Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4.0 BOCC Staff Report 07.05.2011Exhibits -- Major Impact Review of Extraction of Aggregate - Clifford Cerise Ranch Company, LLLP (MIPA 6545) BOCC Public Hearing (6113/2011 continued to 7/05/2011) Exhibit Letter to Z) Exhibit �..(A A Proof of Publication, Posting, and Mailings Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008, as amended B C Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2000 D Application E Staff Memorandum F Staff Powerpoint G and H Email from Garfield County Roads and Bridge Department dated 2/16/11and 3/10/11 Email from Garfield County Vegetation Manager, dated 2/25/11 J Letter from Consulting Engineer, Mountain Cross Engineering, Inc., dated 3/1/11 K Email from Garfield County Environmental Health Manager, dated 2125/11 L Letter from Colorado Division of Water Resources, dated 2/24/11 M Letter from Colorado Geological Survey, dated 2/25/11 N Email from the Colorado Department of Transportation, dated 2/10/11 D Letter from Colorado Division of Wildlife, dated 2/23/11 P Email from the Town of Carbondale, dated 2/28/11 Q Email from US Army Corps of Engineers, dated 3118/11 R Email from the Carbondale and Rural Fire Protection District, dated 3/11/11 S Letter from Tetra Tech, dated 3/21/11 T Email from Garfield County Vegetation Manager, dated 3/21/11 U Email from Consulting Engineer, Mountain Cross Engineering, Inc., dated 3/22/11 V Letter from Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety, date 2/25/11 W Letter from Down Valley Septic LLC, dated 3/22/11 X Letters and Emails from Concerned Citizens Letter - Katherine U. Hubbard, dated 3/25/11, Janet Johnson, dated 3/29/11 Emails - Bill Walter, dated 4/5/11, Dan Jervis, dated 4/5/11, Sue and Chris Coyle, dated 4/5/11, Lucie Fitch, dated 4/5/11, Scott Joseph Minor, dated 4/5/11, Gordon F. Viborg, dated 4/5/11, Sarah F. Burggraf, dated 4/5/11, Bob Naegele, dated 4/5/11, Thomas D. and Marilyn A. Hays, dated 4/5/11, Ernie and Barbara Coyle and Sue Coyle, dated 4/5/11, Glen Harris, dated 4/5/11, Ernest Kollar, dated 4/5/11, Sue Lau and Mark Kavasch, dated 4/5/11 Y Addendum Letter from Hankard Environmental, dated 4/6/11 Z Letter and supporting information from Crystal Springs Coalition, dated 4/6/11 AA Cerise Mining Site Noise Impact Study Preliminary Response for Wooden Deer HOA, Carbondale, CO, dated 4/13/11 BB Lafarge's Response to Exhibit B Proposed Conditions of Approval by the Crystal Springs Coalition, dated 4/13/11 CC Lafarge's PowerPoint, dated 4/13/11 DD Copies of photos of Bald eagles and dust from Powers Pit from Will Burggret, dated 4/13/11 EE FF Copy of computer generated graphic of the approved Western Slope Aggregate gravel mine area and pr posed area of the Cerise Rt . GG HH Letters and Ernails from Concerned Citizens: Email from Erie Kollar dated 4/15/11 with Gravel Mine article from Post Independent, dated 4/14/11; letter from Patrick Burke, dated 4/27/11; email from Susan Lau with 10 photos, dated 5/20/11; email from Mark Kavasch, dated 5/20/11; letter from Johathan Fitch, dated 5/23/11; email from Ernest Kollar, dated 5/26/11; email from Chris Coyle, dated 5/26/11; email from George Clemons, dated 5/27/11 Email from David Myler dated 5/19/11 with Crystal Springs Coalition Comments Regarding Cerise Mine Major Impact Review and Exhibit A — Proposed Conditions of Approval Email from Sean Frisch of Cerise Website Information, dated 5/26/11 11 JJ Economic Impact Report, dated 11/2010 KK LL MM NN Fact Sheet for Site Visit/Public Meeting to subject site, dated 5/31/11 Lafarge's response to Exhibit A Proposed Conditions of Approval by the Crystal Springs Coalition, dated 6/2/11 Cerise Mining Site Noise Impact Study Preliminary Response for Wooden Deer HOA, Carbondale, CO, dated 4/6/11 Left blank 00 Left blank Left blank PP Letters from Delia Malone, John Emerick & Mary Harris dated 6/9/11 QQ RR SS TT E-mail from Ann Eustis dated 5/30/11 Lafarge power point presentation Connie McCrudden 5/26/11 Minutes of site visit, dated 5131/11 UU Siting Issues for Gravel Mines & Asphalt Plants, dated 10/09 W Additional Letters and Emails VVVV Letters - Patrick T. Burke 4/27/1, Katherine Hubbard 5/14111, C.A Vidal 5/25/11, Jonathon Fitch 5/18/11, 5/23/11, Sue Coyle 5/23/11, Ernest Kollar 5/26/11, Chris Coyle 5/26/11, Lee Ann Eustis 6/10/11 Emails — Patrick T. Burke 4/27/2011, Rick Hayes 4/27/11, Lon Winston 5/21/11, Susan Lau 5/23/11, Daniel Jervis 5/26/11, Lucie Fitch 5/30/11,Gordon F. Viberg 6/10/11, Susan Gibbs 6/8/11, Stephanie Brown 6/8/11 Letter from David Myler, The Myler Law Firm, P.C., dated 6/23/11 X7( YY ZZ AAA Minutes to the Planning Commission Hearing, dated 4/13/11 APEN and Application for Construction Permit - General (for individual equipment) FORM APCD-200 Mining Operations — General Instructions for Fugitive Particulate Air Pollution Emission Notice/Control Plan (for mining site) Email from Ernie Kollar including dust photos and videos, dated 6/27/11 BBB Email from Sue and Chris Coyle, dated 6/27/11 CCC Letter from LaFarge, dated 6/28/11 DDD Resolution 2011-10 (for Blue Pit expansion) BOCC 06/13/11 Continued to 715111 MOL SUPPLEMENTAL TO PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS REQUEST: MIPA 6545 Major Impact Review for "Extraction" of aggregate APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER: Clifford Cerise Ranch Company, LLLP REPRESENTATIVE: Sean Frisch/Lafarge West, Inc. PARCEL ID: 2393-253-00-158 PROPERTY SIZE/SITE AREA: 97.81 acres / 65.48 acres LOCATION Located at the northeast corner of State Highway 82 (SH 82) and Crystal Spring Creek Road (CR 103). Approximately 2 miles northeast of Carbondale, CO ACCESS Direct access off of CR 103 EXISTING ZONING Rural COMPREHENSIVE PLAN of 2000: Residential Medium (6 to <10 AC/DU) I. DIRECTION FROM THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS On June 13, 2011, the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) conducted a public hearing to review and take testimony from the Applicant, County staff, Lafarge West, Inc., Crystal Springs Coalition, and Garfield County citizens regarding the request for a Major Impact Review Permit to extract aggregate on property located on the northeast corner of State Highway 82 (SH 82) and County Road 103 (CR 103), After four and half hours of presentations and testimony, the BOCC instructed County Staff to provide them with additional information and clarification on the following items: A. Noise Standards; B. Air Quality Requirements; C. Options to consider in order to lessen cumulative impacts; D. Copy of the Blue Pit Conditions of Approval; and, E. Map of the locations of existing temporary and permanent asphalt batch plants in Garfield County. II. TOPICS OF RESEARCH To clarify standards that are required by the state and county, applicable regulations are provided below regarding noise, air quality, and cumulative impact. In addition, a summary of what the Applicant is proposing and the Crystal Springs Coalition's rebuttal of the Applicant's proposal is also provided. A. NOISE STANDARDS Colorado Revised Statute &25-12-103 Maximum Permissible Noise Levels Noise levels related to certain uses in Colorado is governed by state law (CRS §25- 12-103). Article VII, Section 7-840 of the Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008, as amended (ULUR) also states that the volume of sound generated shall comply with the standards of this statute. State law and County regulations indicate that the noise emitter cannot exceed certain noise levels (measured at 25 feet beyond the emitter's property Zine, see below) based on the adjacent receiver property's use. Both subsection (1) of CRS §25-12-103 and ULUR identify the maximum noise levels allowed within a specific time period and are shown in the chart below. • • Property Line Gravel Pit Industrial Use ....— . • - • • ..�... • • • �..�...�..— • House e Residential Use .. - . . 1 1 Zane 7amto7pm 7pmto7am Residential 55 de(A) 50 dB(A) Commercial 60 dB(A) 55 dB(A) Light Industrial 70 d8(A) 65 dB(A) Industrial 80 dB(A) 75 dB(A) CRS §25-12-103 also identifies in subsection (2) that the noise level can increase by 10 db(A) for 15 minutes in any one hour period between 7 am and 7 pm. This subsection of the statute reads as follows: "In the hours between 7:00 am to (he next 7:00 pm, the noise levers permitted in subsection (1) of this section may be increased by ten db(A) for a period of not to exceed fifteen minutes in any one-hour period." 2 In addition, subsection (5) of the statute states that "Construction projects shall be subject to the maximum permissible noise levels specified for industrial zones for the period within which construction is to be completed pursuant to any applicable construction permit issued by proper authority or, if no time limitation is imposed, for a reasonable period of time for completion of project." Finally, the statute defines the zones as follows: • `Industrial" means an area in which noise restrictions on industry are necessary to protect the value of adjacent properties for other economic activity but shall not include agricultural, horticultural, or floricultural operations. C.R.S. § 25-12- 102(4). • "Residential zone" means an area of single-family or multi -family dwellings where business may or may not be conducted in such dwellings. C.R.S. § 25-12- 102(6). • "Light industrial and commercial zone" means:: (a) an area containing clean and quiet research laboratories; (b) an area containing light industrial activities which are clean and quiet; (c) and area containing warehousing; or (d) an area in which other activities are conducted where the general environment is free from concentrated industrial activity. C.R.S. § 25-12-102(5). Unified Land Use Resolution Of 2008, as amended (ULUR) Section 7-840 Additional Standards Applicable to Gravel Extraction C. Noise / Vibration. All gravel extraction operations in the County shall comply with applicable County, State, and Federal regulations regulating noise pollution and shall not be conducted in a manner constituting a public nuisance or hazard. Volume of sound generated shall comply with the standards set forth in the Colorado Revised Statutes at the time any new application is made. Garfield Countv Planninc Staff Using the statutory zone definitions, the County identified the adjacent land uses surrounding the subject site as residential to the north, light industrial to the south (SH 82), and industrial to the east (Blue Pit) and west (Powers Pit). This determination was based on a comparison of the noise statute's definitions with approved Land Use Change Permits (i.e. Blue Pit), the existing land uses of the adjacent properties at the time of the application, and the land use designations and resource extraction areas identified in the Comprehensive Plan of 2000. The following map depicts the land use designations identified by the County (black) compared to the land use designations applied by the Applicant's noise consultant, Hankard Environmental (blue), and Crystal Springs Coalition's noise consultant, Geller and Associates, LLC (maroon). 3 Land Use Designation: County Hankard Engineering Geller and Associates, LLC ;'tie , Industrial aesidaniiaE Industrial '• fiesEdenp Industrial light industrial Light Inclustrtal Applicant's NoiseConsultant - Hankard Environmental As part of the application the Applicant provided a noise study prepared by Hankard Environmental dated November 2010 and an addendum to this report dated April 2011. These reports demonstrate that the Cerise Mine is within the applicable noise limits specified in CRS §25-12-103, provided that the proposed mitigation (reduction) measures are implemented. Mitigation measures proposed in the addendum include: 1. The two berms shown on the "Mining Sheets" must be constructed early in the project. The northern berm must be approximately 50 feet tall and the western berm is approximately 17 feet tall; 2. While constructing these berms, earth moving equipment such as scrapers cannot operate for more than 15 minutes in any one hour while within approximately 100 feet of the permit boundary; 3. Place a silencer on the dust collector blower that is situated on top of the concrete batch plant (or build a sound absorbing barrier around it);. 4. Equip the electrical generators (gen-sets) with commercial grade silencers or better (at least 20 dB of insertion loss); Use white noise back up alarms on all Lafarge mobile equipment. Backing up by contractor vehicles not outfitted with these alarms should be minimized; 6. Conduct all construction activities during the daytime (7:00 am to 6:00 pm); and, 4 7. Conduct all noise -producing activities associated with operations during the daytime (7:00 am to 6:00 pm). Staff has made these noise mitigation standards a condition of approval of this application. The addendum to the Noise Analysis report also states that the construction (movement of the topsoil and overburden and berm building/deconstruction) may reach 80 dB(A) which is allowed during times of construction. "Construction" will occur in Phases 1 — Pre-mining/Sequence 1 (stripping of overburden and top soil and building of the berms) and Final Reclamation/Sequence 8 (deconstruction of the berms and spreading of overburden). As per subsection (5) of CRS §25-12-103, "Construction projects shall be subject to the maximum permissible noise levels specified for industrial zones for the period within which construction is to be completed pursuant to any applicable construction permit issued by proper authority or, if no time limitation is imposed, for a reasonable period of time for completion of the project." Therefore, during "construction" a use can be as loud as the table permits (at 80 dB(A)). Staff believes that noise levels can be addressed through a condition of approval which; (1) defines what activities the County considers to be mine "construction" (e.g. removal of the overburden); and, (2) addresses the time periods and specific phases of the gravel mining during which construction will occur and increased noise levels will be permitted. This would permit these specific activities to produce noise levels up to 80 dB(A). Hankard Environmental addendum also states that they believe CRS §25-12-103 allows daytime construction noise levels to be 90 dB(A) for 15 minutes in any one hour. The state noise statue is subject to interpretation and may not clearly allow the additional 10 dB(A)s during construction. The County Attorney's Office can provide the BOCC with a risk analysis of Hankard's interpretation if you deem it necessary. Crystal Springs Coalition's Noise Consultant - Geller and Associates, LLC The Crystal Springs Coalition provided Staff with their noise consultant's (Geiler and Associates, LLC) review (dated April 13, 2011) of Hankard Environmental's Noise Analysis report and addendum. Geiler and Associates' review identified the following deficiencies regarding this report including: • The current application does not include sufficient detail on the equipment to confirm the applicability of the sound data used by Hankard Environmental. This information should be provided for review. • If the equipment is louder than the representative noise data used by Hankard, the noise impact has been shown to substantially increase. As noted above, additional details on the equipment and sound data should be provided. • Due to the site and application specific nature of some of the equipment (aggregate plant components), the only way to ensure compliance with the noise limits may be field measurements of the installed equipment, with mitigation if needed. Based on the potential noise impact of the above items, long term noise monitoring would be appropriate. Staff Comment: The Coalition proposes as a condition of approval that at the expense of the Applicant they shall install and 5 maintain a device which is capable of measuring sound levels at the permit boundary and transmitting the data to a designated off-site computer. When noise levels exceed what is allowed, the Applicant shall immediately cease operations upon being notified by the County until such time as it is determined by County representatives, in consultation with a designated representative of the Crystal Springs Coalition, that conditions have changed or corrective measures have been implemented which allow operations to continue with noise standards. The County presently doesn't have the manpower or training to operate or maintain a real time noise monitoring system. • The Hankard noise report states that the use of white noise back up alarms is recommended for all Lafarge equipment but not required for contractor's vehicles. To ensure compliance with Hankard's noise mitigation measures, it is recommended that contractor vehicles have white noise back up alarms. • The Hankard Environmental's Noise Analysis report identifies the land use to the west of the Cerise Mine (Powers Pit) as industrial when the Coalition believes it should be residential based on information in the application indicating the zoning of this parcel is residential and the future land use of the site will be 40 single family homes. With a residential designation, the proposed mine will exceed the state noise standards allowed. Staff Comment: The Powers Pit is zoned rural and no County Land Use Change Permit has been applied for or issued for a residential development on this parcel. • The Hankard noise model limited its scope to the Cerise Mine and 25' beyond mine limits. This limited scope does not address possible impacts to properties that are situated at a higher elevation than the proposed' gravel operation. B. AIR QUALITY STANDARDS Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Air Pollution Control Division Responsibility Surface mining operations, including sand and gravel pits, borrow pits, and quarries are regulated by the Air Pollution Control Division (APCD) at the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE). This agency is responsible for reviewing and issuing air permits. National Ambient Air Quality Standards CDPHE has adopted the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) established by the Clean Air Act and the NAAQS requires surface mining operations to meet the Particle Matter 10 (PM -10) and 2.5 (PM25) standards. APCD regulates air pollutants released from surface mining operations and from the equipment used at a mining site. Surface mining operations release fugitive dust (particular matter with a diameter of 10 microns or less (PM,0)) from processes such as conveying, screening, crushing, stockpiling, storing, and hauling materials which can be carried from the site by the wind. in addition, many surface mining operations use generators fueled with natural gas, oil, propane, or diesel that release byproducts of combustion such as volatile organic compounds (VOCs), carbon monoxide, (CO), nitrogen oxides (NQx), sulfur dioxide (SO2). Emissions of fugitive dust and fuel combustion that exceed certain thresholds must be reported to the 6 APCD through submission of an Air Pollutant Notice (APEN). Almost all surface mining operations and associated equipment require the filing of an APEN. Permits Required for Surface Mining Operations Purpose: A permit describes key areas that an operator needs to address and defines the type of air pollution control measures to be used, limits the annual production at the site, provides guidelines for opacity (how dense the visible emissions are allowed to be), and includes recordkeeping requirements. 1. Construction Permit: an air permit obtained for process equipment on the mining site such as generators, crushers, screen decks, and conveyor systems. 2. Notice of Relocation: portable equipment can be moved from mining site to mining site but if moved a "Notice of Relocation" must be submitted to the APCD at least 10 days prior to the relocation. 3. Fugitive Dust Permit: an air permit for surface mining operations for the subject site. Also reviews and analyzes fugitive dust emission 10 kilometers surrounding the site. Permit Process Individual Mining Equipment To obtain an air permit for an individual piece of equipment involves the following steps: 1. Complete the required APEN application form (Exhibit YY); 2. Applicant to ensure all information is accurate in relationship to the specific piece of equipment; 3. Submit application to the Air Pollution Control Division at the listed address on the application; 4. Air Pollution Control Division and the permit engineers will review the application and conduct their analysis to ensure the Applicant can comply with NAAQS. 5. If application complies with NAAQS the State issues an Initial Approval Permit to the Applicant; 6. The permit lists the production limits (hourly and annual) for the specific piece of equipment along with the emission limitations measured in tons/year and emission control measures such as spray bars; 7. Applicant reviews the permit, gathers Final Approval documentation to demonstrate all emission control measures can be met. All documentation is submitted to the Air Pollution Control Division; 8. Air Pollution Control Division reviews the Final Approval documentation to ensure the Applicant can operate the piece of equipment in compliance with the issued air permit; and, 9. Air Pollution Control Division issues Final Approval permit to the Applicant once the Applicant demonstrates the ability to comply with the permit requirements. Mining Site To obtain a fugitive air permit for a mining operation site involves the following steps: 1. Complete the required APEN application form (Exhibit ZZ); 2. Ensure all information is accurate in relationship to the specific site and production levels; 7 3. Submit application to the Air Pollution Control Division at the listed address on the application; 4. Air Pollution Control Division and the permit engineers will review the application and conduct their analysis to ensure the Applicant can comply with NAAQS. At this time a fugitive dust air model is run that considers air quality on-site and within 10 kilometers around the proposed mine; 5. if application complies with NAAQS the State issues an Initial Approval Permit to the Applicant; 6. The permit lists the production limits (daily and annual) for the site along with the emission limitations measured in tons/year and emission control measures such as watering of stockpiles and roads; 7. Applicant reviews the permit, gathers Final Approval documentation to demonstrate all emission control measures can be met. All documentation is submitted to the Air Pollution Control Division; 8. Air Pollution Control Division reviews the Final Approval documentation to ensure the applicant can operate in compliance with the issued air permit; and, 9. Air Pollution Control Division issues Final Approval permit to the Applicant once the Applicant demonstrates the ability to comply with the permit requirements. Please note: Lafarge conducted an internal air analysis prior to submitting the APEN to the Air Pollution Control Division for Cerise Mine to determine appropriate production levels. Both individual equipment and mining site permits are required to be renewed every five (5) years or sooner. Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008, as amended (ULURi Air Quality regulations for gravel operations are found in Section 7-840 Additional Standards Applicable to Gravel Extraction. Applicable standards are as follows: 6. 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 shall not 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. The proposed operation will be located a sufficient distance from other mining operations so as not to create cumulative impacts to air quality. 8 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. H. Reclamation/Enforcement 12. The County shall not issue a Land Use Change Permit until all required local, state, and federal permits have been obtained and submitted to Garfield County including but not limited to the municipal Watershed Permit, CDPHE, USAGE, NPDES, Division of Water Resources (approved well permits and plan for augmentation), etc. (Resolution 2009-88) Definitions Opacity: The ULUR doesn't provide a definition for this word. However, opacity can be defined as the amount of light that is blocked by a medium, like smoke, dust, tinted window, etc. and is measured as a percentage. An opacity of 0% means that all light passes through and an opacity of 100% means that no Tight passes through. Garfield County Planning Staff Construction Permits for Equipment The Applicant has provided under Tab 20 of the application Construction Permits that have been obtained for all equipment to be used for the mining operation. The permits address air emissions for the processing unit, screening, asphalt production facility, crusher, and concrete batch plant, operations and limits emission of particulate matter including PM10 (particles less than 10 microns in size) to a yearly amount identified in each of the permits. Compliance with the permits ".. , shall be demonstrated by maintaining annual records..." and is self monitoring. APEN Permit for Entire Site The Applicant has also submitted an APEN permit to APCD for the entire Cerise Mine which takes into consideration the mining operation itself and any dust emissions source identified by CDPHE within a 10 kilometer distance around the Cerise mining operation. This PM10 analysis addresses cumulative impacts to the air quality of the surrounding area and takes into consideration the Blue Pit. Lafarge has placed this permit on hold until they know what mining operations and equipment are approved by the County in order to calculate accurate air emissions for the site through modeling. According to CDPHE, the Cerise Mine cannot obtain a permit from them unless their air emissions meet all National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Staff has made the recommendation in the staff report that a condition of approval be set so that the Applicant shall obtain the APEN Permit for the entire mining operation before a Land Use Change Permit is issued. Fugitive Dust Control Plan To control fugitive dust on the Cerise site a Fugitive Dust Control Plan has been developed by Buys and Associates in the Air Quality Statement dated August 5, 2010 (Tab 20 of the application). This plan will be implemented on the subject site to prevent, reduce, and mitigate fugitive dust for this mining operation. The Applicant must follow this plan during operations at the Cerise Mine to keep air quality in compliance with NAAQS. 9 Applicant's Air Quality Consultant — Buys and Associates! Inc. An Air Quality Statement prepared by Buys and Associates, August 5, 2010 (Tab 20 of the application) identifies potential pollutant generating activities of the proposed mine, provides a Fugitive Dust Control Plan, and discusses cumulative impacts of the proposed mining operation. Potential Air Pollutants Potential air pollutant generating activities for the Cerise Mine identified in the Air Quality Statement includes: • Mining of the gravel; • Transportation to screening, crushing, and loading operations via a conveyor system; • Crushing and screening of gravel; • Vehicle traffic in and around the processing areas of the site; • Traffic associated with trucks entering and exiting the site; and, • Wind blowing dust from exposed areas. Fugitive Dust Control Plan The Air Quality Statement also provided a Fugitive Dust Control Plan for the site and proposes the following dust control measures: • Exposed areas will be vegetated or stabilized to limit wind erosion and to provide screening; • Frequent watering by water truck on gravel as it is removed and transported; • Install, operate and maintain water spray bar in conveyor system and crushing and careening plant; • Limit drop heights of gravel for conveyor loading, transfer points, screening and crushing; • Limit on-site vehicle speeds; • Treat frequently traveled roadways on-site with stabilizers and/or watering to minimize re -entrainment of dust from the surface of the road; • Minimize dust from loaded haul trucks by covering or watering as necessary; • A minimum 50 foot setback around the property to allow fugitive dust settle before being carried by the wind; • Emission controls and limits as required by CDPHE will be enforced and followed; • Construction of berms and mine walls to serve as wind breaks; and, • Reclaim the site once mining has been completed. Staff Comment: The fugitive dust control measures listed above have been made a condition of approval to ensure air quality impacts are minimized on-site. Cumulative Impacts Cumulative impacts of dust emissions is addressed by CDPHE's APEN permit by identifying and analyzing Philo dust emission sources within a 10 kilometer radius of the Cerise Mine. 10 Crvstal Springs Coalition's Air Quality Consultant — ESI, Inc. The Crystal Springs Coalition provided Staff with their consultant's (ESI, Inc.) executive summary dated April 6, 2011 that reviewed Bayer and Associate's Air Quality Statement. This consultant concluded: Demonstrating conformance to the NAAQS is limited to performance of air modeling. Operators are also required to follow a Fugitive Dust Control Plan. Based on the reported occurrences of dust experienced by Crystal Springs Coalition members, and comments made by Chuck Pray with CDPHE, it appears that air quality permit violations may have occurred from the existing gravel pit operators. ESI .suggests that real-time monitoring for fugitive dust and a comparison to the NAAQS should be considered to demonstrate that standards, established to be protective of human health and environment are not exceeded. • Staff Comment: No data is provided to substantiate a link between the existing gravel operations in the area and the dust in surrounding homes. • It has been reported by the Air Quality Control Division that Lafarge has not yet submitted modeling necessary to demonstrate conformance to the NAAQS. Review of the models is necessary to continue the permitting process. The Crystal Springs Coalition has proposed as a condition of approval that a real time air quality monitoring system be installed and maintained by the Applicant at their expense. When air quality measurements exceed regulation limits the Applicant shall immediately cease operations upon being notified by the County until such time as it is determined by County representatives, in consultation with a designated representative of the Crystal Springs Coalition, that conditions have been changed or corrective measures have been implemented which allow operations to continue in compliance with air quality standards. Staff Comment: County staff doesn't have the resources and training to supervise air quality in Garfield County. C. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Cumulative impacts as addressed by the ULUR, Staff, Applicant, and Crystal Springs Coalitions are as follows: Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008, as amended {ULUR} "Cumulative impacts" are referenced in the following sections of the ULUR: Section 7-840 Additional Standards Applicable to Gravel Extraction A. Water Quantity & Quality lmpacts/Floodplain Impacts 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. B. Air Quality 3. The proposed operation will be located a sufficient distance from other mining operations so as not to create cumulative impacts to air quality. 11 F. Compatibility with Surrounding Land Uses 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. Garfield County Planning Staff The ULUR doesn't define "sufficient distance" therefore the BOCC will need to determine sufficient distance for this application. Air Cumulative impacts to the air will also be reviewed as part of this permit and will include the Cerise Mine and other dust emission sources (identified by CDPHE) within 10 kilometers of the proposed mine. According to CDPHE, the Cerise Mine cannot obtain a permit from them unless their air emissions meet all National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Traffic Cumulative traffic impacts from mining in the area are considered in the Traffic Analysis and will be considered in the CDOT Access Permit. This study indicates that with the implementation of the suggested improvements, acceptable operating levels of service will be achieved and maintained through the long term for all traffic movements at all intersections and the mining operation will not adversely impact the area street system. The traffic generated by the Powers Mine will cease with the opening of the Cerise Mine and 95% of the Blue Pit Mine traffic accesses onto SH 82. The other 5% of traffic from this mine uses CR 104 and CR 103 to enter and exit the site. Visual Staff recognizes that there will be a cumulative impact when both the Cerise and Blue Pit Mines are operating next to one another. Applicants of both mines have indicated that reclamation will occur as they mine. This proposal will occur at the later phases (Phases 3, 4A, and 4B Mining and Reclamation) of the Cerise Mine. The Cerise Mine shall also implement berming along the north perimeter of the site and house the aggregate processing plant at the bottom of the pit in order to reduce visual impacts. Applicant Air See Staff's statement above. Adjacent Mining Operations To analyze cumulative impacts of having two (2) mining operation adjacent to one another, the Applicant provided a Cumulative Impact Analysis Site Plan Maps. The purpose of this analysis is show the existing conditions how the Cerise and Blue Pit are projected to progress in relation to one another and impact the area. Phase 4A of the Cerise Mine is determined to be when both mining operations will be mining directly next each other. Traffic See Staff's statement above. 12 Visual A visual analysis from the surrounding area, including the Wooden Deer Subdivision was done (see Tab 15 of the application) to determine how to berm, screen, and buffer the mining site from surrounding parcels. Reclamation when mining will also reduce visual impacts to the surrounding area. Crustal Springs Coalition The Crystal Creek Coalition and neighbors within the area believe the cumulative impacts of the Cerise Mine operating adjacent to the Blue Pit will be potentially devastating to their quality of life. In an email received by David Myler, The Myler Law Firm, PC, dated June 23, 2011, states that the "...cumulative impacts can largely be avoided if the two (2) gravel mining operations are coordinated and phased such that the extent of mining activity occurring at any one item is reduced to the point where mitigation measures will be effective. The Coalition believes that there may be an opportunity to approach gravel mining in this area on a comprehensive basis, reducing the amount of mining occurring at any one time and employing effective mitigation, including monitoring of noise and dust." D. COPY OF THE BLUE PIT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Attached as Exhibit DDD. G. EXISTING TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT ASPHALT BATCH PLANTS Research by County Staff has found that there are three (3) existing permanent and no temporary asphalt batch plants located in Garfield County. The existing permanent asphalt plants are located at the Sievers, Mamm Creek, and Flagg Sand and Gravel Pits. Permanent asphalt batch plants are built to serve many projects unlike a temporary plant which is usually set up for a specific job. Ara moo 4.6,6 Silt Pit - Operator: Flag Resources lr Mamm Creek Sand S Grave) ° Operator: LaFarge Sievers Pit Operator: LaFarge Permanent Asphalt Batch Plants, Garfield County, CO ;►�Garfield County ieryw.n� o 4 3 1 - Y,•.! 0 13 EXHIBIT UkU Siting Issues for Gravel Mines and Asphalt Plants Subcommittee Report to the Thurston County Planning Commission Tom Cole, Chris Earle, Liz Kohlenberg, Scott Nelson - October 2009 Table of Contents 2 Introduction 2 Gravel Mines 2 Processes, Permitting and Regulations 2 Gravel Mines and the Natural Environment 4 Gravel Mines and Adjacent Land Uses 4 Reclamation Aspects 6 Asphalt Plants 6 Regulation and Permitting 6 Processing and Emission Control 7 Asphalt Plants and the Natural Environment 8 Asphalt Plants and Adjacent Land Uses 8 Odor Control Aspects of Asphalt Plants 9 Siting Standards for Gravel Mines and Asphalt Plants 11 Economic Aspects of Siting Criteria for Asphalt Plants 13 Literature Cited 14 Appendix 1 1 Introduction The Growth Management Act (GMA) requires that each county designate and conserve mineral lands. In so doing, counties must ensure that land uses adjacent to mineral lands do not interfere with mining and best management practices of mining. There is no GMA requirement that the county manage asphalt production. However, asphalt plants need gravel as a raw material, so the manufacturers prefer to locate asphalt plants on or near gravel mines. Thurston County has approximately 20 existing gravel mines. Together they hold enough gravel to support over 20 years of projected Thurston County development. Of those 20 mines, two have functioning asphalt plants. One of those plants, within Holroyd's gravel mine in the Nisqually Subarea, was opposed by the community, the County planning staff and the County Commisioners, because it was inconsistent with the Nisqually Subarea Plan. That plan had banned recycled asphalt as a permitted use, and that ban was upheld by the Hearing Examiner and the courts. However, because the plan had not specifically prohibited new asphalt plants, the new asphalt plant was permitted by the Hearing Examiner and the courts as an accessory use to a gravel mine. The possible impacts, siting issues and regulatory oversight for gravel mines and asphalt plants are quite different. Therefore, this report describes them separately. We cover first the possible impacts of gravel mines and their related siting issues, and second, the possible impacts of hot mix asphalt plants and those related siting issues. Gravel Mines Processes and Regulations Pit Mine Processes: There are two main forms of gravel mining open pit mines which remove gravel from the land, and mining from rivers. This report covers only pit mines; river mines do not occur in Thurston County and none are likely to be proposed due to the extreme permitting problems of development in such a sensitive environment. Pit mines remove vegetation and topsoil, dig a hole, sift gravel from dirt, sort the gravel into various sizes using sieves, store it in piles. Then the material is shipped to where it is needed, usually by truck, but also by train or barge. Finally the site is reclaimed as required by a DNR reclamation plan. Siting, Permitting and Regulatory Processes: With the passage of the 1993 Surface Mine Reclamation Act, responsibilities for regulation of gravel mining were divided as follows: • County and city governments issue permits for location and daily operation; 2 • the Department of Ecology (Ecology) issues permits for water quality and water resources hhp: / /apps.ecy.wa.gov/permithar-idbaok/permitdetail.asp?id=111) • Ecology and local clean -air agencies regulate air quality; • the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) issues reclamation permits; and • the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) environmental review process analyzes the direct impacts of all proposed mining -related permits. Gravel Mines and the Natural Environment Possible Impacts on Land Quality: Surface gravel mines have potentially substantial impacts on topography and soils of the sites where they are located - removing plant cover and topsoil, digging deeply beneath the surface, removing gravel, and altering contours. Gravel mines are generally expected to last a period of years to decades. However, eventually they are exhausted. During the permitting process prior to mine approval, the mining operators are required to file reclamation plans with DNR. These plans detail how the operators will return the site to some other useful condition when they have exhausted the mining capabilities, as detailed m the Reclamation section and Appendix 1. Gravel mines affect adjacent lands through the dust and sand which accumulates around them. They can also affect surrounding land through modifications of ground water and stream flows, as detailed in the Water Resources section. Land Relevant Siting Issues: It is important to site gravel mines away from areas where the land is unstable (such as steep or hazardous slopes, seismic zones, areas of subsidence, and other areas of soil instability). Potential Impacts on Water Resources and Quality: Gravel mines can alter ground water flows. In the area of the mine itself, they tend to concentrate ground water, and because they remove vegetation, which absorbs and deflects rain, they may contribute to increased peak flows in nearby streams, which can destabilize stream channels, degrade aquatic habitat, and contribute to downstream flooding. Gravel mining increases both dissolved and suspended solids in the aquifer, and in the streams and rivers fed by those aquifers, because it typically leads to increased erosion. "Mining activities typically begin by removal of the overburden to expose the desired material. Removing topsoil and disturbing the land surface has a number of consequences that increase the potential for adverse consequences to surface and ground water quality. Removing the vegetative cover and disturbing the sail makes the area more susceptible to erosion. Stormwater will readily suspend the exposed soil and carry it to nearby surface water. Sediment can be very harmful to the health of aquatic life and surface water bodies. Vegetation and soil also serve to protect ground water front pollutants. They provide filtration, chemical and physical reactions, and biological activity that often will reprove pollutants before they can enter ground water. 3 Therefore mining activities which remove vegetation and topsoil will typically slake underlying ground water more vulnerable to pollution." (Ecology Fact Sheet, page 4) Sand and gravel nines are required to adhere to conditions of a general water quality permit issued by Ecology. In order for the permit to be effective in protecting water quality, however, the operator must adhere to all conditions. In areas deemed critical or highly sensitive, Ecology recommends that sand and gravel mining not take place, since no process can be assumed to operate with complete adherence. Don Mead, of Thurston County Environmental Health, carried out a 1995 review of Ecology files. He documented 20 hydrocarbon spills in or near gravel mines around the state between 1987 and 1992. Many of these appear to be associated with underground storage tanks or poor housekeeping practices within the plants. He concluded that "excavating above the water table with no associated activities such as vehicle maintenance or asphalt batch plants causes a relatively low risk to ground water quality and quantity." However, he stated that mining below the water table, or in conjunction with an asphalt plant, causes greater risks. King County, in their Best Available Science review for their critical area ordinance, documented the possible loss of ground water due to breach of an aquifer plug or site water consumption. In October 1993, mining activities at the High Rock gravel mine near Monroe Washington caused a loss of water supply due to a breach of the aquifer plug (Garland and Liszak 1995). Water Siting Issues: Ecology recommends not permitting gravel mining in critical areas such as flood plains or areas of coastal flooding, and locating mines away from wetlands, aquifer recharge areas, or groundwater wells providing water for domestic purposes. Buffer around streams and rivers, Possible Impacts on Plant and Animal Habitats: Gravel mines can Lead to sedimentation in nearby surface waters, which can be detrimental to fish spawning and rearing habitat. Siting Issues to Consider: Streams and associated wildlife habitat (riparian habitat) should be protected by a buffer. Buffer critical or endangered species habitat, natural area preserves, or wildlife refuges. Gravel Mines and Adjacent Land Uses Possible Impacts: Truck traffic causes an increase in traffic, noise, and dust affecting residential and recreational uses, as well as placing stress on roadways, increasing maintenance/repair needs. Siting Issues to Consider: Distance to residential areas, buffers to separate mining from other land uses. and from recreational use areas. Road impacts (heavy trucks). Consider similarities to other industrial uses. 4 Reclamation Aspects of Gravel Mining There is a concern that undesirable environmental or economic consequences may arise when gravel mines reach the end of their useful life. Foreseeable consequences of pit abandonment include erosion; proliferation of undesirable vegetation; nuisance and hazard posed by the excavation, which may contain water; and abandonment of equipment and trash. Additional, unforeseeable adverse impacts could occur if the abandoned pit were not reclaimed to a condition consistent with other land uses in the area, chiefly, rural uses for grazing and/or forestry. Brief Review of Facts All mines are subject to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). Water quality, discharges, and withdrawal and hazardous waste management related to mining operations are regulated by the Ecology,. The DNR regulates the reclamation of non -coal surface mines in Washington. The Surface Mining Act requires a permit for each mine that: (1) results in more than 3 acres of mine -related disturbance, or (2) has a high -wall that is both higher than 30 feet and steeper than 45 degrees (chapter 78.44 Revised Code of Washington [RCWI, chapter 33248 Washington Administrative Code [WAC]), DNR is responsible for ensuring that reclamation follows completion of surface and underground mining. DNR has exclusive authority to regulate mine reclamation and approve reclamation plans. A reclamation plan is required for each surface mine. Mandatory features of the plan include: • what the topography, vegetation and drainage for the site will be following mining; • a sequence of mining and reclamation that will avoid unnecessary earth -moving; • the economic limit of mining for the site based on the area available for mining and the grade of the mineral deposit; • how the mine permit -holder will achieve acceptable reclamation, the equipment necessary and how much it will cost; • how environmental impacts will be mitigated; • maps and cross sections must be includedi; and • the surface mine operator must post a security bond based on the projected costs of reclamation. A typical reclamation plan includes maps showing: 1) pre -mining topography; 2) reclamation sequence map showing the direction, extent and mining boundaries as well as designated areas for setbacks, buffers and storage areas for topsoil and overburden; and 3) final reclamation map showing the final elevations, contours, drainage, slopes, roads and other features of the site following reclamation. 5 Reclamation of the mine site must meet or exceed the minimum reclamation standards required by the Surface Mining Act. A reclamation plan should be simple, practical and easy to implement. The final land surface will have natural contours that blend with the surrounding topography. Local governments must formally approve mine sites and/or the subsequent use of the mine site (RCW 78.44.091) prior to issuance of a reclamation permit. This approval process generally makes local jurisdictions the lead agency according to State Environmental Policy Act (SETA) rules (chapter 43.21C RCW). DNR's surface mining reclamation program is fully set forth at: http:/ / www.dru•.wa. goy/ BusinessPe rmi ts/Topics/ MiningEnergyResourceReguladon /Pages/smr.aspx. As of 2006, there were approximately 20 sand and gravel reclamation sites in Thurston County (map on the above web site). Mining regulations in Washington are detailed by Norman (2000). Those regulations were given a detailed review in 2006 (Surface Mine Reclamation Advisory Committee 2006), and the recommendations of the Committee reflect areas where local regulation may serve to strengthen the regulation of surface mining. Relevant recommendations of the Committee include: • DNR should have authority to immediately stop any of the following four violations without first seeking judicial enforcement: a. Mining outside of any authorized permit boundary (whether mining without a permit, or permitted but mining outside of a permit boundary); b. Violations causing immediate danger to environment or to public's health, safety, or welfare; c. Unauthorized removal of topsoil from the permitted site; or d. Violation of a final DNR order. • DNR should have statutory right of entry authority for: a. Reclamation when authorized under the Act, Rules, or Permit; and b. Compliance inspections. • Judicial warrant authority should be granted where access is denied or probable cause for a violation exists. • DNR should not delegate enforcement authority to local governments at this time. (The committee is not recommending that the legislature remove delegation authority from the Act.) • Clarification of the roles and responsibilities of local government and DNR should be discussed and pursued. It is noteworthy that these recommendations reflect a concern over the limitations on DNR enforcement authority under the Surface Mining Act. It appears that existing, recognized shortcomings in the Act contribute to the potential for violations that threaten the natural environment and public safety, and it is appropriate to enact local regulation that addresses these shortcomings. 6 Relevance of Facts to Siting Criteria It appears that existing reclamation standards established under the Surface Mining Act, coupled with opportunities for local review and conditioning of individual permit applications provided under SEPA, are sufficient to assure high confidence that mines are planned and permitted in a manner that protects local jurisdictional concerns, specifically including concerns about environmental protection and safety in connection with the reclaimed mine facility. There remain concerns about enforcement of existing regulation, and collaboration between the County and DNR is appropriate in efforts to resolve those concerns. Asphalt Plants Regulation and Permitting Processes Under the current law, responsibilities are divided as follows: • County and city governments issue permits for location and daily operation; • Ecology issues permits for water quality and water resources; ■ Ecology and local clean -air agencies regulate air quality; and • the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) environmental review process analyzes the cumulative impacts of all mining -related permits Processing and Emission Control "The asphalt drum mix process involves the grading and storing of various rocks and sands for mixing and conveying to a rotary kiln for heating and additional nixing. As the heated product leaves the kiln, it is combined with refined petroleum to form the finished product. This material is then conveyed to large overhead hopper pins for storage prior to being loaded into delivery trucks. The most connrton toxic emissions front asphalt concrete plants are from acetaldehyde, acetone, benzene, ethyl benzene, formaldehyde, toluene, and xylene. The most contnton emission control system at these plants is a baghouse and a wet scrubber. Exhaust gases from the process are manifolded through a wet scrubber to remove the particulates before being vented to the atmosphere from a circular or rectangular exhaust stack." (Washington State Dept of Ecology, 1998). Asphalt Plants and the Natural Environment Land Environmental Issues with Asphalt Plants: Hot mix asphalt plants can result in spills, leaks or emissions from chemicals used in the asphalt manufacturing process or absorbed through prior uses of recycled asphalt. Spills and leaks can occur which occur either through some sort of natural disaster, improper storage of materials, or human error in the manufacturing, transporting and storage processes. Emissions occur if the 7 equipment used to contain them does not function properly, which happens even in the best of plants. Recycled asphalt will contain unknown chemical contaminants through its prior uses. Siting Issues: Reduce risk of natural disasters through avoiding land -defined critical areas -- particularly steep and hazardous, slide -prone slopes, seismic zones, areas of subsidence, and other areas of soil instability. Possible Impacts on Air Quality: During manufacturing, asphalt plants may emit significant levels of both particulate matter and gaseous volatile organic compounds (VOCS). These pollutants are considered detrimental to human health (some are suspected carcinogens). The most significant ducted source of emissions in an asphalt plant is the mixer. Storage piles and transport may also emit pollutants. While these pollutants can be minimized by technology and proper emission control systems at the plant, and by requiring periodic inspection and reporting, such technology is by no means perfect. Where it fails, or human operators make errors, plumes of gases that are not fully cleaned are released, even from "state of the art" plants. Siting Issues: Distance to vulnerable residents who would be harmed. Distance to residential areas is also relevant because of the odor which the plants can create. Possible Impacts of Asphalt Plants on Water Quality: Asphalt plants can contaminate ground water through spills and leads of chemicals. This contaminated ground water could then travel to other lakes and rivers. The common co -location between gravel mines and asphalt plants adds to the possible ground water contamination. "Batch plants are often located in conjunction with gravel mining operations. This increases the potential for pollutants to affect underlying ground water. Trucks, loaders and other equipment are common on site. Spills and Ieaks front associated equipment in the manufacturing and delivery process pose a significant potential to contaminate waters of the state. In addition to good housekeeping and best management practices to minimize spills and leaks, facilities often channel storrnwater to avoid contamination or remove oil by skimming it off the surface or through use of oil/water separators." (Department of Ecology Fact Sheet, 2005, page 6) Siting Issues: Do not site asphalt plants in flood plains. Locate away from areas that slide or that are subject to coastal flooding. Locate away from wetlands, and aquifer recharge areas. Site away from ground water intake for domestic purposes. Possible Impacts of Asphalt Plants on Plant and Animal Habitat: Asphalt plants can contaminate habitat through spills and leakage of chemicals. 8 Siting Issues to Consider: Locate away from critical or endangered species habitats, state/federal natural area preserves, and state/federalwildlife refuges. Asphalt Plants and Adjacent Land Uses Possible Impacts: Odor. Air pollution. Added truck traffic if "recycled" asphalt is permitted. Siting Issues to Consider: Distance to residential areas, "buffers" from other land uses through setbacks. Odor Control Aspects of Asphalt Plants The odor from asphalt plants has periodically become an emotional issue for Thurston County residents living, working, or recreating in the vicinity of these plants. Therefore, the key issue is what should be the required minim -um distance of the plants from residential communities and certain specified public facilities. Brief Review of Facts: In past years asphalt plants have caused unacceptable odor conditions to nearby residents and individuals working or recreating in certain public facilities. Without question, new technologies and improved business practices are now capable of reducing the adverse impacts of odors. The Olympic Region Clean Air Agency (ORCAA) has set specific odor control standards and reviews all permits for new asphalt plants. However, no processes are perfect. Even the newest asphalt plant in Thurston County has released plumes of pollution and odor upon several occasions. Relevance of Facts to Siting Criteria: Although the Thurston County request for information from ORCAA has yet to be received, existing odor control standards are in place. However, there are no specific offset distance standards set by ORCAA, and there will always be fumes associated with asphalt production. Weather inversions and wind conditions are of course not predictable, but it appears that some of the offset distances recommended by the Asphalt Advisory Task Force are not adequate to protect residents from air pollution or odor. Siting Standards for Gravel Mines and Asphalt Plants The table below summarizes siting standards suggested or codified in several documents, including: • the mineral mining designations of nearby counties (King, Pierce, Snohomish and Kitsap). Generally these ordinances do not cover asphalt plants explicitly. • Our Thurston County draft critical areas ordinances for both gravel and asphalt plants. These are incomplete, because at some point in drafting the critical areas ordinances, we decided to suspend review of mining issues until we had heard from the task forces. 9 • For asphalt plants, we have included, in addition to our draft critical area ordinances, siting criteria from Washington State Administrative Code (WAC 173-303-282) for incinerating waste management facilities, which like asphalt plants can impact groundwater, air quality and the land itself, and which, like asphalt plants, can be mitigated but not perfected by good management. The WAC does not apply directly to asphalt plants, but it does apply to incinerated waste management plans, which have similar management and siting issues. The rows in the table specify land uses in which mining or asphalt plant operations are to be permitted, or not permitted, either on the site or adjacent to it. If the cell is blank, that means that particular land use was not addressed in the gravel mining ordinances from those counties. If it says "yes", it was included. If it says "no", the land uses were found incompatible. The county ordinances vary in their approaches to the designation/permitting process. Some ordinances handle most environmental or hazard issues at the permitting stage, through the SEPA and other processes. If those issues were cited in the ordinance, they are listed as "handled during permitting." Others counties remove certain kinds of areas - for example, urban uses or historic sites, or flood plains -- at the beginning stages of the designation, by removing certain types of overlay land uses from the beginning mineral overlay map. Most counties are adding notification of the fact that the new mineral overlay district is a "mining district" or "mineral" district on plats and titles. Notification is required within 500 feet of a resource parcel (RCW 36.70A.060 (1) (b). This would of course have an impact on land values, at least for residential land uses. For example: "This property lies within an area of land designated Mineral Resource Lands by Pierce County. A variety of mineral resource extraction activities occurs in the area that may be inconvenient or cause discomfort to area residents. This may arise from the use of chemicals and extractions of minerals which occasionally generates dust, smoke, noise and odor. Pierce County has established Mineral Resource Lands, and residents of adjacent property should be prepared to accept such inconveniences or discomfort from normal, necessary mineral extraction lands. An application might be made for mining- related activities, including raining, extraction, washing, crushing, stockpiling, blasting, transporting and recycling of minerals." (Pierce County Ordinance). 