HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.0 PC Staff Report 05.13.2009Exhibits for Public Hearing: 05/13/2009 Planning Commission
Exhibit
A
Proof of Publication
B
Proof of Mailing
C
Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended
D
Special Use Permit Application
E
Staff Memorandum
F
Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2000
G
Letter from the Garfield County Airport Manager dated 4/17/09
H
Letter from the Colorado Division of Wildlife dated 6/18/08'
Memorandum from the County Vegetation Management Director 5/1/09
J
Email from the CDOT dated 4/13/09
K
The City of Rifle's East Gateway Plan (by reference)
L
Email from the Rifle Fire Protection District dated 4/8/09
M
Letter from Leavenworth & Karp dated 2/26/09
N
Letter from the City of Rifle dated 4/24/09
0
Letter from the Colorado Geologic Survey dated 5/4/09
PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
TYPE OF REVIEW
EXHIBIT
6
051/3/09
FJ
Special Use Permit for 1) "Processing,
Storage and Material Handling of Natural
Resources" & Special Use Permit for 2)
"Development in the Floodplain"
APPLICANT River's Edge, LLC
LOCATION The subject property is located 1/2 mile
east of the main interstate intersection of
Rifle Colorado between the Colorado
River and Interstate 70. (Section 15,
Township 6 South, Range 93 West)
SITE INFORMATION
Approximately 93 acre parcel (mining /
disturbing 25 acres)
ZONING Agriculture / Industrial (Al)
I. GENERAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Applicant specifically requests a Special Use Permit for "Extraction, Storage,
Processing, and Material Handling of Natural Resources" for a Gravel Pit operation on
approximately 25 acres of a 93 -acre property. This request is for an expansion of an
existing mining permit currently in place with the Division of Reclamation, Mining, and
Safety which also requires a Special Use Permit from Garfield County.
The Applicant proposes to specifically mine gravel out of two areas where Area 1 consists
of 7.1 acres and is located on the west end of the site and Area 2 consists of 13.9 acres
and is located on the east end of the site. The remainder of the property would remain in its
Scott Gravel Pit
PC — 05/13/09
Page 2
current condition. The gravel would be mined down to approximately 25 feet with up to 5
feet of overburden to be removed. The Applicant intends to install a small office, scale,
sanitation tank, portable toilets and a fuel bunker. The Applicant intends to also operate
semi-portable concrete and asphalt plants and fuel tanks with this mining operation to be
located in the bottom of mining area 2. Similarly, the crusher and screen is proposed to be
located in the bottom of Area 2.
The Applicant anticipates an average production (to vary based on market conditions) at
200,000 tons / year for approximately 5.96 years. The general hours of operation are
proposed as the following:
Monday -- Saturday: 6:00 AM to 8:00 PM (March — November)
Sunday: 8:00 AM to 1:00 PM (March -- November)
Monday— Saturday: 6:00 Am to 6:00 PM (December— February)
Sunday: No operations
II. GENERAL LOCATION / SITE DESCRIPTION
The subject property is located 1/2 mile east of the main interstate intersection of Rifle
Colorado between the Colorado River and Interstate 70. The map on the front page
illustrates the location of the proposed gravel pit. The 93 -acre site is a relatively flat
property in the Colorado River / Valley floor containing mature established riparian
vegetation along the Colorado River, significant established wetlands along an older river
corridor through the site known as the Ox Bow, as well as historically irrigated pasture /
grazing fields all of which contain stands of mature dense cottonwood stands throughout
the property.
III. ZONING & ADJACENT USES
The property to the east is the active LaFarge Mamm Creek Gravel Pit; the property to the
north is the Colorado River with the nearly finished Chambers Gravel Pit on the north bank
across the river; the property to the west is vacant undisturbed pasture, and the property to
the south is CDOT right-of-way containing the frontage road and east and west bound
lanes of Interstate 1-70. All of the surrounding adjacent properties are zoned Agricultural /
Industrial (now Rural) similar to the subject property. (The map on the front cover of this
memorandum illustrates the surrounding zoning.)
IV. AUTHORITY & APPLICABILITY
Pursuant to Section 9.03.04 of the Zoning Resolution, an application for a Special Use
2
Scott Gravel Pit
PC — 05/13/09
Page 3
Permit shall be approved or denied by the Board of County Commissioners after holding a
public hearing thereon in conformance with all provisions of the Zoning Resolution.
V. REVIEW AGENCY AND OTHER COMMENTS
Comments have been received from the following agencies / community groups and are
integrated throughout this memorandum as applicable.
1. Bookcliff Soil Conservation District: No Comments Received from the County
Referral.
2. City of Rifle: The City prefers this area not be mined as it is a valuable vista at the
entrance to the City of Rifle from 1-70 as defined more fully in their East Gateway
Plan. They believe this heavy industrial use will negatively affect the City's image
and economic development. Should the County approve the mining request, they
suggest a variety of reclamation measures.
Specifically, the City recommends eliminating the asphalt / concrete batch plants
from the application, requiring the Applicant to produce a 3-D model of the mining
phases and reclamation, and requiring an enforceable reclamation plan to restore
the site to curvilinear lakes and better wildlife habitat. (Recommended reclamation
standards attached) (Exhibit N)
3. Rifle Fire Protection District: Indicated they had no comments on the proposal.
(Exhibit L)
4. Colorado Department of Transportation: CDOT issued a highway access permit for
335 average daily trips with the main condition that the Applicant pave a 2.2 mile
portion of the CDOT frontage road that provides access to the subject parcel. That
permit has expired, but CDOT anticipates re -issuing the permit. (Exhibit J)
5. Colorado Division of Wildlife: Provided comments largely focused on the presence
of the American Bald Eagle adjacent to the property (on the east) on the Lafarge
(Mamm Creek) property. The CDOW recommends the Applicant revise their plan to
honor the 1/2 mile and % mile buffers and timing restrictions so as to not over harass
the Eagles. (Exhibit H)
6. Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment: No Comments received.
7. Colorado Division of Water Resources: No Comments Received from the County
Referral.
3
Scott Gravel Pit
PC 05/13/09
Page 4
8. Colorado Geologic Survey: Indicated they found no geologic hazard that would
appreciably affect this mine operation and it would appear that the water quality and
pit -wall stability concerns have been addressed in the Application. Provided all
relevant permits are in place, the CGS has no concerns with the mine as it is
intended. (Exhibit 0)
9. Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining & Safety: No Comments Received from
the County Referral.
10. US Army Corps of Engineers: No Comments Received from the County Referral.
11. Garfield County Vegetation Management: Agrees with the City of Rifle suggestions
regarding the use of plant plugs (i.e. real plants) instead of broadcast seeding. The
applicant does propose to plant trees, cuttings, and tublings. Research indicates
that plug stock of wetland species such as sedges and rushes are more effective
than broadcast seeding. Also large plug stock, over 21 inches, has been shown to
be more effective than 12 inch plugs. Larger plugs can handle changing water
tables better than the smaller plugs.
There is a native shrub, silver -leaf buffalo berry (Shepherdia argentea) that may be
confused with the noxious weed, the Russian -olive tree (Shepherdia argentea).
The Applicant needs to be able to distinguish between the two so that the native
silver -leaf is conserved and not managed like the Russian -olive.
It is critical that the Applicant implement an effective Russian -olive and tamarisk
treatment program. From this department's perspective, reducing the population of
Russian olive and tamarisk is not a negative impact to visual aesthetics from the
corridor as is stated on page J-2. The timely treatment of all County listed noxious
weeds, including Russian olive and tamarisk, is encouraged given the threat of
spreading noxious weed seeds through gravel to previously uninfested areas.
Staff requests the removal of crested wheatgrass from the dry rangeland mix.
Staff appreciates the City's comments and we emphasize our concurrence with the
Reclamation of the Scott Expansion to the Chambers Gravel Pit document provided
by the City of Rifle. The topics of live -soil handling, using local plant sources for
reclamation, and developing a benchmark for successful gravel pit reclamation are
important items and worthy of further consideration by the Planning and Zoning
Commission and the Board of County Commissioners. (Exhibit I)
4
Scott Gravel Pit
PC — 05/13/09
Page 5
12. Garfield County Airport: indicated that the use is compatible in the vicinity of the
airport. Does note see the resulting ponds as creating a waterfowl nuisance and
does not believe the ponds will create glare problems for departing or landing
aircraft. (Exhibit G)
13. County Prolect Review Engineer: Found no significant problems with the proposed
mining plan.
VI. RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The proposed mining activity is located in an area of the County just outside the City of
Rifle (the City) which is described as the Area of Urban influence. The County and the City
have entered into an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) which agreed that proposed land
uses in the County that fall within this area would be referred to each jurisdiction for
comments. The following comments include a review of Section 10.0: "Area of Urban
Influence" of the County's Comprehensive Plan's Goals, Policies, and Goals and the City of
Rifle's formal review comments.
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.
5
Scott Gravel Pit
PC - 05/13/09
Page 6
Staff Comments
The Applicant was referred to the City of Rifle meeting one of these goals. In doing so, the
City has provided comments indicating they would prefer this mining activity did not occur
because of its location at the entrance or "gateway" to the City. In 2008, the City adopted
the "East Gateway Subarea Plan" which identifies this project area as located squarely
within that gateway area as the entrance to Rifle.
It would appear that gravel mining activity that is as highly visible as this project will
negatively impact the entrance to Rifle resulting in "detracting from the natural, rural setting
and convey a disorderly, industrial image" certainly during the mining activity.
Gravel mining is a permitted use the Al zone district in Garfield County but appears to be
incompatible with Rifle's future land use objectives. Consider the "Gravel Mining &
reclamation Standards in their East Gateway Plan:
A. Goals
1) Mitigate negative impacts during and after mineral extraction.
2) Minimize and eliminate the negative visual and operational effects of mining
on the gateways and biological systems.
3) Encourage land uses that recognize the environmental sensitivity of the land.
4) Protect watersheds and floodplains.
5) It is the intent of the City to minimize the impact of any mining on the
environment and surrounding Rifle gateways.
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
6
Scott Gravel Pit
PC -- 05/13/09
Page 7
mining operations, which contain crushing, asphalt processing or
concrete operations between Mamm Creek and Exit 90.
The City acknowledges that the proposed plan is a significant reduction in activity from the
previous application; however, they believe the activity is still highly visible and highly
impactful and have the following key points:
1) Eliminate the asphalt / concrete batch plants from the application;
2) Applicant should be required to produce a 3-D model of the mining phases and
reclamation;
3) Require an enforceable reclamation plan to restore the site to curvilinear lakes and
better wildlife habitat; (Recommended reclamation standards attached)
OBJECTIVES:
10.5 Retain rural character outside of community limits.
Staff Comment
The site's present conditions are the epitome of "rural character." An industrial gravel
mining operation on this land directly contradicts this objective.
POLICIES:
10.1 Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Resolution revisions, Zone District Amendments
and individual projects within defined Urban Areas of Influence, will be consistent
with local municipal land use policies.
