The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2.0 PC Staff Report 04.13.2011Exhibits — Major Impact Review of Extraction of Aggregate — Clifford Cerise Ranch Company, LLLP (MIPA 6545) PC Public Hearing (04113/2011) Proof of Publication, Posting, and Mailings g Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008, as amended C Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2000 D Application E Staff Memorandum F Staff Power • pint G and H Email from Garfield County Roads and Bridge Department dated 2116111 and 3110111 t 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 Count Environmental Health Mana.er, 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 2/10111 p 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 3/18111 Email from the Carbondale and Rural Fire Protection District, dated 3/11/11 S Letter from Tetra Tech, dated 3121/11 T Email from Garfield County Vegetation Manager, dated 3121/11 U Email from Consulting Engineer, Mountain Cross Engineering, Inc., dated 3/22/11 ✓ Letter from Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety, date 2/25/11 1N Letter from Down Valley Septic LLC, dated 3/22/11 X Letters and Emails from Concerned Citizens Letter- Katherine U. Hubbard, dated 3125/11, Janet Johnson, dated 3129/11 Emails — Bill Walter, dated 4/5111, Dan Jervis, dated 4/5/11, Sue and Chris Coyle, dated 4/5111, Lucie Fitch, dated 4/5/11, Scott Joseph Minor, dated 415/11, Gordon F. Viberg, dated 4/5/11, Sarah F. Burggraf, dated 4/5/11, Bob Naegele, dated 4/5111, 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 GARFIELD COUNTY Building & Planning Department Review Agency Form Name of application: Lafarge, Cerise mining site Sent to: Garfield County Road & Bridge Garfield County requests your comment in review of this project. Please notify the Planning Department in the event you are unable to respond by the deadline. This forrn may be used for your response, or you may attach your own additional sheets as necessary. Written comments may be mailed, e-mailed, or faxed to: Garfield County Building & Planning Staff' Contact: Molly Orkild-Larson 109 8th Street, Suite 301 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Fax: 970-384-3470 Phone: 970-945-8212 General Comments: The Cerise access point chosen is located half way of a .7 mile stretch of County Road 103 between the intersections of Hwy. 82 and County Road 104. With the addition of the heavy truck traffic proposed, turning north for local deliveries and south to Highway 82, up grading this portion of County Road 103 would be recommended. It should include shoulders, paint striping, signage, and a turn lane south of the Cerise access point. At the intersection of County Road 103 and Highway 82, the alignment, and possibly 2 receiving lanes onto Hwy. 82 and one exit onto Crystal Springs Road should be considered. The Cerise mining site access can be addressed with the Driveway Permit. Name of review agency: Garfield County Road and Bridge Department By: Mike Prelim Date 2/16/2011 Revised 3/30/00 March 10, 2011 Molly Larson Garfield County Planning Department Re: Proposed Cerise mining site — County Road 103 Garfield County Road & Bridge recommends County Road 103 starting 200' north of the Cerise mining site access point going south to the intersection of Hwy. 82 be engineered and reconstructed to accommodate the truck traffic proposed. This would include shoulders, paint striping, signage and a right hand turn lane on County Road 103 into the site. Weight limit on County Road 103, State Hwy 82 to County Road 104 is 80,000 for 5 axle, and 54,000 for 3 axles. Overweight loads by permit only. Mike Prehm Go -field County Road & Bridge MEMORANDUM To: Molly Orkild-Larson From: Steve Anthony Re: Cerise)LaFarge MIPA 6545 Date: February 25, 201' 1 Thanks for the opportunity to comment. In general the application is acceptable; however staff is recommending that the applicant provide a weed management plan. Item 414 on page 43 of the narrative states that a weed management plan will be provided prior to the issuance of a rand use change permit. The weed management plan should focus on addressing the spread of weeds from the pit to off- site areas. Gravel and aggregate piles are vectors of seed transport. Haul roads are as well. The plan should address monitoring and treatment. March 01, 2011 Ms. olly Orkild Larson G. eld County Building & Planning 037 County Road 352, Building 2060 Rill ; , CO 81650 MOUNTAIN CROSS ENGINEERING, INC. CIVIL. AND ENVIRONMENIA MAR 4 3 2011 GARFIELD COUNTY BUILDING & PLANNING RE: Major Impact Review, Clifford Cerise Ranch and LaFarge Mining: MIPA 6545 De . Molly: 'I'hioffice has performed a. review of the,, documents provided for the Major Impact Review app ication of Clifford Cerise Ranch, Co. and LaFarge Mining. The submittal was found to be tho ough and well organized. Thereview generated the following questions, concerns, .or co ents: 1. The proposed entrance will cross Crystal Creek using piping and fill. The . application mentions that a 404 permit will be necessary but evidence of coordination, application or permitting is not included in the application. materials. The Applicant should obtain permits and provide copies to Garfield County. 2. The HEC -RAS analysis of the •Crystal Creek crossing shows a head water created by the 100 -year event. However no mapping or cross-sections are provided to show the extents of the back water flooding that will occur. The Applicant should evaluate this for any possible concerns and provide this information to Garfield County for review. 3. The Phase 1 mining operations create a detention and/or tailings pond to be used for the life of the mine. However positive (gravity) drainage into this tailings pond is not achievable for many of the future phases based on the proposed grades and elevations shown in the plans. The Applicant does not discuss how any runoff will be conveyed into this pond for future phases; will pumping be necessary? 4. The Applicant discusses that storm runoff will be directed into the tailings pond where it will be disposed of by infiltration. This is likely an acceptable solution but no calculations • are provided to justify this; showing the anticipated infiltration rate compared to the anticipated runoff. The Applicant should provide calculations showing the volume of runoff compared to the anticipated infiltration rate. 5. The Applicant states that the existing ground is above the elevation of Crystal Creek. This is only the case for the beginning of mining operations. As mining operations continue, the elevation of Crystal Creek will be above the elevation of the mining operations. Ground water intrusion into the mine from Crystal Creek should be anticipated. The Applicant should discuss any problems anticipated from the ground water of Crystal Creek including. the stability analyses that assumed dry slope conditions. 