The commitment to no permanent asphalt or concrete batch plant stands. •Life of operation is 5.7 years. •Applicants met with Creed Clayton and they have three new major commitments to add. Applicant commits to hiring a wildlife expert (who is here tonight from West Water in Grand Junction) and this wildlife expert will do an observation program of the nest weeks in advance of the June 15th date to observe what is going on. Van Graham is a Wildlife Biologist with West Water Engineering. They are environmental consultants and he will be the expert Greg Lewicki referred to in the above commitment. • On June 15th Van Graham will be present at the site to see how eagles react to mining operation. We see this as a precautionary measure. • On-going observation of eagles to make sure they are not disturbed. • AII of the Oxbow area and area outside of mining areas will make commitment that no one can walk in or disturb this area until after July 15th. Van Graham will make some comments next. He has monitored this eagle's nest for around 18 months now along with three other nests. The real nesting probably starts around this time of year and eggs will probably be laid mid to late February and hatch probably mid to late March and the chicks will usually fledge around third week in June. The period of time when they are about to lay eggs are their most sensitive time. All of these birds seem to be tolerant to these surroundings and activities around them. •Noxious weed management. Extensive Knapp weed and Tamarisk on the site which applicant will take care of but they would like to wait until July 15th to take care of weeds. •DRMS will not release bond if there are weeds in any part of the reclaimed areas. • Noise compliance. Did noise study and they easily meet the noise standards. • Glare created from lakes. Think no real problem due to geometry of this site. •Water discharge quality. The NPDES permit issued for any gravel pit discharge limits the amount of total suspended solids to 35-70 milligrams. • Will have a SWMP and Spill Containment Plan. 8 •All fuel tanks are located above 100 -year floodplain in the last phase of mining area 2. •According to the new text amendment of 2009 no Road Bond is required for this operation because it doesn't outlet to a county road. •Reclaimed slopes. Under the new text amendment the new regulations require for wetland areas is that 80% of the wetland slopes have to be Tess than 5:1 and 20% have to be less than 10:1. For dry land the minimum is 85% less than 5:1. But they added exceptions for good cause. Have revised plan to include 5:1 slopes and 10:1 slopes to the extent practical. Where they really base these exceptions is for the Airport. Greg Lewicki wanted to clarify from the Airport letter that they do say bird attractant ponds are not compatible within 10,000 feet of the runway. This site is within 3500 feet of the runway far inside the 10,000 feet distance. Applicant is committing to creating .8 acres of wetlands that don't exist out there now. They are not disturbing any wetlands in the plan. Thinks this falls into the exception they created in the text amendment. Active irrigation was discussed next. The applicants are committing to that supplemental irrigation if it's needed. If you over irrigate the slopes then you'll encourage vegetation that won't last when you stop the water. City of Rifle East Gateway Plan discussed next. The permanent plants have been removed from the plan. United Company still wants to reserve the right to have a temporary plant for a specific job. Enforcement. Applicant thinks they have taken some pretty good steps to try and restore some confidence in that reclamation. The time frames and the quality of reclamation. All commitments are going to be binding conditions of the Special Use Permit and the DRMS permit. Greg Lewicki showed a list of phone numbers of agencies that can be contacted if there is a problem, complaint, or concern on a site. Greg Lewicki wants everyone in the County to know that there are enforcement procedures in place. Another thing to think about here is the demand versus reserve. The main corridor for gravel development in this area is really from Rifle to Silt. Once you get below Rifle the Oil Shale starts to come into the gravel and it puts it out of spec for asphalt and concrete. The current permitted reserves will last approximately 8-10 years. Moved to questions for applicant next. Fred Jarman wants to make four points: 1) Issue of asphalt batch plant. What was testified to you all is the applicant wants to reserve the right for a temporary plant for a job. Fred Jarman wanted to point out a number of places that directly speak to that so you can consider this on how you are going to move on the project. Fred Jarman directed the Commission to go to Exhibit N the 4th paragraph in the City of Rifle letter. "The application fails to illustrate the 4-6 9 year condition of the property during the operation of the asphalt and concrete plants." He then referred to the last paragraph of this letter because it is very important to the City of Rifle. "In summary, the City of Rifle would prefer not to see another gravel pit along the Colorado River " "Should the County elect to approve this pit, the City strongly request 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." A large part of their argument was that this impacts the economic benefits to the City of Rifle and how an industrial use with a batch plant at their doorstep was a negative impact to them. 2) Fred Jarman wants to refer to Exhibit P next. This is the applicant's letter back to staff and Commission and is in response to a lot of discussion that you all have already had. #1 on their letter states, "No permanent asphalt plant or concrete plant will be located on this site. No portable plants of either type are allowed unless it is needed for a specific CDOT or FAA job beneficial to the community for a limited time frame. No job of this type has occurredThis addresses in major part the concerns of the City of Rifle with the East Gateway Plan, the visual impact concerns of the County and also, potential risks to disturbance of the eagle nest east of the pit." Fred Jarman referred to Exhibit Q next, the letter from the CDOW, (this letter was written right around the time that the eagles nest fell into the river) the 5th paragraph which says, "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, all within the' mile buffer of the eagle nest and next to % mile buffer. The removal of the 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." Fred Jarman asked the Commission to refer to Exhibit Y next which is the email dated January 26, 2010 from Will Spence with the Division of Wildlife. Paragraph 7 says "it seems that these eagles may tolerate activity inside the % mile buffer. However, any major disturbances, such as an asphalt plant should be established outside the 1/2 mile buffer." There is a great amount of tension placed on eliminating an asphalt plant from this project so that's why it continues to come up as a constant theme. Fred Jarman told the Planning Commission that if they choose to go the route that you want an asphalt plant he would ask you to ask the applicant to define temporary. You have to be careful using words that are tough to define, they are subjective. There were a lot of terms used that it doesn't do the County any good to adopt something that may be valuable but not understand what we are doing. 3) There was a comment that the applicant raised that talked about reserves and mining and various of types of concepts. Your roll is to make your judgment based on actual 10 Code language and you cannot consider and make your findings outside of what your boundaries are. The findings that you do make, make them on code language that you can specifically point to. 4) There is a little bit of a conundrum with Old Code/New Code here. When the application was originally submitted it fell under the Old Code. Since that time, the Old Code has gone away and you have adopted the New Code. The Gravel Regulations from the Old Code were adopted into the New Code exactly as they were in the Old Code. The applicant wanted to make changes to the adopted Gravel Regulations so they filed for a Text Amendment. That application was processed under the New Land Use Code regulations because the Old Code did not exist any longer. The new text amendment that the applicant would like to take advantage of certainly is New Code. We believe if you choose to move this forward that you can make a finding that the regulations of the New Code and you recommend that the Board approve the "Land Use Change Permit" and not the "Special Use Permit." Phil Vaughan would like to ask a procedural question first. He asked the other Planning Commission members if they understand what Mr. Jarman is recommending here and that is if the Planning Commission chooses to forward this to the BOCC with a recommendation that we incorporate this as a Land Use Change Permit under the Unified land Use Resolution in 2008, as amended and versus a Special Use Permit, that is what is being asked by staff. Is that okay Ms. Quinn? Deborah Quinn responded that the problem is because the 1978 Code was amended, they do not meet the standards of that Code so the only standards they could meet are under the New Land Use Code. Phil Vaughan asked Mr. Lewicki if he has any problem with this being processed under the New Land Use Code. Greg Lewicki said he is okay with it and he understands and agrees this would be a Land Use Change Permit and not a Special Use Permit. Pete Sigman asked does it change anything. Phil Vaughan said it is the only way to move this application forward. Deborah Quinn said the public notifications were done as a Special Use Permit. Again, it's a change in terminology. The Code was amended but the process she thinks is still under that old Code provision but the standards would be the New Code so they wouldn't have to do anything all over again. Fred Jarman said the notice for the BOCC hearing will reflect the New Code and what standards they are applying to. Phil Vaughan said so procedurally it sounds like we are all in agreement Planning Commission, applicant and staff and we are good to go. John Kuersten has a background question. Within that 1/2 mile buffer he noticed it encompasses the adjacent property, the Schneider's with the Lafarge Plant. There is an asphalt plant sitting there currently. Is that a permanent plant? How was that permitted and how is that established with the County. Fred Jarman said he hasn't done any research so he can't tell you 11 what lies there. John Kuersten asked what the one on the adjacent property is. It was obviously recently installed. Fred Jarman said it may be fully illegal. Fred Jarman said he cannot answer your question so unless he does an investigation to figure out number one if it is permitted. Maybe it's a heads up for us to do a little investigation to see in fact if it is illegal. None of the comments made speak about temporary they only talk about asphalt plants. Fred Jarman said that DOW, the City of Rifle and the County are pretty clear on their feelings of batch plants. The applicant has a different perspective as to what they feel is appropriate there. Greg Lewicki said the plant on the Lafarge/Mamm Creek Pit site he believes is a temporary plant and is located within the % mile buffer range. They have approval to mine inside the mile ring extensively. The way it was written is that they have to get out of that area when the eagles come back. Greg Lewicki said we are asking for far more strict control over that. We are committing to a much better plan than what exists with Lafarge with the old nest location. Cheryl Chandler told John Kuersten that she thinks with temporary structures it's kind of like a trailer house and a manufactured house that is put on a permanent foundation. A batch plant is usually concrete batch plant. John Kuersten said he knows the difference but how do we determine what's temporary. Cheryl Chandler said they are on wheels. John Kuersten asked but is there a time frame. Cheryl Chandler said as soon as the job is done. John Kuersten thinks technically they are all portable. Phil Vaughan asked are there any further questions for the applicant at this time. No additional questions were asked so we moved out to the public for comments next. No comments were given from the public so we came back to the Planning Commission for questions to referral agency and for staff. Cheryl Chandler said it looks like to her that the only conversation left in here is temporary or permanent hot plant/batch plant. (Condition #3) Phil Vaughan has a question for Mr. Jarman on recommended condition #4 and that is the Mining Plan/Phasing Plan. "lithe operations are to extend beyond this time frame, the property owner shall be required to return to the BOCC to demonstrate that the mining operations comply with any new regulations adopted by Garfield County." He said he does have some concerns about that statement because he feels like once we set forth an application that the applicant is required to meet that set of rules but trying to foresee into the future six years and say the rules that are in place you have to prove up. He doesn't really feel comfortable with that particular wording. Fred Jarman said it's pretty straight ahead. He would guess that the same thing applies to the Federal Regulations as they change that are on- going. Fred Jarman is putting the question out there, if the Planning Commission and the BOCC 12 believes that we may learn something in 2 or 3 years which of course we can't perceive now about the way that we do business and the way you regulate or not certain activities is it important for you to have that authority in place then to say you know we should probably look at this. The flip side to this is if you are granting a land use right today based on a certain set of perimeters or certain set of regulations that is your one bite at the apple then you get that extra land use right in that stick of bundle of rights and then off you go. That's the other side of the argument. Cheryl Chandler brought up item D under staff findings and all of the references to "Special Use Permit" should be changed to "Land Use Change Permit". It was suggested to make that same change throughout the staff report where necessary, Phil Vaughan wanted to make sure all members are clear here. We have a staff recommendation here with recommended findings and recommended conditions of approval numbers 1-13 (I). (Exhibit W) What we have not addressed are the recommendations of the US Fish & Wildlife and from the DOW in regards to how we deal with the eagles. Phil Vaughan asked Fred Jarman if he a recommended condition for the eagles. Fred Jarman said yes he does. Regarding the eagles staff recommends that the Planning Commission accept the