10 Table 1: Siting Standards 11 Open Pit Gravel Mines Asphalt Plants Land Use or Siting Issue King Pierce Snohomish Kitsap districts Draft CAO Mining or adjacent) Draft CAO Asphalt WAC 173 -303 - 282 "incineration" Land Use Compatibilities (okay in these Forest Districts yes yes Open Space yes Yes Natural Areas 500 feet Rural Industrial Yes yes Other Mining yes Subarea plans that specify no mining no Agricultural Land Uses PrimeAg Soils, Ag districts no no no 500 feet Commercial Farmland no No - but yes for adjacent Land Stability Impact Issues Hazardous or steep slope Addressed during permitting no no no Marine bluff Addressed during permitting no no Erosion and subsidence yes no Volcanic seismic areas yes 500 feet from a fault Water Impact Issues Shorelines 110 no I no 110 no 500 feet 100 yr Flood Plain no no no no no 500 yr Flood plain no Acquifer Recharge Areas Addressed during permitting Addressed during permitting No in 1, 5 & 10 year No in 1 yes in 5 and 10 Not over sole source acquifer, 500 feet from groundwater protection areas Rivers, lakes, ponds, streams Addressed during permitting Addressed during permitting no no 500 feet from perennial water bodies Channel Migration Zone no no no High Ground Water Hazard Addressed during permitting no no no 11 Economic Impacts of Siting Criteria for Asphalt Plants Personal use: The average Washington resident uses 12-14 tons of aggregate, 1.3 cubic yards of concrete, and 1.25 tons of asphalt per year. The average 2,000 square foot home in Western Washington uses almost 210 tons of aggregate in driveways, foundations, sidewalks, base materials, and streets. A mile of county road will contain about 4,600 tons of aggregate.(http://www.washingtonconcrete.org/14/fun-facts.html). Thus the residents of Thurston County have a clear need for the materials provided by gravel mines and asphalt plants for private and public uses, such as buildings, roads, trails, and others. 12 Open Pit Gravel Mines Asphalt Plants Land Use or Siting Issue King Pierce Snohomish Kitsap Draft CAO Mining Draft CAO Asphalt WAC 173 -303 - 282 incineration" _ Coastal flooding areas no no no Wetlands Addressed during permitting Addressed during perrnitting 500 feet Wildlife Habitat Protection Wildlife Habitat protection areas Addressed during permitting Not within 300 feet of Chinook/trout corridors. Others addressed during permitting 500 feet from critical wildlife habitat, natural areas and wildlife refuges Urban Land Uses, Residential Densities, Public Facilities, Historical Sites and Traffic Safety and Roads Residential Densities 10-20 houses per acre ok. Urban Area no No or UGAs Public facilities e.g. cemeteries, schools, Iibraries, parks, trails, hospitals no % mile from public gathering places Historic or archeological no no Size of setback within the site, distance from residences. t/2 mile from actualIeSEdenCe5. 200 feet from own property line, Roadway adequacy and safety Addressed during permitting Addressed during permitting - Economic Impacts of Siting Criteria for Asphalt Plants Personal use: The average Washington resident uses 12-14 tons of aggregate, 1.3 cubic yards of concrete, and 1.25 tons of asphalt per year. The average 2,000 square foot home in Western Washington uses almost 210 tons of aggregate in driveways, foundations, sidewalks, base materials, and streets. A mile of county road will contain about 4,600 tons of aggregate.(http://www.washingtonconcrete.org/14/fun-facts.html). Thus the residents of Thurston County have a clear need for the materials provided by gravel mines and asphalt plants for private and public uses, such as buildings, roads, trails, and others. 12 Moving an Asphalt Plant: One of the recommendations of the Asphalt Advisory Task Force (http://www.co.thurston.wa.us/permitting/asphalt-advisory-task- force/ docs/ AATF-final-report of-recommendations.pdf) is to only allow asphalt plants to import gravel from a "nearby" mine. (nearby is'/z-1 mile) This would require major investments to be made to move mines. The cost of moving a plant would be about one million dollars; this would not include other costs. Other costs may be • Permits - federal, state, and local • Site Prep - electricity, propane/gas, grading • Upgrades -- improvements to actual plant • Legal Expenses - to get permits, fight opposition The purchase price of a new asphalt plant is about $3.5 million, plus about $500,000 to set up the plant (Source, personal communication, ). Recycled Asphalt Product (RAP) Cost of hauling used product Many projects require the removal of old asphalt. If asphalt is to be hauled from the jobsite to the plant, those trucks can be used hauling material both ways. If a plant is not allowed to use the recycled asphalt, that material must be hauled to a different site (usually a landfill). This would most likely require trucks hauling old material away from the jobsite while other trucks haul the new material in. This adds overall truck traffic to our roads, and requires the trucks to run one way empty, reducing efficiency. (Note, however, that recycled asphalt leads to more truck traffic around the asphalt plant itself).. Cost of hauling excess product: Asphalt plants that can't recycle asphalt must move excess product off site. Cost of covering RAP: Covering a limited supply of RAP is economically feasible and sensible. Dry RAP requires less heat to mix, since not as much heat would be used to dry the product. Covering all RAP on site in a roofed building would be costly, as the size of the structure would be cost prohibitive. Buildings with an eave of up to16` are conventional size and cost is based mostly on total square footage. As the height of the eaves goes above 16' the cost rises much faster. Also a 30'to 40' building without walls would do little to protect the RAP from rain when the wind is blowing. As the RAP is required to be in an area that will contain runoff, the industry has suggested using a tarp or small building to contain enough material for the short term could provide the same benefit as a larger more expensive building. However, such covering would not protect against the environmental impacts of recycled asphalt, which include the leaching of pollutants from the asphalt pile into the ground water and then into nearby streams. 13 Citations Garland D & Liszak J 1995. "The High Rock Aquifer Break of October 1993. Washington State Department of Ecology, NWRO Technical Memorandum, December. Norman, D. K. 2000. Mining regulations in Washington. Washington Division of Geology and Earth Resources Open File Report 2000-3. Available: http:/ /www.dnr.wa.gov/Publications/ ger_ofr2000-3_rining_regulations.pdf. Accessed September 23, 2009. Surface Mine Reclamation Advisory Committee. 2006. Report to the Legislature of the State of Washington: Recommendations Regarding the Administration of the Surface Mine Reclamation Act, Chapter 78.44 RCW. Washington Department of Natural Resources. Available: http://www.dnr.wa.gov/Publications/ger_leg_report 6175_smra_200609.pdf. Accessed September 23, 2009. Washington State Dept of Ecology,1998. Washington State Air Toxic Sources and Emission Estimation Methods (Ecology: Olympia WA) Document # 98-207. http:/ /www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/air/pdfs/asphalt3.pdf Washington State Department of Ecology, 2005. Fact Sheet Sand and Gravel General Permit. h www.e wa. ' ov ro • rams w sand SandandGravelFactSheet2005.pelf. WAC 173-303-282. Siting Criteria for Dangerous Waste Management Facilities. 14 APPENDIX 1: Article from Division of Geology and Earth Resources Newsletter on Regulation and Mining Website: http://www.dnr.wa.gav/geology/ Vol. 4, No. 2, Summer 2007 Surface mines in. Washington—Who Regulates What? The world as we know it couldn't exist without mines. There would be no roads and high-rise buildings. There would be no pots and pans. No cars and computers. As necessary as mines are, they face a major obstacle: nobody wants a mine in their backyard, especially an open gravel pit accompanied by dust, industrial clamor, busy truck traffic, and a gaping hole in the landscape. The resulting regulation of this complicated economic and environmental issue has created frequent confusion, not only with the miners, but also with the government agencies that monitor them. The Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR) plays a significant role in regulation of Washington's 1100 mines. Under the state's 1971 Surface Mining Act, the DNR was responsible for regulating all mining operations and subsequent reclamation efforts. But under the more comprehensive 1993 Surface Mine Reclamation Act and the Metal Mining and Milling Act, DNR's role narrowed to issuing permits and regulating reclamation. DGER's role in the regulation of surface mines is explained at http://www.dnr.wa.govigeologyiminerecl.htm. Network of Agencies Responsible With the passage of the 1993 mining law, the state legislature faced the growing conflict, with the state's booming population stretching to rural areas where gravel pits once operated in seclusion. DNR, the Department of Ecology (DOE), county governments, and some cities regulate mines. Other agencies can be involved in peripheral aspects of mine operation, such as the Department of Labor and Industries oversight of mine safety. Under the current mining law, the responsibilities are divided as follows: • County and city governments issue permits for location and daily operation • DOE issues permits for water quality and water resources • DOE and local clean -air agencies regulate air quality • Department of Natural Resources issues reclamation permits • The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) environmental review process analyzes the cumulative impacts of all mining -related permits 15 If residents miss the opportunity to register concerns over proposed mining permits during earlier city/county, DOE, and DNR hearings, they can always comment during the SEPA review process. For more detailed information on mining regulations,see http://www.dnr.wa.gov/geology/pdf/ ofr00-3.pdf and http://www.ora.wa.gov/permithelp/default.asp. Even though many of DNR's responsibilities were shifted to DOE and local governments, DNR's workload did not diminish. Under the law, DNR examines the permits of every mine in the state to assure that adequate plans are made for reclamation. (The law defines 'mines' as larger than 3 acres of disturbed ground and/or a high wall higher than 30 feet and steeper than 45°.) Mining Still a Contentious Issue Mining remains a contentious issue as the public and mine operators try to navigate through the network of government agencies and the current requirements. "Most miners are conscientious business people who want a viable business with a good reputation," said mine inspector Chris Johnson. There is confusion over which agency is regulating which requirement. Who makes determinations? Who should hear the complaints or answer questions? "Local governments regulate mine operations—including blasting, grading, noise, and traffic. DOE monitors water quality and water resources and, in some counties without a clean -air agency, air quality. DNR inspects mines to make sure they are following their reclamation plan," Chris said. In another common misunderstanding of government roles, buyers of new homes are upset over the close proximity of their housing development to an established mine with 100- to 200 -foot cliffs. "Mines are long-term operations," Chris said. "One quarry in Clark County has been operating for more than 100 years. Mines are expected to last at Least 50 years." The Growth Management Act encourages local governments to preserve these much- needed resources by locating housing developments far enough away from active mines, through proper zoning and setbacks, that they may peacefully coexist until the mine is exhausted. Material for Infrastructure Washington's most common mines are gravel surface mines that yield gravel, sand, and rock—not coal mines, which are regulated by the federal government, 16 "Washington has outstripped itself. The state needs to build infrastructure, such as roads and buildings," Chris said. "It needs rock. So the delicate balance is to allow surface mines near enough to urban areas to keep down the hauling costs." Another little-known fact is that the state's own Department of Transportation operates more mines—for building roads— than any other mining operation. "Whenever possible, DNR's inspectors work with officials of other agencies to provide seamless monitoring and regulation," Chris said. What Constitutes Reclamation? A surface mine drastically and permanently alters a landscape's soil and topography. Mine owners are not required to 'fill in' a completed mine, which would be economically prohibitive. "The word 'reclamation' doesn't imply 'restoration'," said Chris. "You could never return an area back to its natural and original condition. In nearly all cases, a large hole is left. Our job is to make sure that it has stable slopes, and the land is returned to a beneficial second use." Plans may call for a golf course (Fig. 1) or a business park. Old mining sites have been converted to excellent fishing lakes, which can be used for recreation or wildlife habitat. But gravel pits are not merely filled with water to make a lake. They are modified with variable depths and meandering shorelines to approximate the terrain of natural lakes to maximize habitat. To ease public tensions over a mine operation, many operators 'segment' their mines into multiple phases of excavation and reclaiming (Fig. 2). Each section is treated like a separate mine: ruined and reclaimed before another section begins. This keeps mined areas small with reclamation ongoing at the same time, rather than sustaining a large pit. Living with Surface Mines Chris believes that many gravel pit problems can be solved through county zoning ordinances. DNR can help with this process by providing mapping and GIS data. "Counties need accurate maps which locate mineral resources and show where they need to dig for minerals. Proper zoning will help protect other resources and home buyers from the problems of living near a quarry." 17 133.1 — 1=3 I—, rn cl t-] r r r1 3-1 t-1 S 1! n 1 !r 11 11 I 11 1 1 1 I 1 1.,3 0. 11 p1 a r 13 ASPHAri^ PLANT POLLUTION J� I MEG ao= =A =El a= =a 1. C.a -.. P® ® =A [ ! MED EMU YO W k—_kaa t— =1 Cr3 FSI —J C 7 =A Cad MMi MM. s a= a,, 1J — 'M W — Asphalt plants mix gravel and sand with crude oil derivatives to make the asphalt used to pave roads, highways, and parking lots across the U.S. these plants release millions of pounds of chemicals to the air during production each year, including many cancer-causing toxic air pollutants such as arsenic, benzene, formaldehyde, and cadmium. Other toxic chemicals are released into the air as the asphalt is loaded into trucks and hauled from the plant site, including volatile organic compounds, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAI Is), and very fine condensed particulatcs4EPA] • Asphalt Fumes are Known Toxins. The federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) states "Asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing facilities are major sources of hazardous air pollutants such as formaldehyde, hexane, phenol, polycyclic organic matter, and toluene. Exposure to these air toxics may cause cancer, central nervous system pmhlems, liver damage, respiratory problems and skin irritation." [EPA]. According to one health agency, asphalt futnes contain substances known to cause cancer, can cause coughing, wheezing or shortness of breath, severe irritation of the skin, headaches, dizziness, and nausea. [NJDHSS] Animal studies show PAHs affect reproduction, cause birth defects and are harmful to the immune system. [NJDHSS] The US Department of Health and Hannan Services has determined that PAHs may be carcinogenic to humans. [DIMS] • Health Impacts & Loss of Property Value. The Blue Ridge Environnnental Defense League (BREDL), a regional environmental organization, has done two studies on the adverse impacts on property values and health for residents living near asphalt plants. ,A property value study documented losses of up to 56% because of the presence of a nearby asphalt plant. In another study, nearly half of the residents reported negative impacts on their health from a new asphalt plant. The door-to-door health survey found 45% of residents living within a half mile of the plant reported a deterioration of their health, which began after the plant opened. The most frequent health problems cited were high blood pressure (18% of people surveyed), sinus problems (18%), headaches (14%), and shortness of breath (9%). [BREDI.] ■ Flawed Tests Underestimate Health Risks. In addition to smokestack emissions, large anuaunts of harmful "fugitive emissions" are released as the asphalt is moved around in trucks and conveyor belts, and is stored in stockpiles. A small asphalt plant producing 100 thousand tons of asphalt a year may release up to 50 tons of toxic fugitive emissions into the air. [Dr. R. Nadkarni] Stagnant air and local weather patterns often increase the level of exposure to local communities. In fact, most asphalt plants are not even tested for toxic emissions. The amounts of these pollutants that are released from a facility are cstianatcd by computers and mathematical formulas rather than by actual stack testing, estimates that experts agree do not accurately predict the amount of toxic fugitive emissions released and the risks they pose. According to Dr. Luanne Williams, a North Carolina state toxicologist, 40% of the toxins from asphalt plant smokestacks even meet air quality standards—and for the other 60% of these emissions, the state lacks sufficient data to determine safe levels. BE SAFE: Take Precautionary Action to Protect Our Communities from Asphalt Plant Air Pollution -- C._ A 1=11i[.�l l—.1 L-1 1 _•1 C 1 ,a C-1 LL2 C 1 BE SAFE's FOUR PRINCIPLES 1. HEED EARLY WARNING SIGNS There is documented evidence from health experts and federal and state regulators of the serious health effects of asphalt plant emissions. We must heed these early warning signs and take action to prevent communities from further exposure to cancer-causing substances released by asphalt plants. The following actions are needed: Moratoriums on asphalt plant construction and operation in communities where people live and go to school; Stricter testing and enforcement of air quality standards at asphalt plants; and Improved air standards that address all toxic contaminants—including fugitive emissions. 2. PUT SAFETY FIRST Even if an asphalt plant meets all state and federal air pollution standards, people living nearby are still exposed to cancer-causing substances that can cause long-term damage. These standards are based on the principle of "acceptable risk", and assume each state will enforce the standards, the plants will operate perfectly, and the owners can be trusted to operate on an honor system where they arc expected to follow all the laws and regulations that apply to their facility without any government oversight. In the majority of cases, it is unknown whether the `theoretical' air emissions predicted by computer models and used by plant owners accurately reflect air emissions from a plant's daily operations. We must put safety first and shut down or overhaul the current system that fails to protect communities from the daily health hazards of asphalt plant pollution. 3. EXERCISE DEMOCRACY Federal regulations based on the "acceptahlc risk" model and self-regulating honor systems are inadequate to protect public health. Many states rely on inadequate federal standards that do not take into account local factors such as how close an industrial facility is to homes and schools, local weather patterns, and additional `nuisance' factors such as the effect acrid and nauseating smells have on the quality of life in these communities. Organizations are working to improve federal and state standards and add asphalt plant fumes to the hazardous air pollutant (I -IAF) list under the federal Clean Air Act. Communities can take advantage of any state laws aimed at protecting local values that allow counties to determine zvh.ere new industrial facilities will be located. These communities can band together to work with their county governments to prevent new asphalt plants from being located in their neighborhoods and prevent existing plants from renewing their perrnits until further evaluation of public health risks are conducted. BE SAFE is coordinated by the Center for Health, Environment & Justice.To sign the platform or for more information, contact us at CHEZ, P.U. Box 6806, Falls Church, VA 22040, 703-237-2249, or 518-732-4538, or visit www.besafenet.com MEI ti=ak— Ircol MEIN ISM EMI =II [I RE SAFE Pia tform In the 21st century, we envision a world in which our food, water and air are clean, and ow• children grow up healthy and thrive. Everyone needs a protected, safe community and workplace, and natural environment to enjoy. We can ',rake this world vision a reality. The tools we bring to this work are prevention, safety, responsibility and democracy. Ow- goal is to prevent pollution cud environmental destruction before it happens. We support this precautionary approach because it is preventive medicine for our environment and health. It makes sense to: • Prevent pollution and ,make polluters, not taxpayers, pay and assume responsibility for the damage they cause; m Protect our children from chemical and radioactive exposures to avoid illness and st ffering; n Promote use of safe, renewable, non-toxic technologies; I Provide a natural environment we can all enjoy with clean ah; swimmable, fishable water and stewardship for our national forests. . We choose a "better safe than sorry" approach, motivated by caution and prevention. We endorse the common-sense approach outlined in the BE SAFE'S four principles listed below. Plait-FormPlait-Form Rei i. les HEED EARLY WARNINGS Government and industry have a duty to prevent harm, when there is credible evidence that harm is occurring or is likely to occur -even when the exact nature and full magnitude of harm is not yet proven. PUT SAFETY FIRST Industry and government have a responsibility to thoroughly study the potential for harm from a new chemical or technology before it is used—rather than assume it is harmless until proven otherwise. We need to ensure it is safe now, or we will be sorry later. Research on impacts to workers and the public needs to be confirmed by independent third parties. EXERCISE DEMOCRACY Precautionary decisions place the highest priority on protecting health and the environment, and help develop cleaner technologies and industries with effective safeguards and enforcement. Government and industry decisions should be based. on meaningful citizen input and mutual respect (tae golden rule), with the highest regard for those whose health may be affected and for our irreplaceable natural resources—not for those with financial interests. Uncompromised science should inform public policy.. CHOOSE THE SAFEST SOLUTION Decision-making by government, industry and individuals must include an evaluation of alternatives, and the choice of the safest, technically feasible solutions. We support innovation and promotion of technologies and solutions that create a healthy environment and economy, and protect our natural resources. Mr•-IF.w wrw-Ar Take precautionary action to prevent asphalt plant pollution. Sign onto the BE SAFE Platform. Be counted when we deliver this national platform to the White House in 2005. Endorse the platform today at www besafenet.conn BE SAFE is coordinated by the Center for Health, Environment & Justice. To sign the platform or for more information, contact us at CHEJ, P.O. Box 6806, Falls Church, VA 22040, 703-237-2249, or 518-732-4538, or visit www.besafenet.com 1=1 sL--J c_J yr F=, r"_1 rta rr-] L'f r .iC .1 rr 11 ,1 -1, -el. �i 11_11, el It rt ti ,r it ar ,l 10 ,r. !l CHOOSE THE' SAkil.EST SOLUTIONS Communities faced with an asphalt plant proposal should push for setbacks from residences and community buildings, site specific health -based air pollution modeling and monitoring, enclosures for Loading zones, and preferably a zero emissions asphalt plant, with total containment of air pollutants. • Investigate Pollution in Your Area. To find out more about asphalt plant pollution in your area, go to www.scorecard.org o 3oin the Clean Air Campaign. Support the campaign on asphalt plant pollution. To find out more, contact the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League at www.bredl.org. • BE SAFE. Take precautionary action to prevent asphalt plant pollution. Sign on to the BE SAFE Platform on the next page. Be counted when we deliver this national Platform to the White House in 2005. Endorse the BE SAE Platform today at wwbesafenet.com. • Your Vote Counts. The next election will set the country's course on asphalt plant regulations. For information on environmental voting records, contact wwev sierraclub.org and www.Iev org To register to vote, contact www.ea rthdaynet 1 r. , r J r e r, , , l -r r fl . l Clean Aon' Campaign Halts Asphalt Pollution & Improves Air Policies Nothing could have prepared us for the horrors of that plant; we cannot be outside when it operates, we are prisoners." Jerry Starr, Macon County, NC Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League (BREDL) has been leading a Clean Air Campaign to reduce toxic pollution from asphalt plants in North Carolina. In partnership with many community groups, BREDL defeated numerous asphalt plant proposals, spearheaded a trend of countywide moratoriums on asphalt plant construction and operation, and mounted plant permit challenges. The campaigns included radio ads, posted yard signs, newspaper display ads, and stories in local newspapers. BREDL and the Clean Air Campaign have succeeded in reducing asphalt pollution and improving air quality policies. North Carolina and Tennessee signed an agreement to protect air quality in the Great Smoky Mountain. National Park and other wilderness areas. North Carolina has improved methods to analyze fugitive toxic air emissions and expanded the Toxic Air Pollutant program to include all operating and proposed asphalt plants. Cal ru c. w kyr .1= W -ti LGE1 126a M IILLJ 0 =-. f,_=1 OA 0E0 air (A1 L MIS d 1t:ieferences: US EPA Office of Ah- Quality Planning & Standards, AP -42, Fifth Edition, Volume I, Chapter 11: Mineral Products Industry, [EPA] http:llww►w.epa.govlttnfchief/ap421chinfival/clIs01.pdf. Final Rule to Reduce Toxic Air Emissions From Asphalt Processing & Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing Facilities, Environmental Protection Agency, June 2000 [EPA]. Hazardous Substance Fact Sheet, Asphalt Fumes. New Jersey Department of Health and Senior Services, January 200 t [NJDHSS]. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 1995. Toxicological Profile for Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs). Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service[DHHS]. Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League Asphalt Health Survey, [BREDL]. Dr. R. Nadkarni developed mass balance equation to estimate total fugitive emissions and his comments to Virginia Dept. of Environmental Quality are at Ivww.bredl.org/pdf/DEQ072503.pdf. [Dr R. Nadkarni]. Primacy Contributor-: Lou Zeller; Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League. 1 L Garfield Countj Board of County Commissioners Mike Samson Tom Jankovsky John Martin 4/27/11 Commissioners, EXHIBIT ti I am the property owner of 0483 County Road 112 and have 40 acres of land that has been in my family for over 25+ years. 