Staff Comment
As proposed, this application is not consistent with the City of Rifle's East Gateway Plan.
Eliminating the batch plants will bring the application closer to being consistent with their
plan.
VII. REVIEW CRITERIA FOR SPECIAL USE PERMITS (SECTION 5:03 & 5.17)
Pursuant to Section 5.03, as listed under the Zone District Regulations, special uses shall
conform to all requirements listed thereunder and elsewhere in the Zoning Resolution, as
well as the following standards:
1. Utilities adequate to provide water and sanitation service based on accepted
engineering standards and approved by the Board of County Commissioners shall
either be in place or shall be constructed in conjunction with the proposed use.
7
Scott Gravel Pit
PC — 05/13/09
Page 8
Response
The Application proposes to provide water and sanitation service for the employees on the
site by using potable water service and portable toilet service during the 6 -year life of the
mining operations. Because of the temporary nature of the activity, the County has allowed
this type of service to support the employees rather than requiring the construction of a
permanent ISDS and well system. Staff finds this is an acceptable method for the provision
of water and sanitation service.
2. Street improvements adequate to accommodate traffic volume generated by
the proposed use and to provide safe, convenient access to the use shall either be in
place or shall be constructed in conjunction with the proposed use.
Staff Response
The only vehicle access to the area is provided directly off of an existing CDOT frontage
road that dead ends at the subject property. Presently, the road is paved from the 1-70
interchange (County Airport Interchange) to the LaFarge Mamm Creek Pit entrance. It is a
gravel surface from that point to the entrance of the subject property.
The frontage road lies within CDOT's jurisdiction. Staff referred the Application to CDOT
which stated they had "signed an access permit for 335 daily trips on January 23, 2006.
This permit did include highway improvements which primarily include paving the frontage
road from the end of the existing pavement at the entrance to LaFarge to the access point
for this property. CDOT had not received the Notice to Proceed at this point." Staff has
attached the signed permit as well as the list of conditions that have to be met before any
mining operation can begin. [Note: CDOT noted that this permit has expired, but CDOT
expects to re -issue the permit on the original findings and conditions.]
While the specific access does not involve Garfield County, the act of hauling gravel on the
County's road system does require the Applicant to be aware of heavy haul routes and
over sized / weight requirements required by the Road and Bridge Department. Should the
Board approve this Special Use Permit, Staff suggests that no mining work / site prep be
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.
8
Scott Gravel Pit
PC — 05/13/09
Page 9
Staff Response
The existing established neighborhood character can be characterized as industrial (gravel
mining to the north and east), 1-70 (CDOT highway) to the south, and natural rural -riparian
river bottom to the west at the entrance to the City of Rifle. The property itself serves as a
natural unimproved buffer (on the south side of the river) separating the City of Rifle's main
entrance from LaFarge's gravel pit operation. The site is highly visible from west -bound
traffic on 1-70 because it is elevated at least 20 feet above the property.
Some of the vegetation (mature cottonwood stands) on the property actually serve as a
visual buffer (as well as for sound) between the City and the LaFarge gravel pit. This
property also serves as the last and most significant natural / unimproved properties along
the river and 1-70 corridor as one approaches the City of Rifle from the east. As portions of
this property are mined, it will change the character of the area as seen primarily from 1-70
on the approach to the City of Rifle.
In order to further minimize the visual impact, he Applicant proposes on-going reclamation
("reclaim as you go") as the mining continues but this activity will be highly visually
impacting and will permanently change the character of the area. Staff suggests as a
condition of approval that the proposed reclamation plan in the Special Use Permit be
resubmitted to the DRMS and becomes the only reclamation plan (tasks / timetables) used
by both the County and DRMS. Additionally, a new bond be calculated to cover this plan
and secured with DRMS to cover its implementation.
VIII. REVIEW CRITERIA FOR SPECIAL USE PERMITS (SECTION 5.17)
SUPPLEMENTARY GRAVEL EXTRACTION REGULATIONS
The following section reviews the application against the County's new gravel extraction
regulations. (For the ease of the reader, the regulations are in bold italics followed by a
Staff response.)
5.17.01 Water Quantity & Quality Impacts / Floodplain Impacts
If a gravel pit is located within the floodplain there is a reasonable chance that it
could be flooded during its operational life. Equipment, machinery, fuel etc could
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:
9
Scott Gravel Pit
PC — 05/13/09
Page 10
1. When the proposal is near a river or stream the Applicant is required to
submit an analysis by a professional engineer showing the boundaries of the
floodplain and the floodway in the area of the pit.
Staff Response
The mining area falls within the 100 -year floodplain of the Colorado river. The Application
contains maps C-1: "Baseline Conditions" and C-2 "Mining Extents" which show the
boundaries of the floodplain and the floodway in the area of the pit.
2. Provide a Stormwater Management Plan that demonstrates how the project
will not adversely affect surface or groundwater resources. Additionally,
provide a Sediment and Erosion Control plan that demonstrates what best
management practices will be used in the project.
Staff Response
The Applicant has submitted a Combined NPDES Combined Process & Stormwater Permit
and Stormwater Management Plan to CDPHE and to the City of Rifle. The Applicant
intends to slope the operations such that all stormwater run-off from disturbed areas will
drain into the pits. The project will have a discharge permit from CDPHE that allows for
process -water and stormwater to be discharged into the Colorado River with certain
protection measures to filter sediment put in place including gravel filter check dams to
maintain TDS levels between 35 and 70 miligrams per liter. The plan appears to have
these safeguards in the proper operational places.
3. In all cases, an application for a gravel mining operation shall include a Spill
Prevention Counter Measure and Control Plan (SPCC) that provides a program
that handles spills of hazardous materials as well as local contact information
for responsible personnel at the facility.
Staff Response
The Application contains an adequate SPCC plan for the project in Appendix A.
4. No application shall be accepted by the County without a letter from the
applicable fire protection district stating that the proposed project has been
adequately designed to handle the storage of flammable or explosive solids or
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
10
Scott Gravel Pit
PC 05/13/09
Page 11
does discuss the fuel storage on site which ranges based on what types of equipment are
on site. The tanks themselves have secondary containment up to 110% of capacity and
are stored outside of the 100 -year floodplain. In all cases, storage of these fuel tanks are
required to meet national, state, and local fire codes.
5. No materials or wastes shall be deposited upon a property in such form or
manner that they may be transferred off the property by any reasonably
foreseeable natural causes or forces.
Staff Response
It appears the Application contains a monitoring method through the use of "staff gauges"
that will provide an early warning system to allow the removal of all equipment /fuel tanks
from areas where flooding might occur. Staff suggests these gauges be installed with
cement bases and painted vertical pipes (gauges) to ensure their permanence. If
personnel are properly trained and the equipment is properly maintained, this system can
work.
6. Development in 100 year Floodplain: Floodways - located within areas of
special flood hazard established in Section 6.03.02, are areas designated as
floodways. Since the floodway is an extremely hazardous area due to the
velocity of flood waters which carry debris, potential projectiles and erosion
potential, the following provisions shall apply:
a) Encroachments are prohibited, including fill, new construction,
substantial improvements and other development within the adopted
regulatory floodway unless it has been demonstrated through
hydrologic and hydraulic analyses performed in accordance with
standard engineering practice that the proposed encroachment would
not result in any increase or decrease in flood levels within the County
during the occurrence of the base flood discharge.
b) If Section 6.09.02 (1) (to be inserted when formatted) above is satisfied,
all new construction and substantial improvements shall comply with
all applicable flood hazard reduction provisions of Section 6.09.
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 (LOMB) for a floodway
11
Scott Gravel Pit
PC — 05/13/09
Page 12
revision through FEMA and that no mining activity shall occur until
FEMA has approved a Letter of Map Revision (LOMB).
d) In all cases, there shall be no storage of fuel or hazardous materials
including concrete / asphalt batch plants within the floodway.
Staff Response
Much of the property falls within the 100 -year floodplain of the Colorado River. The
Applicant, by way of TetraTech, has conducted hydraulic analysis in order to determine
that the proposed mining plan will not affect the 100 -year floodplain. TetraTech submitted
(on behalf of Garfield County) a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) to FEMA in
2007 based on the previous three -pit application. FEMA approved the CLOMR. Since then,
the plan has been reduced to 2 pits. TetraTech conducted a further analysis based on the
reduced plan and found that the floodway mapping approved by FEMA on the three -pit
version was unchanged with the revised version.
TetraTech states that "The CLOMR, sated October 2007, submitted to FEMA also
presented a revised floodway based on the changes in the floodplain due to the gravel
mining in the three separate pits. This floodway is unchanged under the alternate gravel
mining condition."
Ultimately, the Applicants are required to submit a final Letter of Map Revision (LOMR)
once all of the post -mining / reclamation is completed so that FEMA can issue revised 100 -
year floodway maps.
The Application shows proposed asphalt / concrete batch plants, and fuel tanks are to be
located outside of the 100 -year floodway as depicted on the Applicant's Map C-1.
7. Standards for Areas of Shallow Flooding: Located within the areas of special
flood hazard established in 6.03.02 are areas designated as shallow flooding
also known as the flood -fringe. These areas have special flood hazards
associated with base flood depths of 1 to 3 feet where a clearly defined
channel does not exist and where the path of flooding is unpredictable and
where velocity flow may be evident. Such flooding is characterized by
ponding or sheet flow; therefore, the following provisions apply:
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).
12
Scott Gravel Pit
PC 05/13/09
Page 13
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. Al! applications shall provide a de -water / discharge plan that
provides a detailed graphic representation of how dewatering
operations shall occur. This plan shall demonstrate that the
discharge will not exceed state standards for discharge into a
water course or wetland.
4. in all cases, the Application shall contain proof that the operation
has adequate legal and physical water for the proposed
application.
13
Scott Gravel Pit
PC — 05/13/09
Page 14
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 1 outflow structure that will allow for the
pit to be captured and then remain unchanged as the river recedes. The dewatering into
the wetlands and Colorado will keep the wetlands wet and have TDS levels at lower levels
that the existing level. Staff does not see that the post -mining / reclaimed site will result in a
negative cumulative impact with the vegetated land buffers and pit designs that are
proposed.
The Application contains a stamped and signed statement from Greg Lewicki, P. E.
(licensed to practice in the State of Colorado) that that the standards of this Section have
been fully satisfied. Finally, the State Division of Water Resources has approved the well
permits via a court approved augmentation plan.
5.17.02 Air Quality
Fugitive dust from disturbed areas is one of the primary causes of gravel pit air
pollution. The potential for soil erosion potential also increases proportionate to the
amount of disturbed area. Gravel Pits should make an active effort to reduce
disturbed area through phased reclamation, efficient operations, and landscaping.
Disturbed acreage can also provide a measure of visual impact when the operation
is located on valley floor and there are residences on nearby hillsides. Opacity not to
exceed 20%.
1. All gravel operations in the County shall comply with applicable County,
State, and Federal regulations regulating air pollution and shall not be
conducted in a manner constituting a public nuisance or hazard.