recommendations by the US Fish & Wildlife Service. That recommendation would be included as condition #14. Phil Vaughan asked if it would make sense to condense that letter down into a few sentences so everybody can understand what's being recommended. Fred Jarman asked our referral agent to respond to this. The letter from Rick Krueger with the USFWS is a recommendation. The Chairman would like to boil that letter down, Creed Clayton said he thinks the applicant has proposed some new concessions tonight that weren't addressed at all and he thinks those need to be incorporated into the project and addressed for what their recommendation would be. First, we need to see the new concessions in writing to but off on and then probably send a new letter to try and keep it concise. Cheryl Chandler asked if we did paragraph two from letter (Exhibit Z) it basically tells what they really suggest, the rest of the letter is just stuff and is explaining to us. Phil Vaughan brought up that the applicant is suggesting a different start-up date from what the US Fish & Wildlife suggests. Lauren Martindale thinks our decision here is are we taking this letter and basically modifying the date to be June 15th instead of July 15th or are we sticking with July 15th and adding some language that says pending wildlife biologist's approval on June 10th. Cheryl Chandler said that is exactly what she wants to say. Phil Vaughan accepted new Exhibit BB into the record which is the three additional hand written points added by the applicant. Greg Lewicki said the applicant is comfortable with 13 conditions 1-6 listed in Exhibit AA from USFWS and the three additional commitments listed in Exhibit BB by them all as conditions. Fred Jarman said he has a real issue with the paragraph below item #6 on Exhibit AA. He would like to remove that paragraph because it is not an accurate representation of what transpired here tonight. Fred Jarman would like that retract from the record. There has never been a motion from staff of denial of this application. The applicant stated that in their letter that "We already know that Fred Jarman is changing his recommendation to denial based on the new nest and the USFWS letter recently sent." Fred Jarman said that's inaccurate. Greg Lewicki said he must have interpreted that wrong but that is what he thought was happening. Phil Vaughan said we already have Exhibits AA & BB accepted into the record. The language is what the language is. Can we all agree upon the fact that under the statements we already know that Fred Jarman is changing his recommendation to denial based on the new nest and the USFWS letter recently sent. Can we agree upon the fact that the applicant is now under the understanding that Mr. Jarman has not set forth the recommendation of denial. That that particular aspect of the letter is incorrect. Greg Lewicki said they can agree that is an inaccurate statement that was made by them in their letter. Both Fred Jarman and Deborah Quinn agreed that is the best you can do at this point because Exhibits AA & BB have already been accepted into the record. Creed Clayton would like to make some additional comments. In general he is comfortable with the additional commitments made by the applicant by the USFWS have not signed off on these in any form so this is all very rough. The one sticking point that he might have is the June 15th start date. He likes the start date of July 15th unless the eagles have fledged prior to that time as determined by a Professional Biologist. It would be nice if we could discuss this internally with his supervisor who hasn't laid eyes on this at all. In his opinion everything looks pretty good to him except for the start date gives him a little bit of heartburn. Phil Vaughan would like to throw out some suggested conditions that he wrote down. He tried to take the letters from the DOW and the USFWS and tried to get this down to about three conditions. Phil read his suggested conditions into the record: 1) No activity shall occur within % mile of any active eagles nest. Creed Clayton said that is a general recommendation. We often make site specific recommendations that differ from that general recommendation. 2) During nesting activity a % mile radius buffer shall be provided around active nests. 3) The applicant shall employ a qualified Wildlife Biologist to Observe the eagles nest and to 14 verify compliance with these conditions via written report submitted to the Garfield County Planning Department. Greg Lewicki stated that basically we feel that the tolerance of the eagles to activity, plus the new commitment to start on June 15th in the far western corner of the permitted area, combined with the cottonwood gallery that exists, combined with the program to monitor the eagles and observe them, and the power of the professional to actually shut down the operation if he sees that the eagles are agitated, we think that's pretty good protection. The Biologist would be observing their activity way in advance of the June 15th date. On June 15th the Biologist will be present to observe their reaction to this activity. We stand by the commitments that we are making here. It is our understanding that we can mine in the 1/4 or mile area as long as the eagles aren't there in that small slivered area. Between % and % mile radius there is a ton of activity going on all year round. Our activity is completely shielded from a direct line of sight to the eagles from this cottonwood gallery. Given all those facts we believe the comments they have made are good. Fred Jarman said it seems to him that the real issue is trying to eliminate risk for a potential take. Wouldn't it behoove you as the operator to wait until that risk is pretty much eliminated and they have fledged. Your Biologist would be employed around this date (whatever date that is) to monitor the birds have fledged then you can go in, instead of the other way around. Isn't your risk of a take way much greater? Greg Lewicki said Van Graham thinks it is extremely unlikely these eagles will be disturbed. Van Graham has been watching these eagles for 18 months. Van Graham stated just from what he has seen from other operations down the river a little bit, similar activities have occurred in a lot closer distances and eagles haven't seemed to be bothered. Based on similar circumstances and industrial activity it hasn't disturbed the birds. Lauren Martindale wanted to get back to Phil Vaughan's suggested conditions because they didn't have anything to do with the date. They were completely based upon the Biologist recommendation. Could we go through these one by one and have applicant respond in order to move this forward. Phil Vaughan said he understands that maybe the condition is simply the understanding of the November 15th to July 15th dates that the USFWS has said. Understanding that a qualified Biologist can go out and review this and at that time make a determination whether it is right to move forward with construction starting at that time or not. That recognizes USFWS recommendations but also recognizes that a Biologist can go and review and if the birds have fled on June 10th, no issues or concerns. If the birds have not fledged on June 10th a qualified Biologist can only make a recommendation. Cheryl Chandler thinks that no one is going to spend the kind of money for move in move out 15 before you get the letter that says eagles are gone. Greg Lewicki said the Biologist not only has the power to not allow the operation on June 15th he also has the power to shut down the operation if he sees agitation. We have committed to the Biologist's recommendations and to abide by his recommendations. Fred Jarman suggests either instead of the private third party Biologist you rely back on the Federal Agency to do that or is it a compromise of the two. Phil Vaughan asked Creed Clayton, if that was set forth in a condition that says USFWS needs to give guidance on this would you actually issue a letter at a particular time, go out a do a site inspections for an operator and issue a letter of opinion. Creed Clayton said yes but what's the turnaround time. How much time do we have to produce that letter. We would have to have a week or two to do that. Pete Sigman asked why you would question Van Graham's integrity. He would be creating a report that would be based on his best knowledge of the eagle and what the situation is. He thinks you are creating another layer if the USFWS has to review his comments. Phil Vaughan stated we have noted in our Code who's qualified and who is not to submit reports to the BOCC and to the planning Commission so we have noted who are professionals and who are not. Ultimately though USFWS providing recommendations, consultants providing recommendations, ultimately it all comes down to the law. If there is a takings it all comes back on the applicant no matter who recommended what. Deborah Quinn this issue came up a couple of days ago and these people are trying to do their best to come up with a solution to this. There is time for this applicant, the USFWS and the DOW and come up with a more concrete plan by the time they go to the BOCC meeting. Greg Lewicki said the thing they can commit to is if Creed Clayton is comfortable with Van Graham doing the work we commit to Van doing the work. Secondly, we want Van Graham to work with the USFWS all throughout this whole process and if there is just some way to have this structurally worded so that the Wildlife Professional will work with USFWS during this whole process and the okay is given with the observation process to move ahead and if it moves ahead that the observations continue. If it looks like there is significant agitation then the project stops and we follow the recommendation of the Biologist who is working in conjunction with the USFWS. Creed Clayton said he didn't say that was unacceptable to them. He said he has a little heartburn with it. He would still expect the nest to succeed and the fledglings to be fine. He is just saying that there is one level safer than that. Would prefer to wait due to the uncertainty. Phil Vaughan said we can note in our recommendation tonight that this issue will be discussed amongst that group prior to going to the BOCC. Need to come up with more concrete language for staff to present to the BOCC. 16 Fred Jarman said you could take the typed concessions that the applicant added and in addition you have the hand written pieces. This all sort of has the framework of a suggested plan to the BOCC. What you could do is take Exhibit BB in whole and submitted a Bald Eagle Management Plan subject to Exhibit BB. Cheryl Chandler suggests including Exhibit Z paragraph 2 as well. Applicant has concerns with certain conditions listed and Greg Lewicki will address those now: •Condition #5: "There should be no storage of fuel on site that is located within the 100 -year floodplain." The portable plants, the crushing and screening and wash plant will be in the bottom of the pit and that is within the 100 -year floodplain. They will have portable tanks that go with those plants. They have to and there is no way you can do it any other way. We have a plan in place to get those plants out of the floodplain area if it looks like the river is rising. What we would prefer to see in Condition #5 is that there shall be no permanent storage of fuel onsite within the 100 -year floodplain. •Condition #13(c): "The applicant shall use plant plugs (i.e. real plants) instead of broadcast seeding." That needs to be reworded because we don't have any broadcast seeding in the plan whatsoever. It's going to be a combination of full trees, tree saplings, which you could say is plugs, willow saplings which you could say is plugs and the dry land areas will be hydro -seeded or drill seeded. There is no broadcast seed. There is a plan in place. eCondition #7: "Due to the close proximity to I-70, all crushing / screening shall occur in enclosed equipment." The crushers are enclosed but that equipment is never fully enclosed. The screening plant is open. Don't want to get us in trouble over that. It's a wet pit. If we could change it to enclosed crusher and that the other equipment is not fully enclosed. •Condition #4: "Mining Plan Phasing Plan." Greg Lewicki wanted to point out under this condition that after six years we have to come back. That six years (which was actually 5.7) the way that we arrived at that is we have software that calculates the exact volume that comes out of these pits and we related that to what the historical production was from the Chambers Pit which has been in operation for a long time and based on that we came up with the number of 5.7 years. It's approximate. It's very hard to predict market conditions. It's difficult to pin down an exact time line. Would like some flexibility in that time frame. Fred Jarman said that condition was written for two reasons. One, open ended dates have no end. Secondly, that is what is being represented. Pete Sigman said he would be more comfortable with 8 years. Lauren Martindale said just to put it in perspective the two more years that they are asking for is a 30% increase over what you asked for in your application. That's a pretty big buffer. 