826 1/2 Grand Avenue • Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 PI -I: 970.945.5544 • FAX: 970.945.5558 • www.mountaincross-eng.cvm LaFarge-Cerise Mine Page 2 .of 2 March 01, 2011 6. Similar to the above comment, groundwater • migration from the Basin Ditch is not discussed. The =Applicant should discuss any anticipated issues from the Basin. Ditch including slope stability. 7. The proposed well location is very near storage tanks, truck wash, and parking. The Applicant should consider providing a zone to protect the well head. 8. The reclamation plan provides using the basin ditch as the source of irrigation water for revegetation. No design for an irrigation system is included in the application materials to deliver water from the basin ditch. Also, no costs are included for irrigation systems in the cost estimate to be used for providing the amount of security. 9..' Copies of well permits should be provided once they are. obtained. 10. The potable water system design for the office was not included in the application materials. 11. The water quality analysis showed coliforms present in one of the wells and that water exceeded Secondary Maximum Concentration Levels on multiple parameters. The • Applicant should determine how they intend to address these issues. • 12. Will serve letters from utility providers were not included in the application materials. 13. Reconstruction of the auxiliary lanes on Highway 82 is necessary per the traffic study. The plan included in the application material was conceptual. The Applicant shouldaddress the .tinting of this reconstruction and the coordination with CDOT for design approvals and construction. 14. The . Applicant requests a waiver for 3:1 reclaimed slopes vs. 5:1. This waiver will ultimately be granted by the BoCC but this office has no concerns with the steeper .slopes provided that the above comments concerning slope stability are adequately addressed. . 15 At present the reclamation security will not be held by Garfield County. County legal should evaluate any requirements necessary for Garfield County to access the security. Feel free to call if any of the above needs clarification or if you have any questions or comments. Sincerely, Mountain Cross Engin r ng, Inc. Chris male, PE MOUNTAIN CROSS ENGINEERING, INC. Civil and Environmental Consulting and Design 826 `h Grand Avenue, Glenwood Springs, CO 8I601 P: 970.9453544 F. 170.945.5558 www.mountaineross-eng.com lire Rada Molly Mild -Larson MIPA 6545 Clifford Cense Ranch Co-LaFarge Mining Friday, February 25, 2011 2:26:10 PM !•1 ."4 !1 111 . k rCeli meats on the referenced application: he number of employees with access to the water from the on-site notable water well exceeds the defined threshold for a non- transient, non -community public water system. This public water stem will require approval and ongoing oversight from CDPHE, CSC[]. appears that LaFarge has current air quality permits on their rushing and screening equipment, concrete batch plant and ortable asphalt batch plant. All permits require LaFarge to file a location notice to CDPHE APCD at least 10 days prior to moving e equipment. For air quality compliance, I recommend a ondition on the land use permit requiring a copy of the equipment relocation notices be provided to GC Planning. appears that LaFarge's annual aggregate production for the cerise Mine will fall well below the current air permit aggregate production limits for the aggregate production equipment at the Powers Mine although the cone crusher has a production limit of 500,000 tons per year under the current permit. If the cone crusher is used to process all aggregate, then the current air permit limit or that piece of equipment equals the projected maximum production levels at the Cerise Mine. Additionally, I could not find a concrete production estimate in the application but the current air permit limits concrete production to 100,000 cubic yards per year. Irecommend that stated production limits (including a concrete production limit) be conditioned on the land use permit, subject to ,Planning Department review if greater production levels are eeded. n air permit for the portable asphalt plant at the Powers Mine is provided in the application. The narrative indicates that any asphalt production facility on the site will be operated by a subcontractor not LaFarge. It is not clear whether the subcontractor will operate LaFarge's permitted asphalt plant or if a subcontractor will provide heir own equipment. In either case, approved permits and/or etocation notifications must be in place before moving portable asphalt equipment on to the site. I recommend a copy of this Information be provided to the County Planning Department if/when this activity occurs in order to assure compliance with State Air uality laws and rules. From: Adams. Kariwj To: Molly Orkild-Larson Cc: Qaola nnt[r1 Subject: Clifford Cerise Ranch Co - LaFarge Mining Major Impact Review Comments Date: Thursday, February 24, 201.1 3:08:09 PM Attachments: cerise drms.odf Ms. Orkild-Larson, We have reviewed the Major Impact Review for the Cerise Mine owned by Clifford Cerise Ranch Company, LLLP and operated by Lafarge West. The applicant proposes extract gravel on 65.48 acres of a 98 acre site. I would like to offer several comments on the project: The applicant discusses two sources of water for use at the mining site: 29.5 acre feet of water from the Basin Ditch through a contract with the property owner and two wells to be operated under a contract with the Basalt Water Conservancy District. Though the applicant states in Section 7-104 on page 8 of the MIRA that they intend to continue using the ditch for irrigation of the property, they state in Section 7-106 on page 14 of the MIRA that the ditch water will be available for operational needs. It was further stated in a report from Applegate Group, Inc, dated August 12, 2010, that the ditch rights are limited to irrigation use and that any change in use would simply require a consumptive use analysis. It should be noted that water being diverted in priority is limited to the uses specified in the decree. If the applicant wishes to use this irrigation right for anything other than the decreed irrigation use, they need to change the decree in Water Court or obtain approval of an SWSP for a temporary change prior to any change in use. The applicant states an intent to provide water for operations and site facilities using two wells. The applicant is unclear if they intend on drilling new wells or use existing wells. In the MIRA they state that two wells were drilled in October of 2010. The appendix includes a location map of the wells, a