2. Impacts on adjacent land from the generation of vapor, dust, smoke, or other
emanations. All applications shall demonstrate how they will meet County,
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.
14
Scott Gravel Pit
PC — 05/13/09
Page 15
3. The proposed operation will be located a sufficient distance from other mining
operations so as not to create cumulative impacts to air quality.
4. No application shall be approved until the Applicant submits evidence that all
plants and processing equipment shall have current Colorado Department of
Public Health and the Environment (CDPHE) Air Pollution Permits and shall
meet current CDPHE emissions standards for air and water.
Staff Response
The Applicant has stated that this operation will comply with applicable County, State, and
Federal regulations regulating air pollution and shall not be conducted in a manner
constituting a public nuisance or hazard. The pit is a "wet" gravel mine which generally
produces much less dust than "upland" gravel pits as this pit will need to continuously be
dewatered as it is mined below water table. The augmentation plan also allows for the use
of this water as dust suppression on site. The crusher / screen facility and asphalt and
concrete batch plant have air emission permitting requirements by the state.
Staff is concerned with dust generation due to the very close proximity to 1-70. The crusher
/ screener is enclosed and equipped with wet scrubbers (water spray facilities) to keep the
aggregate moist. The nearest crushing activity nearby is at least 1/3 miles to the east in the
Lafarge site which staff believes is a sufficient distance so as to not create a cumulative air
quality impact if the mitigation measures are properly implemented which include ensuring
the machines are operating to their air permit designs. As a condition of approval, the
Applicant shall submit all the air emission permits for the equipment to be used on site.
5.17.03 Noise / Vibration
All gravel extraction operations in the County shall comply with applicable County,
State, and Federal regulations regulating noise pollution and shall not be conducted
in a manner constituting a public nuisance or hazard. Volume of sound generated
shall comply with the standards set forth in the Colorado Revised Statutes at the
time any new application is made.
1. An Applicant shall submit a noise study that demonstrates the proposed
gravel operation can meet the requirements in the matrix below based on
measuring the sound levels of noise radiating from a property line at a
distance of 25 feet or more beyond the subject property. (The image to the
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
15
Scott Gravel Pit
PC -- 05/13/09
Page 16
considered an industrial operation, the dB(A) levels shown below are
measured according to the neighboring uses so that if a residential use was
located adjacent to the operation, sound levels could not exceed 55 dB(A)
from 7 AM to 7 PM and 50 dB(A) from 7 PM to 7 AM.
Zone
7amto7pm
7pmto7am
v Residential
55 dB(A)
50 dB(A)
e Commercial
60 dB(A)
55 dB(A)
r Light Industrial
65 dB(A)
70 dB(A)
„ Industrial
80 dB(A)
75 dB(A)
r
use shall be so operated that the ground vibration inherently and recurrently
generated is not perceptible, without instruments, at any point of any
boundary line of the property on which the use is located.
Staff Response
The Applicant prepared a noise analysis (by Ryan Ellis, Environmental Engineer) which
states that at full operation during the day, the noise generated from the mining activity
would not exceed 71 d13(A) at 25 feet from the permit site which is more restrictive than the
outer boundaries of the property. This level I still below the maximum thresholds in the
table above from the state statutes and it appears this can be met.
The Application does not intend to use explosives to mine any of the aggregate. The
vibration would come from the crusher and asphalt mix / concrete batch plant that will not
be perceptible at the property's boundaries. This standard is met.
5,17.04 Visual Impacts
All applications for gravel extraction shall address the following:
1. All gravel operations proposed to mine areas greater than 30 acres shall be
designed in multiple phases in order to minimize the visual impact of the
gravel pit primarily by logical "sequencing" and "overall layout" of the pit's
design.
Staff Response
The total area to be mined is approximately 21 acres; however, it will occur in two small pits
where the Applicant proposes to mine those pits in a sequence. The Application proposes
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.
16
Scott Gravel Pit
PC — 05/13/09
Page 17
2. Design of the proposed use including the storage of heavy equipment is
organized to minimize impact on adjacent uses of land through installation of
screen fences, berming, and/ or landscape materials on the periphery of the
lot and by location of intensively utilized areas, access points, lighting and
signs in such a manner as to protect established neighborhood character.
Staff Response
This is a difficult property to hide. The most viewable perspective is from 1-70 westbound as
you approach the Rifle exit as it is right next to the interstate. It is problematic to screen
because the site is well below the 1-70 road platform and could not effectively be screened
from that view point. From the other vista, there are either other gravel pits or fairly mature
vegetation (cottonwood galleries) that screen portions of the property already. This will be a
highly visible gravel operation as you approach the City of Rifle exit.
3. At the discretion of the County Commissioners, al! outdoor storage facilities
may be required to be enclosed by fence, landscaping or wall adequate to
conceal such facilities from adjacent property.
Staff Response
This operation is going to generate large / tall piles of aggregate and will have large
machinery on site to mine and crush the gravel. Additionally, the Application proposes
asphalt and concrete batch plants that are to be located at grade in the southeast portion
of the property and will be highly visible until they could be located in the Mining Area 2.
Staff believes that since they are not necessary to the mining activity and are highly visible,
they be eliminated from this application to help reduce the severe industrial visual impact.
4. New long-term (more than one year) mining operations will minimize visual
impacts along entryways to growth centers. Planning Commission and/or the
Board of County Commissioners will determine sufficiency of minimization.
Staff Response
This mining plan is for approximately 6 years with the caveat that it is also based on market
conditions which means it is anyone's guess how long it will really take. Because this site is
located in the County's Comprehensive Plan's Area of Urban Influence and within the City
of Rifle's East Gateway Plan, Staff recommends eliminating the asphalt and concrete batch
plants to help reduce the industrial nature of the activity.
5. All application shall include a `Germing, 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
17
Scott Gravel Pit
PC — 05/13/09
Page 18
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 I-70 and the other
view points are relatively screened. Further, these are small mining areas that will be
reclaimed as lakes once mined. This standard has not been met as no plan was submitted.
6. All lighting shall be the minimum necessary, directed inward and downward
towards the property.
Staff Response
Applicant agrees to comply with this standard.
7. Unless otherwise determined by the Board of County Commissioners, mining
operations shall be allowed to progress so long as the previous pit has been
reclaimed within 6 months after the commencement of the new pit mining
operation. If the reclamation has not commenced in six months or have been
completed within eighteen (18) months, all mining operations on the property
shall stop until the reclamation /revegetation has occurred to the satisfaction
of the County. Completion, including but not limited to top -soiling, seeding,
mulching, sapling planting, and water filling of the lake, shall be determined
by the provisions contained within the reclamation plan approved by the
Board of County Commissioners.
Staff Response
Applicant agrees to comply with this standard.
5.17.05 Impacts to County Road System
1. All applications for a gravel extraction operation shall submit a traffic impact
study prepared by a professional traffic engineer that identifies projected
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.
18
Scott Gravel Pit
PC — 05/13/09
Page 19
Staff Response
Application contains a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) prepared by Kimley Horn. Access to the
site is by way of the CDOT frontage road that connects to the Mamm Creek (Rifle Airport)
Exit and Mamm Creek Road. As mentioned earlier, the CDOT access permit has expired,
but CDOT intends to re -issue that permit for 335 daily trips with a main condition that the
Applicant pave that portion for the frontage road from the property to the existing paved
portion.
The TIS was originally prepared in 2005 and Staff required that it be revised to fit the terms
of this application which as completed and included in Appendix D. Ultimately, the TIS
believes that the generated trips will primarily use 1-70 with approximately 10% using
County Roads due to historic users. In any event, there will be a minimal impact to the
CDOT interchange at Mamm Creek.
Staff cannot guess as to what market conditions will exist that determines that the gas
companies south of 1-70 will not use gravel for their efforts from this pit versus Lafarge
which directly impacts County roads. However, it appears that there are not any direct
adverse impacts to the County road system. Further, the County will assess an overweight
I oversize tax on these large trucks.
2. Truck traffic will not access the mining operation through residential, or
commercial areas, or such traffic will be mitigated.
Staff Response
There are no commercial or residential areas associated with the direct access of this
property.
3. The Applicant shall submit evidence of insurance fora minimum of$1,000,000
to cover any damages to public and private property, and Garfield County
shall be named as an additional insured.
Staff Response
The Applicant does not wish to submit evidence of insurance for a minimum of $1,000,000
to cover any damages to public and private property because they believe there will be a
very small percentage of traffic on County roads directly from this small operation. The TIS
suggests 10% of the trips will use County Roads so Staff suggests the Applicant submit
evidence of insurance for a minimum of $100,000 to cover any damages to public or
private roads.
19
Scott Gravel Pit
PC — 05/13/09
Page 20
4. Roads used to access the construction site from the mine will be upgraded to
withstand the additional traffic, and the permittee will prevent road damage
and mitigate dust, under the supervision of the Road and Bridge Director.
Staff Response
CDOT is requiring the Applicant to pave 2.2 miles of the frontage road from the access
point on the property to the existing paved portion. This will help in keeping dust down. The
Applicant shall be required to have all trucks covered as they leave the site with aggregate.
The Road and Bridge Director will not have immediate jurisdiction regarding access as this
is a CDOT access and road. Again, the County's overweight / oversize permitting system
will address impacts from these large trucks.
5. The Applicant shall obtain driveway access permitls issued by Garfield
County Road & Bridge Department at specific locations to be approved by the
Road and ridge Department. These permits shall have conditions specific to
the driveway/s. This may include stop sign/s at entrance to County Road. The
stop signs and installation shall be as required in the MUTCD (Manual on
Uniform Traffic Control Devices). Paved or concrete apron/s shall also be
required as specified by the issued permit/s.
Staff Response
This will not apply as this is CDOT jurisdiction.
6. if road damage on a County Road becomes evident due to the traffic
generated from the gravel pit operation, the Road and Bridge Department
shall require that repair or replacement of the road surface as determined by
Garfield County Road & Bridge Department become the responsibility of the
owners or operators of the gravel pit operation.
Staff Response
The Applicant agrees to this requirement if it can be determined to be directly attributable
to the Applicant's traffic.
5.17.06 Impacts to Wildlife
1. The Applicant shall demonstrate the presence or absence of Threatened and
Endangered species as well as the presence or absence of critical habitats for
Threatened and Endangered species.
Staff Response
There is no evidence in the Application that there are any identified Threatened and
20
Scott Gravel Pit
PC — 05/13/09
Page 21
Endangered species on the subject property. There is a well known American Bald Eagle
nest on the Lafarge property directly to the east in a cottonwood tree that is located within a
1/4 mile of the Mining Area 2. (This is northwest of Mining Area 2). While the American Bald
Eagle has been delisted from the T&E list, it is still protected with recommended buffering
by the US Fish & Wildlife Service and the CDOW and the legal ramifications of harassment
still exist in federal law.