17 .,Condition 13(E): "The applicant shall meet with the County Vegetation Manager, prior to scheduling the hearing before the BOCC to agree on a viable program." What Greg Lewicki would like it to say is we will do that before the BOCC hearing but we would like to schedule that hearing for March 15th. Fred Jarman said the condition listed by staff above is the staff preference which you have seen quite a bit. The reason that is in there is for a hammer to the applicant to get something done and we are not scrambling a day before the hearing to try and make sense of information. Phil Vaughan would like to come back to condition #5. Phil Vaughan said he is thinking this possibly pertains to bulk storage or do you simply note that all fuel storage on-site shall comply with the requirements of the spill prevention control plan. John Kuersten added "other than fuel necessary that fits in the fuel tanks for OEM equipment on crusher screens, etc". Fred Jarman said what we are trying to avoid is you don't have a fuel farm down in the floodplain. The tanks that are attached to the pieces of equipment that is okay just not a tank farm. Fred Jarman said maybe bulk storage does get you all there. John Kuersten asked do we need to have the discussion related to temporary plant. John Kuersten said there is a difference there between a portable and a temporary plant. Need to hear from the applicant as to what their intent is. Pete Sigman said they call their plants portable and they are portable to come in for a specific job, for the duration of that job, and then they leave. Fred Jarman told the applicant that their application says very specifically they are for an FAA or CDOT project. Pete Sigman said that is what they are after. They are not talking about for retail sales at all. Phil Vaughan said we had a discussion during the work on the new regulations about needing to have temporary plants set in place for specific jobs. Phil Vaughan asked if temporary plant was not incorporated in the original plan how long would it take for an amendment to be file in order to get that added on. Fred Jarman said the tolerance level for an amendment to an approval is whether it's a significant or insignificant change. It's that time frame. The Director could not recommend that as an insubstantial change and that would have to go through a public process. Fred Jarman thinks the issue of temporary is really the nut that needs to be cracked. There is a lot of verbiage included that talks about the value of not having a plant from a wildlife protection impact to the visual impact to the City of Rifle. Greg Lewicki suggests condition could read "applicant will provide to the County a letter stating the particular job, our request to bring that plant on site, the expected time frame and the idea is to take that plant off-site once the job is finished." John Kuersten still thinks we need to define time perimeters. Otherwise what do we have to consider. Deborah Quinn said it seems to her that it's a condition that could eliminate the prohibition all together. It doesn't take into consideration the impacts to the wildlife. Fred Jarman said there are no criteria either for staff to consider. We wouldn't know what to do with a letter. Phil Vaughan said we are setting up a 18 process in a condition and the process should be the Code. If you are going to have a batch plant on-site that needs to be incorporated into the application and permitted and not as a side to what occurs on it. That way it's up front and everyone knows it's going to happen. The problem is that's not the way the application was submitted. The application was specifically submitted without a permanent concrete or asphalt batch plant. If the applicant would have wanted that permanently in there than that should have been incorporated into the application. Numerous referral agencies have said we don't want permanent concrete or asphalt batch plants on this site. Greg Lewicki said the applicant doesn't want a permanent asphalt or concrete plant. But if you limit it to an FAA job, a CDOT job or a significant County job there aren't that many of those and they don't last long periods of time. Phil Vaughan replied that he thinks what staff is saying is we are setting up a process within a condition without considering the Code. Ultimately, what you are talking about is an amendment to a Land Use Permit because we are talking about addressing all the impacts not just issuing letters that say you are going to work for two months, we are going to do this job, and we're gone. That doesn't address any of the impacts of that project. Phil Vaughan thinks that would be what Mr. Jarman would have to consider as a substantial change which means he has to run that through the public process. Pete Sigman said we talked about all the permits that we have to have for this site and they are all related to a piece of equipment that is already there which is a crusher and a wash plant. An asphalt plant is within that same category of equipment so why wouldn't you allow an asphalt plant. Phil Vaughan said his job is to evaluate what you all have submitted against the County Code and if you all wanted this for temporary then in his mind that should have been included as part of your application as a permanent use because everything that set in the Code full evaluation of that would have been done. The problem is now we have DOW letters, we have City of Rifle concerns, we have multiple referral agencies concerns of having the plants there at all and here we are at the 111/2 hour sitting here having a conversation about temporary concrete and asphalt batch plants. That's where his concern is. Pete Sigman said they removed those from their original plan but he said they also stated at that time that they would like to have the ability to have a temporary or portable plant for any FAA or CDOT job that came up. This isn't that we just brought it up tonight. This was talked about basically when we agreed to that compromise. Greg Lewicki read a sentence from Will Spence's letter (CDOW letter dated June 5th) that said "the company has stated that they intend to put a temporary plant in the pit in the event they are awarded a contract to do a CDOT or County work on an interstate or highways. They've stated that the chance of any job coming available in the next few years is slim. In the event 19 that a contract is awarded and a plant is installed a time 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 the 1/2 mile perimeter." Greg Lewicki said so it was discussed earlier. Phil Vaughan said but your newest letter that was incorporated into this exhibit indicates clearly that you have taken out the permanent concrete and asphalt batch plant. John Kuersten said what he is struggling with is how to you define and how do you enforce portable or temporary. Fred Jarman said the change in the perspective, the applicants letter that came in on May 28th it talked about just the FAA jobs and so on and then moving it out. The following letter is the DOW review (Will Spence letter) which is in June and it's in that letter specifically that says "the most important change to the plan is the removal of the concrete / asphalt plant from mining area 2. This would have been a constant source of noise, activity and dust all within the 1/2 mile buffer. The removal of that plant goes a long way in making this a wildlife friendly project." Whether it's portable, whether it has wheels, whether it is fixed it has the same impacts. Cheryl Chandler said Will Spence also said you could put a time stipulation in. Phil Vaughan said his recommendation is if you want to note that as an item of discussion that the applicant will have with staff and other referral agencies and they can make their pitch to the BOCC. John Kuersten said if we look at just a concrete / asphalt batch plant regardless if it is temporary or permanent and it operates from July 15th to November 15th is something we could entertain and then let the BOCC decide whether they like it or not. Cheryl Chandler thinks we should take Will Spence's exact recommendation and stipulate the timing. Lauren Martindale said there is a difference between the plants being there versus the plant being operational. So there is the visual impact that Rifle is concerned with also. John Kuersten said there is one 100 yards away already. Cheryl Chandler said there are three of them actually. Deborah Quinn mentioned that before you make your motion Mr. Jarman is going to give you some specific findings that will be needed to be made in connection with any recommendation. Fred Jarman referred to page 2 in Exhibit W item #1. This is the issue relates to visual impacts. Are the impacts enough? item #3 regarding the wetland slopes. The applicant is asking for a variance from what the code requires. The language for provisions is including in staff report on the top of page 3. Will need to provide a separate finding and the reason for waiving or modifying the wetland slopes and the modifications are in conformance. The next one is #4 on page 5. This is the irrigation issue. Need to make a finding there that the irrigation plan proposed. On page 8 of the staff report item #5. This is directly related to your Comprehensive Plan as it currently is adopted so you have to make a finding that ensures that this development 20 and overall land use policies that occurring in the County that will affect a municipality are compatible with the existing zoning and future land use objectives of the appropriate municipality. 5o that's the Gateway Plan for the City of Rifle. Those are the specific findings. No further comments or questions were asked so the public portion of hearing is closed. Lauren Martindale made a motion to approve the Scott Gravel Pit Special Use Permit for processing, storage and material handling of natural resources and a Special Use Permit for development in the floodplain contingent upon the Commission's findings are in accord with staff recommended findings numbers 1-5 as well as contingencies listed in the staff report staring with conditions 1-3 adopting as is; condition #4 mining plan phasing amending to read with the term of 8 years; adopting condition 145 to read "no bulk storage of fuel on site; condition 446 adopting as is; condition 147 delete the word screening; condition 148-12 adopt as written; condition 4413 C delete the words broadcast seeding; and to adopt a condition 1414 the conditions submitted by the applicant as Exhibit BB and add paragraph 2 from Exhibit Z. Cheryl Chandler seconded the motion made by Lauren Martindale. Phil Vaughan restated the motion made by Ms. Martindale. Phil Vaughan brought up that this is a Land Use Permit Change so anywhere we said Special Use Permit. So we need to verify that. And the findings are actually #1, #3, #4, & #5 and moving on into the staff recommendations and findings. Any reference to SUP is changed to Land Use Change Permit and the only amendments that you had made are on condition #4, #5,447, #13C and new condition 1414 that incorporates Exhibit BB and paragraph 2 from Exhibit Z (Bald Eagle Management Plan) Phil Vaughan asked does that represent your motion and the seconds. Both ladies said yes. John Kuersten asked if you would accept as a friendly amendment to condition 143 that we allow the concrete and asphalt batch plants with the same operating dates established which he believes are July 15th to November 15th . Lauren Martindale does not accept that friendly amendment. John Kuersten would like to make a motion to amend the original motion to allow the concrete and asphalt batch plants operating July 15th through November 15th. Cheryl Chandler seconded that motion. Lauren Martindale said she was hoping that we could get to some wording that basically allow the DOW and staff to come up with a recommendation without us coming up with the operating time constraints. John Kuersten said his intent is to allow this to go to the next step to the BOCC and allow these discussions to happen. A verbal vote was taken on the motion for amendment and motion passed 30) to 1(N). Amendment is approved for condition 443. Now we are back to the base motion. No further 21 discussion on that base motion or the amendment. A vote was taken and motion passed unanimously. No other business to discuss tonight so meeting is adjourned. 22 Fred Jarman From: Rick_Krueger@fws.gov Sent: Monday, February 22, 2010 2:57 PM To: Fred Jarman Cc: Creed_Clayton@fws.gov Subject: RE: United Co. Scott Pit Bald Eagle plan Fred, 1 assume they (United and contractors ) will share the plan with you when they are happy with reviewers comments. 1 wanted to let you know that we are happy with the plan and don't have any problems with them pursuing the permits and extracting the gravel. Pll let them contact you with their plan at which time 1 imagine they will ask for the permit to proceed. Rick Krueger U.S. FWS 764 Horizon Drive, Bldg. B Grand Junction, CO 81506 Phone: (970) 243-2778 X-17 Fax: (970) 245-6933 e-mail: Rick_Krueger@fws.gov i Fred Jarman From: Rick_Krueger@fws.gov Sent: Monday, February 22, 2010 12:17 PM To: greg@lewicki.biz; Pete Siegmund; Fred Jarman Cc: Creed_Clayton@fws.gov; vkg@westwaterco.com; mwk@westwaterco.com Subject: Fw: United Co. Scott Pit Bald Eagle plan Attachments: pic14771.gif Greg, Pete and Fred: Wanted to let you know that both the Service and CDOW reviewed the plan provided by Van Graham and we all agree that the plan looks acceptable. Based on the monitoring that Van plans to conduct this Spring and Summer we believe there will be good information gained about the eagles to allow the mining to progress as you have scheduled. Provided the birds nest successfully this year we anticipate the monitoring in June will allow the operations to carry on or be curtailed depending on the reaction of the birds. We appreciate your cooperation in providing protection for this pair and look forward to many more years of success from this pair. Thanks to Van for putting together a very comprehensive plan on short notice that should provide excellent information on this bald eagle pair over the next several months. If you have any questions or comments feel free to give either Creed or I a call Rick Krueger U.S. FWS 764 Horizon Drive, Bldg. B Grand Junction, CO 81506 Phone: (970) 243-2778 X-17 Fax: (970) 245-6933 e-mail: Rick_Krueger@fws.gov Forwarded by Rick Krueger/R6/FWS/DOI on 02/22/2010 11:59 AM Creed Clayton/R6/FWS/IOI 02/20/2010 03:33 PM Van, Tovkg@westwaterco.com ccRick Krueger/R6/FWS/DOI@FWS SubjectFw: United Co. Scott Pit Bald Eagle plan Rick Krueger, Will Spence, & I have read the eagle plan (see comments below). Thank you for helping United Co. to monitor this nesting pair and for drafting the eagle plan, which will hopefully allow for their nesting success while also allowing for carefully planned gravel extraction. If you feel the need to have us meet to discuss it further, please let us know. Otherwise, we look forward to hearing from you about significant events at the nest (e.g., are they incubating yet?). FYI, the New Castle BE pair is now incubating. I just checked the Silt nest (both nests), and it does not appear to me that they are incubating yet. One adult flew off the SW nest just after I started watching & didn't return for over 10 minutes, then I left. From their website, looks like the Xcel St. Vrain pair laid their 1st egg Feb 15th & they are now incubating. Have you checked the Una or DeBeque nests recently? 