1 grew up and now own this land and have seen the valley change in many ways. Expanding both of the proposed pits without regard to the local environment and those who live and plan to live in the valley for the years ahead seems at odds with the very nature of the beautiful area 1 am proud to call home. Specifically 1 am concerned with the following: the pits are not being considered in conjunction with one another, wildlife will clearly be impacted in and adverse way, truck traffic will increase on 82 and 103 making the turn onto 82 more dangerous than it already is, and the noise and dust pollution from the pits which is already an issue for those of us living in the area will only get worse most likely dramatically so. 1 urge you to please protect the area from the expansion of both of these Pits. If you need to contact me please email at these address pburke@sopris.net, my cell phone is 917-488- 9221, and my mailing address is PO BOX 235, Carbondale, CO 81623. Many thanks for your attention to the above matter and your continued service to an area this is truly unique and that we are all fortunate to call home. /11111100.4.100.1 atric T. Bur e 0483 County Road 112 Carbondale, CO 0550 Wooden Deer Road Carbondale, Colorado 81623 May 14, 2011 Garfield County Commissioner Jankovsky Garfield County Board of Commissioners 108 8`i' Street Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Dear Garfield County Commissioner Jankovsky: I wish to express my concerns regarding the plans ofthe LaFarge Gravel Mine to expand their operations across County Road 103 to the Cerise property. The LaFarge Company has demonstrated with their existing operations on Highway 82 and in several other locations in Garfield County that they are not good custodians ofthe land. Increased traffic on 103 Road is a concern. The road is narrow and winding and the main access to Highway 82 and the rest of the valley for commuters, school buses, deliveries and general usage. Enlarging the LaFarge operations would not be compatible with the residential nature of this beautiful area. Wall to wall gravel pits would be an appalling visual impact. Noise and dust are already a problem, and this will only get worse as they operate closer to homes. Dust from the existing mines covers our windows and patio furniture. Crystalline silica dust generated by the mining activities is a known carcinogen. Late fall, winter and spring the hayfields that will be devoured by mining have been home to upwards of one hundred elk. This area is also home to mule deer, bear, raccoons, bobcats, mountain lions, wild turkeys, eagles, hawks and owls. Please do not let their home and ours become an industrial wasteland! Please do not approve the LaFarge-Cerise plans. Thank you for your consideration. Very truly yours, Ka erine U, Hubbard C.A. Vidal 855 Wooden Deer Carbondale CO 81623 May 25, 2011 Garfield County Commissioners 108 8th Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Regarding Cerise Mine Application (La Farge) Dear County commissioners, It is incredible to believe that there is serious consideration to approve another gravel pit at the intersection of Highway 82 and County Road 103. As you are aware you recently approved a significant extension to the Western Slope Aggregate gravel operation in the same area. You are responsible for balancing the impacts of various land uses and protecting all citizens including existing residential areas that you have previously approved for development. There is no immediate demand for additional gravel to be produced and no foreseeable increase in demand. The gravel will always be there. There are three operating gravel pits now (Western Slope, Elam and Sievers) these three pits can produce enough gravel to satisfy the demand, even at an accelerated rate for the next 15 to 20 years; why a fourth pit? At best, a gravel pit has significant negative impacts on surrounding areas. Even if monitored closely the additional noise, traffic, dust, air quality, visual impacts can not be mitigated satisfactorily. Why burden the surrounding residential neighborhoods with yet another gravel operation when it is not needed. Please be mindful of your obligation to protect all citizens, not just those making an application and property owners from unnecessary and detrimental impacts of others. This is not a NIMBY issue, we already have a gravel pit in our back yard; it's a fairness issue. Thank you for your balanced consideration, Respectfully, C.A. Vidal Mr. 'Thomas Jankovsky Garfield County Board of Commissioners 108 8th Street Glenwood Springs, Co 81601 0104 Wooden Deer Rd. Carbondale, Co. 81623 18 May 2011 Dear Commissioner Jankovsky, Congratulations on your election to the Garfield County Board of Commissioners. Having heard from multiple sources that you are a thoughtful and fair-minded person, I look forward to seeing those admirable attributes in play in the hearings scheduled or soon to be scheduled relating to not only the Cerise/Lafarge application for a new mine, but also the expected attempt by the Blue/ WSA group to over- turn the previous rulings on their last application. As you know, they have sued the commissioners in what some informed sources feel is no more than a play to buy time. A copy of the letter I wrote to the commissioners prior to the Blue/WSA hearing is attached. Since some of the ruling, short of out right denial, reflected the recommendations in this letter, I thought it alight be useful to you, especially because the existing Blue/ WSA mine and the proposal Cerise/Lafarge mine are contiguous, potentially compounding the impact on surrounding neighborhoods. Before the 13 June 11 Cerise/Lafarge hearing, I expect to send you a new letter focusing more on that particular application. Sincerely yours, , Jonathan Fitch 7 October, 2010 Comrnissioner John Martin Garfield County Board of Commissioners 108 8th Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Jonathan Fitch 0104 Wooden Deer Road Carbondale, CO 81623 Dear Corrunissioner Martin: The subject is gravel pits. The theme is NEED VS. GREED. As a resident of the Wooden Deer subdivision in Carbondale, and a member of the Crystal Springs Coalition, some 100 members strong and growing, I stand to lose a lot should the permit application for Western Slope Aggregate (WSA/Blue Pit), before the Board of Commissioners on 18, October 20W, be approved in full. Even more is at stake when the Lafarge/Cerise Mine permit application for a brand new gravel pit, located cheek by jowl to the WSAIBIue Pit, wends its way through the process later this year. It seems to me unwise for the Board to make a decision on the WSA application without full knowledge and consideration of the Cerise Mine application and the effects that mine would have on all interested parties. Bill Roberts, who claims to own 100% of the mineral rights to the WSAIBIue Pit, is asking for an immense 64 -acre expansion of the existing pit. The use of the term GREED in the thence of this letter focuses on Bill Roberts and to a lesser extent the Blue and Cerise families. A very small group of people stand to benefit from the expanded/new pits on the backs of a larger group of land and homeowners, whose quality of life and property values are bound to be affected adversely as the projects build out. Bill Roberts and his consultants appraised the Wooden Deer Association (which has become more inclusive of other interested parties as the Crystal Springs Coalition) of his plans earlier in the year. He seems like a pleasant fellow, and has been described to me as an excellent pit operator and the consummate "good old boy"; someone I might like at my back in a firelight. Nevertheless, it seems clear this application is Bill Roberts' swan song, that the probability is high he will either cash in his chips altogether by way of sale or clip coupons long into the future and his fancily even beyond that future. Various promises were made to us about how the permit will play out, how it wild be. mined in four sections, totally hidden from view and completely reclaimed as mining moves from one section to another, first across our view plane and then directly toward us. It is fair to say, I think, that the people (highly paid consultants) making these claims and promises to us will most likely fade from the scene in relatively short order and we, as a coalition, will be stuck only with the language in the governing documents to ensure that promises become reality and to give us clear recourse as to enforcement. To that end, we are hopeful the Board of Commissioners will ensure that what may be approved is state of the art as to the methodology for enforcing persuasive claims made to win the permit as these claims relate to decibel levels, dust clouds, wildlife impacts, hours of operation, crusher operations, placement of crushers, use of temporary asphalt plants, transportation levels, ongoing reclamation claims and final reclamation plans; this list not necessarily being ail -inclusive. Concession should be made that the GREED factor involved here is understandable as a predictable quality of human nature as it affects the profit motive of the pit families and the equally predictable corollary; that of total disregard for the neighbors adversely affected. The NEED aspect of Page 1 of 4 the expanding WSA/Blue Pit and the proposed new Lafarge/Cerise mine holds a much more telling and important set of considerations for the board. The board may feel it's important to initiate a study as to future CountyNalley NEED going out 50 to I 00 years (snore on that to follow). To that end, the board tnay decide to table the WSA/BIue application and any other applications pending such a review. The coalition favors that notion. Currently four gravel pits exist in the Roaring Fork Valley, with a fifth seeking a permit. For this discussion, all the gravel pits in Silt and environs are not noted. Should the board initiate a comprehensive study about future NEED versus existing supply, the existing holdings in these pits, which are truly considerable, would be added to the supply factor I will now describe. First: The ELAM pit in the Woody Creek area of Pitkin County recently received a 20 year extension on their lease. The manager of that plant, Dave Hiberger, told me they have enough gravel to supply the ENTIRE valley for the next 20 years. In addition, he said they have a non-mobile asphalt plant there that can produce 300 tons an hour, 6 days a week. He said the Siever pit near Aspen Glen has an identical plant. Neither plant, even in robust times, has ever operated at full capacity. He scoffed at the need for a third asphalt plant, which the Cerise mine is planning for and which should be rejected outright if the entire application is not rejected altogether, an outcome the Crystal Valley Coalition favors unanimously. Second: The Sievers pit, located near Aspen Glen and owned by Lafarge, has 10 to 15 years of production left and a lease lasting 80 years. As mentioned, the other non-mobile asphalt plant in the valley is located there. This is Lafarge's headquarters on the Western slope. Third: The Lafarge/Powers pit is located on Rout 82 in Carbondale at the edge of County 103 road. This pit is scheduled to wind down and undergo the reclaiming process over the next two years. Word has it that Mrs. Powers is being petitioned by Lafarge to allow for some equipment storage there and perhaps a truck turnaround associated with their pending application to develop the Cerise Ranch as a NEW gravel pit located just across County 103 Road. I cannot resist the temptation to scold the County for allowing this pit to be one of the biggest polluters in the valley and certainly the worst eyesore bar none. Directly across Route 82, Tom Bailey screened his entire Iron Rose ranch with trees that cost no more than $5 to $10 each, according to Bob O'Brien, who was responsible for the planting and much of the ranch construction. Lafarge did not pick up on the example and, as far as I know, the County never formally requested Lafarge to erect screening. Even if screening was never contemplated in the origins of the pit, I am confident Lafarge would have complied looking ahead to future applications before the board; a green opportunity lost, it seems to me. For the record, Lafarge is a French company and trades on the New York Stock Exchange. Fourth: The WSA.BIue Pit is located across from the Ranch at Roaring Fork on Highway 82, leased from the Blue family and just east of the proposed Lafarge/Cerise mine. Indeed, if WSA gets the new permit, their operations will, in time, be separated from the Lafarge/Cerise mine by a matter of yards. The families living above these lands will be faced with a horizon of wall-to-wall gravel pit. WSA/Blue is capable of producing 450,000 tons of gravel a year. Currently, the production level is 50,000 tons, 1/9` of capacity. Under their current permit, WSA has admitted to a supply lasting 8 years AT FULL CAPCITY. If current production levels persisted forever, then the supply would last for 72 years. The truth is in the middle. It seems realistic if not conservative, to place the years left under the existing permit at 16-20 years, certainly plenty of time to table the application and other applications in favor of a comprehensive study and review about the NEED side of the equation. There is absolutely no case for rushing to judgement other than accommodating a few families Page 2 o [ 4 wishing to assure their financial future against the wishes of a growing coterie of neighbors. An interesting statistic put forward by Bill Roberts is that approximately 60% of WSAB1ue production goes to projects in Pitkin County. If WSAIBIue gets all the permitting requested, given the current levels of production, then supply involved would last over 100 years into the future. Should the Board of Commissioners reject the suggestion for a comprehensive study as to need versus supply, then the coalition requests the following: 1. Grant WSAJBIue on 50% of the requested permit. 2. Confine that permit to the southern and western half of the proposed 64 -acre expansion. A Lafarge representative told me that the abundance and quality of stone increases the closer to the river it is located. 3. Coupled with the estimated life of 16-20 years of supply under the current permit, this would give WSAIBIue 50 to 100 years of supply and prevent the movement of the mining northward towards the adversely affected and very worried residents. 4. Tlus partial grant would give the County ample time to gauge the future NEED for the use of gravel in construction projects and provide more flexibility than granting 100% of all applications should technological advancements in construction make the use of gravel needed less or outmoded entirely. 5. By granting 50% of the WSAIBlue request, the board would be in a much more justifiable position to completely tum down the Lafarge/Cerise application because it piles on capacity to a valley and county clearly over -capacitated already as the 1/9 current production at WSAIBtue shows. 6. The Lafarge/Cerise mine application, which will reach the board later this year or early next, should be totally rejected as a clear case of overkill. Besides the usual arguments of added noise, added pollution, added unsightly mess, wildlife dislocations, and the proposed asphalt plant (this intention was presented by Lafarge to the coalition this summer at a meeting in the Carbondale Town Hall), the increased truck tonnage on County Road 103 will be permanent and change the rural nature and safety on that road for the life of the mine. Given the probable production levels over the immediate future, the Cerise mine will last way, way beyond the 15 years Lafarge is selling. They know it, the Coalition knows it, and we hope the board realizes that the Lafarge/Cerise mine could be around for 135 years based on the current 50,000 -ton annual output of WSAJBIue. The NEED could be that low. Your diligence in reading this far is appreciated. 1 have heard from a lot of people that these mine extensions/creation applications are done deals, that the Garfield County Commissioners have always granted approval, and that the subsequent policy of the written agreements has been essentially toothless in holding the operators to promises made in the heat and frenzy of gaining approvals. Perhaps the time has come for the board to change perceptions and realities. The current application of WSAIBIue and the approaching application of Lafarge/Cerise offers the perfect chance for the board to signal a change in the "business as usual" mantra. By granting WSAIB1ue 50% of their request and taking an active roll in assuring their written agreements protect the residents and have enforcement teeth, such a signal would be loud and clear. Perhaps it is time for the board to appoint a Garfield County agency available to Garfield. County residents to file complaints and to facilitate following and enforcing remediation of violations. Page 3 of 4 By turning down the pending Lafarge/Cerise application in total, an additional signal would be sent that the board is sensitive to not creating over -capacity versus the disruption of the lifestyle of many tax -paying residents and to the utter chaos constant trucking would create on County Road 103. By turning away from business as usual, the county will demonstrate it has the power and will to create time for itself to investigate future NEED) and to put forth rules on gravel pit creation and operation that it can enforce. I just got off the phone with someone associated with the Lafarge/Cerise application who told tne, "Colorado is a right to mine state. The county can't do a thing about it." I hope the Board of Commissioners rules against that horrific notion. Respectfully submitted, Jonathan Fitch Member, Crystal Springs Coalition Jolutitcli ®optonline.net Cc: Mike Samson, Garfield County Board of Commissioners Tresi Houpt, Garfield County Board of Commissioners Various Interested Parties Page: 4 of 4 0104 Wooden Deer Road Carbondale, CO 81623 23 May 2011 Commissioner Thomas .lankovsky Garfield County Board of Commissioners 108 8th Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Commissioner iankovsky, Once again 1 am writing you, this time to discourage the permitting for a brand new gravel pit on the Cerise Ranch in full view of the Wooden Deer subdivision. Allow inc to apologize in advance if my tone seems angry as my wife and I have been living for eleven years with the noise and pollution from two gravel pits that existed before we bought into paradise in 1999. Now we are threatened with the expansion of one of those pits and the creation of a brand new pit directly below us. At a WSAIBlue presentation in 2010J i asked all of the presenters, including Bill Roberts, how they would feel in our shoes. They unanimously and in unison answered they would feel as we did. My belief is that the Lafarge people would too, but I forgot to ask them. I do not want to forget to ask you. flow would you feel if you lived in the Wooden Deer subdivision facing what we face? I ani asking you to think about that as you read the rest of this letter and as you deliberate. Both in letters preliminary to the BOCC hearing on 13 June 2011 and during you will hear plenty about noise from crushers, machinery and trucking, about pollution from dust affecting personal health and from dirt residue covering homes and vehicles, about obvious destruction of natural wildlife habitats, and about the danger and inconvenience a confluence of trucking will produce on a windy rural county road and an already tricky inter -section at County 103 Road and Route 82. The details of those issues I will leave to others. Instead, this letter will cover some issues perhaps discomforting to you, but nonetheless important for you to think carefully about, keeping uppermost in your mind that you are a county commissioner for ALL the people, not just for a special interest group. These issues include: 1) Wooden Deer subdivision approval by county 2) Diminution of Horne Values 3) Right to Mine versus right to live in peace. 4) NEED for new mine versus miner GREED 5) Can Lafarge be trusted to perform? 6) The sense of smell 7) Perceptions of Republican loyalties, perceptions of the "Good Old Boy" Network, and conclusion 1) Wooden Deer Subdivision This subdivision as all subdivisions was created with approval from the Garfield County Government. It is true the WSA/Blue and Powers/I 2farge pits existed prior to the Wooden Deer Subdivision. However, any suggestion by Lafarge that, as a result, they were there first is laughable regarding their application for a brand new mine in a separate geographical location closer to us. This also applies to WSAIBIue's probable efforts to expand beyond their already BOCC — approved expansion. Any expansion under a new permit was not there first. 2) Diminution of Home Values The new Garfield County home assessment recently received showed a 34% drop in assessed value of my home. In speaking to the assessor responsible, 1 learned that neither the permitted expansion of the WSAIBIue pit nor the proposed Cerise/Lafarge pit were ingredients in the assessment. That can only mean one thing; the reality of the cumulative impact of dual, contiguous pits WILL IN THE FUTURE affect the assessed value of our homes negatively and that fact will not be overlooked by potential buyers of existing homes and lots not yet built upon, a number of which are for sale now. An elderly couple in our neighborhood, Connie and Dick McCrudden, have had their house up for sale for 11 years and have reduced the price 50%. A rare interested party, quite surprising because the house is beautiful, spent 11/2 hours taking a serious look. As soon as the realtor mentioned the old pit expansion and the proposal new pit, the couple beat a hasty retreat and have not been heard from since. 3) Right to Mine versus Right to Live in Peace In his comments recently submitted to the BOCC by Crystal Springs Coalition attorney, David J. Myler, the controversy about the perception of [and owners' automatic right to mine is put to rest in paragraph la. It would be fair for you to carefully review the precedents listed in order to avoid harboring an incorrect bias on this subject. At the same time, serious consideration should be given to homeowners' rights to live in peace, free from all the negative impacts to neighbors raised in this letter and no doubt at hearings both scheduled and yet to be scheduled. 4) NEED versus GREED The BOCC should consider tabling the Cerise/Lafarge application in favor of doing a study of what the demand in the county will be for gravel pit products 5 to 30 years into the future. Such a study is entirely justifiable at this stage to allow the BOC to make a more informed decision about future need and the wisdom of sanctioning a brand new gravel pit. Please consider the following germane points: a) The Elam Pit operator in Pitkin County told nie last year they alone had enough gravel to supply the entire valley for the next 20 years. At today's production rate you could add some years. b) The Severs Pit near -Aspen Glen operated by Lafarge, which also functions as their western HQ under a 75 plus year lease, has essentially ceased mining operations due to lack of demand. Under today's economic conditions, they are sitting on a 10 to 20 year supply of gravel. c) The Blue/WSA mine produces 450,000 tons of gravel a year under optimal conditions. At their P&Z heating in 2010, they put their annual output then at 50,000 tons or 1/9 their maximum capacity. Although I have not asked this year, it is hard to imagine their output is much greater today. Under their old permit at maximum out- put, Blue/WSA stated they had 5 to 8 years of mining left. That translates to 45 to 72 2 years under today's rate of output. Added to that number should be 50 to 100 years of mining left under the expansion permitted by the BOCC in 2010. d) The Grant Brothers mine in Silt has 4 to 5 million tons of gravel reserve, which they claim is the best quality in the county. Operating since 1994, they have only mined about 20%© of their reserves. At whatever their average output was over the last 16 years, 64 more years of production is a fair but probably low number. e) There are at least 6 more gravel pits southwest of Glenwood Springs with various years of operation left, at least two, Lafarge North American, Inc. of Rifle and North Bank Gravel are operated by Lafarge. Two, Casey Concrete of Rifle and Silt and Gravel are owned by Stewart, a large Pennsylvania company, and another United Companies of Rifle are owned by Old Castle, an Irish company. Flag Sand and Gravel of Silt is locally owned and has about 2 to 5 years of mining left. At that site, Frontier runs an Asphalt plant and Lafarge runs a concrete plant. In summary, SUPPLY DWARFS DEMAND, so it follows that the lack of NEED by elimination leaves GREED, the stockpiling of reserves by Lafarge to satisfy the home office in France and the largess due multiple members of the family Cerise. 5) Can Lafarge Be Trusted to Perform? Two local examples are offered here as justification for the topic question as follows: a) At long last, the reclamation of the Powers/Lafarge pit has begun to the relief of many people who looked forward to the day for 30 plus years. It has been the worst eyesore and one of the worst polluters for a long time. However, a Lafarge manager admitted they are negotiating with the Powers interests to allow Lafarge to maintain either machinery or an entire concrete plant or both on the Powers' site for as long as the proposed Cerise/Lafarge mine might exist. The obvious question arises as to how that arrangement coincides with the reclamation parameters approved by the county when the Powers/Lafarge pit was permitted. b) In an article dated 15 April 11, John Colson, a very savvy and accurate reporter for the Post Independent, wrote about a BOCC hearing where landowners severely criticized a Lafarge operated pit in Silt for not sticking to reclamation parameters on land owned by North Bank Holdings, the managing partner of which is Scott Balcomb, senior partner of the prestigious Glenwood Springs law firm of Balcomb and Green. A previous owner of the mine, John McBride, said, "the area was once full of wildlife, a beautiful place." Landowner Lee Estes lamented, "It's a nightmare, the way it looks. The ecosystem is destroyed...we have no wildlife, no life whatsoever." In sizing up all gravel pits in the area, Estes further stated, "I haven't seen one gravel pit with any reclamation on it, grass growing or trees... it's a dead zone from Anthers to Rifle...It's just a shame." I would ask, were does that shame reside? Obviously, Lafarge has demonstrated it cannot be trusted to perform without its feet being held to the fire. The Commission could have and should have sent a message to all operators by shutting Lafarge down at that site until they completed the reclamation, as demanded in the permits, of phase B-1, a 10 acre parcel already mined out. Asset -wise, Lafarge could have easily weathered that shutdown. Perhaps the landowners are too powerful. Interestingly, the article pointed out that the B-2 parcel is nearly 3/4s mined, and the operators have no plans to begin mining Phase 3, which is a clear statement about the lack of demand. Beyond Phase 3, are 5 more phases in the 78 -acre parcel. These reserves and those at the Severs pit, both operated by iafarge, are being stock- piled. Does the county really have to grant them a new nine to operate at this time? The facts say "no!" 3 6) The Sense of Smell In its application, Cerise/Lafarge has requested permission to introduce temporary asphalt plants as needed. There are already permanent asphalt plants at Elam, at Severs (operated by Lafarge) and at Flag. The Elam operator told me that at PEAK asphalt demand, neither the Elam nor Severs plants ran anywhere near capacity. Today they run at sharply reduced levels. The Elam operator felt the introduction of another asphalt plant in the valley, either permanent or temporary, would be overkill. So, in addition to all the rest of the grief the Carbondale pits represent, should the Cerise/Lafarge pit become a reality, the BOCC should spare the populace the horrendous odor of asphalt by disallowing any introduction of asphalt production. 7) Perce • f the •.