To that and, the DOW provided a review of the proposal and provided the following main
points:
1) Leaving the area within the ox -bow undisturbed will preserve good eagle (and other)
habitat;
2) Buffers (1/2 mile and 1/4 mile) are recommendation from the USFWS and CDOW to
protect eagle nests statewide;
3) Activity is to be limited to the "off" season when the eagles are gone within the 1/2
mile buffer;
4) There is to be no activity in the 1/4 mile buffer;
5) There is definitely a risk that eagles will not tolerate the new disturbance. CDOW
cannot recommend the mining operation because of that possibility; and
6) CDOW will stick to the buffer recommendations as they are known to provide a safe
zone for nesting.
Staff fully supports the Division of Wildlife's opinion and recommends the Planning
Commission require the Applicant to revise their mining plan for Area 2. As a reminder,
consider Staffs review (and that of CDOW) in 2005 regarding the former mining plan:
The property presently serves as a rich upland and wetland habitat with dense mature stands of
cottonwoods throughout the site serving as valuable riparian habitat as well as delineated wetlands
throughout the site mainly located in the Ox Bow of the Colorado River. All of this varied vegetation
provides valuable habitat for numerous birds including raptors, aquatic species, and mammals (elk
and deer) which are all identified in the Application as well as in the comments provided by the
Division of Wildlife (DOW).
The Application states that while there are impacts, they should be viewed as temporary because the
reclaimed pits / mining site will provide a high quality / diverse wetland and riparian area once fully
established.
21
Scott Gravel Pit
PC --- 05/13/09
Page 22
Staff referred the Application the Division of Wildlife (DOW) which provided the following
comments as contained in Exhibit I.
According to the mining plan and maps there will be a 100' buffer between the mining operation and the river. This
will definitely be an advantage for the species that utilize the shoreline of the river. The plan also leaves the old river
oxbow out of the mining operation. This will provide some good habitat and wetland during laid after the operation.
There are several mature cotton wood trees that arc to be left undisturbed as well as some willows. These trees will be
an asset to the bird population for nesting and raptor hunting perches. It would be of great advantage to the wildlife if
these undisturbed areas are implemented according to the plan. 11 would also he an advantage to create visual and
noise buffers between the mining operation and the 100' river buffer and oxbow. Buffers could consist of earthen
berms or woody vegetation. The top soil that will be removed and saved for later reclamation could be positioned as a
This gravel extraction operation will have negative impacts on the habitat and the wildlife that utilizes it. The impact
will start with ibe displacement of the wildlife which will be followed by the conversion of habitat into disturbed
areas. These areas often see an infestation of non-native and noxious weeds, Structures that are not wildlife friendly
such as steep banked ponds and gravel bills void of tap soil are often created. During the mining operation human
presence, activities and noise will have obvious adverse effects on the wildlife,
The DOW notes the presence of an established Bald Eagle nest on the adjacent LaFarge property
The nest is approximately 340 yards (1020 feet) from the eastern property line of the subject
property and approximately 160 yards north of Interstate 1-70. It has been in place for at least 4
years and has successfully reared young over those years with the most active nesting period being
from January 15th to July 31st of each year.
The DOW made the following comments regarding the Bald Eagle. The following is an excerptfrom
the DOW's Letter:
22
Scott Gravel Pit
PC 05/13/09
Page 23
All who are involved with this proposal realize that one or the biggest wildlife issues particular to this site is the
existing Bald Eagle nest to the east of the property. The nest is approximately 340 yards from the property line. Bald
Eagles are a federally protected species. As such they are protected by the Endangered Species Act from any
activities that are thus defined: "harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to
engage in any such conduct.', "Harass" is further defined by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to include an
intentional or negligent act or omission which creates the likelihood of injury to wildlife by annoying it to such an
extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavioral patterns which include, but arc not limited to, breeding, feeding, or
sheltering. The Division of Wildlife usually recomruends a buffer zone around a Bald Eagle nest of `/ anile tree from
disturbance with a buffer of 1/ mile during breeding and nesting season. This particular pair of eagles usually starts
nesting activity iter the middle of January and continues through the end of July. They have now successfully raised
young from that nest for the last two years. They started nest building and breeding activities three years ago. This
pair seems to be more tolerant of disturbance, Interstate 70, the Lafarge Marnni Creek Gravel Pit, and a.
residence/small business all occur within several hundred yards of the nest. However, there is usually a threshold of
disturbance that these species will "put up with." Once that threshold is crossed they will probably abandon the nest
and any eggs or young present at the time. In order to avoid that circumstance, the Division recommends that raining
operations in Mining Area 3 (Mine Plan Map) be started after July 3 P' of any given year, If the operation cannot be
postponed at the following January 15`h, at least the operation is in existence and the eagles can determine if they want
to nest there as opposed to being disturbed in the middle ofnesting. There was some language in the plan saying that
the residence existing on the east property boundary would be demolished "ip' that area was determined to be mined.
if it is therefore possible to leave a buffer along the east boundary it would be highly advantageous as far as the
eagle's nest is concerned.
Stafffinds while the interstate represents a nearby obnoxious use, the addition ofa gravel mining pit
approximately 1020 feet from the nest only adds to the potential harassment of the nest and may
force the Eagles to abandon the nest. The US Fish & Wildlife regulates federally protected species
such as the American Bald Eagle by the Endangered Species Act. As stated in the DOW letter, the
US Fish & Wildlife as well as DOW typically recommend a 1/4 mile non disturbance zone around a
nest which grows to 1/2 mile during nesting and breeding season.
In this case, the existing nest is located approximately 1,020 linear feet from the mining area 3 on
the site plan. This is 300 feet short of the 1/4 mile distance needed for non -disturbance. Actually, as
scaled on the plans, the '4 mile
distance puts the buffer
somewhere in the middle of
Mining Area 3 (the eastern pit).
The % mile buffer from the nest
extends to cover approximately
1/2 of Mining Area 2 (the middle
pit) shown to the left.
As the DOW letter points out,
the DOW recommends that no
mining activity start in Mining
Area 2 until after July 31S( of
Scott Gravel Pit
PC -- 05/13/09
Page 24
any given year. Further, if the mining activity cannot be postponed at the next January 15th, then at
least the eagles can determine if they want to nest there as opposed to being disturbed during
nesting. Staff finds this recommendation a bit perplexing.
Again, the USFW definition of "harassment" is an intentional or negligent act or omission which
creates the likelihood of injury to wildlife by annoying it to such an extent as to significantly disrupt
normal behavioral patterns which include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering. In
Staff's opinion, if the eagles choose not to return to this established nest because mining was
underway the next January 15th, one could reasonably assume the new use (gravel mining activity)
was the cause of abandonment directly resulting in harassment. Staff raises the question: How is this
not "harassment?"
As mentioned above, the nest tree is on the neighboring Lafarge property which has mining activity
occurring in Cell 3 which has its western most portion falling 200 feet within the '/ mile buffer.
USFS has allowed the mining of this cell to continue so long as the eagles are not there. Once the
eagles return, all activity must cease. With this as an exception, Lafarge committed to maintaining
the recommended '4 mile offset from the nest while the eagles are not nesting as well as respecting
the '/ mile offset when the eagles are actively nesting. (See Exhibit X) Note, the importance of
protecting the bald eagle (via the Bald and Golden Eagle Act and Migratory Bird Treaty Act) as well
as the dense mature cottonwood gallery along the Colorado River was reinforced by the USFS in
their letter to the County dated August 25, 2006. (See Exhibit Z)
Based on the forgoing, should the Board approve the SUP, Staff recommends a condition of
approval be required that "no mining activity, operations staging (batch plant/ office /scales/sales
/ etc.), or reclamation shall be allowed in Mining Area 3 (eastern most pit) where it lies within the'/
mile buffer zone. The pit configuration shall be redesigned to acknowledge this buffer. Additionally,
no mining activity, operations staging (batchplant/office / scales /sales/etc), or reclamation shall
be allowed in any mining area that lies within the'/ mile buffer area until after July 31st of any
given year and subsequently all such activity shall stop prior to January 15th of any given year."
Lastly, Stafffinds the final pond configurations should be amended to add additional undulation /
variation in the shoreline to enhance protective characteristics of wildlife habitat as well as visual
interest. This comports with suggestions by the DOW that suggest typical engineered pond
configurations add little in the way of shoreline protection for rearing waterfowl / and aquatic
wildlife.
As of the writing of this report, the County Vegetation Manager emailed Staff indicating that
he visited the site on Friday, may 1, 2009 and observed that the eagles have fixed their
nest and one was in the nest.
Based on these comments, Staff continues to recommend, should the Board approve the
24
Scott Gravel Pit
PC — 05/13/09
Page 25
SUP, a condition of approval be required that "no mining activity, operations staging (batch
plant / office / scales / sales / etc.), or reclamation shall be allowed in Mining Area 3
(eastern most pit) where it lies within the 1/4 mile buffer zone. The pit configuration shall be
redesigned to acknowledge this buffer. Additionally, no mining activity, operations staging
(batch plant / office / scales / sales / etc.), or reclamation shall be allowed in any mining
area that lies within the 1/2 mile buffer area until after July 31st of any given year and
subsequently all such activity shall stop prior to January 15th of any given year."
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 did not contain a Wildlife Impact Analysis prepared by a professional. This
has not been met.
5.17.07 Compatibility with Surrounding Land Uses
The following regulations shall apply to all gravel operations in the County:
1. No permit shall be approved unless sufficient distances separate such use
from abutting property which might otherwise be damaged by operations of
the proposed use(s).
Staff Response
There appears to be sufficient distances between abutting properties such that they would
not be damaged by operations.
2. The equipment storage area is not placed any closer than 300 ft from any
existing residential dwelling.
Staff Response
There are no residences within 300 feet of the operations.
3. Loading and unloading of vehicles shall be conducted on private property and
may not be conducted on any public right-of-way.
Staff Response
The Applicant agrees to this requirement.
25
Scott Gravel Pit
PC — 05/13/09
Page 26
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 mitigated or avoided (Bald Eagle 1/4 mile buffer zone) with the exception of the
visual impact as seen from 1-70. While there will be a high visual impact during mining, the
reclamation, if properly conducted in a timely manner could result in a visually pleasing
result with ponds / lakes that also provide valuable aquatic and bird habitat.
8. Unless otherwise determined by the Board of County Commissioners, The
gravel pit hours of operation will be 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Monday through
Saturday with crushing, digging, and heavy hauling allowed from 7:00 am to
6:00 pm allowing for administrative and maintenance activities to take place
26
Scott Gravel Pit
PC 05/13/09
Page 27
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 Application appears to provide conflicting information about the proposed hours of
operation. In the narrative portion of the Application (Page D-9) it provides a broader set of
hours as the following:
Monday — Saturday: 6:00 AM to 8:00 PM (March — November)
Sunday: 8:00 AM to 1:00 PM (March -- November)
Monday— Saturday: 6:00 Am to 6:00 PM (December— February)
Sunday: No operations
However, in Exhibit R on page 20, it states that the hours of operation will be as follows:
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 prefers to administer the latter set of hours as they have been debated exhaustively in
the crafting of these regulations. The Application does propose (Page 0-9) that overnight
operation of an asphalt batch plant or concrete plant for public agency projects (CDOT) be
allowed by the BOCC on special occasions. This has been allowed in the past by the
BOCC so long as the BOCC can make a determination in a noticed public meeting two
weeks prior to the activity occurring.