1 Creed J. Creed Clayton, PhD Energy Team Biologist U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2300 River Frontage Road Silt, CO 81652 970-876-9051 Forwarded by Creed Claytori/R61FWS/DOI on 02/20/2010 03:17 PM "Spence, Will" <Will.Spence@state.co.us> 02/19/2010 04:01 PM To<Creed_Clcyton@fws. gov> cc<RickKrueger@fws.gov>, "Romatzke, JT" <JT.Romatzke@state.co.us> SubjectRE: United Co. Scott Pit Bald Eagle plan Rick and Creed, Thanks for sending the plan to me. I concur that it looks like they have a good plan. The monitoring efforts will help us manage both these eagles and other pairs nesting close by. It appears that the proposed plan will be sufficient to avoid disturbing this particular pair of eagles. Thanks, Will Spence District Wildlife Manager Rifle South District (970) 985-5882 From: Creed Clayton@fws.gov [mailto:Creed_Clayton@fws.govj Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2010 4:11 PM To: Spence, Will Cc: RickKrueger@fws.gov Subject: Fw: United Co. Scott Pit Bald Eagle plan Will, Van Graham has prepared a bald eagle management plan for the proposed Scott Pit gravel mine near the new bald eagle nest at Rifle (below). Rick Krueger and I have looked it over, and basically have no further comments for Van. We wanted to get your input on it before getting back to Van. If you can find time, please let us know what you think. Thanks, Creed P.S. It looks like the BE pair at New Castle is getting ready to lay eggs sometime soon. They have built a new nest in the same cottonwood stand where they have previously nested, just a different tree. J. Creed Clayton, PhD Energy Team Biologist U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2300 River Frontage Road Silt, CO 81652 970-876-9051 Forwarded by Creed Clayton/R6/FWS/DOI on 02/11/2010 04:02 PM Rick To Krueger/R6/FWS/DOI Creed ClaytonIR6/FWS /D Ol@t 02/11/2010 03:10 PM cc Subject Re: Fw: United Co. Scott Bald Eagle plant Definitely get Will involved as well, I want the CDOW and us to agree on the plan. Rick Krueger U.S. FWS, Contaminants Specialist 764 Horizon Drive, Bldg. B Grand Junction, CO 81506 Phone: (970) 243-2778 Fax: (970) 245-6933 e-mail: Rick_Krueger@fws.gov Creed ClaytonfR6/FWS/DOI Creed To Clayton/R6/FWS/DOI Rick Krueger/R6/FWS/D OI@F 02/10/2010 02:38 PM cc Subject Fw: United Co. Scott Pit E Eagle plan Rick -- I have read Van's plan. We can discuss it when you want. You or I should probably send it to Will Spence & get him involved. What do you think? Creed J. Creed Clayton, PhD Energy Team Biologist 3 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2300 River Frontage Road Silt, CO 81652 970-876-9051 Forwarded by Creed Clayton/R6/FWS/DOI on 02/10/2010 02:34 PM Van. Graham <vkg@westwaterco To .com> Rick_Krueger@fws.gc CreedClayton(afws.g CC greg@lewicki.biz, Pet( Siegmund <psiegmund@united- gj.com>, MW Klish <znwk@westwaterco. c 02/09/2010 04:11 PM Subject United Co. Scott Pit B, Eagle plan Rick and Creed, Attached is the Bald Eagle management plan for the Scott Pit at Rifle. After your review, could we meet to discuss the contents of the plan and how it relates to United's operations plans. If you think it would be beneficial, perhaps we could also meet with the CDOW. Thanks Van K. Graham Environmental Scientist/Wildlife Biologist WestWater Engineering Inc. (C) 970 250-2618 (0) 970 241-7076 email: vkg@westwaterco.com (See attached file: United Scott Pit Bald Eagle mgt plan 2-9-10.pdf) 4 Fred Jarman From: Creed_C[ayton@fws.gov Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2010 10:39 AM To: vkg@westwaterco.com Cc: Fred Jarman; Rick_Krueger@fws.gov Subject: Fw: Scott pit commitments Attachments: pic19866.gif; pic12949.gif; Rick KruegerUSFWSRE.doc Van, After the GarCo planning meeting last week, I went away with the understanding that the planners wanted a more concise & refined list of conservation measures that United could commit to and that United would have you prepare something akin to a bald eagle management plan for the gravel operation near the new Rifle nest. To assist with these efforts, I'm forwarding to you a boiled down summary list of our FWS recommendations, which Rick Krueger and I have discussed (see below). Also below is a clarification email that Rick sent to Greg Lewicki, FYI. Let me know if you have any questions, Creed. J. Creed Clayton, PhD Energy Team Biologist U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2300 River Frontage Road Silt, CO 81652 970-876-9051 Forwarded by Creed Clayton/R6/FWS/DOI on 02/02/2010 10:09 AM Creed Clayton/R6/FWSIDOI 02/02/2010 09:08 AM Rick, ToRick Krueger/R6/FWS/DOI@FWS cc SubjectFw: Scott pit commitments Thanks for copying me on your email below. I noticed that it did not go to Van Graham --do you think one of us should forward it to him? Perhaps along with a simplified summary of our FWS recommendations? (See what you think of these below.) Van was going to put together a BE management plan for this project/nest site. Giving him our concise recommendations may help. I think Fred Jarmin would appreciate a concise list of conservation measures from us too, once it is ready. I think the list below is more to the point than the commitments/concessions offered by Greg/United. What do you think? Summary of FWS recommended primary conservation measures for new eagle nest near Rifle for River's Edge gravel pit : * Monitor nesting activities to determine key dates, including fledging, # young fledged, eagle response to project activities, etc. Provide copy of report to USFWS after fledging. 1 * Start operations < 1/4 mile from nest after fledging & eaglets no longer dependent on nest (fledging + 3 weeks) * Complete mining activities closer than 1/4 mile from nest during non -nesting season (see dates below) * Maximize distance to nest for any processing, asphalt, concrete, etc. equipment; possibly use screening * Minimize cutting of mature cottonwoods for access road and keep it as close as possible to 1-70. * United will keep workers out of the oxbow area during nesting season to avoid disturbing the eagles. J. Creed Clayton, PhD Energy Team Biologist U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2300 River Frontage Road Silt, CO 81652 970-876-9051 Forwarded by Creed Clayton/R6/FWS/DOI on 02/02/2010 08:41 AM Rick Krueger/R6/F W S/DOI 02/01/2010 10:50 AM Togreg@lewicki.biz ccCreed Clayton/R6/FWS/DOI@FWS, FredJarman@Garfield- County.com, Will.Spence@state.co.us, Kevin Ellis/R6/FWSIDOI@FWS SubjectRe: Scott pit commitments: Greg, sorry I didn't make the hearing. I talked to Creed and he informed me of the discussions that occurred at the meeting. The one issue that Creed said was the most continuous was the start date for mining. In our conversation we had before I left for Fort Collins I said that this pair of eagles typically fledges around the middle to the end of June. We typically like to see the fledglings be given an opportunity to acclimate to their flight area for three weeks which leads to the timing restriction of July 15th. If you can document when the birds fledge then mining could start as early as three weeks after this date. On the other end we like to see protection begin around November 15 but no latter than December 1 to allow the birds an opportunity to court and mate with limited disturbance. As I've stated before all of these recommendations are suggested to protect bald eagles during courtship/breeding, incubation, maturation and fledging. The distances and timing restrictions are guidance that provides protection based on what has been observed by wildlife professionals in the past. If you have any questions or want to discuss this further feel free to give me a call. Rick Krueger U.S. FWS 764 Horizon Drive, Bldg. B Grand Junction, CO 81506 Phone: (970) 243-2778 X-17 Fax: (970) 245-6933 e-mail: Rick_Krueger@fws.gov greg@lewicki.biz 2 greg@tewicki.biz 01/26/2010 04:45 PM Toriekicrueger@fws.gov cccreed clayton@fws.gov Subjectscott pit commitments Rick and Creed: Please see attached file of commitments. Please let me know if you have any questions before the hearing tom orrow night. Greg (See attached file: Rick Krueger USFWSRE.doc) 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. Fred Jarman From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Rick_Krueger@fws.gov Monday, February 01, 2010 10:50 AM greg@lewicki.biz Creed_Clayton@fws.gov; Fred Jarman; Will.Spence@state.co.us; Kevin_Ellis@fws.gov Re: Scott pit commitments pic17861.gif; Rick KruegerUSFWSRE.doc Greg, sorry I didn't make the hearing. I talked to Creed and he informed me of the discussions that occurred at the meeting. The one issue that Creed said was the most continuous was the start date for mining. In our conversation we had before I left for Fort Collins I said that this pair of eagles typically fledges around the middle to the end of June. We typically like to see the fledglings be given an opportunity to acclimate to their flight area for three weeks which leads to the timing restriction of July 15th. If you can document when the birds fledge then mining could start as early as three weeks after this date. On the other end we like to see protection begin around November 15 but no latter than December 1 to allow the birds an opportunity to court and mate with limited disturbance. As I've stated before all of these recommendations are suggested to protect bald eagles during courtship/breeding, incubation, maturation and fledging. The distances and timing restrictions are guidance that provides protection based on what has been observed by wildlife professionals in the past. If you have any questions or want to discuss this further feel free to give me a call. Rick Krueger U.S. FWS 764 Horizon Drive, Bldg. B Grand Junction, CO 81506 Phone: (970) 243-2778 X-17 Fax: {970) 245-6933 e-mail: Rick_Krueger@fws.gov geg@lewicki.biz greg(a lewicki.biz 01/26/2010 04:45 PM Torick krueger@fws.gov cecreed clayton@fws.gov fws.gov Subjectscott pit commitments Rick and Creed: Please see attached file of commitments. Please let me know if you have any questions before the hearing tom orrow night. Greg (See attached file: Rick KruegerUSFWSRE.doc) i PUBLIC NOTICE TAKE NOTICE that Rivers Edge, LLC has applied to the Garfield County Board of County Commissioners, Garfield County, State of Colorado, to request a Land Use Change Permit for Gravel Extraction and cut and fill within the 100 -year floodplain of the Colorado River in connection with the following described property situated in the County of Garfield, State of Colorado, to -wit: Legal Description: (Please see attached legal description of the property.) Practical Description: The subject property is located just east of the main interstate intersection of Rifle Colorado between the Colorado River and Interstate 70. Request: The Applicant specifically requests a Land Use Change Permit for Gravel Extraction for a Gravel Pit operation on approximately 22 acres. This activity also falls within the 100 -year floodplain as mapped by FEMA. The map to the right shows the location of the property labeled "Site". All persons affected by the proposed Land Use Change Permit are invited to appear and state their views, protests or support. If you can not appear personally at such hearing, then you are urged to state your views by letter, as the Board of County Commissioners will give consideration to the comments of surrounding property owners, and others affected, in deciding whether to grant or deny the request for the Land Use Change Permit. The application may be reviewed at the office of the Planning Department located at 108 8th Street, Suite 401, Garfield County Plaza Building, Glenwood Springs, Colorado between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. A public hearing on the application has been scheduled for the 15th day of March, 2010, at 1:15 PM, in the County Commissioners Meeting Room, Garfield County Plaza Building, 108 8th Street, Glenwood Springs, Colorado. TAKE NOTICE That has applied to the oo.rc) o R.1 ver rd L..LC.- Cr,a»igrs For additional information, contact the &f, %/c4/ / at ?yr- rz/z, Suite lip/ ?I - or , 108 8th St. Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 PUBLIC NOTICE TAKE NOTICE that Rivers Edge, LLC has applied to the Board of County Commissioners, Garfield County, State of Colorado, to request a Special Use Permit for "Extraction, Storage, Processing, and Material Handling of Natural Resources" for a Gravel Pit and cut and fill within the 100 -year floodplain of the Colorado River in connection with the following described property situated in the County of Garfield, State of Colorado, to -wit: Legal Description: (Please see attached legal description of the property.) Practical Description: The subject property is located just east of the main interstate intersection of Rifle Colorado between the Colorado River and Interstate 70. Request: The Applicant specifically requests a Special Use Permit for "Extraction, Storage, Processing, and Material Handling of Natural Resources" for a Gravel Pit operation on approximately 22 acres. This activity also falls within the 100 -year floodplain as mapped by FEMA. The map to the right shows the location of the property labeled "Site". All persons affected by the proposed Special Use Permit are invited to appear and state their views, protests or support. If you can not appear personally at such hearing, then you are urged to state your views by letter, as the Board of County Commissioners will give consideration to the comments of surrounding property owners, and others affected, in deciding whether to grant or deny the request for the Special Use Permit. The application may be reviewed at the office of the Planning Department located at 108 8th Street, Suite 401, Garfield County Plaza Building, Glenwood Springs, Colorado between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. A public hearing on the application has been scheduled for the 15th day of March, 2010, at 1:15 PM, in the County Commissioners Meeting Room, Garfield County Plaza Building, 108 8th Street, Glenwood Springs, Colorado. LEGAL DESCRIPTION EXHIBIT A The site is approximately 0.5 miles east of downtown Rifle. Two legal descriptions are given below. The initial legal description defines the area covered by the Division of Reclamation, Mining, and Safety permit and is shown on Map C-1 which is included in Appendix C. The second legal description is the legal description required by the County. That description defines the parcels which comprise the Scott Pit area. A general location map is enclosed as Map B-1 in the next section. The surface owner is Rivers Edge, LLC. DRMS LEGAL DESCRIPTION The point of beginning lies S 31°23'16" E, 2384.28' from the NW Corner of Section 15; thence N 80°16'34" E a distance of 109.15'; thence N 80°16'34" E a distance of 109.15';thence N 69°22'05" E a distance of 136.56'; thence N 80°07'10" E a distance of 103.15'; thence S 86°32'15" E a distance of 146.54'; thence S 70°37'46" E a distance of 135.73'; thence S 67°43'57" E a distance of 135.65'; thence S 89°56'55" E a distance of 85.43'; thence N 45°59'04" E a distance of 173.57'; thence N 88°06'35" E a distance of 250.47 ;thence N 85°30'25" E a distance of 320.08'; thence N 78°32'48" E a distance of 350.95'; thence N 71°17'36" E a distance of 170.46'; thence N 73°22'41" E a distance of 556.03'; thence N 71°22'10" E a distance of 1486.98'; thence S 04°01'47" W a distance of 108.32'; thence S 00°24'58" E a distance of 425.64'; thence S 01°17'08" W a distance of 722.31'; thence S 01°00'14" W a distance of 440.96'; thence S 80°26'09" W a distance of 462.78'; thence S 86°31'05" W a distance of 264.60'; thence N 89°35'22" W a distance of 308.30'; thence N 84°54'35" W a distance of 232.88'; thence N 80°14'25" W a distance of 311.49'; thence N 80°07'07" W a distance of 334.72'; thence N 78°35'36" W a distance of 510.75'; thence N 78°31'36" W a distance of 754.98'; thence N 80°17'33" W a distance of 645.30'; thence N 84°01'46" W a distance of 163.00'; thence N 00°07'09" E a