construction log, 24 hour pump tests, and water quality samples for these wells. {however, in a letter to me from Tetra Tech, dated January 24, 2011, regarding my comments on the applicant's DRMS application (see attachment), they stated they had submitted applications for two well permits with receipt nos. 3648795A and 3648795B. These applications were permitted on February 10, 2011 to construct new wells under permit nos. 74795-F and 74796-F at the same location as the existing wells. The data provided in the MIRA indicates these wells are in fact already drilled; it is possible that one of them was possibly constructed under Monitoring Hole Notice no. 49396. The applicant provided no information to the Sing in their well permit applications to indicate that the wells they were permitting had already been constructed. The applicant should specify what well permits they intend to operate under and, if the wells discussed in the MIRA are the same as those they intend on using for production, obtain new permits to use these existing wells. It should be noted that wells drilled under Monitoring Hole notices cannot be converted to production wells (see Rule 14.2 of the Water Well Construction Rules). If the applicant intends to drill new wells and intends to maintain the validity of the current permits, the applicant must submit Well Construction Reports and Pump Installation Reports prior to February 10, 2012 to show they constructed the welts and installed pumps after the issuance of the permit and prior to the permit expiration date. The applicant must maintain a valid contract with the Basalt Water Conservancy District for the operation of these wells. Last, the applicant needs to submit construction reports for any wells that were drilled under monitoring hole notices. If, at any point, construction or operation activities of this project affect the flow of a stream or ditch we recommend that the applicant consult with the local Water Commissioner. The local Water Commissioner is Sill Blakeslee and can be reached bili.blakesleeOstate,co.us. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project. If you or the applicant have any questions please contact me in this office. Sincerely, Karlyn Adams Water Resource Engineer Colorado Division of Water Resources 1313 Sherman Street, Suite 818 Denver, CO 80203 (303) 866-3581 office (303)866-3589 fax Please complete our new DWR User Experience Survey on our DWl, Homepage to express your opinions of our service. Your complete satisfaction is important to us! STATEOF COLORADO COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Department of Natural Resources 1313 Sherman Street, Roorn 715 Denver, Colorado 80203 Phone 303.8662611 Fax 303.866.2461 February 25, 2011 Molly Orkild-Larson Garfield County Building & Planning Department 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Location: SE'/ Section 26 T7S, R88W of the 6th P.M. Subject: Clifford Cerise Ranch Co. I LaFarge Mining Major Impact Review File No. MIPA 6545; Garfield County, CO; CGS Unique No. GA -11-0004 Dear Ms. Orkild-Larson: DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES John Hickeniaoper Governor Mike King Executive Director Vincent Matthews Division Director and State Geologist Colorado Geological Survey has completed its review of the above -referenced Major Impact Review application. I understand the applicant proposes to develop a 65.5 -acre gravel pit on a 98 -acre site immediately east of LaFarge's existing Powers Pit and west of the Blue Pit. An application for expansion of the adjacent Blue Pit was reviewed by CGS in July 2010. With this referral, I received a CD containing a Cerise Mining Site Major Impact Review Application (Tetra Tech, November 2010) including, among numerous other documents, a project narrative, land suitability analysis and map, a "Stability Analysis Letter," and eight boring logs. I understand that the property owner has requested the mine operator to re -vegetate reclaimed areas with pasture grasses to continue the agricultural use that currently exists on the property. The applicant states in section 7-210 of the application narrative, "There are no natural hazard or geologic hazards to eliminate or mitigate nor will the mining activities create any hazards," and in the land suitability analysis (section 10), "There are no known existing geologic hazards on or adjacent to the Cerise Mine site and no geologic hazard will be created as a result of mining the site..." While these statements are not necessarily inaccurate, they may not be strictly accurate, Subsidence hazard. According to available geologic mapping (Kirkham, R.M. and Widmann, B.L., 2008, Geologic Map of the Carbondale Quadrangle, Garfield County, Colorado: Colorado Geological Survey, Map Series 36, scale 1:24000), the site is underlain by sheetwash-deposited silty sands and silts, and more coarse-grained terrace alluvium and colluvium. According to boring logs included in the Major Impact Review application, the sands and gravels exceed 100 feet in thickness over most or all of the permit boundary. These deposits overlie Eagle Valley Evaporite. Evaporite minerals include gypsum, anhydrite and halite (rock salt), all of which are soluble in water. Sinkholes, settlement near sinkholes, and subsidence -related ground deformation can occur as a result of existing void collapse and ongoing dissolution of the evaporite rock. Soils derived from evaporite contain soluble minerals and also have high potential for significant collapse under wetting (hydrocompaction). A subsidence feature called the Crystal Trough traverses part of the property, and appears to be related to evaporite dissolution and/or flowage of bedrock. Sinkholes, created by piping or collapse of surficial deposits into bedrock voids or caverns, are common in the Eagle and Roaring Fork Valleys. GA•11-00041 Clifford Cerise Ranch Co_LaFarge Wwing,dos, 0:46 PM, 02/25/201t Molly Qrkild:-Larson February 25,:2011 Page 2 of 2. As extraction progresses toward the planned 100 foot depth of mining, subsidence or collapse of soils or bedrock near or beneath the site could temporarily impact mining activities or cause potential slope instability. However, subsidence hazards to adjacent roads and structures are not expected to increase as a result of the proposed mining activity. Future development within the reclaimed area may be subject to au elevated subsidence hazard. The applicant does not address potential subsidence risks in the Major Impact Review application, but should be aware that subsidence hazards exist in the region. Slopes and potential slope instability. The Land Suitability Analysis Map indicates that the permit boundary does not include most of the existing steep slopes that define the eastern property boundary along Crystal Spring Creek and the southern property boundary along State Highway 82. Tetra Tech's slope stability analysis satisfactorily addresses stability of proposed 3H:1 V mined highwalls and benched 1 H:1 V slopes. Calculated factors of safety indicate that the proposed cuts, provided they adhere to the setbacks shown on Table 3, "Stability Analysis Results," should not present a hazard to existing nearby structures. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. If you have questions or need clarification of issues identified during this review, please call me at (303) 866-2611 ext. 8316, or e-mail jill.carlson@state.co.us. Jill Carlson, C.E.O. Engineering Geologist GA -I I-0064_1 Clifford Cerise Ranch Co L.aFarge'Miniag.doe 2:46 PM, 02/25/2011 From: Rous2in, Daniel To: Moil+ 0rkild-Larson Subject: Clifford Cerise Ranch - Lafarge Mining Date: Thursday, February 10, 2011 8:19:37 AM Molly — I have reviewed the Clifford Cense Ranch - Lafarge Mining major impact review project near SH 82. This project doesn't have direct access an SH 82. The access will be off Crystal Springs Road (CR 103). This project will increase the traffic by 135 vehicles in the peak hour. This will double the traffic on the CR 103. Based upon the traffic study prepared by Eugene Coppola, PE dated 8-4- 2010, it appears the project will require an access permit for CR 103 and highway improvements. CDOT hasn't reviewed the entire traffic study at this time. We have only reviewed it enough to determine if an access permit is required. CDOT will do a complete review the study once we receive the access application for this project. if you have any questions, please let me know. thanks Dan Roussin Region 3 Permit Unit Manager 222 South 6th Street, Room 100 Grand Junction, CO 81501 970-683-6284 Office 970-683-6291 Fax STATE OF COLORADO Bili Ritter, Jr., Governor DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF WILDLIFE AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Thomas E. Remington, Director 6060 Broadway Denver, Colorado 80216 Telephone: (303) 297-1192 wi ldif fe. s ka te. c o. us February23, 2010 Ms. Molly Orkild-Larson Garfield County Building and Planning Department 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: Blue Pit Expansion Dear Ms. OridId-Larson REcErVE MAR 1 0 Z011 GARFiELD COUNTY BUILDNG G & PLANNING OF" For Wildlife - For People Thank you for allowing the Division of Wildlife (DOW) the opportunity to comment on the proposed Clifford Cerise Ranch Co- LaFarge gravel pit expansion on Highway 82 approximately 2 miles east of Carbondale. After reviewing the application the Division of Wildlife would like to add the following comments. The location of the gravel pit should have minimal impact to wildlife. However, due to black bear activity in the area the DOW does recommend the use of wildlife proof dumpsters and centralized trash storage buildings. Thank you again for providing the opportunity to comment and if you have any questions please contact District Wildlife Manager Darren Chacon at 970-947-2968. Sincerely, Perry Wi Area ildlife Manager Cc: DOW- Ron Velarde, M. Yamashita, file DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, Mike King, Executive Director WILDLIFECOMMISSION, Tim Glenn, Chair • Robert Streeter, Vice Chair • Mark Smith, Secretary Members, David R. Brougham • Dennis Buechler • Dorothea Farris • Allan Jones • John Singletary • Dean Wingfield Ex Officio Members, Mike King and John Stulp From: Janet 8ue1c To: Molly QrldId-Larson ' Subject: Clifford Cense Ranh Co LaFarage Mining Date: Monday, February 28, 2011 3:32:11 PM Molly -- The Planning Commission reviewed the application for the Cerise Pit at its February 24, 2011 meeting. The Planning Commission indicated that it did not appear that the proposed gravel pit would have any impacts on the Town of Carbondale. As always, thank you for sending the referral. Janet Buck Planner Town of Carbondale From: Morse. W. Travis SPK To: dolly Crklld-Larson Subject: Clifford Cense Ranch Co - LaFarge Mining SPK 2011-00249 (UNCLASSIFIED) Date: Friday, March 18, 2011 11:23'S0 AM Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE Hello Molly, The Corps of Engineers' jurisdiction within the study area is under the authority of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) for the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States. Waters of the United States include, but are not limited to, rivers, perennial or intermittent streams, lakes, ponds, wetlands, vernal pools, marshes, wet meadows, and seeps. Project features that result in the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States will require Department of the Army authorization prior to starting work. The range of alternatives considered for this project should include alternatives that avoid impacts to wetlands or other waters of the United States. Every effort should be made to avoid project features which require the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States. In the event it can be dearly demonstrated there are no practicable alternatives to filling waters of the United States, mitigation plans should be developed to compensate for the unavoidable losses resulting from project implementation. At this point, it appears that the crossing, by itself, does not have independent utility. I will need to consider the full footprint of the proposed mining area as part of their proposal. I have included below my correspondence with Lafarge regarding the proposed activity. I will need to see the project area during the vegetative growing season to confirm the delineated wetland boundary, make a jurisdictional determination, and deem which CWA Section 404 permit is appropriate and determine if compensatory mitigation will be required. Sincerely, Travis Morse, Biologist Regulatory Project Manager U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Colorado West Regulatory Branch 400 Rood Avenue, Room 142 Grand Junction, Colorado 81501 0: (970) 243-1199, ext. 17 C: (970) 216-1184 F: (970) 241-2358 w.travis.morse@usace.army.mil web: http://wwvv.spk.usace.arrny.mil/reaulatory.htmi Let us know how were doing. http://per2,nvvp.usace,army.mil/survey.html Information on the Regulatory Program. http:l/www. sp k. usa ce. a rmy. m it /organizations/cespk- co/reg ulatoryl i n d ex. ht ml From: Bill Gavette To: Nally Orkild-Larson Subject: LaFarge - Cerise Mine Date: Friday, March 11, 2011 4:39:09 PM Molly, I got yourvoicernail today. I have reviewed the application and have no issues with the proposal. Thanks, Bill Gavette Deputy Chief Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District www.caLbond4lefire.org 970-963-2491 H 1 E : EMS • RESCUE TETRA TECH March 21, 2011 Ms. Molly Orkild-Larson Garfield County Building and Planning 0375 County Road 352, Building 2060 Rifle, CO 81650 HIBIT; RE: Response to Referral Comments Regarding Major Impact Review, Cerise Mine: MIPA 6545 Dear Molly: This is in response to the referral comments that we received regarding the Cerise Mine Major impact Review application. Below is a listing of each agency's comments (or a summary of their comments) followed by our response to each comment in italics. Planning Comments: 1. Stability Analysis Letter: Is there a page 4? What are the conclusions of this report? As you know, l emailed you a copy of the complete Stability Analysis Report last week so that you would have the missing page 4, Let me know if you have any questions. 