5.17.08 Reclamation / Enforcement
Reclamation shall be done to create an aesthetically pleasing site or reclaimed area
that will blend with or improve upon the surrounding areas. All applications shall
submit a Reclamation Plan that specifically addresses the following aspects of
reclamation: slopes, vegetation, lake / pond shape & character, wildlife habitat /
agriculture, phasing and berms. Additionally, the State of Colorado Division of
Reclamation, Mining and Safety has minimum standards for reclamation. For
example, reclaimed slopes are typically required to be 3:1 or shallower. This
standard creates stable slopes but does not necessarily result in a landscape that
blends with the surroundings. The same is true for other aspects of reclamation. All
Reclamation plans shall follow the following design criteria:
27
Scott Gravel Pit
PC ._ 05/13/09
Page 28
1. Slopes
a) Wetland Criteria: Varied slopes predominantly 5:1 orshallower, at least 80%
5:1, and 25% 10:1 or shallower in wetland zone.
b) Dryland Criteria: Varied slopes predominantly 5:1 orshallower, seamlessly
blends with surrounding landscape.
Staff Response
The Application only proposes slopes that are 3H:1V which is less than what is required
above for a variety of reasons. Staff finds this questionable as shallow slopes provide
vegetation and wildlife habitat benefits as well visual benefits. The Application states it only
can commit to restoring slopes with limited materials that are on site and will only
encourage the import of fill materials for the final reclaim. This plan needs to be reworked
to meet the intent of the regulations.
2. Vegetation
a) Wetland Criteria: Variation in revegetation, revegetation to include
planting of trees and/or shrubs, if seedlings orsprouts plantings occur
as part of phased reclamation and not just at the end of the mine life.
Established trees or shrubs in final reclamation phase are at least 8' tall
or 2" caliper trees or 5 gallon shrub containers. Active irrigation shall
be employed in revegetation areas during the life of the mine or until
revegetation is self-sustaining.
b) Dryland Criteria: Variation in revegetation, revegetation to include
planting of trees and/or shrubs, if seedlings orsprouts plantings occur
as part of phased reclamation and not just at the end of the mine life.
Established trees or shrubs in final reclamation phase are at least 8' tall
or 2" caliper trees or 5 gallon shrub containers. Active irrigation in
revegetation areas during the life of the mine or until revegetation is
self-sustaining.
Staff Response
The Application includes a reclamation plan that includes planting twenty (2 -inch caliper)
cottonwood trees around each pond at intervals of 75 to 150 feet with cottonwood / willow
saplings / cutting clumps between the trees and fringe wetlands on all of the lake
perimeters (although the plan only shows these wetland shelves to be installed on Mining
Area 2).
28
Scott Gravel Pit
PC — 05/13/09
Page 29
Despite best efforts to plants trees and other vegetation near anticipated water table levels,
the plan needs to incorporate an irrigation system to ensure that the vegetation takes hold
and is successful over several years. The reclamation plan needs to be revised to
incorporate active irrigation methods. Additionally, Staff recommends the Applicant revise
their Reclamation Plan to incorporate the City of Rifle's recommended seeding methods
and not allow general dry -land mix seed broadcast methods.
The County Vegetation Manager reviewed the plan and provided the following comments
and recommendations:
D 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.
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.
D 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.
D Staff requests the removal of crested wheatgrass from the dry rangeland mix.
D Again, staff appreciates the City's comments and we emphasize our
concurrence with the Reclamation of the Scott Expansion to the Chambers
Gravel Pit document. The topics of live -soil handling, using local plant sources
for reclamation, and developing a benchmark for successful gravel pit
reclamation are important items and worthy of further consideration by the
Planning and Zoning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners.
29
Scott Gravel Pit
PC— 05/13/09
Page 30
3. Lake / Pond Shape and Character: Reclamation with multiple ponds or lakes
with substantial islands or peninsula (at least 20% of total surface) to break up
surface, undulation of shorelines provides natural appearance.
Staff Response
The post -mining lakes have minimal undulation (Mining Area 2 being better than mining
Area 1). These ponds are relatively small but could benefit from more shoreline variation.
Staff suggests the possibility of a fake Island in the middle of Mining Area 2 to help meet
this standard.
4. To the extent permitted by law, unless al! disturbance created by the mining
operation is covered by a reclamation bond underjurisdiction of the Colorado
Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety, or by the federal government on
federally owned lands, a bond or other acceptable financial performance
guarantee shall be submitted in favor of Garfield County in an amount of at
Least 150 percent of the cost of restoration of the site and access roads. The
required amount of such financial performance guarantees may be increased
at the discretion of the Board of County Commissioners to account for
inflation. A bid for site restoration acceptable to the permittee and Garfield
County shall be submitted to the Planning Department as evidence of the cost
of reclamation for bond setting purposes.
Staff Response
The County will request a copy of the bond put in place with the DRMS.
5. To the extent permitted by law, the Board of County Commissioners may
require a financial performance guarantee in addition to that required by the
Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety to insure that certain
conditions of a permit will be complied with. The required amount of such
financial performance guarantees may be increased at the discretion of the
Board of County Commissioners to account for inflation. The County will not
require financial guarantees that are duplicative of that required by the DRMS.
Staff Response
Presently, there is no County requirement for an additional security for other provisions
beyond the scope of the mining.
6. The operator will submit an annual report to the County Building and Planning
Department with GPS measurements shown on a map showing the current
disturbance, what areas have been backfilled, where topsoil stockpiles are
30
Scott Gravel Pit
PC — 05/13/09
Page 31
located, all site structures, what areas have been seeded, mulched and what
is planned for the ensuing 12 months.
Staff Response
Applicant has agreed to this requirement.
7. The County commits to notifying the Operator of any compliance concern and
allows an inspection with site personnel and the designated County inspector
prior to contacting any agency.
Staff Response
Applicant has agreed to this requirement.
8. The County can request a site inspection with one day's notice to the
Operator. Full access to any part of the site will be granted. On request, all
paperwork must be shown. The County cannot request a large number of
inspections that would interfere with normal operation without cause.
Staff Response
Applicant has agreed to this requirement.
9. A full list of all other permits shall be provided to the County. Any person at
any time can call the following agencies directly and request an inspection if
they believe a condition of that agencies permit is being violated.
a. CDPHE Air Quality Control 303-692-3150
b. CDPHE Water Quality Control 303-692-3500
c. US Army Corps of Engineers 970-243-1199
d. Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety 303-866-3567
e. CDOT Grand Junction office 970-248-7000
Staff Response
Applicant has agreed to this requirement.
10. The County will be invited to any bond release inspection of the State Division
of Reclamation, Mining and Safety. The County inspector will have the
opportunity to demonstrate that any item of the permit has not been complied
with and that bond should not be released.
Staff Response
Applicant has agreed to this requirement.
31
Scott Gravel Pit
PC 05/13109
Page 32
11. The Operator acknowledges that the County has performance standards in
place that could lead to revocation of the Special Use Permit if continued
violations of the permit occur over a period of time.
Staff Response
Applicant has agreed to this requirement.
12. The County shall not issue a Special Use Permit until al! required local, state,
and federal permits have been obtained and submitted to Garfield County
including but not limited to the municipal Watershed Permit, CDPHE, USACE,
NPDES, Division of Water Resources (approved well permits and plan for
augmentation), etc.
Staff Response
Applicant has agreed to this requirement.
13. The reclamation plan approved by Garfield County in the Special Use Permit
shall be resubmitted to the DRMS to become the only reclamation plan (tasks/
timetables) used by both the County and DRMS. Additionally, a bond shall
need to be calculated to cover this plan and secured with DRMS to cover its
implementation,
Staff Response
Applicant has agreed to this requirement.
14. The applicant shall provide locations of county listed noxious weeds on a
map. Once the inventory is provided the applicant shall develop a weed
management plan that addresses all county listed noxious weeds found on
site. This weed management plan shall be submitted to the County Vegetation
Manager for approval prior to the issuance of a SUP.
Staff Response
Applicant has agreed to this requirement.
IX. STAFF REVIEW SUMMARY
The plan has been significantly reduced since the last submittal by eliminating the mining
activity inside the ox -bow which will reduce the wildlife / habitat, wetlands, and visual
impacts on the site from the mining activity. Many of not most of the technical issues
(floodplain, stormwater run-off, process water discharge, SPCC, flood monitoring) can be
32
Scott Gravel Pit
PC — 05/13/09
Page 33
met. However, there remain the following issues with the proposal:
1. Expanded hours of operation beyond what the regulations require;
2. Continued mining within the 1/4 mile buffer suggested by the DOW and USFWS to
protect the American Bald Eagle and the ;
3. Continued significant visual impact as seen from westbound traffic on 1-70 at the
general entrance to the City of Rifle. Because there is so little that can be done to
screen that view and it will appear to be an extension of mining / industrial activity
along 1-70, Staff recommends that eliminating the concrete / asphalt batch plants
will help reduce the industrial nature of the use;
4. The reclamation plan needs to be reworked to better address the slopes, shoreline
undulation, and seeding / revegetation method along with irrigation to ensure
revegetation success;
5. The proposed Application requires a finding by the planning Commission regarding
the County's Comprehensive Plan Goal to: Ensure that development and overall
land use policies occurring in the County that will affect a municipality are
compatible with the existing zoning and future land use objectives of the
appropriate municipality, and
6. Further, the mining activity is a significant issue within the City of Rifle's East
Gateway Plan where a finding should be made regarding the following goals and
policies in that plan:
1) Mitigate negative impacts during and after mineral extraction.
2) Minimize and eliminate the negative visual and operational effects of
mining on the gateways and biological systems.
3) Encourage land uses that recognize the environmental sensitivity of the
land.
4) Protect watersheds and floodplains.
5) it is the intent of the City to minimize the impact of any mining on the
environment and surrounding Rifle gateways.
Policies
33
Scott Gravel Pit
PC 05/13/09
Page 34
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 grave! mining
operations, which contain crushing, asphalt processing or concrete
operations between Mamm Creek and Exit 90.
X. STAFF RECOMMENDED FINDINGS
1. Proper posting and public notice was provided as required for the meeting
before the Planning Commission.
2. The meeting before the Planning Commission was not extensive or complete,
that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were not submitted and that all
interested parties were not heard at that meeting.
3. The above stated and other reasons, the proposed Special Use Permit has been
determined not to be in the best interest of the health, safety, morals,
convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County.
4. The application has not adequately met the following requirements of the
Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended as the Application does
not adequately address the American Bald Eagle recommendations by the
CDOW and USFWS and the Applicant does not contains a Wildlife Impact
Analysis prepared by a professional:
5.17.06(1) Impacts to Wildlife: 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.