distance of 388.30'; which is the point of beginning, having an area of 93.46 acres. PARCELS LEGAL DESCRIPTION All that part of Parcels A and B, hereinafter described, Northerly of the Northerly right of way line of interstate 70 as described in the rule and order recorded May 16, 1985 in Book 668 at Page 708. Parcel A All of Lots 1,2,3 and 4 and the East 232 feet of Lot 5, all in the McLearn Orchard Lands according to the map and dedication, Document No. 38435, in the Clerk and Recorder's Office, Garfield County, Colorado, known as the First Filing thereof (said Lots comprise part of the SE1/4, the SW1/4 and Lot 5 in Section 15, Township 6 South, Range 93 West, 6th P.M. Parcel B The West 143 feet of Lot 5 and all of Lots 6 through 11, inclusive, in Section 15, Township 6 south, Range 93 West, 6th P.M., as platted as the McLearn Orchard Lands, First Filing, Document No. 38435. Parcel No. 1 A tract of land situate in the SE1/4NW1/4 and the SW1/4NE1/4 of Section 15, Township 6 South Range 93 West, 6th P.M., more fully described as follows: Beginning at a point whence the Meander Corner of the West Line of said Section 15 bears: South 59°48' West 1555.1 feet: thence North 200.00 feet; thence North 77°15' East 250.00 feet; thence North 75°00' East 340.00 feet; thence South 70°41' East 404.40 feet; thence South 980.00 feet; thence South 85°55' West 170.00 feet; thence South 72°45' West 734.55 feet; thence North 41°20' West 672.50 feet; thence North 80449' West 664.62 feet; thence South 52°20' West 180.00 feet, to the point of beginning. Parcel No. 2 Beginning at the Meander Corner of the East line of said Section 15, thence South 87°10' West 1320.00 feet; thence South 85°55' West 534.88 feet; thence North 980.00 feet; thence North 87°13' East 535.00 feet; thence North 72°02' East 1385.10 feet; thence south 1330.00 feet, to the point of beginning. PRACTICAL LOCATION EXHIBIT B The Scott Pit lies between the Colorado River and I-70 just east of the Rifle interchange. The site is surrounded by other gravel pits and industrial zoned parcels. Directly to the west is a CDOT parcel associated with the interchange and a possible "park and ride" location. Slightly further east and across the river are the remains of a vanadium mill and previous CDOT gravel pit. Reclaimed gravel pits being used for water intake ponds lie to the north of the Scott Pit. Mamm Creek pit was previously operating just east of the Scott Pit. Slightly further east is the location of the Grant Brothers Pit. The Rifle Airport and Industrial Park are just across 1-70 from the pit. The nearest residence is approximately 1700' from the site. The Colorado River, City of Rifle Intake Pond, railroad, and Highway 6 lie between the pit and this residence to the north. Map B-1 in this section shows the general location of the site relative to the City of Rifle and the surrounding land uses. REPLY TO ATTENTION OF DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, SACRAMENTO CORPS OF ENGINEERS COLORADO WEST REGULATORY BRANCH 400 ROOD AVENUE, ROOM 142 GRAND JUNCTION, COLORADO 81501-2563 July 24, 2008 Regulatory Division (SPK -2005-75068) Mr. Brett Fletcher West Water Engineering 2516 Foresight Circle, Suite #1 Grand Junction, Colorado 81505 Dear Mr. Fletcher: RE,CEIVEL JUL 2 9 2008 BUILLING Sk PO NNiNG This concerns United Companies, Scott Expansion to the Chambers Pit proposed aggregate mining project at the Colorado River near the City of Rifle, Colorado. The project site is located within Section 15, Township 93 West, Range 6 South, Garfield County. Based on the information you have provided and in accordance with the Tulloch II ruling and Sacramento District guidance, we have determined the proposed excavation work for Mining Areas 1 and 2, as depicted on Map 2: Mine Extents, Scott Expansion to the Chambers Pit, United Companies, dated March 11, 2008, prepared by Greg Lewicki and Associates, PLLC, is an exempt activity. Therefore, a Department of the Army Permit is not required for your excavation -only type work, in waters of the United States and identified on the above -referenced map as D to D1. Please be advised that future fill actions at Mining Area 2 (temporary or permanent deposits or stockpiles, regardless of volume) in space previously identified as waters of the United States, may be a jurisdictional activity and subject to regulation. Measures should be taken to prevent construction materials and/or activities from entering any waters of the United States, including wetlands, along the haul road and wetland buffer area depicted on Map 4, Road Buffer from Wetlands Detail, Scott Expansion to the Chambers Pit, United Companies, dated March 11, 2008. Appropriate soil erosion and sediment controls should be implemented on site to achieve this end. Our disclaimer of exempted activity is only for Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA). Other Federal (i.e., Section 401 and/or 402 of the CWA), State, and local laws may apply to your activities. Therefore, in addition to contacting other Federal and local agencies, you should also contact state regulatory authorities to determine whether your activities may require other authorizations or permits. Please refer to identification number SPK -2005-75068 in any correspondence concerning this project. If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Mark Gilfillan of this office, email mark.a.gilfillan@usace.army.mil, or telephone (970) 243-1199, extension 15. Sincerely, Ken' Jacobson Chief, Colorado West Regulatory Branch Copy furnished: 'Mr. Fred Jarman, Garfield County, 108 8th Street, Suite 201, Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Federal Emergency Management Agency Washington, D.C. 20472 July 31, 2008 RECEIVED AUG 0 8 2008 IN REPLY REFER TO: GARFIELD COUNTY Case No.: 08-08-0299R BUILDING & PLANNING CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED The Honorable John F. Martin Chairman, Garfield County Board of Commissioners 108 Eighth Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Mr. Martin: Community: Garfield County, CO Community No.: 080205 104 This responds to a request that the Department of Homeland Security's Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) comment on the effects that a proposed project would have on the effective Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), Flood Boundary and Floodway Map (FBFM), and Flood Insurance Study (FIS) report for your community, in accordance with Part 65 of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) regulations. In a letter dated January 16, 2008, Mr. Fred A. Jarman, AICP, Director, Building and Planning Department, Garfield County, requested that FEMA evaluate the effects that a proposed gravel mining project on the south overbank of the Colorado River from approximately 3,500 feet upstream to approximately 7,570 feet upstream of the State Highway 13 (SH13) bridge, along with updated topographic information, would have on the flood hazard information shown on the effective FIRM, FBFM, and FIS report along the Colorado River from approximately 2,370 feet upstream to approximately 10,720 feet upstream of the SH13 bridge. All data required to complete our review of this request for a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) were submitted with letters from Ms. Peggy Bailey, P.E., and Mr. Paul Schmidt, E.I.T., both with Tetra Tech, Inc. Because this revision request also affects the City of Rifle, a separate CLOMR for that community was issued on the same date as this CLOMR. We reviewed the submitted data and the data used to prepare the effective FIRM and FBFM for your community and determined that the proposed project meets the minimum floodplain management criteria of the NFIP. The submitted existing conditions HEC -RAS hydraulic computer model, dated March 4, 2008, based on updated topographic information, was used as the base conditions model in our review of the proposed conditions model for this CLOMR request. We believe that, if the proposed project is constructed as shown on the drawing entitled "Scott Pit CLOMR Proposed Conditions Drawing Number C-2," prepared by Tetra Tech, Inc., dated March 10, 2008, and the data listed below are received, the floodplain boundaries of the base (1 -percent -annual -chance) flood and the 0.2 -percent -annual -chance flood will be delineated as shown on the drawing entitled "Scott Pit CLOMR Annotated FIRM Drawing Number C-5," also prepared by Tetra Tech, Inc., and dated March 10, 2008. The existing conditions model was based on updated topographic information. Our comparison of existing conditions to the effective flood hazard information revealed that the Base Flood Elevations 2 (BFEs) for the Colorado River both increased and decreased. The maximum increase in BFE, 0.3 foot, occurred approximately 3,730 feet upstream of the SH13 bridge. The maximum decrease in BFE, 0.2 foot, occurred approximately 6,210 feet upstream of the SH13 bridge. The proposed conditions model incorporated the proposed gravel mining excavation into the existing conditions model. As a result of the proposed project, the BFEs for the Colorado River will decrease compared to the existing conditions BFEs. The maximum decrease in BFE, 0.9 foot, will occur approximately 6,210 feet upstream of the SH13 bridge. As a result of the proposed project and updated topographic information, the BFEs for the Colorado River will both increase and decrease compared to the effective BFEs. The maximum increase in BFE, 0.3 foot, will occur approximately 3,730 feet upstream of the SH13 bridge. The maximum decrease in BFE, 2.2 feet, will occur approximately 6,790 feet upstream of the SH13 bridge. The width of the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA), the area that would be inundated by the base flood, will increase in some areas and decrease in other areas compared to the effective SFHA width. The maximum increase in SFHA width, approximately 220 feet, will occur approximately 4,370 feet upstream of the SH13 bridge. The maximum decrease in SFHA width, approximately 1.80 feet, will occur approximately 3,470 feet upstream of the SH13 bridge. As a result of the proposed project and updated topographic information, the width of the regulatory floodway along the Colorado River will increase in some areas and decrease in other areas compared to the effective floodway width. The maximum increase in floodway width, approximately 450 feet, will occur approximately 4,710 feet upstream of the SH13 bridge. The maximum decrease in floodway width, approximately 530 feet, will occur approximately 6,000 feet upstream of the SH13 bridge. The regulatory floodway will also shift to the south to remove the City of Rifle potable water intake facilities from the floodway. The maximum shift, approximately 400 feet, will occur approximately 5,430 feet upstream of the SH13 bridge. Upon completion of the project, your community may submit the data listed below and request that we make a fmaI determination on revising the effective FIRM, FBFM, and FIS report. • Detailed application and certification forms, which were used in processing this request, must be used for requesting final revisions to the maps. Therefore, when the map revision request for the area covered by this letter is submitted, Form 1, entitled "Overview & Concurrence Form," must be included. (A copy of this form is enclosed.) • The detailed application and certification forms listed below may be required if as -built conditions differ from the preliminary plans. If required, please submit new forms (copies of which are enclosed) or annotated copies of the previously submitted forms showing the revised information. Form 2, entitled "Riverine Hydrology & Hydraulics Form" Form 3, entitled "Riverine Structures Form" Hydraulic analyses, for as -built conditions, of the base flood; the 10 -percent-, 2 -percent-, and 0.2 -percent -annual -chance floods; and the regulatory floodway, together with a topographic work map showing the revised floodplain and floodway boundaries, must be submitted with Form 2. 3 • Effective October 1, 2007, FEMA revised the fee schedule for reviewing and processing requests for conditional and final modifications to published flood information and maps. In accordance with this schedule, the current fee for this map revision request is $4,800 and must be received before we can begin processing the request. Please note, however, that the fee schedule is subject to change, and requesters are required to submit the fee in effect at the time of the submittal. Payment of this fee shall be made in the form of a check or money order, made payable in U.S. funds to the National Flood Insurance Program, or by credit card (Visa or MasterCard only). The payment, along with the revision application, must be forwarded to the following address: FEMA National Service Provider 3601 Eisenhower Avenue Alexandria, VA 22304-6425 • As -built plans, certified by a registered professional engineer, of all proposed project elements • Community acknowledgment of the map revision request • A copy of the public notice distributed by your community stating its intent to revise the regulatory floodway, or a statement by your community that it has notified all affected property owners and affected adjacent jurisdictions • Evidence of notification of all property owners who will be affected by any increases in width and/or shifting of the base floodplain and/or increases in BFE. This documentation may take the form of certified mailing receipts or certification that all property owners have been notified, with an accompanying mailing list and a copy of the letter sent. • A letter stating that your community will adopt and enforce the modified regulatory floodway, OR, if the State has jurisdiction over either the regulatory floodway or its adoption by your community, a copy of your community's letter to the appropriate State agency notifying it of the modification to the regulatory floodway and a copy of the letter from that agency stating its approval of the modification After receiving appropriate documentation to show that the project has been completed, FEMA will initiate a revision to the FIRM, FBFM, and FIS report. Because the BFEs would change as a result of the project, a 90 -day appeal period would be initiated, during which community officials and interested persons may appeal the revised BFEs based on scientific or technical data. This CLOMR is based on minimum floodplain management criteria established under the NFIP. Your community is responsible for approving all floodplain development and for ensuring all necessary permits required by Federal or State law have been received. State, county, and community officials, based on knowledge of local conditions and in the interest of safety, may set higher standards for construction in the SFHA. Utile State, county, or community has adopted more restrictive or comprehensive floodplain