2. Impact Analysis: The narrative that is referenced doesn't address glare or vibrations for the site. is there any study done for the vibrations that will be generated? Buildings, tanks, and equipment are or will be constructed out of non -reflective materials or painted a natural tone so as to not produce any glare. In addition, on page 33, item 6 of the Narrative we state that the lighting will be downcast and shielded so there will be no glare issues from lighting. Regarding vibrations, as indicated on page 31, item 3 of the Narrative, nothing will be done at the Cerise Mine site to create perceptible off-site vibrations and so a study on vibrations was not prepared. 3. What water and measures are being taken in regards to fire protection and fires on-site? According to Bill Gavette at the Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District, because of the types of structures that are proposed on the site, there are no fire protection requirements to be met. 4. I found a well next to the 35 diameter tanks but can't find the one that is located in the southwest corner of the site. As we've previously discussed, Lafarge had two test wells drilled on the site to be able to get the 24- hour pump test and water quality testing information you required for the application. Any location information contained in the application regarding the wells would have been related to these test wells. As you know, Lafarge recently received permits for the two permanent wells that they are going to install on the site. Please see Attachment A which is a map showing the approximate location of these 2 new wells. Please note that the location of Well 2 has been modified from the map that 1 emailed to you earlier this week-- we had to move the well site to make sure it would be at least 150' away from the septic system.. 5. You have conflicting information regarding the discharge permit. Do you don't need one correct? In making this comment, I'm assuming you are referring to the documentation provided in Section 26 of the application. There wasn't really conflicting information in the application, ! just think some additional clarification is just needed. The first document provided is a letter from Wait Wright at Lafarge indicating that a discharge permit (COG -500000) is not needed at the site because we will 1900 5. Sunset Street, Suite I -F Longmont. CO 80501 Tel 303.7725282 Fax 303.772.7039 www.tetratech.com omirmr..40 mit 4114.1111 TETRA TECH Page 2 of 10 Ms. Molly Orkild-Larson March 21, 2011 not be discharging process water from the site. The second document in the COPS Permit section of the application is a COR 340000 permit — it is a permit that allows for some stormwater runoff from the site. Let me know if you need any additional clarification on this. 6. How are you handling stormwater runoff on-site? The narrative mentions that that runoff will be directed to the tailings pond but how are you getting the water from the pit to this destination? Or are you? Water that falls in the pit will stay in the pit and just infiltrate into the gravel. Sheet ER -12 in our Drainage Delineation Plan that 1s included in aur Drainage Report (in Section 12 of the application) shows how stormwater runoff is being handled. 7. Are the topsoil and overburden stockpiles to be seeded? With what type of seed mix? Stockpiles will be both inside and outside the mining cells. Piles which have been placed outside of areas to be mined will typically remain for the majority of the life of the mine so they will be seeded as soon as possible depending on the seeding "window" parameters for the Native Seed Mix (the Native Seed Mix is found on sheet 1 of the Landscape Plan). Due to the small size of the site, there will be temporary overburden piles within the mining boundary. These piles will constantly be shuffled around in order to make room for the next mining phase. However, if these piles remain undisturbed for more than 180 days, they will be seeded. B. What are the height of your TS and OB piles? It's difficult to read the contour lines. As you read my response, it will be helpful for you to look at sheet 4 of the Site Plan. The topsoil pile west of the plant site will be 26#/- feet tall, the overburden pile that runs east/west along the north edge will be up to 70+/- feet tall; the square shaped overburden pile is shown at 64+/- feet tall; and the product stockpile is shown at 74+/- feet tall. #n addition, as you pointed out in an email last week, we had an acreage discrepancy in our "Anticipated Mining Schedule" found on page 2 of our Narrative. Therefore, attached is an updated version of the schedule (Attachment B). Mountain Cross Engineerine Comments: 1. The proposed entrance will cross Crystal Creek using piping and fill_ The application mentioned that a 404 permit will be necessary but evidence of coordination, application or permitting is not included in the application materials. The Applicant should obtain permits and provide copies to Garfield County. Lafarge acknowledges the fact that they will need to get a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers to fill the wetlands along Crystal Creek in order to construct the site access to the Cerise Mine. A conservative estimate of the amount of wetlands that will need to be filled is less than X of an acre. Therefore, Lafarge believes that they will be able to get a Nationwide Permit for this project. Lafarge has made an initial contact with the Corps regarding the need for a permit and will follow through to formally apply for the permit as soon as they receive approval from the County for the Major Impact Review application. Lafarge will provide a copy of the permit to the County prior to doing any work in the wetlands. 2. The HEC -RAS analysis of the Crystal Creek crossing shows a head water created by the 100 -year event. However no mapping or cross-sections are provided to show the extents of the back water flooding that will occur. The Applicant should evaluate this for any possible concerns and provide this information to Garfield County for review. TETRA TECH Page 3 of 10 Ms. Molly Orkild-Larson March 21, 2011 Attached please find the cross sections and thalweg profile at the mine access that was based on the HEC -RAS analysis for the project (Attachment C). We have also provided a plan showing the back water expected based on the 100 -year flood elevation (Attachment 0). 