5.17.06(2) Impacts to wildlife: 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
34
Scott Gravel Pit
PC — 05/13/09
Page 35
hazardous attractions, alteration of existing native vegetation, blockade of
migration routes, use patterns or other disruptions.
Xl. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation of denial to
the Board of County Commissioners for the Special Use Permit for 1) development in the
floodplain and 2) extraction, processing, storage and material handling of natural
resources" for River's Edge, LLC.
35
STATE OF COLORADO
COLORADO GEOLOGICAL
Department of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman Street, Room 715
Denver, CO 80203
Phone: (303) 866-2611
Fax: (303) 866-2461
May 4, 2009
SURVEY— serving the people of Colorado
RECEIVED
MAY 1 4 2009
GARFIEi�D COUNTY
CGS LUR No. GA-� l & PLANNING
S'/7NE, Sec. 15, T6S, R93W
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,
4.44
Jonathan L. White
Senior Engineering Geologist
STATE OF COLORADO
Bill Ritter, Jr., Governor
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WILDLIFE
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Thomas E. Remington, Director
6060 Broadway
Denver, Colorado 80216
Telephone: (303) 297-1192
wildlife. state. ce. us
Fred Jarman
Garfield County Building and Planning Dept.
108 8th Street, Suite 401, Glenwood Springs
fredjarman@garfield-county.com
(970) 945-8212
Re: Rivers Edge LLC/ SUP 11408: Scott Pit
Mr. Jarman,
RECEIVED
MAY 0 6 2009
GARFIELD COUNTY
BUILDING & PLANNING
For Wilcllife-
For People
April 28, 2009
Thank you for the opportunity to add comments to the Scott Pit application process. The Colorado Division of
Wildlife has provided comments on the former additions to the Scott Pit plans and has had meetings with
United Companies personnel and Greg Lewicki as they put together this latest plan. Many of the ideas
presented by the CDOW for mitigation were incorporated into this plan. In fact, a letter from the CDOW to
Peter Siegmund of United Companies was provided in the application documents.
There are some points of the reclamation plan that were discussed earlier but have not been made clear or were
not incorporated into the final plan.
One of the concerns about reclaimed gravel pits is the tendency for them to have straight sides and steep banks.
In order to avoid this "bath tub" effect which can be seen in many reclaimed pits in the area, CDOW
recommended that the banks of the resulting ponds have undulating shore lines. This provides habitat for fish,
waterfowl, shore birds, and other wildlife by providing visual cover and nesting areas. The plan calls for
undulating shore lines. However, the provided maps look like the shore lines are straight. In the former
meeting this point was raised and Lewicki assured CDOW that the shore lines will be scalloped, they just don't
show on the mapping program. Care must be taken to insure that the ponds are indeed finished to have
undulating shore lines.
The plan calls for sides to have a finished slope of 3H:1V. This slope has been submitted by the CDOW as a
minimum requirement in order to facilitate habitat along the edges of a pond. A much better result would be a
5:1 slope. Lewicki stated that the ponds would have a gentler slope if top soil is available to haul in. He stated
that the material left from the operation will not be sufficient to construct the more gradual slopes without
adding soil from other locations. The plan also states that a 15 foot wetland shelf will be created as a fringe
around the pond if overburden and imported fill allows the backfilling. If there are no materials available then
the plan reverts to a 5 foot wetland fringe. It would be more agreeable for the company to make a definitive
statement in the plan that at least a large percentage of the shore line will have a 5:1 or 4:1 slope and that the
15 foot fringe will be created rather than relying on the statement that the preferred conditions will be created
if material is available.
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, Harris D. Sherman, Executive Director
WILDLIFE COMMISSION, Brad Coors, Chair • Tim Glenn, Vice Chair • Dennis Buechler, Secretary
Members, Jeffrey Crawford • Dorothea Farris • Roy McAnally • John Singletary • Mark Smith • Robert Streeter
Ex Officio Members, Harris Sherman and John Stulp
The CDOW recommended that the asphalt plant and concrete plant be established outside of the %2 mile buffer
to the existing and occupied bald eagles nest. Those structures remain inside of the %2 mile buffer and just
outside of the % mile buffer in the new plan. The constant disturbance from those operations would be better
situated outside of the recommended year-round buffer of1/2 mile from the nest.
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 the 1/4 mile buffer should be avoided from January 10 to July 10
to avoid the nesting activity of this particular pair of bald eagles.
The seed mix provided in the reclamation plan calls for Crested Wheatgrass. It would be advantageous to
replace Crested Wheatgrass with Western Wheatgrass, Thickspike Wheatgrass, or Slender Wheatgrass. Crested
Wheatgrass is popular because it is an aggressive species that will compete with weeds and help deter erosion.
However, Crested Wheatgrass is generally unpalatable to wildlife it would be better to replace it in the seed mix
with a species that will benefit wildlife.
For the convenience of the planning staff, the letter from the CDOW to Peter Siegmund of United Companies
regarding the meetings of CROW staff with Greg Lewicki and Company staff, which includes the CDOW position
on the bald eagles nest, will follow:
June 18, 2008
Peter J 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 Plan
Mr. Peter Siegmund,
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 deterrnine 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 theY4 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 % mile buffer. Spence suggested moving the asphalt plant, crusher, and
other facilities to the far west side of the property where it would be out of the %2 mile buffer. The areas closer
to the nest could be mined while the eagles are absent and operations could move back to the western side
while the eagles are present. However, it is apparently impossible to do so because of flood plain issues. It
seems the only place to put the plant is on the east side of the property nearer the nest.
The buffers are recommendations given by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Colorado Division of
Wildlife to protect eagle nests statewide. Activity is to be limited to the "off" season, when the eagles are gone,
within the 1/ mile buffer. There is to be no activity within the 34 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 /2 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
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 is is probable that the Scott
Pit could be mined according to the proposed plan without causing them to leave the nest site. The reclamation
plan will result in good habitat for the eagles and other wildlife. However, there is definitely a risk that the
eagles will not tolerate the new disturbance. CDOW cannot recommend the mining operation because of that
possibility. If mining operations go according to the plan and the Scott Pit is determined to be the cause of the
eagles abandoning the nest then United Companies would be liable for taking of the nest and subject to legal
and possibly civil actions. The CDOW will stick to the buffer recommendations as those recommendations are
known to provide a safe zone for nesting. Please note that the buffers are simply recommendations. CDOW is
not stating that the mining operation cannot be accomplished without disturbing the eagles. However, the risk
of disturbing the eagles remains the responsibility of the company.
When the new mining plan is finished or in draft stage the CDOW would appreciate the opportunity to take
another look at it and determine if there is anything else that can be done to minimize impact to the eagles or
aid in developing a successful reclamation plan.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input on this project. If you have any questions please call District
Wildlife Manager, Will Spence, at (970) 985-5882.
Sincerely,
JT Romatzke
Area Wildlife Manager
(970)255-6178
cc. Velarde, Spence, Petch, Broderick
October 22, 2008
Greg Lewicki
Greg Lewicki And Associates, PLLC
11541 Warrington Court
Parker, CO 80138
VIA EMAIL
Garfield County
BUILDING & PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Reference: Special Use Permit for Extraction, Storage, Processing and Materia! Handling
of Natural Resources in the Agricultural f Industrial Zone District
Dear Mr. Lewicki,
This office is in receipt of an application received on September 9, 2008 for the Special Use Permit
request for Extraction, Storage, Processing and Material Handling of Natural Resources in the
Agricultural /Industrial Zone District for the Scott Pit. This letter (pursuant to our conversation on
September 30, 2008) is to inform you the application has been deemed technically incomplete,
meaning that necessary information required by Garfield County to review your proposal has not
been submitted with the application. The regulatory requirements that were omitted are itemized
below.
1. Given the volume of information contained in the submittal documentation and the provision of
a table of contents, the provision of tabs for each defined section of the submittal binder will ease
referral agency and staff review of the information.
2. Section 9.03.01(1) requires supporting information, plans, letters of approval from responsible
agencies or other local, state and federal permit applications be submitted with the application.
Please respond to or provide the following information:
A. A Rifle Watershed Permit is required. The submittal documentation stated that
application has been made to the City, a copy of that application must be submitted to
Garfield County;
13. State Highway Access Permit (expired);
C. CDPHE WQCD Discharge Permit expired 9/30/07;
D. CDPHE AQCD Construction Permit O4GA 1277F is no longer applicable to this project
as the conveyor system, mining area, facilities areas have all been amended. In addition,
108 Eighth Street, Suite 401 • Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
(970) 945-8212 • (970) 285-7972 • Fax: (970) 384-3470
individual permits must be submitted for the portable equipment (asphalt/concrete batch
plants, crusher, screener, etc.);
E. Well Permit expired on 5/3/07;
F. Substitute Water Supply Plan dated June 15, 2004, is no longer applicable to the current
plan as it includes the oxbow and the conveyor system for processing at the Chambers
Pit.
G. DRMS Permit information including plans to assure consistency with the Garfield
County submittal.
3. Section 9.03.01 (2) requires provision of the location of roads providing access to the subject
property, location and use of buildings and structures on adjacent lots and the names of owners
of record of such lots. The roads providing access to the property were either inadequately
identified, not legible, or were not shown (I-70 and access road).
4. Section 5.03(1) Demonstration of utilities ties adequate to provide water and sanitation service
has not been provided. Although it is stated that a sanitation tank and porta-potties will be the
method of sanitation, the locations of these improvements have not been provided on the plan.
Information has not been provided on potable water other than to say it will be hauled to the site.
Where will it be kept, how much will be provided and how often will it be supplied?
The Well permit has expired. Is augmentation required? The substitute water supply plan does
not provide all of the information.
5. Section 5.03(2) Street improvements adequate to accommodate traffic volume generated by the
proposed use and to provide safe, convenient access has not been demonstrated as a traffic study
has not been provided and the information regarding the State Highway Access Permit does not
identify the use or volume of vehicles associated with the project.
6. Section 5.03(3) Design of the proposed use is organized to minimize impact on and from
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.
Please provide a narrative responding to this requirement.
7. Section 5.03.07(1) Description of the proposed use including location, scope, design and
construction schedule, and operational characteristics.
Operational characteristics, particularly the facilities area, should be defined. Provide detail on
access to the facility area and the specific location of the crusher, scales, equipment storage,
office trailer and porta-potty, fuel storage, generator, asphalt and concrete batch plants,
overburden stockpile area(s) or berms...provide detail of what is proposed to occur within a
defined "facilities area" and provide documentation that all facilities and activities are occurring
outside of the floodplain. The site plan should provide a detail of the facilities area. Identify
2
areas of fencing or other type of containment berming or security would be provided around that
area.
A Phasing schedule and designation of phased areas should be provided, both in text and on the
plan. What has been provided in the past is a general timetable and delineation (acreage and
boundary) of each of the phases and the progression of the phases across the "Mining Limit".