management criteria, these criteria take precedence over the minimum NFIP criteria. If you have any questions regarding floodplain management regulations for your community or the NFIP in general, please contact the Consultation Coordination Officer (CCO) for your community. Information 4 on the CCO for your community may be obtained by calling the Director, Mitigation Division of FEMA in Denver, Colorado, at (303) 235-4830. If you have any questions regarding this CLOMR, please call our Map Assistance Center, toll free, at 1 -877 -FEMA MAP (1-877-336-2627). Sincerely, Beth A. Norton, CFM, Program Specialist Engineering Management Branch Mitigation Directorate Enclosures cc: The Honorable Keith Lambert Mayor, City of Rifle Mr. Fred A. Jarman, AICP Director Building and Planning Department Garfield County Mr. John Hier City Manager City of Rifle Mr. Craig Lamberty United Companies Ms. Peggy Bailey, P.E. Tetra Tech, Inc. For: William R. Blanton Jr., CFM, Chief Engineering Management Branch Mitigation Directorate Federal Emergency Management Agency Washington, D.G. 20472 July 31, 2008 CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED The Honorable Keith Lambert Mayor, City of Rifle P.O. Box 1908 Rifle, CO 81650 Dear Mayor Lambert: IN REPLY REFER TO: Case No.: 08-08-0299R Community: City of Rifle, CO Community No.: 085078 104 This responds to a request that the Department of Homeland Security's Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) comment on the effects that a proposed project would have on the effective Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), Flood Boundary and Floodway Map (FBFM), and Flood Insurance Study (FIS) report for your community, in accordance with Part 65 of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) regulations. In a letter dated January 16, 2008, Mr. Fred A. Jarman, AICP, Director, Building and Planning Department, Garfield County, requested that FEMA evaluate the effects that a proposed gravel mining project on the south overbank of the Colorado River from approximately 3,500 feet upstream to approximately 7,570 feet upstream of the State Highway 13 (SRI 3) bridge, along with updated topographic information, would have on the flood hazard information shown on the effective FIRM, FBFM, and FIS report along the Colorado River from approximately 2,370 feet upstream to approximately 10,720 feet upstream of the SH 13 bridge. The area that affects the City of Rifle is on the left overbank of the Colorado River from approximately 2,370 feet upstream to approximately 6,210 feet upstream of the SH13 bridge. The remainder of the revised reach is within the unincorporated areas of Garfield County. All data required to complete our review of this request for a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) were submitted with letters from Ms. Peggy Bailey, P.E., and Mr. Paul Schmidt, E.1.T., both with Tetra Tech, Inc. Because this revision request also affects the unincorporated areas of Garfield County, a separate CLOMR for that community was issued on the same date as this CLOMR. We reviewed the submitted data and the data used to prepare the effective FIRM and FBFM for your community and determined that the proposed project meets the minimum floodplain management criteria of the NFIP. The submitted existing conditions HEC -RAS hydraulic computer model, dated March 4, 2008, based on updated topographic information, was used as the base conditions model in our review of the proposed conditions model for this CLOMR request. We believe that, if the proposed project is constructed as shown on the drawing entitled "Scott Pit CLOMR Proposed Conditions Drawing Number C-2," prepared by Tetra Tech, Inc., dated March 10, 2008, and the data listed below are received, the floodplain boundaries of the base (1 -percent -annual -chance) flood and the 0.2 -percent -annual -chance flood will be delineated as shown on the drawing entitled "Scott Pit CLOMR Annotated FIRM Drawing Number C-5," also prepared by Tetra Tech, Inc., and dated March 10, 2008. The existing conditions model was based on updated topographic information. Our comparison of existing conditions to the effective flood hazard information revealed that the Base Flood Elevations 2 (BFEs) for the Colorado River both increased and decreased. The maximum increase in BFE, 0.3 foot, occurred approximately 3,730 feet upstream of the SH13 bridge. The maximum decrease in BFE, 0.1 foot, occurred approximately 4,570 feet upstream of the SH13 bridge. The proposed conditions model incorporated the proposed gravel mining excavation into the existing conditions model. As a result of the proposed project, the BFEs for the Colorado River will decrease compared to the existing conditions BFEs. The maximum decrease in BFE, 0.8 foot, will occur approximately 5,940 feet upstream of the SH13 bridge. As a result of the proposed project and updated topographic information, the BFEs for the Colorado River will both increase and decrease compared to the effective BFEs. The maximum increase in BFE, 0.3 foot, will occur approximately 3,730 feet upstream of the SH13 bridge. The maximum decrease in BFE, 0.7 foot, will occur approximately 5,940 feet upstream of the SH13 bridge. The width of the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA), the area that would be inundated by the base flood, will increase in some areas and decrease in other areas compared to the effective SFHA width. The maximum increase in SFHA width, approximately 120 feet, will occur approximately 4,620 feet upstream on the SH13 bridge. The maximum decrease in SFHA width, approximately 100 feet, will occur approximately 3,120 feet upstream of the SH13 bridge. As a result of the proposed project and updated topographic information, the width of the regulatory floodway along the Colorado River will increase compared to the effective floodway width. The regulatory floodway will also shift to the south to remove the city potable water intake facilities from the floodway. The maximum increase in floodway width within the City of Rifle, approximately 50 feet, will occur on the south overbank approximately 5,430 feet upstream of the SH13 bridge. Upon completion of the project, your community may submit the data listed below and request that we make a final determination on revising the effective FIRM, FBFM, and FIS report. • Detailed application and certification forms, which were used in processing this request, must be used for requesting final revisions to the maps. Therefore, when the map revision request for the area covered by this letter is submitted, Form 1, entitled "Overview & Concurrence Form," must be included. (A copy of this form is enclosed.) • The detailed application and certification forms listed below may be required if as -built conditions differ from the preliminary plans. If required, please submit new forms (copies of which are enclosed) or annotated copies of the previously submitted forms showing the revised information. Form 2, entitled "Riverine Hydrology & Hydraulics Form" Form 3, entitled "Riverine Structures Form" Hydraulic analyses, for as -built conditions, of the base flood; the 10 -percent-, 2 -percent-, and 0.2 -percent -annual -chance floods; and the regulatory floodway, together with a topographic work map showing the revised floodplain and floodway boundaries, must be submitted with Form 2. • Effective October 1, 2007, FEMA revised the fee schedule for reviewing and processing requests for conditional and final modifications to published flood information and maps. In accordance with this schedule, the current fee for this map revision request is $4,800 and must be received before we can begin processing the request. Please note, however, that the fee schedule is subject 3 to change, and requesters are required to submit the fee in effect at the time of the submittal. Payment of this fee shall be made in the form of a check or money order, made payable in U.S. funds to the National Flood Insurance Program, or by credit card (Visa or MasterCard only). The payment, along with the revision application, must be forwarded to the following address: FEMA National Service Provider 3601 Eisenhower Avenue Alexandria, VA 22304-6425 • As -built plans, certified by a registered professional engineer, of all proposed project elements • Community acknowledgment of the map revision request • A copy of the public notice distributed by your community stating its intent to revise the regulatory floodway, or a statement by your community that it has notified all affected property owners and affected adjacent jurisdictions • Evidence of notification of all property owners who will be affected by any increases in width and/or shifting of the base floodplain and/or increases in BFE. This documentation may take the form of certified mailing receipts or certification that all property owners have been notified, with an accompanying mailing list and a copy of the letter sent. • A letter stating that your community will adopt and enforce the modified regulatory floodway, OR, if the State has jurisdiction over either the regulatory floodway or its adoption by your community, a copy of your community's letter to the appropriate State agency notifying it of the modification to the regulatory floodway and a copy of the letter from that agency stating its approval of the modification After receiving appropriate documentation to show that the project has been completed, FEMA will initiate a revision to the FIRM, FBFM, and FIS report. Because the BFEs would change as a result of the project, a 90 -day appeal period would be initiated, during which community officials and interested persons may appeal the revised BFEs based on scientific or technical data. This CLOMR is based on minimum floodplain management criteria established under the NFIP. Your community is responsible for approving all floodplain development and for ensuring all necessary permits required by Federal or State law have been received. State, county, and community officials, based on knowledge of local conditions and in the interest of safety, may set higher standards for construction in the SFHA. If the State, county, or community has adopted more restrictive or comprehensive floodplain management criteria, these criteria take precedence over the minimum NFIP criteria. If you have any questions regarding floodplain management regulations for your community or the NFIP in general, please contact the Consultation Coordination Officer (CCO) for your community. Information on the CCO for your community may be obtained by calling the Director, Mitigation Division of FEMA in Denver, Colorado, at (303) 235-4830. If you have any questions regarding this CLOMR, please call our Map Assistance Center, toll free, at 1 -877 -FEMA MAP (1-877-336-2627). Sincerely, (-62A cc-n,r4,,,, 4 Beth A. Norton, CFM, Program Specialist Engineering Management Branch Mitigation Directorate Enclosures cc: The Honorable John F. Martin Chairman, Garfield County Board of Commissioners Mr. John Hier City Manager City of Rifle Mr. Fred A. Jarman, AICP Director Building and PIanning Department Garfield County Mr. Craig Lamberty United Companies Ms. Peggy Bailey, P.E. Tetra Tech, Inc. For: William R. Blanton Jr., CFM, Chief Engineering Management Branch Mitigation Directorate FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY OVERVIEW & CONCURRENCE FORM O M.B No. 3067-0143 Expires September 30, 2005 PAPERWORK BURDEN DISCLOSURE NOTICE Public reporting burden for this form is estimated to average 1 hour per response. The burden estimate includes the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the needed data, and completing, reviewing, and submitting the form. You are not required to respond to this collection of information unless a valid OMB control number appears in the upper right corner of this form. Send comments regarding the accuracy of the burden estimate and any suggestions for reducing this burden to: Information Collections Management, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW, Washington DC 20472, Paperwork Reduction Project (3067-0148). Submission of the form is required to obtain or retain benefits under the National Flood Insurance Program. Please do not send your completed survey to the above address. A. REQUESTED RESPONSE FROM FEMA This request is for a (check one): ® CLOMR: A letter from FEMA commenting on whether a proposed project, if built as proposed, would justify a map revision, or proposed hydrology changes (See 44 CFR Ch. 1, Parts 60, 65 & 72). ❑ LOMR: A letter from FEMA officially revising the current NFIP map to show the changes to floodplains, regulatory floodway or flood elevations. (See Parts 60 & 65 of the NFIP Regulations.) B. OVERVIEW 1. The NFIP map panel(s) affected for all impacted communities is (are): Community No. Community Name State Map No. Panel No. Effective Date Ex: 480301 City of Katy TX 480301 0005D 02/08/83 480287 Harris County TX 482010 02200 09/28/90 080205 Garfield County CO 080205 1354 1/3/1986 2. Flooding Source: Colorado River 3. Project Name/identifier: Scott Pit 4. FEMA zone designations affected: A6 (choices: A, AH, AO, A1 -A30, A99, AE, AR, V, V1 -V30, VE, B, C, D, X) 5. Basis for Request and Type of Revision: a. The basis for this revision request is (check all that apply) Xi Physical Change 0 Improved Methodology/Data ® Regulatory Floodway Revision ❑ Other (Attach Description) Note: A photograph and narrative description of the area of concern is not required, but is very helpful during review. b. The area of revision encompasses the following types of flooding and structures (check all that apply) Types of Flooding: ® Riverine • Coastal ❑ Shallow Flooding (e.g., Zones AO and AH) ❑ Other (Attach Description) ■ Alluvial fan ❑ Lakes Structures: ■ Channelization 0 Levee/Floodwall ■ Bridge/Culvert 0 Other, Attach Description 0 Dam ■ Fill FEMA Form 81-89, SEP 02 Overview & Concurrence Form MT -2 Form 1 Page 1 of 2 Has the review fee for the appropriate request category been included? ® Yes Fee amount: $4000 ❑ No, Attach Explanation Please see the FEMA Web site at http://www.fema.govil nitltsdffml fees.htm for Fee Amounts and Exemptions. C. REVIEW FEE D. SIGNATURE At documents submitted in support of this request are correct to the best of my knowledge. I understand that any false statement may be punishable by fine or imprisonment under Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 1001. Name: . Company: Mailing Address: Daytime Telephone No: Fax No.: E -Mail Address: Signature of Requester (required): Date: As the community official responsible for floodplain management, I hereby acknowledge that we have received and reviewed this Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) or conditional LOMR request. Based upon the community's review, we find the completed or proposed project meets or is designed to meet all of the community floodplain