3. The Phase 1 mining operations create a detention and/or tailings pond to be used for the life of the mine. However positive (gravity) drainage into this tailings pond is not achievable for many of the future phases based on the proposed grades and elevations shown in the plans. The Applicant does not discuss how any runoff will be conveyed into this pond for future phases; will pumping be necessary? Storm water that falls within the active mining cell will remain in the cell and infiltrate into the ground through the exposed sand and gravel soil. Based on the maximum expected size of the mine, runoff from drainage basins 84 and 02 will be captured in the active mine cell. The minimum pond size required to allow the storm water to infiltrate into the ground within 72 hours is 5,380 square feet. The infiltration pond will not be permanent, andthelocation will move around in the bottom of the active mine as mining activities dictate. See attached calculations (Attachment E). 4. The Applicant discusses the storm runoff will be directed to the tailings pond where it will be disposed of by iinfiltration. This is likely an acceptable solution but no calculations are provided to justify this; showing the anticipated infiltration rate compared to the anticipated runoff. The Applicant should provide calculations showing the volume of runoff compared to the anticipated infiltration rate. Storm water that falls within the mining operations and plant area will be directed to the proposed tailings pond to be constructed in Mine Phase 1. This includes runoff from drainage basins 83, 04 and D5, and the minimum pond size required to allow the storm water to infiltrate into the ground within 72 hours is approximately 67,000 SF. Based on the size of the current tailings pond designed, the pond is greater than the minimum size required with approximately 80,000 SF of pond area available. See attached calculations (Attachment E). 5. The Applicant states that the existing ground is above the elevation of Crystal Creek. This is only the case for the beginning of mining operations. As mining operations continue, the elevation of Crystal Creek will be above the elevation of the mining operations. Ground water intrusion into the mine from Crystal Creek should be anticipated. The Applicant Should discuss any problems anticipated from the ground water of Crystal Creek including the stability analyses that assumed dry slope conditions. Five piezometers have been drilled at widely spread locations throughout the site. Water levels in the piezometers have been measured at depths ranging from 94 feet to 114 feet below ground. The stability analysis conservatively modeled groundwater at a depth of 90 feet. In addition, the analysis has been accepted by the DRMS as well as the State Geological Survey. 6. Similar to the above comment, groundwater migration from the Basin Ditch is not discussed. The Applicant should discuss any anticipated issues from the Basin Ditch including slope stability. See response to comment 5, above. 7. The proposed well location is very near storage tanks, truck wash, and parking. The Applicant should consider providing a zone to protect the well head. Attached is a map (Attachment A) showing the proposed locations of the two permanent wells that Lafarge recently permitted. Lafarge will put up a concrete block barrier to protect the well head. 8. The reclamation plan provides using the basin ditch as the source of irrigation water for revegetation. No design for an irrigation system is included in the application materials to deliver TETRA TECH Page 4 of 10 Ms. Molly Orkild-Larson March 21, 2011 water from the basin ditch. Also, no costs are included for irrigation systems in the cost estimate to be used for providing the amount of security. Lafarge has submitted financial security for reclamation to the DBMS in order to finalize the Cerise Mine 112 Reclamation Permit. It is true that an irrigation system was not included in the reclamation cost estimate submitted to and accepted by the DRMS, Lafarge is willing to adjust the reclamation cost estimate to add in an estimated cost for an irrigation system and thereby increase the amount of the bond posted through the DRMS. We have asked an irrigation design consultant to provide us with a ballpark estimate of the cost to design and install an irrigation system. As soon as we have that information, we will share it with the County and communicate with the DRMS about needing to adjust the reclamation cost estimate and bond. 9. Copies of well permits should be provided once they are obtained. As you know, the well permits were provided to you. 10. The potable water system design for the office was not included in the application materials. The potable water system will be designed once the permanent well is installed and water quality samples can be taken from the new well so that we know exactly what will need to be done to treat the water. it is expected that when the final well is constructed, that the total coliforms present in the test wells will be reduced. Attached is a schematic design report from Chris Durloo, PE providing some preliminary information regarding the water system design (Attachment F). 11. The water quality analysis showed coliforms present in one of the wells and that water exceeded Secondary Maximum Concentration Levels on multiple parameters. The Applicant should determine how they intended to address these issues. The water quality results that were analyzed were from water samples taken from the test wells that Lafarge drilled to be able to run the required 24 hour pump test. Because these wells were used for the pump tests, the suitable procedures for drilling potable water well were not necessary. This could have lead to some degradation of water quality. When Lafarge drills the new permanent potable well, they will perform proper disinfection and development procedures suitable to a potable water supply. It is anticipated that these procedures will improve the potability of the well. They will then test that water to find out what contaminants are present. We asked H.C. Liang, PhD, a water chemistry expert with Tetra Tech, what we would need to do to treat the water if coliforms and Secondary Maximum Concentration Levels are detected in the new well water. He indicated that Lafarge could either treat the coliforms on a one-time basis in the well with shock chlorination to eliminate them within the well or they could continuously disinfect the treated water with chlorine and that the Secondary Maximum Concentration contaminants could be removed with a filter. However, he said it would also be an option for Lafarge to just ignore these Secondary Maximum Concentration contaminants because they do not pose a risk to human health. 