•-sl. B and Conclusion rid Perce tiaras o C-� blianLoa My loyalties have been Republican for the last 40 years. I bought into the mantra that "the business of America is business". However, I do react unfavorably to the notions of the "good -old boy" networking, of unbridled exercise of political power, of growth at any cost, and to virtuous circles of back scratching. The business of America may be business, but it follows that inherent in that belief is that there should be economic justification for that business. I believe the case is solid and clear more than ample supply of gravel and ample competition exists because of the number of pits with millions upon millions of known reserves. As a result of this evidence, there is no justification for granting the Cerise/Lafarge permit beyond any back -room agreements or political pressures campaign contributors think they have a right to apply. I am asking this conunission to rise above business as usual. I am asking this commission to right the wrongs decades of "rip and tear" strip mining has wreaked upon the county landscapes. I am asking this commission to review all existing permits and to hold all existing mines to reclamation dictums included in those permits and to shut down mines until they comply. Our profligate ways are coming back to haunt us big time on the federal, state and local levels. It is more than likely that recovery as we knew it in the past will take multiple years, even a decade. I am asking this commission to turn down the Cerise/Lafarge application based not only on the complete lack of economic justification but also for all the facts and figures presented by others as to noise, air pollution, health hazards, truck traffic, financial hardship caused by home values dropping and real estate becoming impossible to sell, and for the utter destruction of our beautiful views and enjoyment of wildlife that we bought into when the county approved the Wooden Deer subdivision and our neighboring subdivisions that make up the Crystal Springs Coalition. Respectf ll�y rbn�utte, Jonathan Fitch Member, Crystal Springs Coalition iolutiich(o'optnnlinc.nel Cc: John Martin, Garfield County Board of Commissioners Mike Samson, Garfield County Board of Commissioners Molly Larson, PNZ Senior Planner Various interested fatties May 23, 2011 To Garfield County Commissioners Mike Samson, Tom Jankovsky and John Martin Re: Proposed Lafarge expansion Dear Commissioners: By now there can be no doubt in your minds that every single property owner in the Wooden Deer subdivision, as well as most residents of the Crystal Springs area, Rim Ledge Road, and other parts of Missouri Heights (Crystal Springs Coalition) are opposed in the strongest way possible to the expansion of the Lafarge gravel pit. As you are aware, our opposition is based on the following: increase of the already existing nuisance of dust pollution; increase of the already existing noise pollution; the ruination of the views that caused us to purchase our properties in the first place; the unquestionably negative effect on property values; the increase of dangerous truck traffic on County Road 103. I would like to quote a few sentences from a Glenwood Post Independent editorial entitled "Gravel pit a viper that should be killed" If common sense and public input carries I -sic] the day, this should be the end of the line for a gravel pit project that was off target from day one. ...the a • • relate/ avel needs o Gar geld Coun can be met b existin ..its far into the future. Thanks to an ample supply of gravel, Garfield County has the luxury of making a conscious decision to deny this unwanted and unnecessary new gravel pit. For a region that is currently meeting its aggregate needs, there is no reason to approve a new gravel mining operation... The gravel pit operation will have an unavoidablvnegative impact on neighboring homes and future... homeowners. ...the operating pit's dust and noise would be offensive, as would the scarred landscape, which would be visible year round. ...public comment has roared as a single voice proclaiming a single message: 'We don't want the pit, we don't need the pit. It comes down to a question of need and impact. The hassles of an unwanted and unnecessary gravel pit should speak volumes. ...hopefully the commissioners will listen because, as the public continues to correctly point out, there just isn't enough logic to hold this proposal together. ...the county commissioners should listen to [the homeowners ] well - reasoned valid concerns and respond with a resounding foo... ' This editorial is dated March, 2001, and every word of it, as written above, is as valid today as it was then. I would also like to specifically address a few of the comments in the "Cerise Mine Narrative" dated Nov. 2010. Lafarge anticipates "reining the site in approximately 15 years followed by two years of reclamation; however; this is just an estimate due to the fact that the rate of mining and overall life of the mine is dependent upon demand and market conditions." The adjoining Powers pit has been operating since 1971 --that's 40 years—and has not yet depleted its reserves. We believe this figure of 15 years is meaningless. Lafarge maintains they will build berms to shield their operations from view. Anyone who lives in this area can assure you that it's impossible to shield the site, due to the elevation of the subdivision. If you were to visit almost any lot in the subdivision, you would see this fact immediately. Lafarge claims their berms will "help buffer the site from neighbors to the north." This is simply not the case. The Garfield County Code states that "The County will ensure that mineral extraction activities will not adversely affect the natural environment, including air quality, water quality, wildlife habitat or important visual resources." For nearly 13 years we have lived with the dust, the noise and the eyesores of two gravel pits, believing that the lives of the pits were soon coming to an end. We know from experience on a daily basis that the noise and dust has not been, and probably can't be mitigated. The Code further states that "Dust, odors and fumes should be contained within the extraction site generating such emissions and should not negatively affect any surrounding land use." The fact is that the existing pit does negatively affect surrounding land use and will do so even more if it moves closer to the subdivision. Perhaps most offensive is Lafarge's claim that "the homeowners knew that mining was in the area when they purchased their home." To call this statement misleading is a gross understatement. Yes, we knew that mining "was in the area," but that is not the same as knowing it would move into the lands directly below us and further degrade the environment and property values. Garfield County permitted this subdivision, and to my knowledge, did not add a caveat that people build their homes here at their own risk. We bought our properties in good faith and with no expectation that our investments would be seriously threatened by the incursion of two gravel pits. 1 ask you to consider carefully the comments and protests of my fellow homeowners and weigh the impact on all ails against the expansion of mining for which no demand exists. Respectfully yours, 7 Sue Coyle U 501 Wooden Deer Road Carbondale, CO 81623 May 26, 2011 Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County, Colorado 108 8,h Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: Cerise Mine Application Dear Commissioners John Martin, Tom Jankovsky, and Mike Samson: In its Application for development of the Cerise Mine, Lafarge West, Inc. ("Lafarge") suggests that a comprehensive approach be employed in the siting and operation of its own mine and the neighboring Blue Pit. As with the Blue Pit proposal, Lafarge also proposes to phase its mining operation to reduce impacts. We propose to take the phasing and comprehensive approach one step further. We believe strongly, for all of the reasons stated in the Comments and Reports subtnitted by the Crystal Springs Coalition, together with the comments of Wooden Deer and Rimledge residents, that the operation of the Cerise Mine is incompatible with the adjacent, long-established residential neighborhoods and that the Application should be denied pursuant to the County's compatibility regulations. If, however, the BOCC is inclined to approve the Cerise Mine, despite the mountain of evidence demonstrating incompatibility, we suggest that such an approval be conditioned, not only on adequate mitigation measures, including the monitoring of air quality and noise, but that the start of operations at the Cerise Mine be delayed until the Blue Pit has been mined out and the operator has commenced the final stage of reclamation. By phasing the two projects, the gravel resource and the opportunity to mine it will be preserved, but the neighborhood will only have to endure the adverse impacts of one operation at a time. We believe that such phasing is a sensible method of avoiding cumulative impacts that will otherwise destroy the rural residential character of the adjacent neighborhoods. By delaying the commencement of the Cerise Mine until the Blue Pit is in the final reclamation process, and since the County will likely be reviewing a new application for the proposed Blue Pit expansion, the opportunity also exists for Lafarge, the County, and Western Slope Aggregate to negotiate the terms by which Lafarge can utilize the access road from Highway 82 currently in use for• the Blue Pit for the operation of the Cerise Mine. Utilizing this access will eliminate traffic issues at the intersection of Highway 82 and County Road 103, including the necessity for traffic -related improvements to those roads. Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County, Colorado May 26, 2011 Page 2 The Wooden Deer and Rimledge neighborhoods have already endured years of substantial adverse impacts for the sake of producing aggregate. We did so expecting that we would be able to enjoy a peaceful rural existence once the current gravel pits were mined out. We are now being expected by the operators of those mines to endure another 15-30 years of mining that will be significantly more adverse due to proximity and cumulative impacts. If it is so critical to the County and the region to mine the gravel deposits on the Cerise property, at least phase that mining operation as we propose in order to reduce those adverse impacts. Sincerely, Ernest Kollar, President Wooden Deer HOA With endorsement from: Wooden Deer Board Members: Chuck Vidal Sue Coyle Jon Fitch George Clemons Tom Hays, Homeowner and Past Wooden Deer HOA President May 26, 2011 To Garfield County Commissioners Mike Samson, Tom Jankovsky and John Martin Re: Proposed Lafarge expansion Dear Commissioners: By now there can be no doubt in your minds that every single property owner in the Wooden Deer subdivision, as well as most residents ofthe Crystal Springs area, Rim Ledge Road, and other parts of Missouri Heights (Crystal Springs Coalition) are opposed in the strongest way possible to the expansion ofthe Lafarge gravel pit. As you are aware, our opposition is based on the following: increase of the already existing nuisance of dust pollution; increase ofthe already existing noise pollution; the ruination of the views that caused us to purchase our properties in the first place; the unquestionably negative effect on property values; the increase of dangerous truck traffic on County Road 103. The proposed LaFarge/ Cerise mining operation, when joined with the already permitted Western Slope Aggregate mining operation, will constitute a 1.6 mile open pit mine directly in front of the Wooden Deer Subdivision. I can think of no other place in the Roaring Fork Valley with a similar exposure to gravel mining. Unlike Western Slope Aggregate, which acknowledged the impact gravel mining would have upon the Wooden Deer homeowners and made an effort to address their concerns,. LaFarge's plan is to serape and excavate the majority of its leasehold immediately. Once the landscape is denuded and destroyed, the pit will just sit there. In other words, the proposed pit operation will approximate the Sievers Pit as soon as LaFarge can get it done. LaFarge has stated it anticipates "mining the site in approximately 15 years followed by two years of reclamation; however, this is just an estimate due to the fact that the rate of mining and overall life of the mine is dependent upon demand and market conditions." This representation is deliberately misleading. The phrase "dependent upon demand and market conditions" is a euphemism used by the industry as a "trapdoor" to justify why the life of the mine has extended four -fold, THEY KNOW NOW, TO A MORAL CERTAINTY, THE MINING WON'T BE COMPLETED IN FIFTEEN YEARS. Why not tell the truth. The adjoining Powers pit has been operating since 1971—that's 40 years ---and has not yet depleted its reserves. Its lease has expired under its own terms. Currently, and most likely for the foreseeable future, construction in the Roaring Fork Valley is going to be moribund. Western Slope Aggregate has not mined their previously permitted acreage, much less their newly permitted land. LaFarge itself has stated that, according to its projections, the Sievers Pit has an additional eight years of life. Given the condition of the demand for gravel in the area and the surplus of the supply, that could well extend to fifteen years or more. A concern has been raised regarding safeguarding the gravel supply of the county for future use. This is, of course, a valid concern. However, it is beyond unlikely that the Cerise property will ever be "developed" for residential uses or anything else that might at some time preclude gravel development. Currently, developers (and banks) have extensive holdings of entitled, subdivided land that is going begging. If the Cerises chose to not develop for residential use in the boom of the late 90's and first eight years of the last decade, it certainly seems they would not choose to do so now. Lafarge maintains they will build berms to shield their operations from view. Anyone who lives in this area can assure you that it's impossible to shield the site, due to the elevation of the subdivision. If you were to visit almost any lot in the subdivision, you would see this fact immediately. Further, the noise of the crushers, haul trucks, scrapers, bulldozers and the like are deafening in some parts of the Wooden Deer subdivision and simply loud in others. The Garfield County Code states that "The County will ensure that mineral extraction activities will not adversely affect the natural environment, including air quality, water quality, wildlife habitat or important visual resources." For nearly 13 years we have lived with the dust, the noise and the eyesores of two gravel pits, believing that the lives of the pits were soon coming to an end. We know from experience on a daily basis that the noise and dust has not been, and can't be mitigated. The Code further states that "Dust, odors and fames should be contained within the extraction site generating such emissions and should not negatively affect any surrounding land use." The fact is that the existing LaFarge pit does negatively affect surrounding land use and will do so even more if it moves closer to the subdivision. Perhaps most offensive is Lafarge's claim that "the homeowners knew that mining was in the area when they purchased their home," To call this statement misleading is a gross understatement. Yes, we knew that mining "was in the area," but that is not the same as knowing it would move into the lands directly below us and further degrade our life quality, health, enjoyment of our property and severely impact our property values. Garfield County permitted this subdivision, and to my knowledge, did not add a caveat that people build their homes here at their own risk. We bought our properties in good faith and with no expectation that our investments would be seriously threatened by the incursion of two gravel pits. 1 ask you to consider carefully the comments and protests of my fellow homeowners and weigh the impact on all of us against the expansion of mining for which no demand exists. Respectfully yours, Chris Coyle 501 Wooden Deer Road Carbondale, CO 81623 Tom Jankovsky From: Patrick Burke Fpburke@sopris.netj Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 9:51 AM To: John Martin; Mike Samson; Tom Jankovsky Cc: Lauren Subject: Crystal Springs Gravel Pits Objection Letter Garfield County Board of County Commissioners Mike Samson Tom Jankovsky John Martin 4/27/11 Commissioners, am the property owner of 0483 County Road 112 and have 40 acres of land that has been in my family for over 25+ years. l grew up and now own this land and have seen the valley change in many ways. Expanding both of the proposed pits without regard to the local environment and those who live and plan to live in the valley for the years ahead seems at odds with the very nature of the beautiful area I am proud to call home. Specifically I am concerned with the following: the pits are not being considered in conjunction with one another, wildlife will clearly be impacted in and adverse way, truck traffic will increase on 82 and 103 making the turn onto 82 more dangerous than it already is, and the noise and dust pollution from the pits which is already an issue for those of us living in the area will only get worse most likely dramatically so. I urge you to please protect the area from the expansion of both of these Pits. If you need to contact me please email at these address pburke@sopris.net, my cell phone is 917-488-9221, and my mailing address is PO BOX 235, Carbondale, CO 81623. Many thanks for your attention to the above matter and your continued service to an area this is truly unique and that we are all fortunate to call home. Patrick T. Burke 0483 County Road 112 Carbondale, CO Tom Jankovsky From: Rick Hayes [rick'a@excellps.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 11:55 AM To: Tom Jankovsky Cc: 'Crystal Springs Coalition` Subject: GARCO cornmisioner letter April 27, 2011 Mr. Tom Jankovsky Garfield County Board of Commisioners 108 Stn St. Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Commisioner Jankovsky: I would like to ask for your careful consideration in the process of approving or denying the LaFarge gravel pit in the Crystal Springs area of GARCO. By now I am sure you are aware that the approval for the WSA pit is all but a foregone conclusion. To approve another gravel pit in the exact same area is just not in the best interests of all the citizens of Eastern GARCO. In fact it would be like a slap in our faces. I get it, that the WSA ownership needed their approval so that they could position their company for sale. Without that approval and lease in place their business had no value for the future. However, this is not the case regarding a huge multinational conglomerate like LaFarge. Your office has helped to approve many home -sites in this area in the past. These actions have helped the individual property owners see property value increases that would absolutely be impacted by having not one, but two, Targe open pit mines at the entry to our neighborhood. am respectfully asking that you DENY the approval of the LaFarge open pit. Sincerely, Rick Hayes 0468 CR 112 Carbondale, CO 81623 Tom Jankovsky From: Thunder River Theatre [ionw@sapris.net] Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2011 9:20 AM To: Tom Jankovsky Subject: Future Strip Mining of 82 Tom - 1 heard you speak when you were running for County Commissioner. I believed you to be very thoughtful and had the good of your fellow county residents at heart. The two proposals to expand the existing "Blue pit, 'operated by Western Slope Aggregate off of Hwy, 82, and Lafarge on the eastern side of CR 103 to an additional 98 acres, with a new 65 1/2 -acre pit -- is nothing but greed. It will destroy the quality of life for many of your Garfield residents, humans and animals alike. You have a responsibility to protect our good and welfare. Please give this your utmost attention and deliver on what 1 clearly heard you speak to. Thank you! Lon Winston Lon Winston 1266 Crystal Spgs. Mtn, Rd. Carbondale, CO 81623 PH: 970-963-0399 i Tom Jankovsky From: mkavasch@aol.com aol.com Sent: Monday, May 23, 2011 1:05 PM To: Tom Jankovsky; John Martin; Mike Samson Subject: Fwd: Review of LaFarge application to open gravel pit on Cerise Ranch Original Message From: mkavasch <mkavasch@aol.com> To: morkild-Larson <morkild-Larson©garfieid-county.comv; drnyler <dmyler@ia mylerlawpc.com>; kavasch <kavasch@reesehenry.com>; erniekollar.woodendeer'erniekollar.woodendeer[,7a gmaii.com> Sent: Fri, May 20, 2011 3:08 pm Subject: RE:Review of LaFarge application to open gravel pit on Cense Ranch {fear Ms. Morkild-Larson: Please forward this letter to the Board of County Commissioners for consideration regarding the June 13 hearing of LaFarge America's application to open a gravel pit on the Cerise Ranch? Thank you. Garfield County Commissioners RE: June 13 Review of LaFarge America application for new gravel pit mine on Cerise Ranch Dear County Commissioners: I am writing in regard to LaFarge Corporation's application to open a new gravel pit operation on the Cerise Ranch, which would include, if approved, an asphalt plant and an entrance constructed over Crystal Springs, accessing operations from County Road 103 (Crystal Springs Road). There are several good reasons to deny this request. First, Western Slope Aggregate (WSA) has already been approved for an extensive expansion of their facility, located right next to the proposed sight of LaFarge's new pit. WSA is also re -applying to enlarge this expansion significantly and extend the length of the lease to 40 years. Even at the current level of expansion and approval for 20 additional years of mining, this means that WSA is already in a position to supply the county's foreseeable aggregate needs for approximately 32-35 years. With LaFarge already operating both the Seivers pit nearby (about two miles away) and the Elam Gravel Pit in Pitkin County, this grants LaFarge an unfair competitive advantage over WSA, as well. Demand has dropped for the forseeable future. In an article in the Glenwood Post on April 15, not only was LaFarge's compliance in reclaiming mined areas of the North Bank gravel pit in Silt brought into question, but LaFarge's spokesperson claimed that low demand was responsible for the lack of funding needed to comply with the reclamation requirements established in approving their application to open the North Bank pit. If demand is this low, why do we need another gravel pit in an area already served by three aggregate mines already in operation? And what will ensure they will maintain any better compliance here than has been seen in the North Bank pit or the Seivers pit, where mined areas are overgrown with weeds and the choppy ground contours clearly show no grading or leveling has been done? They are only making a show of reclaiming the Powers pit to obtain approval for a new mine on the Cerise property. In addition to an unnessary gravel pit, LaFargo wants to install an asphalt plant in a populated area with small children in residence. Gravel pit emissions include silicone dioxide. which is already shown to be a carcinogen when inhaled, especially when exposure is prolonged-- as in the case of those of us living directly above the pit. An asphalt pit adds malodorous toxins to the mix that include formaldehyde, hexane, phenol, polycyclic organic matter, and toluene. "Exposure to these air toxics may cause cancer, central nervous system problems, liver damage, repiratory problems, and skin irritation." This quote is from an EPA report cited by Center for Health, Environment & Justice. They also cited two 1 studies on property values which documented losses of up to 56% of property value as a result of the proximity of gravel pit, especially with the presence of an asphalt plant, Our market values have already dropped 50% as a result of the recession. Asking area residents to incur another 50% loss places an unfair economic burden on nearby residents. LaFarge will be located directly above Crystal Springs, on Its western border, and wants to build a road over the area covered with maple trees, cottonwood, and shrubbery, Not only will the noise, traffic, and roadbuilding damage or destroy this water resource, the runoff from the gravel mine and asphalt plant into the springs poses a threat to the Roaring Fork River, into which the springs empty, which would continue into the Colorado River. The section of the Roaring Fork impacted flows into popular fishing areas, as well, and impacts the town of Carbondale. The claims for county approval and the realities of construction and operation do not usually match. We have, supposedly, not been adversely impacted by operations at the Powers plant-- the reality is far different from the LaFarge claims. The Thurston County, Washington Planning Commission made the following recommendations concerning the location of gravel pits: "Ecology recommends not permitting gravel mining in critical areas such as...wetlands... mining below the water table or in conjunction with an asphalt plant, causes greater risks." This is a deer and elk migratory route and will severly impact wildlife. Wooden Deer homeowners were restricted in the building of fences and outbuildings, limited to one dog per household, and have other controls in place to protect this valuable migratory route. With WSA expanding to nearly the border of the two ranches, migrating wildlife have no where &se to go but the Cerise Ranch. In the winter, I have counted over 200 elk moving along this corridor, through our properties and down onto the ranches below. I have seen two dozen deer at a time moving along the same route, with smaller groups preceding and following. The Department of Wildlife has gone to great expense to build fencing and ramps to lessen highway deaths of deer and elk, in response to the finding that their numbers are mysteriously dropping, The state depends heavily on both in and out of state hunters to bolster the economy in the fall shoulder season. Loss of migratory routes endangers an already decreasing population. In addition, I have seen bald eagles, golden eagles, turkey buzzards, and red hawks in the very trees that would be removed or die as a result of road construction in the site of LaFarge's proposed CR 103 access. LaFarge's current site is on the other side of a large hill that renders it invisible, except on windy days. The claim that neighboring homes will not be further impacted than they are at present is untrue. The proposed site is directly below our home and those of our neighbors, with no hill to hide or shelter it. LaFarge does not currently water the exposed pit to lessen the impact of dust and pollutants, nor will they entertain any suggestions to do so. We have all seen (and breathed) giant dust clouds on windy days. I have only recently been able to find out where and how to file complaints, after extensive online searching. Our health and quality of life has already been severely impacted as a result of the WSA and LaFarge Powers plants. I have recently undergone a second sinus surgery, undergone extensive immune system and allergy testing, and seen several doctors, and am still working with an allergist) asthma specialist to determine how to clear out my lungs so I can breathe freely. I am a lifelong non-smoker, with (it turns out) no allergies and a healthy immune system and an active, healthy lifestyle. My husband, an active, healthy man in the prime of life had double pneumonia in the fall. My 30 - year -old daughter has already had one sinus surgery two years ago, and already has returned to chronic sinus and lung infections; her two children, ages 4 and 7, are always coughing and getting sick, far more than their peers. Airborne irritants are the culprit, we've been told repeatedly. We have spent thousands of dollars putting in new weatherstripping, air conditioners, and air purifiers— not to mention the thousands spent in medical expenses-- all to allow us to get through the warm months without opening windows. It is a shame to have to keep our home closed up during the spring, summer, and fall when the norrn is to open windows wide and enjoy the refreshing breezes. Our breezes carry dust and particulate matter that makes us all sick. Even with these precautions, dust enters the house and it does not leave easily. The easiest analogy is Christmas tree needles: they enter with the tree and take the rest of the year to clear out, only to begin the cycle again when the new tree comes into the house. The dust gets everywhere. With no allergy to dust, neither my daughter nor I can dust, sweep, or vacuum without inflaming our sinuses and lungs. Then, begins a new infection that adds to the chronic misery we already endure. This makes clearing out the dust difficult, if not impossible, for us, We have installed air purifiers throughout the house, the filters of which manufacturers recommend changing every three months. We have to change them every three weeks. This also adds up the expense of expanded gravel pit operations, since these filters are expensive and we have several machines to change out every three weeks-- for the rest of our lives, even with the current WSA expansion. With LaFarge operating on the Cerise ranch, directly below, we'll have to change the filters even more often. I used to hike long trails with significant altitude gains with my husband regularly and consistently lifted weights and did aerobic exercise. Now, with chronic sinus and lung infections, I am constantly fatigued and have no stamina. With my immune system and lifestyle, doctors say there is no reason for me to be chronically ill-- except for the presence of airborne irritants. l am faced with the very real concern that my life expectancy will shorten as a result of these operations and spending time, pain, and money trying to make up for the destruction of the quality of life for myself, my family, and our neighbors. LaFarge already has other gravel pits in the area-- and already has an operating asphalt plant. This site is unnecessary, both to the county and to LaFarge. Area homeowners will already be bearing the brunt of the negative impacts of gravel pit mining in meeting the county's need for aggregate through WSA's expansion. Why must we also be expected to increase the risk to our health, property values, and cause exposure to intolerable levels of noise/dust/odor/light pollution by living directly in front of two giant gravel pits, when what has already been approved has been shown to be sufficient to meet those needs for over 30 years into the future? Please deny LaFarge's application for a new gravel pit on the Cerise property. At the very least, I insist they be required to heavily mitigate their impact through planting trees, placing berms that will actually benefit their neighbors, complying with all reclamation requirements and reimbursing residents for their own medical and mitigation expenses resulting from gravel pit operations. l also urge you to require LaFarge and WSA to install monitoring equipment for dust, particulates, and noise at their own expense to prevent exceeding air quality and noise pollution requirements in the future. I also plead with you to place fines sufficient to make compliance with these mitigation and reclamation requirements likely. Enough has been asked of our family and the residents of this area already. Thank you. Susan Lau 0152 Wooden Deer Road 10 Attached Images Tom Jankovsky From: Dan Jervis [jervis@sopris.net] Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 8:30 AM To: John Martin; Tom Jankovsky, Mike Samson Cc: Sue Coyle; ernie kollar; Crystal Springs Coalition Subject: Cerise Mine Proposal Dear Sirs: I have never been a WHINER about progress and growth and when I built a home in Wooden Deer I accepted the fact that there were two gravel pits very closeby. Since the approval of the Western Slope gravel operation expansion which guarantees gravel resources for eternity, I realize that they have 8-10 more years on their existing permit before expanding westward. LaFarge has a gravel mine already just north of Aspen Glen and has globally monopolized the concrete industry. Therefore, realizing that our world and our county and valley continues to SHRINK. Further mining of our area increases the potential For toxifying our water tables, increasing noise pollution and diminishing air quality not to mention the impact upon an overused county roadway. Please give valuable consideration to opposing or delaying this Cerise Mine application. Daniel R. Jervis 0276 Wooden Deer Road Carbondale, CO 81623 1 Tom Jankovsky From: Lucie Fitch [luciefitch cx yahoo,com] Sent: Monday, May 30, 2011 9:15 AM To: Mike Samson; Tom Jankovsky, John Martin Dear Commissioners, My name is Lucie Fitch and I live at 104 Wooden Deer Rd right above Blue Road and the Cerise Ranch. I am respectfully asking you to deny the permit for the Cerise - Lafarge gravel pit. The thought of having wall to wall gravel pits,I.E. WSA and Lafarge across our beautiful view of Mt. Sopris ,plus the noise, dust, pollution and danger to wildlife is lugubrious and ludicrous! I have had chronic sinusitis because of the dust from WSA to our left and Lafarge to our right. It is in Dr. Knaus's records how may times I have had to go on major antibiotics and I am not the only one in the Wooden Deer subdivision. Please ,please,please deny the Cerise Lafarge pit their permit. Thank you, Lucie Fitch. Sent from my iPad Tom Jankovsky From: GFVIBERG [gfviberg@aoI com) Sent: Monday, June 06, 2011 12:46 PM To: John Martin; Mike Samson; Tom Jankovsky Cc: crystaispringscoalition@gmail.com Subject: Lafarge application for pit extension Dear Commissioners, 1 would like to register my complete opposition to the Lafarge Pit application which you will be considering on June 13, 2011. I am a homeowner located at 5365 CR 100, Carbondale CO 81623 and my home is located on the ridge which overlooks the present WSA and Lafarge Pit operations and is also next to the Wooden Deer Development. The reasons are as follows: 1) Noise levels will increase from already high decibel levels especially when the crushers are working and winds come from the south up and over our ridge. The closeness of the two expanded pits will just magnify the problem, This combined with beeping trucks and heavy equipment, diesel fumes and additional trucks due to the also planned temporary asphalt plant. 