management requirements, including the requirement that no fill be placed in the regulatory floodway, and that all necessary Federal, State, and local permits have been, or in the case of a conditional LOMR, will be obtained. In addition, we have determined that the land and any existing or proposed structures to be removed from the SFHA are or will be reasonably safe from flooding as defined in 44CFR 65.2(c), and that we have available upon request by FEMA, at analyses and documentation used to make this determination. Community Official's Name and Title: Telephone No.: Community Name: Garfield County, Colorado Community Official's Signature (required): Date: CERTIFICATION BY REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER AND/OR LAND SURVEYOR This certification is to be signed and sealed by a licensed land surveyor, registered professional engineer, or architect authorized by law to certify elevation information. All documents submitted in support of this request are correct to the best of my knowledge. I understand that any false statement may be punishable by fine or imprisonment under Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 1001. Certifier's Name: Peggy Bailey, P.E. License No.: 22660 Expiration Date: 7/31/2008 Company Name: Tetra Tech Telephone No.: 970 453-6394 Fax No.: 970 453-4579 Signature: Date: Ensure the forms that are appropriate to your revision request are included in your submittal. Form Name and (Number) Required if ... of dam Seal (Optional) ® Riverine Hydrology and Hydraulics Form (Form LI Riverine Structures Form (Form 3) 2) New or revised discharges or water -surface elevations Channel is modified, addition/revision of bridge/culverts, addition/revision of levee/floodwall, addition/revision New or revised coastal elevations Addition/revision of coastal structure Flood control measures on alluvial fans • Coastal Analysis Form (Forma 4) • Coastal Structures Form (Form 5) ❑ Alluvial Fan Flooding Form (Form 6) FEMA Form 81-89, SEP 02 Overview & Concurrence Form MT -2 Form 1 Page 2 of 2 FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY RIVERINE HYDROLOGY & HYDRAULICS FORM O.M.B No. 3067-0148 Expires September 30, 2005 PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT Public reporting burden for this form is estimated to average 3 hours per response. The burden estimate includes the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the needed data, and completing, reviewing, and submitting the form. You are not required to respond to this collection of information unless a valid OMB control number appears in the upper right corner of this form. Send comments regarding the accuracy of the burden estimate and any suggestions for reducing this burden to: Information Collections Management, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW, Washington DC 20472, Paperwork Reduction Project (3067-0148). Submission of the form is required to obtain or retain benefits under the National Flood Insurance Program. Please do not send your completed survey to the above address. Flooding Source: Colorado River Note: Fill out one form for each flooding source studied A. HYDROLOGY 1. Reason for New Hydrologic Analysis (check all that apply) ® Not revised (skip to section 2) ❑ No existing analysis ❑ Alternative methodology ❑ Improved data ❑ Proposed Conditions (CLOMR) ❑ Changed physical condition of watershed 2. Comparison of Representative 1% -Annual -Chance Discharges Location Drainage Area (Sq. Mi.) FIS (cfs) Revised (cfs) 3. Methodology for New Hydrologic Analysis (check all that apply) ❑ Statistical Analysis of Gage Records El Precipitation/Runoff Model [TR -20, HEC -1, HEC -HMS etc.] ❑ Regional Regression Equations ❑ Other (please attach description) Please enclose all relevant models in digital format, maps, computations (including computation of parameters) and documentation to support the new analysis. The document, "Numerical Models Accepted by FEMA for NFIP Usage" lists the models accepted by FEMA. This document can be found at: http://www.ferna.gov/nnitltsd/enmodl.htm. 4. Review/Approval of Analysis If your community requires a regional, state, or federal agency to review the hydrologic analysis, please attach evidence of approval/review. 5. Impacts of Sediment Transport on Hydrology Was sediment transport considered? ❑ Yes ❑ No If yes, then fill out Section F (Sediment Transport) of Form 3. If No, then attach your explanation for why sediment transport was not considered. B. HYDRAULICS 1. Reach to be Revised Downstream Limit Upstream Limit 2. Hydraulic Method Used Description Cross Section Water -Surface Elevations (ft.) Effective Proposed/Revised Main Channel upstream of 53.18 (J) 5303.37 5303.37 Highway 13 Upstream of detailed study area Hydraulic Analysis HEC -RAS [HEC -2 , HEC -RAS, Other (Attach description)] FEMA Form 81-89A, SEP 02 Riverine Hydrology & Hydraulics Form MT -2 Form 2 Page 1 of 2 B. HYDRAULICS (CONTINUED) 3. Pre -Submittal Review of Hydraulic Models FEMA has developed two review programs, CHECK -2 and CHECK -RAS, to aid in the review of HEC -2 and HEC -RAS hydraulic models, respectively. These review programs verify that the hydraulic estimates and assumptions in the model data are in accordance with NFIP requirements, and that the data are comparable with the assumptions and limitations of HEC-2/HEC-RAS. CHECK -2 and CHECK -RAS identify areas of potential error or concern. These tools do not replace engineering judgment. CHECK -2 and CHECK -RAS can be downloaded from hbp://www.ferna.gov/inititsdffrrn_soft.htm. We recommend that you review your HEC -2 and HEC -RAS models with CHECK -2 and CHECK - RAS. If you disagree with a message, please attach an explanation of why the message is not valid in this case. Review of your submittal and resolution of valid modeling discrepancies wilt result in reduced review time. HEC-2/HEC-RAS models reviewed with CHECK-2/CHECK-RAS? ❑ Yes ® No 4. Models Submitted Duplicate Effective Model* Corrected Effective Model* Existing or Pre -Project Conditions Model Revised or Post -Project Conditions Model Other - (attach description) Natural File Name: Natural File Name: Natural File Name: Natural File Name: Natural File Name: Floodway File Name: Floodway File Name: Floodway File Name: Floodway File Name: Floodway File Name: *Not required for revisions to approximate 1 %-annual-chance floodplains (Zone A) — for details, refer to the corresponding section of the instructions. The document "Numerical Models Accepted by FEMA for NFIP Usage" lists the models accepted by FEMA. This document can be found at: htip://mrw.fema.govirninsdien_modl.htm. C. MAPPING REQUIREMENTS A certified topographic map must be submitted showing the following information (where applicable): the boundaries of the effective, existing, and proposed conditions 1% -annual -chance floodplain (for approximate Zone A revisions) or the boundaries of the 1%- and 0.2% -annual -chance floodplains and regulatory floodway (for detailed Zone AE, AO, and AH revisions); location and alignment of all cross sections with stationing control indicated; stream, road, and other alignments (e.g., dams, levees, etc.); current community easements and boundaries; boundaries of the requester's property; certification of a registered professional engineer registered in the subject State; location and description of reference marks; and the referenced vertical datum (NGVD, NAVD, etc.). Note that the boundaries of the existing or proposed conditions floodplains and regulatory floodway to be shown on the revised FIRM and/or FBFM must tie-in with the effective floodplain and regulatory floodway boundaries. Please attach a copy of the effective FIRM and/or FBFM, annotated to show the boundaries of the revised 1%- and 0.2% -annual -chance floodplains and regulatory floodway that tie-in with the boundaries of the effective 1%- and 0.2% -annual -chance floodplain and regulatory floodway at the upstream and downstream limits of the area of revision. D. COMMON REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS 1. For CLOMR requests, do Base Flood Elevations (BFEs) increase? ❑ Yes ❑ No For CLOMR requests, if either of the following is true, please submit evidence of compliance with Section 65.12 of the NFIP regulations: • The proposed project encroaches upon a regulatory floodway and would result in increases above 0.00 foot. • The proposed project encroaches upon a SFHA with BFEs established and would result in increases above 1.00 foot. 2. Does the request involve the placement or proposed placement of fill? ❑ Yes ❑ No If Yes, the community must be able to certify that the area to be removed from the special flood hazard area, to include any structures or proposed structures, meets all of the standards of the local floodplain ordinances, and is reasonably safe from flooding in accordance with the NFIP regulations set forth at 44 CFR 60.3(a)(3), 65.5(a)(4), and 65.6(a)(14). Please see the MT -2 instructions for more information. 3. For LOMR requests, is the regulatory floodway being revised? ❑ Yes ❑ No If Yes, attach evidence of regulatory floodway revision notification. As per Paragraph 65.7(b)(1) of the NFIP Regulations, notification is required for requests involving revisions to the regulatory floodway. (Not required for revisions to approximate 1% -annual -chance floodplains [studied Zone A designation] unless a regulatory floodway is being added. Elements and examples of regulatory floodway revision notification can be found in the MT -2 Form 2 Instructions.) 4. For LOMR requests, does this request require property owner notification and acceptance of BFE increases? ❑ Yes ❑ No If Yes, please attach proof of property owner notification and acceptance (if available). Elements of and examples of property owner notification can be found in the MT -2 Form 2 Instructions. FEMA Form 81-89A, SEP 02 Riverine Hydrology & Hydraulics Form MT -2 Form 2 Page 2 of 2 FACT SHEET Meeting the Criteria for Accrediting Levees on Flood Maps How -to -Guide for Floodplain Managers and En A levee is a manmade structure, usually an earthen embankment, designed and constructed in accordance with sound engineering practices to contain, control, or divert the flow of water so as to provide protection from temporary flooding. Levees include floodwalls and other flood -control structures (not including dams). As part of the countywide flood mapping process, the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and its State and local mapping partners need to review data associated with levees. It is the levee owner's or community's responsibility to provide data and documentation to demonstrate that a levee meets the requirements of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) as described in Title 44, Chapter 1, Section 65.10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (44 CFR Section 65.10) which you may view on FEMA's Web site at www.fema.gov/plant prevent" flan/Iv_fpm.shtm. To be recognized as providing protection from the 1 -percent - annual -chance flood on Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), levee systems must meet and continue to meet the minimum design, operation, and maintenance standards of 44 CFR, Section 65.10 of the NFIP regulations. To help clarify the responsibilities of community officials, levee owners, or other parties seeking recognition of a levee for providing information on levees identified during a mapping project, FEMA issued Procedure Memorandum No. 34 (PM 34), Interim Guidance for Studies Including Levees, on August 22, 2005. PM 34 provided clarification of the existing procedures, which were provided in Appendix H of FEMA's Guidelines and Specifications, for Flood Hazard Mapping Partners. FEMA issued Revised Procedure Memorandum No. 43, Guidelines for Identing Provisionally Accredited Levees, on March 16, 2007, which will allow mapping contractors and partners to issue preliminary and, in some cases, effective flood maps while communities and levee owners are compiling and submitting the full documentation necessary to show compliance with 44 CFR Section 65.10 requirements. This document provides information regarding what types of information you'll need to submit during the mapping process for your levee to be recognized as providing protection on FIRMs, including a checklist and an index of further resources you may wish to consult. FEMA ineers LEVEES IDENTIFYING THE RISK COMMUNITIES WITH LEVEES SHOULD KNOW: • The participating community and/or other party seeking recognition or continued recognition must provide sufficient data showing that the Ievee provides protection from the 1 -percent -annual - chance flood (also known as the base flood) for FEMA to recognize the Ievee on a FIRM. • Communities must actively participate in the levee documentation process. • Levees structures without sufficient documentation will not be credited as providing flood protection. • Some levees may qualify to be shown as Provisionally Accredited Levees on the FIRM. Guidance regarding Provisionally Accredited Levees is available at www.fema.gov/plan/ preventlfhm/Iv_fpm. shtm. April 2007 PAGE 1 HOW WILL FEMA MAP LEVEES? FEMA's mapping requirements are designed to provide the people living and working behind the levee with appropriate risk information so that they may minimize damage and loss of life. It is important to note that FEMA does not evaluate the performance of a levee—this is the responsibility of the levee owner. FEMA is responsible for establishing mapping standards and risk determination zones and reflecting these determinations on flood maps. Levee Accredited on FIRM }WARNINGI THIS AREA IS SHOWN AS BEING PROTECTED FROM } THE 1 -PERCENT ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD HAZARD BY LEVEE DIRE, OR OTHER STRUCTURE. OVERTOPPING OR FAILURE OF .;• THIS STRUCTURE IS POSSIBLE WHICH COULD RESULT IN DESTRUCTIVE FLOOD ELEVATIONS, AND WATER VELOCITIES. IV`. PROPER PROTECTION, FL000 INSURANCE, AND ADHERENCE J TO EVACUATION PROCEOURES ARE STRONGLY RECOMMENDED.. FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, SEE THE NOTES TO USERS.• �• " :W ••.'