For consistency sake, we will request that this application submit similar graphic representation
to what we have received from other extraction applications in the past (attached is an example).
A. Impacts on adjacent lands cannot be determined from the information submitted.
Information on dust control, smoke, glare and noise is required to demonstrate
compliance with minimum standards required by local, state and federal agencies.
13. Impacts on wildlife and domestic animals through the creation of hazardous attraction,
alteration of existing native vegetation, blockade of migration routes, use patterns or
other disruptions;
Sufficient information has been provided for agency review of this issue.
C. Affirmatively show the impacts oftruck and automobile traffic to and from such uses and
their impacts to areas in the County;
A Traffic Study has not been provided.
D. Mitigation measures proposed for all of the foregoing impacts identified and for the
standards identified in Section 5.03.08 of this Resolution.
. Section 5.03.08 (1) volume of sound generated must comply with State Statute and
demonstration has not been provided in the submittal documentation.
9. Section 5.03.08(5) (A)(B)(C) Information has not been provided regarding the storage of
flammable or explosive gases or solids, nor have outdoor storage areas included visual mitigation
or screening. The facilities area nd the stockpile areas are required to meet this criteria.
10. The Garfield County Planning Commission has recently adopted an amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan adding Gravel Extraction as a specific chapter (Chapter 11). Analysis of
compliance with the chapter should be included in your submittal. This information was emailed
to you on October 10, 2008.
11. The Board of County Commissioners has recently adopted an amendment to the Zoning
Resolution regarding Gravel Extraction. I have enclosed these new regulations for your review
as they will be utilized in the review of this project. Section 5.17 of the Zoning Resolution is
attached.
3
12. The Garfield County Attorney's Office has the following comments:
A. A quit claim deed was included in the submittal which does not adequately describe what
it is that is owned by Rivers Edge LLC and Rock R US, LLC, therefore a title policy
should be submitted.
B. The adjacent ownership list is out of date and should be updated.
C. Many of the appendices are out of date such as the CDPS discharge permit and the well
permit.
D. The SUP specifically states that access is on the south side with all processing and selling
to occur from the south side, however the access permit seems be inconsistent as the
permit appears to have contemplated sales and processing occurring on the north side of
the river.
This letter is provided as an initial review of the technical noncompliance of your application
submittal and is not to be construed as a final comment letter regarding your application. Additional
completeness issues may result from upon further review of submittal materials.
Attachments
CC: Fred Jarman
File
4
I
EXHIBIT A
The following regulations have been added to Section 5.00 Supplementary Regulations:
5.17 Supplementary Gravel Extraction Regulations
5.17.01 Water Quantity & Quality Impacts / Floodplain Impacts
if a gravel pit is located within the floodplain there is a reasonable chance that it could
be flooded during its operational life. Equipment, machinery, fuel etc could 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
6. Development in 100 year Floodplain: Floodways - located within areas of special
flood hazard established in Section 6.03.02, are areas designated as floodways.
Since the floodway is an extremely hazardous area due to the velocity of flood
waters which carry debris, potential projectiles and erosion potential, the
following provisions shall apply:
a) Encroachments are prohibited, including fill, new construction, substantial
improvements and other development within the adopted regulatory
floodway unless it has been demonstrated through hydrologic and
hydraulic analyses performed in accordance with standard engineering
practice that the proposed encroachment would not result in any increase
or decrease in flood levels within the County during the occurrence of the
base flood discharge.
b) If Section 6.09.02 (1) (to be inserted when formatted) above is satisfied, all
new construction and substantial improvements shall comply with all
applicable flood hazard reduction provisions of Section 6.09.
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.
7. Standards for Areas of Shallow Flooding: Located within the areas of special
flood hazard established in 6.03.02 are areas designated as shallow flooding
also known as the flood -fringe. These areas have special flood hazards
associated with base flood depths of 1 to 3 feet where a clearly defined channel
does not exist and where the path of flooding is unpredictable and where velocity
flow may be evident. Such flooding is characterized by ponding or sheet flow;
therefore, the following provisions apply:
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.
8. 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.
9. In -stream mining is not permitted.
10.AlI applications shall provide a de -water / discharge plan that provides a detailed
graphic representation of how dewatering operations shall occur. This plan shall
demonstrate that the discharge will not exceed state standards for discharge into
a water course or wetland.
11. In all cases, the Application shall contain proof that the operation has adequate
legal and physical water for the proposed application.
5.17.02 Air Quality
Fugitive dust from disturbed areas is one of the primary causes of gravel pit air
pollution. The potential for soil erosion potential also increases proportionate to the
amount of disturbed area. Gravel Pits should make an active effort to reduce disturbed
area through phased reclamation, efficient operations, and landscaping. Disturbed
acreage can also provide a measure of visual impact when the operation is located on
valley floor and there are residences on nearby hillsides. Opacity not to exceed 20%.
1. All gravel operations in the County shall comply with applicable County, State,
and Federal regulations regulating air pollution and shall not be conducted in a
manner constituting a public nuisance or hazard.
2. Impacts on adjacent land from the generation of vapor, dust, smoke, or other
emanations. All applications shall demonstrate how they will meet County, 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.
5.17.03 Noise / Vibration
All gravel extraction operations in the County shall comply with applicable County,
State, and Federal regulations regulating noise pollution and shall not be conducted in a
manner constituting a public nuisance or hazard. Volume of sound generated shall
comply with the standards set forth in the Colorado Revised Statutes at the time any
new application is made.
1. An Applicant shall submit a noise study
that demonstrates the proposed gravel
operation can meet the requirements in the
matrix below based on measuring the
sound levels of noise radiating from a
property line at a distance of 25 feet or
more beyond the subject property. (The
image to the right shows a dashed line at
25 feet beyond the subject property where
noise shall be measured.)
2. Note, the dB(A) threshold shown below
shall be that of the receiver and not that of the emitter. For example, while the
gravel operation would be considered an industrial operation, the dB(A) levels
shown below are measured according to the neighboring uses so that if a
residential use was located adjacent to the operation, sound levels could not
exceed 55 dB(A) from 7 AM to 7 PM and 50 dB(A) from 7 PM to 7 AM.
Zone
7 am to 7 pm
7 pm to 7 am
Residential
55 dB(A)
50 dB(A)
Commercial
60 dB(A)
55 dB(A)
Light Industria!
65 dB(A)
70 dB(A)
Industria!
80 dB(A)
75 dB(A)
3. Every use shall be so operated that the ground vibration inherently and
recurrently generated is not perceptible, without instruments, at any point of any
boundary line of the property on which the use is located.
5.17.04 Visual Impacts
All applications for gravel extraction shall address the following:
1. All gravel operations proposed to mine areas greater than 30 acres shall be
designed in multiple phases in order to minimize the visual impact of the gravel
pit primarily by logical "sequencing" and "overall layout" of the pit's design.
Scale,
Office / Parkin
Figure 11: Example of phased extraction from east to west in smaller
areas of disturbance.
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.
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.
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.
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.
6. All lighting shall be the minimum necessary, directed inward and downward
towards the property.
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.
5.17.05 Impacts to County Road System
1. All applications for a gravel extraction operation shall submit a traffic impact
study prepared by a professional traffic engineer that identifies projected 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.
2. Truck traffic will not access the mining operation through residential, or
commercial areas, or such traffic will be mitigated.
3. The Applicant shall submit evidence of insurance for a minimum of $1,000,000 to
cover any damages to public and private property, and Garfield County shall be
named as an additional insured.
4. Roads used to access the construction site from the mine will be upgraded to
withstand the additional traffic, and the permittee will prevent road damage and
mitigate dust, under the supervision of the Road and Bridge Director.
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.
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.
5.17.06 Impacts to Wildlife
1. The Applicant shall demonstrate the presence or absence of Threatened and
Endangered species as well as the presence or absence of critical habitats for
Threatened and Endangered species.
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.
5.17.07 Compatibility with Surrounding Land Uses
The following regulations shall apply to all gravel operations in the County:
1. No permit shall be approved unless sufficient distances separate such use from
abutting property which might otherwise be damaged by operations of the
proposed use(s).
2. The equipment storage area is not placed any closer than 300 ft. from any
existing residential dwelling.
3. Loading and unloading of vehicles shall be conducted on private property and
may not be conducted on any public right-of-way.
4. Any storage area for uses not associated with natural resources, shall not
exceed ten (10) acres in size.
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.
6. Shall be compatible with surrounding agricultural, residential, and recreational
land uses by selection of location and/or mitigation.
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.
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.
5.17.08 Reclamation 1 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. AN Reclamation plans shall follow the following
design criteria:
1. Slopes
a) Wetland Criteria: Varied slopes predominantly 5:1 or shallower, at least
80% 5:1, and 25% 10:1 or shallower in wetland zone.
b) Dryland Criteria: Varied slopes predominantly 5:1 or shallower, seamlessly
blends with surrounding landscape.
Wetland Shelf Design:
For areas not adjacent
to existing wetlands
Cottonwood Saplings Planted
Or Existing Trees Avoided
5' Wetland Shelf
Original Pre .Ming Surface
a
Approximate Lake Surface
Topsoil Replaced 5' Wetland Fringe
to Depth of 1.0'
Stumps and Roots
Placed in Piles
on the Lake Bottom
for Fish Habitat
Figure 111: Example of slope diagram.
2. Vegetation
a) Wetland Criteria: Variation in revegetation, revegetation to include planting
of trees and/or shrubs, if seedlings or sprouts plantings occur as part of
phased reclamation and not just at the end of the mine life. Established
trees or shrubs in final reclamation phase are at least 8' tall or 2" caliper
trees or 5 gallon shrub containers. Active irrigation shall be employed in
revegetation areas during the life of the mine or until revegetation is self-
sustaining.
b) Dryland Criteria: Variation in revegetation, revegetation to include planting
of trees and/or shrubs, if seedlings or sprouts plantings occur as part of
phased reclamation and not just at the end of the mine life. Established
trees or shrubs in final reclamation phase are at least 8' tall or 2" caliper
trees or 5 gallon shrub containers. Active irrigation in revegetation areas
during the life of the mine or until revegetation is self-sustaining.
3. Lake / Pond Shape and Character: Reclamation with multiple ponds or lakes with
C:.,.. .....
11/. ---,J.
substantial islands or peninsula (at least 20% of total surface) to break up
surface, undulation of shorelines provides natural appearance.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
11. The Operator acknowledges that the County has performance standards in place
that could lead to revocation of the Special Use Permit if continued violations of
the permit occur over a period of time.
12. The County shall not issue a Special Use Permit until all required local, state,
and federal permits have been obtained and submitted to Garfield County
including but not limited to the municipal Watershed Permit, CDPHE, USACE,
NPDES, Division of Water Resources (approved well permits and plan for
augmentation), etc.
13. The reclamation plan approved by Garfield County in the Special Use Permit
shall be resubmitted to the DRMS to become the only reclamation plan (tasks /
timetables) used by both the County and DRMS. Additionally, a bond shall need
to be calculated to cover this plan and secured with DRMS to cover its
implementation.