2) Silica is a known and obvious byproduct of the existing crushers and is also a carcinogenic material and thus a serious health hazard no matter what amounts are ingested or breathed into the lungs. Any amount of a carcinogenic is potentially fatal. 3) Dust from silica and other crushed materials and internal pit road dust etc already is a problem especially in the summer when the windows of our home are open for ventilation. We are constantly "dusting,,. Heat rises and creates convectional currents making the dust rise from the valley floor and then fall on our homes, autos, patio furniture and vegetation. 4) Wildlife will be impacted. From our home we often see elk, deer and other wildlife in what is now a green field where they, transit, graze and also drink water from the small streams passing through the land. This will certainly be eliminated if the extension is granted. 5) It is my understanding that there will be also a temporary asphalt plant included in the application. Asphalt is made from petroleum and uses a great deal of water and heat to be made. Steam rises, the petroleum smell will rise with it and then waft over our area. Petroleum and its fumes are known to be toxic let alone smelly. We shall have additional trucks emitting diesel fumes and of course more beeping. 6) The hours of operation are already a problem as the noise is constant from the early morning to the late afternoon plus Monday to Saturday. What you are about to consider is an application to further increase the blight of our valley and those of us that overlook this valley will have ugly pit views, constant dust, high levels of noise, potentially serious health hazards with the consequence of decreasing property values which will negatively impact county tax collections for many years. Green spaces converted to gravel pits and temporary asphalt plants is not what we want nor desire in Garfield County, especially the Roaring Fork Valley and I strongly appeal to your sense of community to reject this application. There are enough reserves in the existing pits to last many years why expand? Sincerely, Gordon F Viberg 5365 CR 100, Carbondale, CO 81623 Tom Jankovsky From: Susan Gibbs [susan c@sopris.net] Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2011 4:27 PM To: Mike Samson; John Martin; Tom Jankovsky Subject: LaFarge Gravel Pit I am writing to express my concern of an added approval of more gravel pits off of County Road 103 near Carbondale, such as a NEW LAFARGE PIT AND ASPHALT PLANT -1 !would sincerely hope you really take into consideration the impact this has in so many, many ways. I am told over and over again by numerous people that this is a DONE DEAL and our words will have no impact. I am certainly hoping that this is not the case. I would love to hear feedback, telling me these folks are incorrect and it IS NOT ALREADY a done deal and we are NOT just spinning wheels to thinklNG we could have any say at all in what ARISES IN SUCH A BIG WAY in our neighborhood. John Martin jmartin@garfield-county.com Mike Samson msamson@garfield-county.com Tom Jankovsky tiankovsky@garfield-countv.com Susan Gibbs 1698 CR 103 Carbondale, CO 81623 (970) 704-1234 1 Molly ©rkild-Larson From: Tom Jankovsky Sent: Friday, June 17, 2011 10:18 AM To: Molly Orkild-Larson Subject: FW: LaFarge Expansion Attachments: LaFarge2.doc I think this is the email you are looking for. Tom J From: Steph Brown rmailto:steph@strykerbrown.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2011 5:32 PM To: John Martin; Mike Samson; Tom Jankovsky Subject: Re: LaFarge Expansion Dear Sirs / Madam: Please see attached letter, Thank you in advance for your kind attention. Stephanie Brown Resident, Missouri Heights 1 1 am writing to express my dismay at the proposed approval of the LaFarge asphalt plant. The LaFarge Gravel Pit has been in operation here for many years. To date, because of the small size of the pit, normal business hours and relative quiet, the impact on the surrounding area has been minimal. County commissioners recently approved the expansion of the Blue Pit, which lies adjacent to land proposed for the asphalt plant. So, if you allow the LaFarge to expand further, the resulting size of both commercial operations will adversely affect the rural atmosphere that still exists and that we, as neighbors, enjoy. A "temporary" asphalt plant? Sounds like an oxymoron to me. The noise AND pollution created by the existence of a plant requiring crushers, heavy equipment and constant truck traffic will damage the value of surrounding residential homes beyond repair. Not one homeowner in the area will EVER be able to recoup his investment, financially or pictorially. Please also take into consideration the impact that 160 additional acres approved for an extended gravel pit and asphalt plant will have on the deer, elk, grouse and turkey populations. The damage to their habitat and migration routes can never be reversed. Please, I urge you to act responsibly and vote no on the LaFarge expansion. DAVID J. MYLER' ADMITTED IN CO" CONNIE A. WOOD. LEGAL ASSISTANT THE MYLER LAW FIRM, P.C. A Colorado Professional Corporation VIA EMAIL Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County, Colorado 108 8`h Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 211 MIDLAND AVENUE SUITE 201 BASALT, COLORADO 81621 June 23, 2011 RE: Cerise Mine Major Impact Review Dear Commissioners: EXHIBIT WWW (970) 4274156 FACSIMILE (970)927.0374 EMAII.S dmyler@mylerlawpc.com cwood@myleriewpe.com On behalf of the Crystal Springs Coalition, I would like to thank you for your thoughtful consideration of the numerous issues involved in the Cerise Mine Application. In anticipation of a continued public hearing on this matter, 1 would like to take the opportunity to summarize a few of the key points that have been asserted in support of the Coalition's request that the Application be denied at this point in time. The Coalition is relying on the following language which appears in Garfield County Comprehensive Plan 2000 relating to compatibility: Any proposal regarding mineral extraction that cannot mitigate adverse impacts may be denied based on a finding of incompatibility, for the following reasons: A. Adversely affecting the desirability of the immediate neighborhood or the entire community; B. Impairing the stability or value of existing adjacent properties; C. Adversely affecting the quality of life of existing adjacent residences; D. Showing a lack of quality or function in operational planning and/or design; E. Creating a public danger or nuisance to surrounding areas; F. Altering the basic character of adjacent land uses or the entire community. Given the close proximity of the Cerise Mine to adjacent residential neighborhoods, the prevailing winds and natural topography, the Coalition does not believe that it will be possible for the Applicant to effectively mitigate the adverse impacts, especially air and noise pollution, which will result from its operation. The proposed mitigation will not reduce adverse impacts on desirability of the neighborhood, quality of life, and property values to a reasonably tolerable level. The Coalition agrees with the Planning Department that, in the absence of adequate mitigation, the proposed gravel mine is incompatible with the adjacent residential neighborhood (page 25 of the 6113/11 staff report). THE MYLER LAW FIRM, P.C. Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County, Colorado June 23, 2011 Page 2 Please consider the fallowing specific comments relating to Code compliance and compatibility: 1. Monitoring. The only way to determine if the proposed Fugitive Dust Control Plan will be effective in controlling air pollution from large and small particulate matter is through monitoring and a corrective action plan. Dust control without monitoring is simply guesswork. Likewise, noise control measures without monitoring and a corrective action plan to deal with excessive noise do not constitute adequate mitigation. The Coalition is willing to trust the Applicant to make a good faith effort to control dust and noise, but it only makes sense to implement a plan to verify the results of that effort in order to prevent nuisances and health hazards. If the Applicant will not agree to a reasonable monitoring and corrective action plan, the Application must be denied. There is simply too much at risk. 2. Air Quality. The Applicant is required to demonstrate its ability to comply with national, state and local air quality standards as a prerequisite to approval. The Applicant responds to this requirement by stating that it will utilize the same dust control methods at the Cerise Mine as utilized for many years at the Powers Mine. And, since the Applicant has not been cited for any air quality violations at the Powers Mine, they simply assume that they must be able to comply with air quality regulations, Given the testimonials of the neighbors regarding nuisance and health hazard levels of dust, this assumption of compliance is inadequate for the purposes of County requirements. Additionally, the Applicant is required to have all required air quality permits for the operation of equipment at the Cerise Mine before their Application is approved. The Applicant and the Planning Department acknowledge that a crucial permit from the State has not yet been obtained. Ironically, the Applicant will need to produce an air quality model in order to obtain that permit. The model will serve to demonstrate whether or not the Applicant can satisfy air quality standards based upon the anticipated production levels at the Cerise Mine. Doesn't it make sense to delay action on the Application until the model is available for review by the County and other interested parties? 3. Noise. County regulations require that a proposed gravel operation demonstrate its ability to meet sound level standards not only at locations 25 feet from the permit boundary, but also beyond that point, Applicant's noise study only projects noise levels, after mitigation, 25 feet from the permit boundary, but not beyond. Even so limited, the Applicant's study discloses at least five (5) locations along the permit boundary adjacent to neighboring residential land that exceed 55 decibels, the maximum sound level allowed. By contrast, the Coalition noise study projects noise levels well beyond the permit boundary at nine (9) residences within Wooden Deer. The projected noise levels at those residences, even after proposed mitigation, are far in excess of nuisance levels established by State and County regulations. This is particularly true with regard to the use of heavy equipment for stripping topsoil. Without any factual or legal support, Applicant asserts that stripping topsoil should be considered construction activity which is allowed to generate up to 80 decibels of noise at the permit boundary and beyond. The noise levels at Wooden Deer residences will be THE MYLER LAW FIRM, P.C. Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County, Colorado June 23, 2011 Page 3 roughly 16 times greater than otherwise allowed during this so-called construction activity. The Coalition believes that stripping topsoil is integral to the mining operation and should not be considered as construction activity. Based upon the foregoing, the Applicant has failed to demonstrate its ability to satisfy applicable noise standards, which is a pre -requisite to approval. 4. Cumulative Impacts. Several County regulations address and prohibit side-by-side mining operations that will create cumulative impacts, and in particular air pollution. As described in the written materials and comments of neighbors, the cumulative impacts of the Cerise Mine operating immediately adjacent to the Western Slope Aggregate gravel mine are potentially devastating to the quality of life of those neighbors. As suggested in a letter from the Wooden Deer Homeowners' Association, the cumulative impacts can largely be avoided if the two (2) gravel mining operations are coordinated and phased such that the extent of mining activity occurring at any one time is reduced to the point where mitigation measures will be effective. The Coalition believes that there may be an opportunity to approach gravel mining in this area on a comprehensive basis, reducing the amount of mining occurring at any one time and employing effective mitigation, including monitoring of noise and dust, Rather than attempting to achieve this objective through conditions of approval, the Coalition believes that it would be better to deny the Cerise Mine Application and, in so doing, provide direction to the Applicant regarding the issues and concerns that will need to be addressed in a new application and recommending that the Applicant work with Western Slope Aggregate and its neighbors to develop a comprehensive plan. The BOCC hearing process is simply not an effective or efficient forum in which to fine tune the Applicant's proposal, much less facilitate coordination with the neighboring gravel mine. Very truly yours, THE MYLER L 1 g RM, P.0 David J. Myler PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FROM APRIL 13, 2011 MEMBERS ATTENDING STAFF ATTENDING Adolfo Gorra Becky Wheelersburg Bob Fullerton Kathy Eastley _ Cheryl Chandler Fred Jarman Carey Gagnon Molly Orkild-Larson John Kuersten Lauren Martindale Philip Vaughan EXHIBIT )9( Public Hearing #3 PRESENTER: Molly Orkild-Larson - Planner APPLICANT: Clifford Cerise Ranch Company, LLLP REQUEST: Consider a request for a Land Use Change Permit for a Major Impact Review of the Clifford Cerise Ranch Company, LLLP application for extraction of aggregate on 65.48 acres of a 97.81 acre parcel located approximately 2 miles northeast of the Town of Carbondale, CO, off of CR 103. (File # MIPA-6545) Sean Frish, a land manager for LaFarge; Chase Mullen, with Winston & Associates; and Pam Hora, with Tetratech are the representatives for the applicant. Philip Vaughan explained how this hearing will proceed. Philip Vaughan swore in everyone who will speak on this issue. Carey Gagnon questioned the applicant about noticing this hearing. Carey Gagnon determined that notice is adequate and the applicant may proceed. Molly Orkild-Larson read the exhibits into the record. Philip Vaughan accepted the exhibits into the record. Molly Orkild-Larson gave a PowerPoint presentation. Staff has recommended approval with conditions. Philip Vaughan asked for questions from staff. Lauren Martindale asked that staff go into more detail about the vegetation and reclamation. Molly Orkild-Larson explained. Philip Vaughan asked the applicant to give their presentation. 1 Applicant gave a PowerPoint presentation about the project and showed reclamation projects that they have completed. Philip Vaughan asked for questions of the applicant before they continued with their visual presentation. Lauren Martindale asked if there will be any standing water on the site. Sean Frish stated that they will be mining above the water table and the only water that will be seen is the water in the tailings pond, which will be continually reused. Adolfo Gorra asked about their request for a 90 decibel noise level 15 minutes out of every hour, which has never been done before, and he wanted to know the necessity for it. Jeff Cerjan, with a noise and vibration consulting firm, (could not understand the name of the company), stated that 90 decibels has been done before, and that it is allowable in the State Statute. Sean Frish stated that there are two provisions in the Statute. One provision is that, during construction phase, the decibel level can reach 80, which is the industrial day -time limit. The second provision is that 10 more decibels can be applied for no more than 15 minutes an hour. This is to allow for construction equipment to move around and this will only apply during the construction of the berm. Applicant presented a "fly over" simulation of the site and how the site will progress. Philip Vaughan asked for further questions of the applicant. (Break here) Philip Vaughan called the meeting back to order and opened public comment. PUBLIC COMMENT Tom Hays — Address: 593 Wooden Deer Rd., Carbondale, CO Mr. Hays urged the Planning Commission to deny this application due to the negative impacts this project will have on the residents of the subdivision, which would include a decrease in the quality of life for the surrounding residents. Mr. Hays listed other negative impacts, such as truck traffic, visual impact, etc. Mr. Hays used photos, that were taken from homes of the residents, to show that if this is approved, with the current Blue Pit mine operations, there will be a continuous open pit mine over a mile long. Mr. Hays further used the photos to show the visual impacts this project will have on the residents of the Wooden Deer Subdivision. David Myler — Address: 4131 CR 103, Carbondale, CO Mr. Myler was here on behalf of the Crystal Springs Coalition, which includes residents in the Wooden Deer Subdivision and the Rim Ledge Subdivision. Mr. Myler recognizes the need for aggregate and jobs. The Crystal Springs Coalition has nothing against gravel pits in general, but this is the wrong project in the wrong location, at the wrong time. It is in the wrong place because it is too close to established residential areas to effectively mitigate the negative impacts, and it is at the wrong time because there is no need for the aggregate that they are going to produce. Mr. Myler refered to the written reports the Crystal Springs Coalition has submitted and hopes that the Planning Commission will take them into account. Mr. Myler asked the Planning Commission to read the 2 letters that have been written that describe the impacts to the residents. Mr. Myler stated that the applicant has submitted a lot of information but none of it satisfies the air quality standards set for gravel extraction. Mr. Myler talked about the discrepancy in the zoning for this area, and the Crystal Springs Coalition feels it should not be industrial, but residential, based on the applicant's reclamation plan to build homes. Mr. Myler talked about the noise standards and how they will be violated. Mr. Myler stated that the berm they will be building will be good for visual screening, but will not do much for noise mitigation in the Wooden Deer Subdivision. The Crystal Springs Coalition is requesting a condition that the applicant be required to install monitoring devices so that the residents can get real time readouts of the air quality and noise levels that can be monitored remotely by computer. The Crystal Springs Coalition is also requesting a condition to change operating times to Monday through Friday, 7:00 am to 5:00 pm, Saturdays, 8:00 to 5:00 pm and no operation on Sundays. Will Burggret - Address: 805 Wooden Deer Rd., Carbondale, CO Mr. Burggret stated that what is being presented is not realistic because the subdivision is too close for them to mitigate the health hazards. Mr. Burggret asked them to deny this project. Dan Jervis - Address: 276 Wooden Deer Rd., Carbondale, CO Mr. Jervis stated that he did not receive notice by registered mail. Mr. Jervis asked the Planning Commission members to raise their hand if they have visited the Wooden Deer Subdivision. Philip Vaughan explained to Mr. Jervis they do not raise hands for polling. Mr. Jervis talked about the importance of the people and the wildlife, mainly the nesting eagles, that will be effected, and how it seems these do not matter to the County. Ernest Kollar — Address: 746 Wooden Deer Rd., Carbondale, CO Mr. Kollar handed out items which becomes exhibit "EE". Mr. Kollar's exhibit shows what it looks like to have all of these continuous gravel pits. The view study that the applicant did was misleading because it shows green fields where the already existing Blue Pit is. Also, a good portion of the Blue Pit is not shown and the Powers Pit is not shown at all. The applicant will strip top soil from the entire site and work down, with no progressive reclamation. Mr. Kollar stated that he called to complain about thick dust, even though the applicant states there have been no complaints. Mr. Kollar stated that the property in question was zoned as residential and the Powers Pit was nearing completion, so the residents thought they could endure this. However, extensions to the Powers Pit permit were given without public input. Even though the applicant states this is a continued use, it is a new use, which conflicts with the existing residential subdivision. If there are air and noise problems, how will it be determined which pit the problem is coming from? The neighborhood should not be expected to endure the impacts from side by side pits. Michael Cerise — Address: 0086 CR 104, Carbondale, CO Mr. Cerise is one of the owners of the property. Mr. Cerise gave a history about the Powers Pit and the Blue Pit. He stated that the Wooden Deer Subdivision came several years after the pits were started. The Cerise family had to figure out what to do with their property to support their family and they decided to extract the resource. Todd Otheiser- Address: 2440 Bitterroot Circle, Lafayette, CO Mr. Olheiser is with LaFarge and has been involved with this project for quite some time. Mr. Olheiser gave his support to the project on behalf of the local management group, who are people who make their living in this area based on gravel resources. John Martin — Address: 3602 CR 108, Carbondale, CO Speaks in support of the project on behalf of the Cerise family. There was no further Public Comment. 3 Philip Vaughan asked for brief summation from the applicant. LaFarge wanted to address the conditions brought up by the Crystal Springs Coalition as to the limitation that would put on their mining operation and will have their consultant address some of the other issues brought up by the public comment. Jeff Cerjan, spoke about the noise impact and finds the information on exhibit "AA", submitted by Mr. Myler, to be incorrect, and stated what he considered to be the correct information. Daniel Prang? (could not understand last name) - Address: 5642 Santa Clara Rd., Indian Hills, CO Mr. Prang is the consultant that prepared the air quality statement that is included in the staff report. Mr. Prang addressed the fugitive dust plan and the best management practices that are proposed as conditions of approval. These are proven practices throughout the industry and accepted by state agencies as being efficient in mitigating and minimizing dust emissions that are associated with gravel operations. Mr. Prang also addressed the issue of the ability of the site to meet the national air quality standards for particulate matter, and stated that LaFarge will have to demonstrate they are meeting these standards. Sean Frish addressed the wildlife issue, in particular, the roosting eagles. The Department of Wildlife reviewed their wildlife study and did not have any comments. There are no regulations about roosting eagles, only nesting eagles. Mr. Frish stated that LaFarge has submitted a complete and thorough investigation and application of this site. LaFarge is committed to using all mitigation techniques to the best of their ability to mitigate any side impacts that may come along with this application. Philip Vaughan stated, that for the purposes of representation of the April 13th response from Gyler & Associates, Mr. Vaughan feels it necessary, after response from the noise consultant of the applicant, that Mr. Myler should have the opportunity to come back to the podium. Mr. Mylar stated that he stands by the Crystal Springs Coalition's noise expert, and realizes that experts are going to disagree. The noise issue is critical to the Cerise neighbors and critical to LaFarge. Mr. Mylar is thrilled that LaFarge is getting the modeling done that they need. The Crystal Springs Coalition's comment is that the modeling needs to be brought into this process so it can be reviewed by everyone, and perhaps make the application better by addressing all of the impacts. A request for a motion was made to go into executive session, for the purpose of receiving legal advice on a specific legal question, regarding NOISE, pursuant to CRS Section 24-6-403(3)(A)(II). MOTION SECOND VOTE Bob Fullerton Adolfo Gorra UNA The Planning Commission members went into recess for executive session. Philip Vaughan called the hearing back to order. Philip Vaughan asked for a motion for the Planning Commission to come out of executive session and back into the hearing. MOTION SECOND VOTE Bob Fullerton Adolfo Gorra UNA Philip Vaughan asked for further questions of applicant or staff from the Planning Commission members. 4 Philip Vaughan asked the applicant if they would comply with the 80 decibel maximum versus the 80 decibels plus 10 decibels, during the construction activity for their project. Mr. Frish stated that they would not comply with 80 decibels because of the noise of construction equipment. John Kuersten asked about the staff conditions. Mr. Frish stated they do not have any problems with the staff conditions, and they agree to all of them. Lauren Martindale asked the applicant to speak to the monitoring options that were proposed during the public comment. Mr. Frish stated that the real time monitoring would be a difficult and expensive process to go through. LaFarge does not have any violations filed against them and by getting the permits through the State, they will comply with the national air quality standards. LaFarge does not feel that they need to be monitored in real time because there are inspectors to monitor the site. There were no further questions of applicant or staff and public session is closed A motion was made to approve the Land Use Change Permit for the Major Impact Review, for the extraction of gravel on 65.48 acres of land owned by Clifford Cerise Ranch Company, LLLP with the staff recommended findings 1-5, as modified during this hearing, and with conditions 1-37, with the only change being to #12, to delete the words "fugitive air" and replace them with "APEN" and exhibits A through EE. MOTION SECOND VOTE John Kuersten Adolfo Gorra UNA Discussion prior to vote: Philip Vaughan thanked everyone for their work on this project. Philip Vaughan stated that there are a lot of State regulations to comply with and the 37 conditions from the County that must be met by this applicant during the entire operation of this gravel pit. Bob Fullerton stated that he takes what the public has to say very seriously, but the decisions that the Planning Commission makes are not based solely on public input, but rather on regulations and legalities that they have to comply with. No further comment on the motion was made and a roll call vote was taken. 