.:� An accredited levee is a levee that FEMA shows on a FIRM as providing protection from the 1 -percent -annual -chance or greater flood. This determination is based on the submittal of data and documentation as required by the NFIP regulations. The area landward of an accredited levee is shown as Zone X (shaded) on the FIRM except for areas of residual flooding, such as ponding areas, which will be shown as Special Flood Hazard Area. Flood insurance is not mandatory in Zone X (shaded); however, it is strongly encouraged for all structures in areas behind levees. Provisionally Accredited Levee (PAL) A PAL is a designation for a levee that FEMA has previously accredited with providing 1 -percent -annual -chance flood protection on an effective FIRM, and for which FEMA is awaiting data and/or documentation that will show the levee's compliance with NFIP regulations. Before FEMA will designate a levee as a PAL, the community or levee owner will need to sign and return an agreement that indicates that documentation required for compliance with 44 CFR Section 65.10 of the NFIP regulations will be provided within a specified timeframe, depending upon the levee's status. Flood insurance is not mandatory for structures behind a levee with provisional status however, it is strongly encouraged. Levee Not Accredited or De -accredited on FIRM If the levee is not shown as providing protection from the 1 -percent -annual -chance flood on an effective FIRM, the levee is considered "not accredited" and is mapped as Zone AE or Zone A, depending upon the type of study performed for the area. If the levee was previously shown providing protection from the 1 -percent -annual -chance flood on an effective FIRM but does not meet the Provisionally Accredited Levee (PAL) requirements or is no longer eligible for the PAL, FEMA will "de -accredit" the levee and the area landward of the levee will be remapped as Zone AE or Zone A (high-risk flood zones) depending on the type of study performed for the area. Flood insurance will be required for structures with a federally backed mortgage. April 2007 PAGE 2 Design Criteria* Description: For systems are in place following requirements Section of the NFIP Regulations: 65.10(b) levees to be recognized by FEMA, evidence that adequate design and operation and maintenance to provide reasonable assurance that protection from the base flood exists must be provided. The must be met: Checklist for Design Criteria: ■ Freeboard. Minimum freeboard required 3 feet above the Base Flood Elevation (BFE) all along length, and an additional 1 foot within 100 feet of structures (such as bridges) or wherever the flow is restricted. Additional 0.5 foot at the upstream end of levee. Coastal levees have special freeboard requirements (see 65.10(b)(1)(iii) and (iv)). ■ Closures. All openings must be provided with closure devices that are structural parts of the system during operation and designed according to sound engineering practice. Embankment Protection. Engineering analyses must be submitted that demonstrate that no appreciable erosion of the levee embankment can be expected during the base flood, as a result of either currents or waves, and that anticipated erosion will not result in failure of the levee embankment or foundation directly or indirectly through reduction of the seepage path and subsequent instability. Embankment and Foundation Stability Analyses. Engineering analyses that evaluate levee embankment stability must be submitted. The analyses provided shall evaluate expected seepage during loading conditions associated with the base flood and shall demonstrate that seepage into or through the levee foundation and embankment will not jeopardize embankment or foundation stability. An alternative analysis demonstrating that the levee is designed and constructed for stability against loading conditions for Case IV as defined in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) manual, Design and Construction of Levees, (EM 1110-2-1913, Chapter 6, Section II), may be used. Settlement Analyses. Engineering analyses must be submitted that assess the potential and magnitude of future losses of freeboard as a result of levee settlement and demonstrate that freeboard will be maintained. This analysis must address embankment Toads, compressibility of embankment soils, compressibility of foundation soils, age of the levee system, and construction compaction methods. In addition, detailed settlement analysis using procedures such as those described in the USACE manual, Soil Mechanics Design— Settlement Analysis (EM 1100-2-1904), must be submitted. Interior Drainage. An analysis must be submitted that identifies the source(s) of such flooding, the extent of the flooded area, and, if the average depth is greater than one foot, the water-surface elevation(s) of the base flood. This analysis must be based on the joint probability of interior and exterior flooding and the capacity of facilities (such as drainage lines and pumps) for evacuating interior floodwaters. F-, -. April 2007 PAGE 3 Operation Plan* Description: For devices or mechanical an officially adopted drainage system recognition manner All operations law, or an agency of Section of the FjL!J ubtions: 65.I0(c)(1) a levee system to be recognized, the operational criteria must be as described below. All closure systems for internal drainage, whether manual or automatic, must be operated in accordance with operation manual, a copy of which must be provided to FEMA by the operator when levee or is being sought or when the manual for a previously recognized system is revised in any must be under the jurisdiction of a Federal or State agency, an agency created by Federal or State a community participating in the NFIP. Checklist for OperaNNWRIMMIF Flood Warning System. Documentation of the flood warning system, under the jurisdiction of Federal, State, or community officials that will be used to trigger emergency operation activities; and demonstration that sufficient flood warning time exists for the completed operation of all closure structures, including necessary sealing, before floodwaters reach the base of the closure. Plan of Operation. A formal plan of operation including specific actions and assignments of responsibility by individual name or title. Periodic Operation of Closures. Provisions for periodic operation, at not less than one-year intervals, of the closure structure for testing and training purposes. Interior Drainage Plan. See below. Interior Drainage Plan Section of the NFIP Regulations: 65.I0(c)(2) Description: Interior drainage systems associated with levee systems usually include storage areas, gravity outlets, pumping stations, or a combination thereof. These drainage systems will be recognized by FEMA on NFIP maps for flood protection purposes only if the following minimum criteria are included in the operation plan. Checklist for Interior Drainage Plan: Flood Warning System. Documentation of the flood warning system, under the jurisdiction of Federal, State, or community officials that will be used to trigger emergency operation activities; and demonstration that sufficient flood warning time exists to permit activation of mechanized portions of the drainage system. ■ Plan of Operation. A formal plan of operation including specific actions and assignments of responsibility by individual name or title. April 2007 PAGE 4 April 2007 PAGE 5 Manual Backup. Provision for manual backup for the activation of automatic systems. Periodic Inspection. Provisions for periodic inspection of interior drainage systems and periodic operation of any mechanized portions for testing and training purposes. No more than 1 year shall elapse between either the inspections or the operations. \laintenancc Plan Description: For levee must be as described Section of the NFIP Regulations: 65.10(d) systems to be recognized as providing protection from the base flood, the maintenance criteria herein: Checklist for Maintenance Plan: Levee systems must be maintained in accordance with an officially adopted maintenance plan, and a copy of this plan must be provided to FEMA by the owner of the levee system when recognition is being sought or when the plan for a previously recognized system is revised in any manner. All maintenance activities must be under the jurisdiction of a Federal or State agency, an agency created by Federal or State law, or an agency of a community participating in the NFIP that must assume ultimate responsibility for maintenance. This plan must document the formal procedure that ensures that the stability, height, and overall integrity of the levee and its associated structures and systems are maintained. At a minimum, the plan shall specify the maintenance activities to be performed, the frequency of their performance, and the person by name or title responsible for their performance. 'SectloMthe NFIP Rcgulatinns: 65.10(e) - a submitted to support that a given levee system complies with the structural requirements set forth in (b)(1) through (7) of the regulations) must be certified by a registered PE. Also, certified the levee must be submitted. Certifications are subject to the definition given in Section 65.2 of the In lieu of these structural requirements, a Federal agency with responsibility for levee design may has been adequately designed and constructed to provide protection against the base flood. Description: Data "Design Criteria" (paragraphs "as -built" plans of NFIP regulations. certify that the levee rChecklist fortification Requirement:Ill - All data submitted is certified by Professional Engineer or certified by a Federal agency. Certified as -built levee plans are included in the submittal. April 2007 PAGE 5 A NOTE ABOUT RISK AND FLOOD INSURANCE It is important to note that levees are designed to provide a specific level of protection. They can be overtopped or fail in a larger flood events. Levees also decay over time. They require regular maintenance and periodic upgrades to retain their level of protection. When levees do fail, they fail catastrophically. The damage may be more significant than if the levee was not there at all. For all these reasons, FEMA strongly urges people to understand their flood risk, know their evacuation procedures, and protect their property by purchasing flood insurance. CHECKLIST INFORMATION The checklist provided in this publication is meant to assist local officials and levee owners in gathering the documentation that will be required for FEMA to show a levee as providing base flood protection on the community's FIRM. Where possible, text from the actual NFIP regulations (44 CFR Section 65.10) was used. The checklist is set up according to the appropriate paragraph of 65.10. For example, Design Criteria can be found in Paragraph 65.10(b): Design Criteria* Section of lie FEhL3, Regulations: 65.lO(b Description: For levees to berecognized byFEMA, evidence that adequate design and operation and maintenance systems are in place to provide reasonable assurance that protection from the base flood exists must be provided. The following requirements must be met: For a comprehensive description of each item in this checklist, please see Appendix H of the Guidelines and Specifications for Flood Hazard Mapping Partners. Locations of this resource, and other useful resources, are provided below. INDEX OF RESOURCES This resource, and other levee -related information and materials, can be found at www.fema.gov/plan/prevent/thmlly intro.shtm. Procedure Memorandum No. 34, Interim Guidance for Studies Including Levees, can be found at www.fema.gov/plan/preventiflim/ly fprn.shtin. Revised Procedure Memorandum No. 43, Guidelines for Identifying Provisionally Accredited Levees, can be found at www.fema.gov/planipreverit/flunilvipm.shtm. Appendix H of the Guidelines and Specifications for Flood Hazard Mapping Partners can be downloaded at www.fema.gov/plan/prevent/thni/d1 c,gs.shttn. 44 CFR Section 65.10 of the NFIP regulations can be downloaded at www.fema.gov/plan/preventiflunilvipm.shtm. Flood insurance information can be found at www.fema.gov/business/nfip or on the NFIP's consumer site, www.FloodSmart.gov. April 2007 PAGE 6 CLOMR02 CLOMR03 CLOMR04 I CLOMRO7 Y. CLOMR08 CLOMR09 Rifle Bald Eagle Nest Monitoring United Companies March 3 through March 10, 2010 March 12, 2010 The following is a summary of the progress of the Bald Eagle nest at Rifle. Incubation appears to be progressing normally. Eggs are estimated to hatch around March 22-24, 2010. March 3, 2010: 53 degrees, PC to clear, wind between 5-10 mph, snow cover on ground below nest, river clear of ice and running clear. 1:25 p.m.: One adult on the nest in an incubation position at the same location as pervious observations. Bird was facing to the northwest. 2:01 p.m.: The adult on the nest has not changed incubation position. Pretty long time without changing positions. 2:11 p.m.: The adult on the nest stands up, tends to egg(s) while standing over them, and after about 30 seconds settles back down on eggs facing to the southwest. 2:16 p.m.: Union Pacific train with two locomotives and two tank cars passes to the east, does not blow horn at Rifle Water Treatment RR crossing. No reaction from eagle on nest. 2:35 p.m.: Coal train passes going east, does not blow horn at RR crossing -no reaction from eagle on nest. 2:42 p.m.: The other adult flies in from the south and lands in a cottonwood tree about 50 yds west of the nest. The adult (male) on the nest remains in an incubation position. 2:50 p.m.: The adult that just arrived (female) flies to the nest. The male sitting on the eggs stands up and both vocalize for about 20-25 seconds. Vocalizations were loud enough for me to hear from the observation point. Vocalizations were made while birds were facing each other and with heads thrown back skyward. 2:52 p.m.: The male flies to a cottonwood about 75 yds west of nest and perches on a limb. The female settles onto the eggs. Incubation was interrupted for about 70 seconds during the exchange of duties. The female was facing to the west in the nest. 2:59 p.m.: The male flies to the north towards the hogback and disappears. The female still sitting on eggs. 3:01 p.m.: Ended observations. March 10, 2010: Partly cloudy, 45 degrees, 10-15 mph. 2:50 p.m.: Arrived on-site. One adult on the nest at the same location as previous visits in an incubation position, facing to the east. The cottonwood tree branch that the nest is on is swaying in the winds. The nest does not appear to be too secure due to the large size of the structure and the small support limbs. 3:05 p.m.: The adult on the nest changes positions and is now facing to the northwest. 3:20 p.m.: The adult stands in the nest and flies in a large circle (out 75 yd) downstream of the nest, returns and immediately settles back down on the eggs. Gone from the nest for about 30-40 seconds. I could not determine a reason for the flight. 3:23 p.m.: The adult on the nest made another flight downstream from the nest about 150 yds, returns and settles back down on eggs. Still no obvious reason for the flight, maybe exercise? 3:24 p.m.: The adult mate shows up from downstream along with a juvenile Bald Eagle. Both adult engage in a short chase of the immature and one of the adults returns to the nest and settles back down on the eggs. The other adult lands in a cottonwood upstream from the nest. The immature BE departed the nesting territory. Encounters with other Bald Eagles entering the nesting territory are usually of short duration (< 20 seconds) with little aggression from any of the birds. 3:30 p.m.: Completed observations. Eggs may hatch sometime around March 20-24. Van K. Graham WestWater Engineering