14. The applicant shall provide locations of county listed noxious weeds on a map.
Once the inventory is provided the applicant shall develop a weed management
plan that addresses all county listed noxious weeds found on site. This weed
management plan shall be submitted to the County Vegetation Manager for
approval prior to the issuance of a SUP.
Page 1 of 1
Kathy A. Eastley
From: Deborah Quinn
Sent: Monday, September 15, 2008 10:20 AM
To: Kathy A. Eastley
Subject: Scott Pit application
Kathy,
I'm getting ready to bring you back your copy of this application. When you review it, you'll see that what is being
proposed is a gravel pit that will encompass about 21 acres, but it is being permitted by the state as part of an
existing pit on the north side of the river, through an amendment, and the application says it is for 93.46 acres, but
this is the larger area under the state permit, 1 think There are two different assessor parcel ID's involved, both
owned by Rivers Edge LLC., per their attached information from the assessor's office, which shows a total
acreage for both "parcels" of approximately 122 acres. There is only one deed for ownership, showing ownership
in River's Edge, LLC and Rocks R US, LLC. The deed is a quit claim deed, doesn't really say much about what it
is they actually own, so if they have a title policy, that should be submitted. Otherwise, we'll need more deeds
from the chain of title to see what it was that this quit claim deed actually conveyed to them.
The adjacent ownership list, exhibit P, is from 2006 and that is out of date, although it looks like the actual
assessor's map is from 2008 and shows the same owners. The ownership list should be updated
Finally, many of the appendices are out of date, for example, the CDPS discharge permit expired 9/30/07 and the
well permit expired 5/3/07. This is probably because they are proposing this operation to be permitted by the
state as an amendment to an existing pit that has been in operation already, I think. But, they have included a
highway access permit for operations of the existing pit on the north side of the river, and this application
specifically states it will be on the south side, with all processing and selling to occur from the south side of the
river. 1 guess the initial proposal permitted by the state contemplated a conveyor, with most of the processing and
sales to occur from the north side. I didn't read the entire application to see how the appendices relate to the
current plan, so this is more a head's up for your review rather than any completeness comment from me.
9/22/2008
Page 1 of 1
Kathy A. Eastley
From: John Niewoehner
Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2008 4:50 PM
To: Kathy A. Eastley
Subject: Scott Gravel Pit SUP - Engin Comments
Kathy - -
I found no significant problems with the Scott Pit SUP. However, the following are some comments:
1. Meandering Lateral Movement of Colorado River: The report states "Based on these photos, the
reach of the river appears to have minimal lateral movement'. I think that the photos on Page K-23
demonstrate that there has been a lot of lateral movement in this area during the last 40 years.
Furthermore, I'm no expert but it is my gut feeling that the river will eventually meander into the gravel
pits on either the north or south side of the river. Even though the river will meander without the
gravel pits, the existence of the gravel pits could increase the Likelihood and the magnitude of the
meandering.
2. Map F-2: The report mentions a Map F-2 (on Page E-2) but I couldn't find it.
3. Future Use of Land: Why don't we ask if they want to create a conservation easement after they
finish? Do we know where the proposed bicycle trail would go in this area?
4. Floodplain Issue: As would be expected, the construction of gravel pits in the floodplain does not
increase the base flood elevation (see letter from FEMA.) Per the letter from FEMA, Rifle or the
County can request FEMA to revise the FIRM maps to show the flood elevation changes resulting
room the construction. However, I don't know why Rifle or the County would bother.
5. Grading Permit: Do we need a grading permit? I think we do. However, do we need a reclamation
financial security since there is already a security that is part of their DRMS? Also, do they need a
Stormwater Management Plan or is this part of their DRMS.
I'd be happy to discuss the proposal with you after you've had the chance to look at it.
John
9/22/2008
To: City Council and Planning Commission
From: Matt Sturgeon, Assistant City Manager
CC: John Hier, City Manager
Date: Friday, September 5, 2008
Re: Rifle East GatewayPlan
RECEIVED
SEP 1 0 2118
GARFIELLD UUui' i
BUILDING & PLANNING
The attached plan was prepared at the request of City Council to address land use activities along the
Colorado River corridor between the Mamm Creek (aka Garfield Airport)/ 1-70 interchange and the main
Rifle interchange. The plan was prepared to clarify the City's current Comprehensive Plan land use
designations between Hwy6 and I-70, along the Colorado River. Garfield County called into question the
City's position regarding land use activity when considering gravel extraction in this area.
Staff will present the plan to the Planning Commission on September 30 and to City Council on October 15.
We wanted to get the document out to the council and P&Z members well in advance of these scheduled
meeting dates. Should you have questions regarding the document, please contact me directly.
Thank you.
CITY OF RIFLE
202 RAILROAD AVENUE • P.O. Box 1908 • RIFLE, CO 81650
WWW. RIELECO.ORG
Greg Lewicki .na Associates
May 18 2009
11541 Warrington Court
Parker, CO USA 801.38
Will Spence.
Colorado Division of Wildlife
2025 County Rd 252
Rifle, CO 81650
Re: Scott Pit wildlife impacts
Will:
Phone: (303) 346-5196 Fax (303)-346-6934
greg@,lewicici.biz
We received the CDOW letter that was sent to Garfield County dated April 28, 2009. In addition to
our phone call, 1 also spoke with JT Romatske and 1 know you are working with him on the entire
evaluation. As we discussed on the phone, we can make the following additional commitments to the
plan:
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.
2) A new reclamation plan map has been included with this letter which shows more undulating
shorelines. These will be created from filling these areas.
3) Also shown on the revised Reclamation Plan Map are some additional peninsulas of 10H:1V
slope at water level which will have more pronounced wetlands.
4) Certain segments of shoreline have been redesigned to have 5H:1 V slope. Other areas are more
difficult since they are close to roads and/or well pads. If we brought all of these areas to 5H: 1V, the
reserve would be too limited and not feasible to permit. We are trying to balance the desires of the
wildlife with the desires of the landowner (who does not want any 5H:1 V slopes) and also the desires
of the airport. See the enclosed letter provided to the County from the Garfield County Regional
Airport. In this letter, it states that "Wetland or other type of bird attractant ponds would not be
compatible within 10,000 feet of the runway." The edge of the runway is actually 3500 feet from the
eastern edge of the runway and is in direct line with it. They suggest, based on the FAA, steep sides
on the ponds or rip rap lined edges to lessen the possibility of bird impacts with planes, which has
now been seen as very important after what happened in New York City recently. The letter from the
Garfield County Regional Airport is attached.
An article is also enclosed from the Denver Post from May 12, 2009 which discusses the steps that
DIA is taking to increase safety from bird collisions. Basically, federal wildlife officials are harassing
the animals so that they leave. They are spending $350,000 in one year, so it must be very serious.
Safety has to be at the top of anyone's list in terms of importance.
Based on the concerns raised by the airport and the fact that we do not know what amount of
material can be imported, we feel it is not in the best interest of safety to commit to the 15 feet wide
wetland shelves. We think the compromise shown above is best for all parties concerned. We are
trying to balance all these inputs and we feel that the current plan does exactly that.
5) The area inside the 1/4 mile buffer to the eagle nest is limited to a maximum of two years and only
within the time frame of January 15 to July 5 during those two years.
6) The area within the 1/2 mile buffer will now have no permanent asphalt plant or concrete plant,
outlined in Item 1 above.
7) The dryland seed mix will be altered to replace crested wheatgrass with western wheatgrass and
slender wheatgrass. This will be changed in the DRMS permit, along with all other changes, once
County approval is granted.
All previous commitments regarding reclamation timing, backfilling and topsoil replacement are still
valid.
In response to these commitments, we ask that a new letter be sent to Garfield County which
contains your new comments on the plan. Fred Jarman has requested that he get any new comments
by June 10 for the new hearing date of June 24.
Thanks,Will.
Sincerely,
Greg Lewicki, P. E.
Greg Lewicki and Associates
cc: Pete Siegmund
cc: Bill Bailey
cc: Fred Jarman
cc: JT Romatske
BUILDING & PLANNING DEPARTMENT
March 4, 2009
Greg Lewicki
Greg Lewicki And Associates, PLLC
11541 Warrington Court
Parker, CO 80138
Re: Special Use Permit for Extraction, Storage, Processing and Material Handling
of Natural Resources in the Agricultural / Industrial Zone District
Dear Greg,
On Monday, March 2, 2009, the Board of County Commissioners referred the Special Use
Permit application for Extraction, Storage, Processing and Material Handling of Natural
Resources in the Agricultural / Industrial Zone District for the "Scott Pit" to the
Planning Commission. This office has set that public hearing to occur on Wednesday, May
13, 2009 at 6:30 PM which will be held in the County Administration Building at 108 8
Street in Glenwood Springs, CO.
Please submit 30 copies of all the information you provided to Staff in the complete
application by April 2, 2009 so that we may provide them to the appropriate review
agencies. (You may submit reduced copies of all large plans.) If you wish to submit a
portion of these applications on a CD to be sent to the referral agencies, please contact
them directly with the contact sheet attached to determine if they prefer CDs or a paper
binder. Once you have determined what media each agency prefers, send those
documents to this office and we will main them out.
As this is a public hearing that requires public notice, please review the public notice
requirements below:
(1)
Notice by publication, including the name of the applicant, description of the subject
lot, a description of the proposed use and nature of the hearing, and the date, time
and place for the hearing shall be given once in a newspaper of general circulation
in that portion of the County in which the subject property is located at least thirty
(30) but not more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of such hearing, and proof of
publication shall be presented at hearing by the applicant. (Note: Please see
attached letter from Post Independent.)
(2) Notice by mail, containing information as described under paragraph (1) above,
108 Eighth Street, Suite 401 • Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
(970) 945-8212 • (970) 285-7972 • Fax: (970) 384-3470
(3)
shall be mailed to all owners of record as shown in the County Assessor's Office of
lots within two hundred feet (200') of the subject lot and to all owners of mineral
interest in the subject property at least thirty (30) but not more than sixty (60) days
prior to such hearing time by certified return receipt mail, and receipts shall be
presented at the hearing by the applicant.
The site shall be posted such that the notice is clearly and conspicuously visible
from a public right-of-way, with notice signs provided by the Planning Department.
The posting must take place at least thirty (30) but not more than sixty (60) days
prior to the hearing date and is the sole responsibility of the applicant to post the
notice, and ensure that if remains posted until and during the date of the hearing_
I have enclosed the public notice and poster with this letter for the Board Planning
Commission hearing as mentioned above as a courtesy. The Applicant must verify that all
information provided in these documents is correct. It shall be the obligation of the
Applicant to correct any deficiencies in these documents such that proper notice in form
and substance can be established.
Feel free to call me with any questions prior to the March 2, 2009 meeting.
Very truly yours,
Fred A. Jarman, A1C
Director, Building & Pla ning Department
970.945.8212
frediarma n(fta rtield-county.com
2