5 Permit Number, Facility Equipment ID: AIR POLLUTANT EMISSION NOTICE (APEN) & Application for Construction Permit — General [Leave blank unless APCD has already assigned a permit ii & AIRS ID] Emission Source AIRS ID: f f [Provide Facility Equipment ID to identify how this equipment is referenced within your organization.] Section 01 —Administrative Information Company Name: Source Name: Source Location: Portable Source Home Base: Mailing Address: Person To Contact: E-mail Address: Section 03 — General Information For existing sources, operation began on: Normal Hours of Source Operation: General description of equipment and purpose: NAICS, or SIC Code: County: Elevation: ZIP Code: Phone Number: Fax Number: f f hours/day Feet days/week Section 02 — Requested Action (check applicable request boxes) ❑ Request for NEW permit or newly reported emission source El Request PORTABLE source permit ❑ Request MODIFICATION to existing permit (check each box below that applies) ❑ Change fuel or equipment 0 Change company name ❑ Change permit limit ❑ Transfer of ownership 0 Other ❑ Request to limit HAPs with a Federally enforceable limit on PTE O Request APEN update only (check the box below that applies) ❑ Revision to actual calendar year emissions for emission inventory ❑ Update 5 -Year APEN term without change to permit limits or previously reported emissions Additional Coro. & Notes: For new or reconstructed sources. the projected startup date is: weeks/year Will this equipment be operated in any NAAQS nonattainment arca? (http://www.ednhe.state.eo.us/an/attainmaintain.html) ❑ Yes 0 No Section 04 Processine/Manufactnrine Equipment Information & Material Use Description of equipment': Manufacturer: Raw Materials: Finished Products: Other Process: ' I f addition Model No.: Serial No.: ❑ Don't know Description Actual Level For Data Year) Annual Requested Permitted Level- S cell' Units) Design Process Rate S eci Unitslllour 'Requested values will become permit limitations. Requested level should consider process growth over the next five years. FORM APCD-200 Page 1 of 2 Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Air Pollution Control Division (APCD) This notice is valid for five (5) years. Submit a revised APEN prior to expiration of five-year term, or when a significant change is made (increase production, new equipment, change in fuel type. etc). Mail this form along with a check for S152.90 to: Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment APCD-SS-B1 4300 Cherry Creek Drive South Denver, CO 80246-1530 For guidance on how to complete this APEN form: Air Pollution Control Division: (303) 692-3150 Small Business Assistance Program (SBAP): (303) (303) APEN forms: htto:llwww.cdohe.state.co.uslapldownlo Application status: http:flwww.cdphc.statc.co.uslapfssl ❑ Check box to request copy of draft permit prior to ❑ Check box to request copy of draft permit prior to APEN - Crushing Scree AIR POLLUTANT EMISSION NOTICE (APEN) & Application for Construction Permit — General Permit Number: Emission Source AIRS IDD: / 1 Section 05 — Emission Release information (Attach a separate sheet with relevant information in the event of multiple releases; provide datum & either Lat/Long or UTM) Operator Stack 1D No. Base Elevation (feet) Discharge Height Above Ground Level (Feet) Direction of outlet (check ane): ❑ Vertical Moisture (%) Horizontal Datum (NAD27, NAD83, WGS84) 0 Vertical with obstructing raincap Exhaust Opening Shape & Size (check one): 0 Circular: Inner Diameter (inches) _ Section 06 — Combustion Equipment & Fuel Consumption Information Company equipment Identification No.: Manufacturer: Fuel Type UTM UTM Fasting or Zone Longitude (12 or 13) (meters or degrees) ❑ Horizontal 0 Down 0 Other: Length (inches) = Model: UTM Northing or Latitude (meters or degrees) Method of Collection for Location Data (e.g. map. GPS. GoogleEarth) 0 Other (Describe): Width (inches) Serial No.: sign Input Rate (106 Btu/hr) Actual Level (For Data Year) Annual Requested Permitted Leve12 Fuel Heating Value (indicate: Percent by Weight Btu/lb, Btu/gal, Btu/SCE) Sulfur Ash (Specify Units) 'Requested values will become permit imitations. Requested level should cons der process growth over the next five years. Section 07 — Emissions Inventory Information & Emission Control information Attach any emission calculations and emission factor documentation to this APEN form. Cl Emission Factor Documentation attached Data year for actual calendar yr. emissions below Pollutant TSP Control Device Description Primary Secondary Overall Collection Efficiency Control Efficiency (% Reduction) PM Seasonal Fuel Use (%ofAnnual Use throughput above (cg.20o7): Emission Factor Uncontrolled Basis Units Actual Calendar Year Emissions' Requested Permitted Estimation Emissions' Method or Uncontrolled Controlled ons/Year Tons/Year Uncontrolled Controlled Emission Factor (Tons/Year) iTons/Year) Source Mzs sox Nox VOC Co Please use the APCD Non -Criteria Re ortable Air Pollutant Addendum form tojport pollutants no 'If emission fees will be based on actual emissions reported here. If left blank, annual emission fees will be based on requested emissions. if Requested Permitted Emissions is left blank, the APCD will calculate emissions based on the information supplied in sections 03 - 07. Section 08 --Applicant Certification - I hereby certify that all information contained herein and information submitted with this application is complete, true and correct. isted above. Signature of Person Legally Authorized to Supply Data Date Name of Legally Authorized Person (Please print) Title Page 2 of 2 APEN - Crushing -Screening Equipment (2) Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Air Pollution Control Division MINING OPERATIONS - GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR FUGITIVE PARTICULATE AIR POLLUTANT EMISSION NOTICE / CONTROL PLAN Complete only those sections of this form which are applicable to your operation. All data given, such as production rates, topsoil removal, etc., should be for that period of 12 months that is expected to have the greatest amount of activity, usually for the first year. Emissions will be calculated in terms of pounds per day and tons per year of particulates generated. Also, please submit the following, if available: 1. A map showing site location and boundaries, haul roads, and nearby residences or commercial structures. 2. Production schedule. 3. Schematic of the operation. 4. Engineering or manufacturing data on control equipment. PERMITS REQUIRED Fugitive Particulate Emission Permits are issued for site-specific activities, such as mining, storage of materials, haul road activities, etc. The Division will use the information submitted on this form to estimate emissions from the activity. Any processing equipment, such as a crusher, screen, concrete batch plant, or asphalt plant is considered to be portable and requires a separate permit application, Air Pollution Emission Notice, and filing fee. This aids the applicant by requiring only a revised Air Pollution Emission Notice for Relocation, whenever the equipment is moved to a new site. FEES A filing fee of $152.90 shall accompany each Air Pollution Emission Notice / Control Plan fled with a permit application. Permit processing fees will be charged for the amount of time the Division spends evaluating the permit application. These fees, (currently $59.98 per hour) plus any required public notice fees, must be paid before an Initial Approval Permit will be issued. Once the project has commenced operation, the source has 180 days to certify compliance with the permit conditions. Once the source has self -certified, Final Approval processing will begin. Final Approval Permit processing fees must be paid before the Final Approval Permit is issued. For more information or assistance call: Small Business Assistance Program (303) 692-3148 Small Business Ombudsman (303) 692-2135 Revised September 2004 http:/fwww.cdphe.state.co.us/ap/stationary.htrnl Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Air Pollution Control Division - MINING OPERATIONS - THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Revised September 2004 http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/ap/stationary.html Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Air Pollution Control Division Page 1 of 6 - MINING OPERATIONS - Air Pollutant Emission Notice (APEN) — and -- Application for Construction Permit - and — Fugitive Particulate Emissions Control Plan El New Facility fl Transfer of Ownership * ❑ Change in Production [) No Change, APEN Update Only All sections of this ADEN and application must be completed prior to subinittal to the Division for both new and existing facilities. An application with missing information may be determined incomplete and may result in longer engineer processing times. * Note: For transfer of ownership or company name change of a permit, you must also submit a Constniction Permit Application form. Permit Number AIRS Number Company Name: Pit/Mine Name: County: Pit/Mine Location: Billing Address: Zip Code: Person to Contact: Phone Number: E -Mail Address: Fax Number: Please provide description alike activity: (Also, please provide a site map) If facility is NOT yet constructed: What is the projected start-up date? Normal Operation of this Source: Hours per day Seasonal Throughput (% of Annual): Dec - Feb Mar - May Days per week Weeks per year Juane - Aug Sept - Nov Estimated Maximum Annual Production: Tons Per Year Commodity Produced: (Please be consistent with the Division of Minerals and Geology permit) ❑ Aggregate / Sand and Gravel ❑ Stone ® Coal • Minerals or Metals Type: ❑ Other: Revised September 2004 htto://www.cdphe.state.co.uslaplstationa:y.htntl Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Air Pollution Control Division Page 2 of 6 MINING OPERATIONS - ESTIMATED EMISSIONS Year For Which Actual Data App lies: Pollutant Estimated Emissions (tons/yr) at throughputs requested r Actual !missions From Data Year Estimation Method Controlled Uncontrolled Particulate _ PM -1O A. TOPSOIL REMOVAL Maximum Tons Removed Per Day: Tons Removed Per Year: Proposed Controls For Topsoil Removal: D Moist Material 0 Water Spray 0 Other (specify) B. TOPSOIL STOCKPILES) Maximum Stored At One Time: Proposed Controls For Topsoil Stockpile: Watering Or Chemical Stabilizer O Compacting Of Piles 0 Enclosures Type: 0 Revegetation o Other (specify) Tons Times/Day (Complete or Partial) Revegeiation Must Occur Within One Year Of Soil Disturbance C. OVERBURDEN REMOVAL Equipment Used For Removal: Maximum Tons Removed Per Day 13y Dragline: Tons Removed Per Year By Dragline: Number Of Scraper Hours Per Day: Number Of Scraper Hours Per Year: Proposed Controls For Overburden Removal: 0 Moist Material 0 Water Spray o Other (specify) Scraper, Dragline, or Both Revised September 2004 http:/hwww.cdphe.state.co.uslaplstationary,html Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Air Pollution Control Division Page 3 of 6 MINING OPERATIONS - D. OVERBURDEN STOCKPILE(S) Maximum Stored At One Time Proposed Controls For Overburden Stockpile: ❑ Watering ❑ Chemical Stabilizer 11 Compacting Of Piles Enclosures Revegetation ❑ Other (specify) E. DRILLING Number Of Iloles Drilled Per Day: Number Of Holes Drilled Pcr Year: Proposed Controls For Drilling: ❑ Water Injection ❑ Chemical Stabilizer ❑ Bag Collectors ❑ Other (specify) F. BLASTING Number Of Blasts Pcr Day: Number Of Blasts Per Year: Type of Blasting Material Used: Tons of Blasting Material Used: Hours Of Emissions Per Day: Tons Times/Day (Complete or Partial) Revegetation Must Occur Within One Year Of Soil Disturbance G. RAW MATERIAL REMOVAL Maximum Tons Removed Per Day: Tons Removed Per Year: Drop Height: Feet Specify Moisture Content: _ %, (if known) Proposed Controls For Raw Material Removal: ❑ Moist Material ❑ Water Spray ❑ Other (specify) H. RAW MATERIAL STOCKPILES) Maximum Stored At One Time: Proposed Controls For Raw Material Stockpile: ❑ Watering ❑ Chemical Stabilizer ❑ Compacting Of Piles 0 Enclosures Type: (Complete or Partial) ❑ Revegetation ❑ Other (specify) Times/Day Revegetation Must Occur Within One Year Of Soil Disturbance Revised September 2004 http://Wv►vtv.cdphe.state.co,uslao/stationary.htint Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Air Pollution Control Division Page 4 of 6 - MINING OPERATIONS - I. PROCESSING Will processing (i.e., cnishing, screening, etc.) occur on site? Yes/No NOTE: ALL PROCESS EQUIPMENT REQUIRES A SEPARATE PERMIT APPLICATION AND APEN. PRIMARY CRUSHING Maximum tons crushed per year: Tons Maximum tons crushed per hour: Tons Hours of crushing per day:. Proposed Controls: ❑ Moist Material ❑ Water Spray ❑ Enclosure Type: 0 Other (specify) SECONDARY CRUSHING Maximum tons crushed per year: Tons Maximum tons crushed per hour: Tons Hours of crushing per day: Proposed Controls: ❑ Moist Material ❑ Water Spray ❑ Enclosure Type: ❑ Other (specify) J. SCREENING/CLASSIFY ING Maximum tons screened per year: Tons Maximum tons screened per hour: Tons Hours of screening per day: Proposed Controls: Moist Material ❑ Water Spray ❑ Enclosure Type: 0 Other (specify) RESCREENING/CLASSIFYING Maximum tons screened per year: Maximum tons screened per hour: Hours of screening per day: Proposed Controls: ❑ Moist Material ❑ Water Spray ❑ Enclosure Type: CONVEYORS/TRANSFER POINTS Tons Of Material Conveyed Per Year Tons Of Material Conveyed Per Day Proposed Controls 0 Enclosure Type: 0 Other (specify) Number Of Transfer Points : Proposed Controls 0 Enclosure Type: Water Spray 0 Chemical Stabilizer 0 Other (specify) 0 Other (specify) (Indicate On A Separate Diagram How Conveyor System Is Set Up) Tons. Tons. Tons Tons (Complete or Partial) (Complete or Partial) Revised September 2004 http:Ilwww.cdphe.state.co_uslaplstationarv.html Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Air Pollution Control Division -MINING OPERATIONS - K. FINISHED PRODUCT STOCKPILE(S) Maximum Stored At One Time: Proposed Controls For Finished Product Stockpile: ❑ Watering ❑ Chemical Stabilizer ❑ Compacting Of Piles Enclosures Type: ❑ Revegetation D Other (specify) Tons Times/Day (Complete or Partial) Page 5of6 Revegetation Must Occur Within One Year Of Soil Disturbance L. RAW MATERIAL TRANSPORT FROM REMOVAL SITE TO STOCKPILE(S) Haul road distance (one way) Feet Road surface silt content (if known) °!o Posted speed limit on haul road m.p.h. C7 Watering p Frequent (Watering Frequency of 2 or More Times Per Day) p As Needed ❑ Chemical Stabilizer ❑ Gravelling Other: Vehicle Type Capacity Empty Weight 1 18 -Wheelers Tons Tons 2 10 -Wheelers Tons Tons 3 4 -Wheelers Tons Tons 4 Tons Tons No, Of Trips Per/Day M. FINISHED PRODUCT TRANSPORT (ON SITE) Amount of material for off-site transfer: 'ions per year On-site haul road distance (one way) Feet Road surface silt content (if known) 010 Posted speed limit on-site: m.p.h. ❑ Watering ❑ Frequent (Watering Frequency of 2 or More Times Per Day) ❑ As Needed ❑ Chemical Stabilizer ❑ Gravelling El Paving Other: Vehicle Type Capacity Empty Weight No. Of Trips Per/Day 1 18 -Wheelers _ Tons Tons 2 10 -Wheelers Tons Tons 3 4 -Wheelers Tons Tons 4 Tons Tons Revised September 2004 http:Ilwww.cdphe.state.co.uslap!station ary.htnil Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Air Pollution Control Division Page 6 of 6 - MINING OPERATIONS - N. SITE DISTURBANCE Total Area of Site: Acres Total Disturbed Area of Site: Acres Proposed Controls: • Watering 0 Frequent (Watering Frequency of 2 or More Times Per Day) • As Needed O Chemical Stabilizer Cl Revegetation Revegetation Must Occur Within One Year Of Site Disturbance ❑ Seeding With Mulch • Seeding Without Mulch ❑ Other (specify) Additional Sources of Emissions List any other sources of emissions and related controls (includes fugitive emissions) Signature of Legally Authorized Person (not a vendor or consultant) Date Name (please print) Title Check the appropriate box if you want: ❑ Copy of Preliminary Analysis conducted by the Division 0 To review a draft of the permit prior to issuance (Checking any of these boxes may result in an increased fee and/or processing time) This notice is valid for five (5) years unless a significant change is made, such as an increased production, new equipment, change in fuel type, etc. A revised APEN shall be filed no less than 30 days prior to the expiration date of this APEN form. Send this form along with $152.90 to: Telephone: (303) 692-3150 Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Air Pollution Control Division A PCD -SS -B 1 4300 Cherry Creek Drive South Denver, CO 80246-1530 Revised September 2004 http://www.cdphe.state.co.uslapistationatty.httnl From: To: Subject: Date: Molly: ernie kollar Molly Ork:Id-Larson Re: Cerise Mine Application; Dust photos and video #1 Monday, June 27, 2011 10:27:31 AM EXHIBIT 1. The following were taken from Highway 82, near the entrance to the existing Powers (Lafarge) pit, looking N.E.; (Wooden Deer is in background): photos titled Lafarge -1 and Lafarge -2 and video titled Lafarge Dust, 2. The following were taken from CR103 near the proposed Cerise entrance, looking East toward Blue pit: Photos titled WSA-1 and WSA-2 and video titled WSA DustClouds 3. The photo titled Lafarge -3 was taken from the residence at 0276 Wooden Deer, looking SW toward the Powers pit. Let me know if you need any other information. Thank you, Ernie On Man, Jun 27, 2011 at 9:28 AM, Molly Orkild-Larson <morkild-larson@garfiield- county.conl> wrote: Erie: Could you identify where the photos were taken, which pit and what direction. Also, could you also the same for the video dips that you sent. Thanks, Molly From: ernie kollar[mailto:erniekollar.woodendeerngtnail.comj Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2011 8:39 PM To: Molly Orkild-Larson Cc: Dave Myler Subject Cerise Mine Application; Dust photos and video #1 MoIIv Orkild-Larson From: ernie kollarlerniekollar.woodendeer@gmail.comJ Sent: Monday, June 27, 2011 10:28 AM To: Molly Orkild-Larson Subject: Re: Cerise Mine Application; Dust photos and video #1 Melly: 1. The following were taken from Highway 82, near the entrance to the existing Powers (Lafarge) pit, looking N.E.; (Wooden Deer is in background): photos titled Lafarge -1 and Lafarge -2 and video titled Lafarge Dust, 2. The following were taken from CR103 near the proposed Cerise entrance, cooking East toward Blue pit: Photos titled WSA-1 and WSA-2 and video titled WSA DustClouds 3. The photo titled Lafarge -3 was taken from the residence at 0276 Wooden Deer, looking SW toward the Powers pit. Let me know if you need any other information. Thank you, Ernie On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 9:28 AM, Molly Orkild-Larson <morkild-Larson cigarfield-county.com> wrote: Eric: Could you identify where the photos were taken, which pit and what direction. Also, could you also the same for the video clips that you sent. Thanks, Molly From: ernie kollar [mailto:erniekollar.woodendeer(r amail.com] Sent: Sunday, June 26, 201 1 8:39 PM To: Molly Orkild-Larson Cc: Dave Myler Subject: Cerise Mine Application; Dust photos and video 141 1 Molly: Attached find photos and video taken of Lafarge's Powers pit and WSA's Blue pit on June 16th, 2011. The photos clearly show dust originating from both pits and forming a dust cloud down wind. They indicate why continuous monitoring is needed; the wind kicked up after hours; the foreman, who is supposed to identify dust, was gone for the day and did not water the stock piles before leaving for the day. The photos also reveal how large exposed areas of gravel with no vegetation can be devastating and why phasing and smaller mining areas is crucial. Please distribute to the Commissioners and include in the public record. Since the video file size is large, I will send over two emails. Thank you, Ernie Kollar Ernest Kollar, President Wooden Deer HOA 963-3223 .erniekollar.woodendeer@gmail.com 2 Ernest Kollar, President Wooden Deer HOA 963-3223 erniekollar.woodendeer a gunaii.conm 612712011 VIA EMAIL To: Board of County Commissioners, Garfield County, CO c/o Molly Orkild-Larson Re: Cerise Mine Dear Commissioners: As homeowners in Wooden Deer Subdivision (for 13 years) and as active members of the Crystal Springs Coalition, we would like to join Mr. Myler in thanking you for so carefully considering the issues regarding the proposed Cerise Mine. You have heard in great detail why we are so adamantly opposed to this proposition. Please allow us to briefly address a few of the issues that have been raised. 1) Cumulative impact: The most important issue is the cumulative impact that will occur from two gravel mines operating side by side for an indefinite number of years. This impact has never been studied by any county/ state regulatory agencies, nor has it been addressed by WSA or Lafarge. In a letter dated 8/1012010, Lafarge stated, Lafarge has worked to minimize the cumulative impacts of having two mining areas adjacent to each other [this is simply not true] and is willing to work with the Blue Pit to develop a comprehensive mining plan for the area. Yet ten months later, no such willingness had been displayed, and in fact Mr. Frisch told the County Commissioners he had been unable to get in touch with the Blue Pit—a statement that strains credulity. It is our view that without in-depth studies of this cumulative impact, the application should not be approved. 2) Health issues: You have heard about existing as well as potential health problems resulting from dust and fumes from not only the gravel pits, but also from the proposed asphalt plant. Again, these health hazards will only be magnified by two adjacent pits situated directly below Wooden Deer subdivision. There has been a great deal of testimony about plans to "mitigate" the harmful effects of noise and dust. The definition of "mitigate" is to "make less severe;" it does not mean "eliminate." This is an important distinction, because when we are talking about polluting on a daily basis the air we breathe, making that pollution "less severe" is not acceptable. In fact, we have many years of first hand experience that efforts at "mitigation," if they exist at all, are completely ineffective. It is clear that such an operation—much less two operations-- is simply incompatible with a residential neighborhood. 3) Property values: The Garfield County Comprehensive Plan states that any proposed mining operation may be denied if it impairs "the stability or value of existing adjacent properties." During the many hours of public comment, we have heard remarks to the effect that our residential homeowners "should have known" that new gravel pits would be in our future. Of course we were aware of the existing pits, which we believed were nearing the end of their operations. There is no way the homeowners could have, or should have, anticipated their property values would be drastically reduced by the establishment of a totally new mining operation directly adjacent to us. Such an operation would irrevocably lessen "the desirability of the immediate neighborhood." And while the WSA and Powers mines obviously pre -date the Wooden Deer subdivision, that surely cannot justify imposing the burden of a new mine on residents who invested in this neighborhood in good faith. As you have heard in person, one elderly couple in our neighborhood, who desperately needs to sell and relocate, has been rejected by a potential buyer specifically because of the threat of a new mining operation directly below them. We suspect this will be the pattern if Lafarge is allowed to continue, thus turning a vital and beautiful residential area into a group of undesirable and un -sellable properties. 4) Need for production: With an abundance of gravel mining operations already in existence in this county, and a decreased demand due to the economic slow -down, there is no proven need for an operation of this kind. The gravel and the mineral rights will be there if the need exists in the future. Why should residents be afflicted now? And without any real need, and given the health hazards, the air and. noise pollution that would be greatly intensified, the negative impact to neighboring property values, and the inability to satisfactorily "mitigate" any of the above—plus the extremely important fact that cumulative impact has not been studied at all --we urge you to deny this application in the interest of the greater good of the community. Thank you for your time and your diligence. Respectfully, Sue & Chris Coyle 501 Wooden Deer Rd. Carbondale, CO 81623 LAFARGE AGGREGATES & CONCRETE June 28, 2011 Garfield County Planning and Zoning Attn: Molly Orkild-Larson 108 8'h Street Glenwood Springs, CO 8I601 Dear Ms. Orkild-Larson, EXHIBIT 1 CC,- Co Per your request on June 23, 2011, Lafarge provides the following comments. First and foremost, Lafarge believes it has submitted a complete, thorough and exemplary application for the Cerise Mine Land Use Change permit. Further, the application is in compliance with applicable Garfield County Codes, along with State and Federal regulations. As you are also aware, the State of Colorado has already issued a Reclamation Permit for this site. With respect to the numbered items in your email on June 23, 2011 we comment as follows: Noise: The noise impact study conducted by Hankard Environmental determined that using mitigation techniques will result in all required noise levels being met. Please note that the adjacent Powers pit reclamation is approved for agricultural use, which was contemplated by the noise impact study. The predicted noise output levels were based upon previous measurements of on-site equipment at the Powers Mine, industry standards for noise levels such as the Roadway Construction Noise Model created and utilized by the Federal Highway Administration and other published, peer reviewed sources. The Cerise Mine will meet the permissible noise levels. 2. Air Quality: Lafarge has committed to installing or implementing all mitigation techniques found in the air quality analysis. An email from Walter Wright with Lafarge was sent on June 27, 2011 outlining the Air Quality Standards from the Colorado Department of Health and Environment. 3. Options to Consider in order to Lessen Cumulative Impacts: All current baseline information was taken into consideration, along with projected uses for neighboring properties. The mitigation measures identified in the application have been incorporated by Lafarge and made into conditions of approval by County Staff and recommended for approval 6-0 by the Planning Commission. 4. Copy of the Blue Pit Conditions of Approval: It is my understanding that these will be provided to the County Commissioners by County Staff. LAFARGE WEST, INC. — Aggregate & Concrete 10170 Church Ranch Way, Suite 200, Westminster, Colorado 80021 Telephone: (303) 657-4000 Facsimile: (303) 657-4037 )LAFARGE / AGGREGATES & CONCRETE 5. Map of the locations of existing temporary and permanent asphalt batch plants in Garfield County: As stated in an email from Sean Frisch of Lafarge on June 15, 2011, Lafarge leases space in two Lafarge aggregate operations for third party Asphalt Plants. Lafarge does not have specific information on other Asphalt Plant locations in Garfield County. I thank you for your consideration on these topics. Lafarge looks forward to a continuing investment in Garfield County and the continuing productive services of our 45 employees. Lafarge will remain flexible, but believes that the application it has submitted fully addresses all concerns raised at the hearing. I ask that you consider the recommendation for Approval with Conditions from Staff, the 36 conditions of approval ensuring compliance with all County standards and regulations and the 6-0 vote recommending Approval from the Planning Commission. For all these reasons we request that the County Approve the Cerise Mine. If there are any questions please feel free to contact me at any time. Sincerely, Sean Frisch, AICP Land Manager, Lafarge West, Inc. Office: 303-657-4336 Cell: 720-320-2451 LAFARGE WEST, INC. - Aggregate & Concrete 10170 Church Ranch Way, Suite 200, Westminster, Colorado 80021 Telephone: (303) 657-4000 Facsimile: (303) 657-4037 NM Kill �l' � 'i Ri+r l �i 1�.� } R 11111 Reception#. 