12. Will serve letters from utility providers were not included in the application materials. Attached please find an email from Holy Cross indicating they will provide electric service to the Cerise site (Attachment G). Lafarge has contacted Down Valley Septic to provide a service letter for the septic and portable toilets; a copy will be provided to the County as soon as we receive it. Lafarge has a corporate account with Qwest throughout their service area, Sean Frisch was unable to get a copy of the agreement as it is held at the corporate level. However, under this agreement, Qwest will provide service to Lafarge sites if service is available, Currently, Qwest services Lafarge's Powers pit and it is expected that this service will be moved to the Cerise site when it becomes operational since Qwest does cover this area. We have not provided a will serve letter for gas because the site will not require gas service. C TETRA TECH Page 5of10 Ms. Molly ©rkild-Larson March 21, 2011 13. Reconstruction of the auxiliary lanes on Highway 82 is necessary per the traffic study. The plan included in the application material was conceptual. The Applicant should address the timing of this reconstruction and the coordination with CDOT for design approvals and construction. Due to the fact that the mining site will not directly access the highway and will instead utilize a County Road. It is our understanding that the applicant on the access permit will be Garfield County. However, Lafarge is prepared to pay all of the cost associated with the design and construction of the improvements required by CDOT in order to get the access permit needed to allow the Cerise Mine to operate. Therefore, upon approval of the Major impact Review application by Garfield County, Lafarge is prepared to begin the process of coordinating with the County and CDOT to obtain an access permit, design and construct the necessary improvements. In additi TETRA TECH Page 6of10 Ms. Molly Orkild-Larson March 21, 2011 handle the increased truck traffic that will be generated by the Cerise Mine. Lafarge agrees to an overlay of the existing road along with shoulders, paint striping and signage. However, we would like the County to reconsider requiring the construction of a right turn lane on County Road 103 into the site. We would like this requirement to be reconsidered for the following reasons: • According to Section 3.11 (4) (b) of the State Highway Access Code, "a right turn land with storage length plus taper is required for any access with a projected peak hour right ingress turning volume greater than 50 vph." According to our traffic study, the maximum projected vph associated with Cerise is 45 vph In the morning peak hour and 30 vph at other times. This means that a right turn lane into the site is not warranted. • According to Section 3.5 (5) of the State Highway Access Code, "the right turn deceleration lane may be dropped if the volume in the travel lane is predicted to be below 150 DHV." According to the Cerise traffic study, the maximum DHV is projected to be 75 OHV. This means that even €f the turn lane was warranted per Section 3.11 (4)(b), it could be waived based an Section 3.5 (5) of the State Highway Access Code. This criterion recognizes that right turning vehicles are not likely to impact through vehicles on low volume roadways. The speed limit an County Road 103 is just 25 MPH, traffic turning right into Cerise Mine is traveling up hill, and any trucks that would be turning right into the site will be empty which means they can move almost as quickly as any other vehicle. • Based on peak hour traffic projections, including peak Cerise traffic, as outlined in the Cerise traffic study, on average there will be one car traveling north on County Road 103 every 48 seconds. Therefore, it's not likely that there will be cars behind the vehicles that turn right off of County Road 103 into the Cerise Mine site. • The right turn turning radius into the site was designed to accommodate the turning radius of the large trucks that will regularly access the Cerise Mine so that the trucks won't have a problem making the turn into the site. Lafarge is prepared to make all traffic improvements to the Highway 82 and County Road 103 intersection as outlined in the traffic study and stated on pages 37 and 38 of the Narrative. To summarize those improvements include: • improvements to the west bound right turn deceleration lane on Highway 82 for vehicles turning right/north an County Road 103 and the east bound left turn acceleration lane for vehicles turning left/east onto State Highway 82 from County Road 103 to bring them up to current COOT Access Code standards. • An increase in the turning radii on the east side of the Highway 82 and County Road 103 intersection to be capable of serving a WB -67 design vehicle. • Striping changes to compliment the intersection improvements. in addition, Lafarge understand that ultimately, it will be COOT that will determine what Improvements need to be made in order for them to grant the County an access permit onto the Highway. As stated previouslyy. Lafarge understands that while the County will be the applicant for the access permit, Lafarge will be responsible for the design and construction of all improvements required by COOT as part of the access permit process. TETRA TECH Page 7ofl0 Ms. Molly Orkild-Larsen March 21, 2011 Road and Bridge Vegetation Manager In general the application is acceptable; however staff is recommending that the applicant provide a weed management plan. Item #14 on page 43 of the narrative states that a weed management plan will be provided prior to the issuance of a land use change permit. The weed management plan should focus on addressing the spread of weeds from the pit to off-site areas. Gravel and aggregate piles are vectors of seed transport. Haul roads are as well. The plan should address monitoring and treatment. Attached please find a Weed Management Plan for the Cerise Mine (Attachment 1). Public Health 1. The number of employees with access to water from the on-site potable water well exceeds the defined threshold for a non -transient, non -community public water system. This public water system will require approval and ongoing oversight from CDPHE, WQCD. In discussing this comment with you, we now understand this comment to mean that the Cerise Mine water system will be considered a "non -transient non -community public water system" because 25 or more people may be on-site. Therefore, we acknowledge the fact that the system will require approval and ongoing oversight from CDPHE, WQCD. 2. It appears that Lafarge has current air quality permits on their crushing and screening equipment, concrete batch plant and portable asphalt batch plant. All permits require Lafarge to file a relocation notice to CDPHE APCD at least 10 days prior to moving the equipment. For air quality compliance, i recommend a condition on the land use permit requiring a copy of the equipment relocation notices be provided to GC Planning. Lafarge will provide a copy of the equipment relocation notices to GC Planning prior to moving the equipment. 