798880 0211612011 02:61;23 PM Joan AlbecLco 1 of 14 Re* Fee:t0.00 Doo Fee:.0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO STATE OF COLORADO County of Garfield ) )ss EXHIBIT DDD At a regular meeting of the Board of County Commissioners for Garfield County, Colorado, held in the Commissioners' Meeting Room, Garfield County Courthouse, in Glenwood Springs on, Monday, the 8s' day of November, A.D. 2010, there were present: . John Martin , Commissioner Chairman Mike Samson , Commissioner Tresi Houpt , ConEunissioner Don DeFord , County Attorney Jean Aiberico , Clerk of the Board Ed Green (absent) , County Manager when the following proceedings, among others were had and done, to -wit:. RESOLUTION NO. 2011-10 A RESOLUTION CONCERNED WITH THE APPROVAL OF A LAND USE CHANGE PERMIT FOR EXTRACTION OF NATURAL RESOURCES RCES (SAND & GRAVEL) KNOWN AS THE "EXPANSION OF THE BLUE NT" PARCEL NO4.2393-254-00-265 & 2393-254-00-285 Recitals A. The Board of Comity Coni nissioners of Garfield County, Colorado, received an application from The Dolores (Dee) B. $lue Revocable Trust and Dee Blue for a Land Use Change Permit for Extraction of Natural Resources (Sand and Gravel) for the operation known as the "Expansion of the Blue Pit". B. The total property consists of 289 acres of which 82.70 acres are currently permitted for gravel extraction. The request is to maintain the existing and permitted gravel operations and to .add an additional 64 acres to the permitted area for gravel extraction and which. approved Site Plan and Reclamation Plan are attached hereto as Exhibits A and B respectively. C. The 289 -acre tract is located approximately 'A miles east of the main interstate intersection of Rifle Colorado between the Colorado River and Interstate 70 in Section 15, Township 6 South, Range 93 West of the 6th PM, Garfield County and legally described in Exhibit C attached.hereto. 1 ill 11ilf ll1.101 t t ' rKIA .Ni i 4 t hili4 11111 Rea*pption#: 798880 02115J2611 82:51:23 PM dawn Riberico 2 of 14 Rea Fea:$8.8O Doc Fee:0,80 GRRF1eL0 COUNTY CO D. The subject property is located within the Rural zone district and a Land Use Change Permit for Extraction of Natural Resources requires a Major fnnpact Review Process conducted by Garfield County. E. The Board is authorized to approve, deny orapprove with conditions a Land Use Change Permit for "Extraction of Natural Resources" pursuant to Section 1-301 and 4-106 of the Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008, as amended. F. The Garfield County Planning Commission opened a public hearing an 08/11/10 upon the question of whether the Land Use Change Permit application for Extraction of Natural Resources should be granted or denied, during which hearing the public and interested persons were given the opportunity to express their opinions regarding the application. G. The Garfield County Planning Cotnnzission closed the public hearing on 08/11/10 and forwarded a recommendation of approval with conditions to the Board of - County Commissioners. H. The Board of County Commissioners opened a public hearing on the 10th day of November, 2010 upon the question of whether the Land Use Change Permit application ,for Extraction of Natural Resources should be granted or denied, during which hearing the public and . interested persons were given the opportunity to express their opinions regarding the application H. The Board of County Commissioners closed the public hearing on the „10th day of November, 2010 to make a final decision. 1. The Board on the basis of substantial competent . evidence produced at the aforementioned hearing, has made the following determinations of fact: 1) That proper public notice was provided as required for the hearings bcforc the Planning Cotntnission and Board of County Commissioners, 2) That the hearings before the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners were extensive and complete, that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted or could be submitted and that all interested parties were heard at those meetings. 3) That for the above stated and other reasons, the Land Use Change Permit for an amendment to a Special Use Permit to expand the Gravel Extraction activities in the "Blue .Pit" is in the best interest of the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County, 4) The requested modification of Dryland Slope standards from a slope of 5:1 to 3:1 is 2 11111 � li�l,l>4 1���� i 'fink 11111 Receptionii: 798880 02/10/2011 02:61;23 Pt1 .lean Merico 3 of 14 Reo Fee:$0.00 Doo Fae:0A0 GARFIELD COUNTY GO in conformance with the purpose statement of Section 7-840 and that the modifications create an aesthetically pleasing site that blends with the surrounding area, to provide for wildlife habitat and, to provide for future re -use of the site. 5) It has been determined that the gravel extraction proposal is compatible with the existing zoning and future land use objectives of the Rural Zoning District and The Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2000. 6) That the application, if all conditions are met, can be in conformance with the applicable Sections of the Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008 as amended. RESOLUTION NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County, Colorado, that: I,. The forgoing Recitals are incorporated by this reference as part of the resolution. 2, That all representations made by the. Applicant in the application, and at the public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners, shall be conditions of approval, unless specifically altered by the Board of County Commissioners. 3. The operation of the facility shall be in accordance with all applicable Federal, State, and local regulations governing the operation of this type of facility. 4. The facility shall be operated so that the ground vibration inherently and recurrently generated is not perceptible, without instruments, at any point of any boundary line of the property on which the use is located, 5. Site operations shall not errut heat, glare, radiation, dust or fumes which substantially interfere with the existing use of adjoining and nearby property or which constitutes a nuisance or hazard. 6. All equipment and structures associated with this permit shall be painted with non -reflective paint in neutral colors to reduce glare and mitigate any visual impacts. 7. All lighting associated with the property shall be directed inward and downward towards the interior of the property. 8. The following recommendations of the Garfield County Road and Bridge Department shall become conditions of approval: 3 11111 i1"4,W A'r Mr N1' AINtri '11 11111 Racepption# 1 %98880 0211E720{1 02.51:23 Pit Jean Rlberica 4 of 14 Reo ree:$0.e0 Dnn Fee:0.01 GARFIELD COUNTY CO A) A stop sign shall be required at the entrance to the County Road 104. The sign and installation shall be as required in the MUTCD (Manual on Uniform Traffic Control :Devices). B) The owners of the gravel pit may be asked in the future to contribute to a road repair or improvement project for CR 104 and CR 103 to SR 82. . C) All vehicles using CR 103 and CR 104 to access the gravel pit shall abide by Garfield County's oversize/overweight system. All vehicles requiring oversize/overweight permits shall apply for them at CGarfeld County Road and Bridge Department. 9. The Reclamation Plan and Landscape Plan for the site shall be seeded using hydro -seeding with hydro -mulching using tacker for all slopes greater than 5:1 as required by Section 7- 840 of the ULUR. 10. The applicant shall submit a revised "Weed Control Plan Map" identifying the locations of Musk Thistle and Plumeless Thistle prior to issuance of a Laud Use Change Permit. All noxious weeds as listed by County Vegetation Management shall be controlled in any areas of the property not being actively mined at that time, including top soil piles and areas where mining has been discontinued for more than 30 days. 11. The applicant shall comply with the following provisions which are incorporated herein as conditions of approval: A) Hours of Operation: The gravel pit shall be allowed to operate Monday — Saturday, with crushing, digging and heavy hauling only occurring between 7:00 AM to 5:00 PM Monday through Friday; heavy hauling from 7:00AM to 5:00PM on Saturday; and crushing and digging from 8:00 AM to 5:00PM.on Saturday. There shall be no operations on Sunday except in the case of an emergency or for standard maintenance purposes. 13) All Trucks operating in the Pit (including third -party trucks not operated by the Owner or Operator, shall be subject to the following: i. All trucks shall have and maintain stock muffler systems that are performing to original manufacturer's specifications. This can be determined and verified by simple visual and auditory inspection of the truck. ii. All trucks ascending 6r descending the haul'route shall not exceed speeds of 10 mph. iii. All trucks descending the haul route or approaching the haul route access on SR 82 shall not use engine Jake Brakes to decelerate. 4 Reception#: 788880 02115,2911 02:61:23 P!1 Jean Alber1oo 5 of 14 Reo F'ee:SO.00 Doc Faa10.06 GARFIELD COUNTY CO iv. All trick. drivers, independent or employed by the applicant shall be briefed on the conditions above and shall agree to operate within the requirements of these stipulations. v. The applicant shall set up a series of progressive consequences for drivers that fail to comply with the above conditions: after three violations any trucker shall be prohibited from entering the pit for a time period of not less than one year. .12. All noise generated from the operation shall not exceed the Residential Zone noise standards defined in the CRS such that noise shall not exceed 55 dB(A) from 7:00 AM to 5:00 PM and 50 dB(A) from 5:00 PM to 7:00 AM when measured 25 feet outside of the Property Boundary. 13. The Owner or Operator shall submit an annual report to the County Building and Planning Department with GPS measurements shown on a map showing the current disturbance, what areas have been backfilled, where topsoil stockpiles are located, all site structures, what areas have been seeded, mulched, and what is planned for the ensuing 12 months. This annual report shall also include: 1) an updated estimate of gravel reserves remaining within the permitted boundaries and within each Mining Area Phase; and 2) the implementation of any and all technology within the Pit to mitigate or otherwise reduce noise, dust or other impacts to surrounding properties. The Owner or Operator shall, within one year prior to commencing mining operations within any Mining Phase or ten years since the most recent public meeting, whichever is sooner, schedule before the BOCC a public meeting to review the status of Mining and processing operations and to provide the citizens of Garfield County the opportunity to comment upon such operations. 14. The County can request a site inspection with 24 hours notice to the Operator or Property Owner. Full access to any part of the site will be granted. On request, all paperwork must be shown. 15. A full list of all other permits shall be provided to the County within 24 hours of a request by the County. Any person at any time can call the following agencies directly and request an inspection if they believe a condition of that agency's permit is being violated. A. CDPHE Asir Quality Control 303-692-3150 B. Division of Reclamation, Mining andSafety 303-866-3567 C. CDOT Grand Junction office 970-248-7000 16. The Property Owner and Operator acknowledge that the County has the following performance standards that could lead to revocation of the Land Use Change Permit: A. All fabrication, service and repair operations shall be conducted within an enclosed building or obscured by a fence; natural topography or landscaping. 5 NM Ike"111MINIFOIttek 111 111 Rccepttonl 795a60 cowry co 02116/2011 02.51:23 PM Jean Rrberico 8 of 14 IRec Fea:$0.00 Doc F'ee:0.0Q GRRFIELO COUN B. All operations involving loading and unloading of vehicles shall be conducted on private property and shall not be conducted on a public right-of-way. C. All industrial wastes shall be disposed of in a manner consistent with statutes and requirements of CDPFI:E. D. Every use shall be operated so that the ground vibration inherently and recurrently generated is not perceptible without instruments at any point of any boundary line of the property. E. Every use shall be operated so that it does not emit heat, glare, radiation or fumes which substantially interfere with the existing use of adjoining or nearby property or which constitutes a nuisance or hazard. Flaring of gases, aircraft warning signal and reflective painting of storage tanks, or other legal requirements for safety or air pollution control measures shall be exempted from this provision. 17. The County acknowledges that the State Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety ("DRMS") will require a reclamation bond for the operation. So as not to require a duplicate bond, the County will not as a part of this approval require a separate bond; however, the County reserves the right to require a bond in the future in the event the County determines the bond held by DRMS is inadequate or has been released prior to completion of adequate reclamation. The County shall be invited to any bond release inspection of the State Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety. The County will have the opportunity to demonstrate that any item of the permit has not been complied with and that bond should not be released. Specifically, the Final Reclamation Plan (Reclamation Plan Map) shall include the following components: A. When reclaimed, Mining Areas 2 and 4 shall be constructed to a 3:1 slope. See the Reclamation Plan Map of the application for the layout of these areas. This shall be required to be shown on the Final Reclamation Plan approved herein and tendered to the DBMS. B. Mining Operations shall be allowed to progress so long as the applicant reclaims each successive phase before moving on to the next phase as shown on the Mining Plan. The Applicant shall use "contemporaneous reclamation" as discussed in the application. If the reclamation does not follow the Mining Plan or has not been completed within eighteen (1 S) months, all mining operations on the property shall be halted until the reclamation and re -vegetation has occurred to the satisfaction of the County. Completion shall include but not be limited to recountering, top -soiling, seeding, and mulching. 6 ti'rhF RP ` I'LNI. LIKI, r.4REtif int Reception#: 798880 • 0211512051 02:51,23 P'1 Jean Rlberico 7 of S4 Rea Fee:$0.0Q Doc Fee:0.00 GRRFIELG COUN1Y GO C. The DRMS Final Reclamation Plan shall be resubmitted to Garfield County prior to the issuance of a Land Use Change Permit and shall be the only reclamation plan used by both the County and DRMS. Additionally, a new bond will be calculated to cover this plan and secured with DRMS to cover its inaplenentation. Proof of a recalculated bond shall be provided to the County prior to issuance of a UUCP. 18. The Concrete Plant shall remain in its current location in the bottom of the pit on the eastern end of Mining Area 1. No Asphalt Plant shall be allowed anywhere Within the Property unless the rye is separately approved by Garfield County pursuant to amendment of the withinapproval or pursuant to separate application. 19. Owner or Operator agrees to remove all stockpiled gravel and all facilities necessary for such removal located in Mining, Areas 2 or 4 within three hundred and sixty (360) days of the termination of this approval. 20. Primary. Crusher; a The primary jaw crusher shall be located at all tunes on the pit floor and as close as is practicable to the northern -most slope. If the primary jaw crusher cannot be located adjacent to the toe of the northern slope, then sound shall be mitigated with a 30 feet berm of material left in place or a. sound wall system; and b. Owner pr Operator shall use reasonable efforts and implementable technology to minimize sound emanating from the primary crusher. 21. All in -pit haul trucks, and exdavating equipment used by Owner or Operator instant to mining operations shall be equipped with "white noise" or similar backup alarms or no less effective alann equipment. Standard backup alarms, as to the above identified equipment shall not be utilized. 22. Secondary Crusher, Stackers and Conveyors: The Secondary Crusher and Stackers shall remain within the Phase 1 Mining Area. 23. The Owner or Operator shall not exceed 14ug/cu.meter of dust under normal operating conditions. All haulage roads within the pit shall be watered four (4) times per day unless due to inclement weather, snow or ice, such watering is not required. 24. Screening of Administration Building, Maintenance Buildings and Equipment. All buildings and equipment shall be screened or obscured from view of the Wooden Deer Subdivision by installation of berms and planting of trees (cottonwood, pine or their equivalents) which trees, at the time of planting, shall be at least ten (10) feet in height and spaced upon ten (10) foot centers. 7 IllInillitiAirtirlit rfilAtifirMill ICC IN 1 Ill Receptionfl; 798880 02/15/2041 92:51:23 PM Jean Rlberloo a of 14 Roc Fae:30.00 floc Fee:G.00 GPRFIELO COUNTY CO 25. Visual Impacts. Mining operations shall be conducted in strict conformity with the Visual Impact Study presented by the Applicant to the BOCC at its hearing of November 08, 2010. A copy of the representative photographs (modified to show anticipated visual unpacts) shall remain available to the public for visual inspection at the Garfield County Planning Office and by this reference are incorporated herein as amaterial part of this approval. 26. In order to be more compliant with ULUR § 7-840(11), the Rechn ation Plan shall be modified as shown on the attached Reclamation Plan. 27. Area of Expansion, The area of expansion approved by this Resolution shall be limited to the areas labeled Mining Area 2 (18.44 acres) and Mining Area 4 (22.05 acres) which are the two southern mining areas furthest away from any residential development. Further, this Permit shall expire on November 7, 2030. No mining is permitted within those areas labeled Mining Area 3 or Mining Area 5. Dated this 1LP 1`Pday of re -1 , A.D. 20 ti ATTEST: P4s, GARFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF 0 .4. 11 COMMISSIONERS, . GARFIELD COUNTY, 00 lerk of the Board ''•••---' Chai Upon motion duly made and seconded th for following vote: COMMISSIONER CHAIR JOHN F. MARTIN COMMISSIONER. MIKE SAMSON COMMISSIONER TRLSI HOUPT STATE OF COLORADO ) )ss County of Garfield ) ed by the Nay , Aye , Aye T, , County Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the Board of. .8 ■111 I SP ' tl+ pr iNA1PAN; 111 RaceptA0119; 7988641' 02/1812051 02:61123 PM Jean Piberico 9 of 14 Rea Foo:$9.00 Doo Fea:0.00 GARFIELO COUNTY CO County Commissioners, in and for the County and State aforesaid, do hereby certify that the annexed and foregoing Resolution- is truly copied from the Records of the Proceeding of the Board of County Commissioners for said Garfield County, now in my office. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, if have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said County, at Glenwood Springs, this day of , A.D. 2 County Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners 9 P- 1+44 4'44%4 1 a • 11111 1" 1' I r tiff oft 1 A r A ..,.el a.........44•01 A dP'a111011 Mai R ID Y,7 ANdireelet.4 J EXHIBIT A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN SECTIONS 25 'AND 36, TOWNSHIP 7 SOUTH, RANGE 88 WEST OF THE 6` P.M., GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO BEING MORE • PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NW CORNER OF THE NEI/4 OF THE NW114 OF SAID SECTION 25 WHENCE THE NW CORNER OF SAID SECTION 25 BEARS N 89034'3711 W A DISTANCE OF 1314.39 FEET ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 25; THENCE S 89°34'37' E ALONG SAID NORTH LINE OF SECTION 25 A DISTANCE OF 1314.39. FEET TO THE NE CORNER OF SAID NE1f4 OF THE NW114 OF SECTION 25; THENCE 8 02049'46" W ALONG THE EAST "LINE OF SAID NEI/4 OF THE NWlf4 OF SECTION 25 A DISTANCE OF 1367:97 FEET TO THE SE CORNER OF SAID NE Ifo OF THE NW 114 01? SECTION 25; THENCE S 88°58'01" E ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NW114 OF THE NE1/4 OF SAID SECTION 25 BEING ALSO THE NORTH LINE OF GLO LOT 1 OF SAID SECTION 25 A DISTANCE OF 1312.72 FEET TO THE SE CORNER OF SAID NW1/4 OF THE NE1/4 OF SECTION 25; THENCE S 02°18'30" W ALONG TILE EAST LINE OF SAID GLO LOT 1 A DISTANCE OF 1359,69 FEET TO THE NW CORNER OF THE NEI/4 OF THE 8E1/4 OF SAID SECTION -25; THENCE S 89°18'33" E ALONG THE NORTH LINE OP SAID NEI/4 OF THE SEI/4 OF SECTION 25 A DISTANCE OF 1047.54 FEET TO A POINT ON SAID NORTH LINE OF THE NE1/4 OF THE 8E1i4 OF SECTION 25; THENCE S 00°25'58". E ALONG THE WESTERLY BOUNDARY OF A PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN BOOK 516 PAGE 393 AS RECORDED IN THE OFFICE OF .THE GARFIELD COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER A DISTANCE OF 675.17 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTH 1/64 LINE OF THE SI/2 OF SAID SECTION 25; THENCE CONTINUING S 00025'58" E ALONG SAID WESTERLY BOUNDARY OF A PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN BOOK 516 PAGE 393 AS RECORDED IN THE OFFICE OF THE GARFIELD COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER A DISTANCE OF 675.10 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH 1/16 LINE OF SECTION 25; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID WESTERLY BOUNDARY OF A PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN BOOK 516 PAGE 393 AS RBCORDED 11N THE OFFICE OF THE GARFIELD COUNTY CLERK' AND RECOkDER 8 00°04'20" E A DISTANCE OF 686.61 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID WESTERLY BOUNDARY OF A PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN BOOK 516 PAGE 393 AS RECORDED IN THE OFFICE OF THE GARFIELD COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER S 00°04'24" E A DISTANCE OF 392.16 FEET. TO A POINT BEING THE CENTERLINE OF THE BASIN DITCH FROM WHENCE 'THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 25 (1987 BLM 3' ALC) BEARS S 34°20105" E A DISTANCE OF 329.97 FEET, SAID POINT BEING THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF A PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN BOOK 516, PAGE 393. AND SAID POINT ALSO LIES ON THE NORTH LINE OF A PARCEL OF LANI? DESCRIBED IN BOOK 642, PAGE 719 BEING THE RANCH AT ROARING FORK, THENCE ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF SAID BASIN DITCH AND SAID NORTH LINE OF THE RANCH AT ROARING FORK THE FOLLOWING FIVE COURSES; I) N 79°02'13" W A DISTANCE OF 161.27 FEET; • 2) THENCE 148802212511 W A DISTANCE OF 108.79 FEET; 3) THENCE S 83042'35" W A DISTANCE OF 116.20 FEET; 4) THENCE S 73047147" W A DISTANCE OF 157.24 FEET; 5) THENCE 5 81024120" W A DISTANCE OF 135,82 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WEST LINE OF GOVERNMENT LOT 16; THENCE ALONG SAID WEST LINE OF LOT 16 AND THE WEST LINE OF SAID RANCH AT ROARING FORK PARCEL S 01°44'52" W A DISTANCE OF 1 ■111 '��� F>w�� I lh 4�`i l 1 14 �` G;il''r� I till Reception#: 798886 02/15/2011 02:51;23 P!1 Jean Rlberic° 13 of 14 Rec Fee:$0.00 Doe Feet0.00 GARFIELD cowry CO 223.29 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 16, SAID POINT BEING THE • NORTHEAST CORNER OF GOVERNMENT LOT 2 OF SAID SECTION 36 AND LYING ON THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 25 THENCE ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 2 AND CONTINUING ALONG SMD WEST LINE OF THE RANCH AT ROARING FORK PARCEL S 00°34'55" E A DISTANCE OF 223.04 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY OF CDOT PARCEL NO. 106A FOR SAID STATE HIGHWAY 82 AS DESCRIBED IN BOOK 900, PAGE .462 AS RECORDED IN THE OFFICE OF THE GARFIELD COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY N 80°4P48" W A DISTANCE OF 1442.38 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 25 SMD PONT ALSO BEING THE BEGINNING OF THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY OF CDOT PARCEL NO. 106 AS DESCRIBED IN BOOK 900, PAGE 461 AS RECORDED IN THE OFFICE OF THE GARFIELD COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY THE FOLLOWING EIGHT COURSES: I) . N 80°41'48" W A DISTANCE OF 424.95 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WEST LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST !/4 OF SAID SECTION 25; 2) THENCE N 80°41'48" W A DISTANCE OF 501.46 FEET; 3) THENCE N 22°52'58" W A DISTANCE OF 204.33 FEET; 4) THENCE N 76°22'18" W A DISTANCE OF 30.00 FEET; 5) THENCE N 13°37142" E A DISTANCE. OF 10.00 FEET; 6) THENCE N 76°22'18" W A DISTANCE OP 336.08 FEET; 7) THENCE S 81°58112" W A DISTANCE OF 110.16 FEET; 8) THENCE N 80°4110" W A DISTANCE OF 1181.68 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF A PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN BOOK 641, PAGE 298, SAID POINT ALSO BEING ON THE EAST LINE OF GOVERNMENT LOT 12, IN SAID SECTION 25, AND LYING ON A FENCELINE FROM WHENCE THE WITNESS CORNER TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER. OF SAID SECTION 25 (1995 CDOT 3-1/4" ALC) BEARS S 83°16'13" W A DISTANCE OF 508.05 FEET; THENCE ALONG SAID EAST LINE N 00°00'58" W A DISTANCE OF 770.69 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH 1/16 LINE OF SAID SECTION 25 SAID POINT ALSO BEING THE SE; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID EAST LINE N 00°00'58" W A DISTANCE OF 607.74 FEET TO A POINT BEING THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF TRACT 3 AS AMENDED ON "JEAN AND DEE BLUE AMENDED SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT PLAT (CORRECTION PLAT)" AS RECORDED IN THE OFFICE OF TF]E GARFIELD COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER AS RECEPTION NO. 689015; THENCE S 89058101" E ALONG THE SOUTHERN BOUNDARY OF SAID TRACT 3 AS AMENDED ON "JEAN AND DEE BLUE AMENDED SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT PLAT (CORRECTION PLAT)" AS RECORDED IN THE OFFICE OF THE GARFIELD COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER AS RECEPTION NO. 689015 A DISTANCE OF 1220.82 FEET TO A POINT BEING THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID TRACT 3 AS AMENDED ON "JEAN AND DEE BLUE AMENDED SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT PLAT (CORRECTION PLAT)" AS RECORDED IN THE OFFICE OF THE GARFIELD COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER AS RECEPTION NO. 689015; THENCE N 00°05'51" W ALONG THE EASTERN BOUNDARY OF TRACT 3 AS AMENDED ON "JEAN AND DEE BLUE AMENDED SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT PLAT (CORRECTION PLAT)" AS RECORDED IN THE OFFICE OF THE GARFIELD COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER. AS RECEPTION NO. 689015 A DISTANCE OF 60.29 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTH 1/64 LINE OF THE SOUTH ''2 OF SAID SECTION 25; THENCE CONTINUING N 00°05151" W ALONG SAID EASTERN BOUNDARY OF TRACT 3 AS AMENDED ON "JEAN AND DES Isti: Iri'hBill 92/16/2611 02:51:23 P1 Jean Alberlao 14 of 14 Rec Fee:$0.60 Coo Fee:0.03 GARFIELD COUNTY CO BLUE. AMENDED SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT. PLAT (CORRECTION PLAT)" AS RECORDED IN THE OFFICE OF •THE GARFIELD COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER AS RECEPTION NO. 689015 A DISTANCE OF 855.68 DEET TO A POINT TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF AMENDED TRACT 2 AS AMENDED ON "JEAN AND DEE BLUE AMENDED SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT PLAT (CORRECTION PLAT)" AS RECORDED IN THE OFFICE OF THE GARFIELD COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER AS RECEPTION NO. 689015; THENCE THE FOLLOWING THREE COURSES ALONG SAID AMENDED TRACT 2 BOUNDAR\ : 1) N 00005'51" W A DISTANCE OF 229.53 FEET; 2) N 88022'41" B A DISTANCE OF 111.92 FEET; 3) N 07°59'34" W A DISTANCE OF 112.42 FET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY OFA PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN BOOK 466 PAGE 110 AS RECORDED IN THE OFFICE OF THE GARFIELD COUNTY CLERK. AND RECORDER; THENCE THE FOLLOWING THREE COURSES ALONG THE BOUNDARY OF SAID PARCEL DESCRIBED IN BOOK 466 PAGE 110: . 1) Nt p89°09''5{2" E A DISTANCE OF 7.69 FEET; 2) S 84°16'08" E A DISTANCE OF 212,85 AiEET;. 3) N 00°11'08" W A DISTANCE OF 931,24 FEET TO A POINT BEING THE NORTHEASTERLY CORNER OF A PARCEL OF LAND AS DESCRIBED 114 BOOK 1532 PAGE 865 AS RECORDED EN THE OFFICE OF THE GARFIELD COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER; THENCE S 89°52'34" W ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL DESCRIBED IN BOOK 1532 PAGE 865 A DISTANCE OF 454.41 FEET TO A POINT ON TUE WEST LINE OF SAID NEI/4 OF THE NWII4 OF SAID SECTION 25; THENCE :N 03°25'25' E ALONG SAID' WEST LINE OF THE NE1/4 OF THE NW1/4 OF SAID SECTION 25 A DISTANCE OF 1301.73 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; CONTAINING 364.1484 ACRES MORE OR LESS. EXCEPTION EXCEPTING THEREFROM A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 7 SOUTH, RANGE 88 , WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO DESCRIBED IN BOOK 370 PAGE 89 AS RECORDED 1N THE OFFICE OF THE GARFIELD COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER . BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT WHENCE THE NW CORNER OF THE NE U4 OF THE NW I i4 OF SAID SECTION 25 'BEARS N 43°24`08" W A DISTANCE OF 715.37 FEET; THENCE 8 60°21'00" E A DISTANCE OF 100.00 FEET; THENCE S 29°39.'00" W A DISTANCE OF 150.00 FEET; THENCE N 60°21.'00" W' A DISTANCE OF 100.00 FEET; THENCE N 29°39'00" B A DISTANCE OF, 150.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; CONTAINING 0,34 ACRES MORE OR LESS, PARCEL AREA MINUS EXCEPTION IS 363.808 ACRES MORE OR LESS.