3. It appears that Lafarge's annual aggregate production for the Cerise Mine will fall well below the current air permit aggregate production limits for the aggregate production equipment at the Powers Mine although the cone crusher has a production limit of 500,000 tons per year under the current permit. If the cone crusher is used to process all aggregate, then the current air permit limit for that piece of equipment equals the projected maximum production 'levels at the Cerise Mine. Additionally, 1 could not find a concrete production estimate in the application but the current air permit limits concrete production to 100,000 cubic yards per year. i recommend that stated production limits (including concrete production limit) be conditions on the land use permit, subject to a Planning Department review if greater production levels are needed. Lafarge has stated in the application narrative that our estimated average production is 500,000 tons per year. This number is stated as an average and not a maximum production level. The air permits discussed in this comment are for individual pieces of equipment and do not evaluate the site as whole. Lafarge is not able to obtain a Fugitive Dust Permit for the whole operation until we have final approvals on the Major Impact Review. Lafarge is required to wait because the allowances on the operation can change throughout this review process. Lafarge will provide a copy of this permit once it is acquired. Lafarge will provide air emissions data to the County when this evaluation is completed. TETRA TECH Page 8 of 10 Ms. Molly Orkild-Larson March 21, 2011 4. An air permit for the portable asphalt plant at the Powers Mine is provided in the application. The narrative indicates that any asphalt production facility on the site will be operated by a subcontractor not Lafarge. It is not clear whether the subcontractor will operate Lafarge's permitted asphalt plant or if a subcontractor will provide their own equipment. In either case, approved permits and/or relocation notifications must be in place before moving portable asphalt equipment on to the site. !recommend a copy of this information be provided to the County Planning Department if/when this activity occurs in order to assure compliance with State air quality laws and rules. If Lafarge makes plans to bring a portable asphalt plant onto the site, they will provide the County with a copy of the approved permit or relocation notification prior to moving the portable asphalt plant onto the Cerise Mine site. Colorado Department of Transportation This project doesn't have direct access on SH 82. The access will be off Crystal Springs Road (CR 103). This project will increase the traffic by 135 vehicles in the peak hour. This will double the traffic on CR 103. Based upon the traffic study prepared by Gene Coppola, PE dated 8-4-2010, it appears the project will require an access permit for CR 103 and highway improvements. CDOT hasn't reviewed the entire traffic study at this time. We have only reviewed it enough to determine if an access permit is required. CDOT will do a complete review of the study once we receive the access application for this project. Lafarge acknowledges the fact that an access permit onto State Highway 82 will be needed because of the change in traffic on CR 103 and the improvements to the intersection of state Highway 82 and CR 103 as a result of the Cerise Mine. Lafarge assumes that the County will be the applicant for the access permit since the permit will be for the County Road but that Lafarge will be responsible for the design and construction of all improvements required by that permit. Colorado Geological Survey Subsidence Hazard comment (abbreviated): As extraction progresses toward the planned 100 foot depth of mining, subsidence or collapse of soils or bedrock near or beneath the site could temporarily impact mining activities or cause potential slope instability. However, subsidence hazards to adjacent roads and structures are not expected to increase as a result of the proposed mining activity. Future development within the reclaimed area may be subject to an elevated subsidence hazard. The applicant does not address potential subsidence risks in the Major Impact Review application, but should be aware that subsidence hazards exist in the region. Lafarge is aware of this risk. Slopes and potential slope instability (abbreviated): Calculated factors of safety indicate that the proposed cuts, provided they adhere to the setbacks shown on Table 3, "Stability Analysis Results," should not present a hazard to existing nearby structures. Lafarge will adhere to the setbacks shown on Table 3. TETRA TECH Page 9of10 Ms. Molly Orkild-Larson March 21, 2011 Division of Wildlife The location of the gravel pit should have minimal impact to wildlife. However, due to black bear activity in the area the DOW does recommend use of wildlife proof dumpsters and centralized trash storage buildings. Lafarge will keep this in mind. Colorado Division of Water Resources 1. The applicant discusses two sources of water for use at the mining site: 29.5 acre feet of water from the Basin Ditch through a contract with the property owner and two wells to be operated under a contract with the Basalt Water Conservancy District. Though the applicant states in Section 7-104 on page 8 of the MIRA that they intend to continue using the ditch water for irrigation of the property, they state In Section 7-106 on page 14 of the MIRA that the ditch water will be available for operational needs. It was further stated in a report from Applegate Group, Inc, dated August 12, 2010, that the ditch rights are limited to irrigation use and that any change in use would simply require a consumptive use analysis. It should be noted that water being diverted in priority is limited to the uses specified in the decree. If the applicant wishes to use this irrigation water for anything other than the decreed irrigation use, they need to change the decree in Water Court or obtain approval of an SWSP for a temporary change prior to any change in use. As stated on page 8 of the Narrative, "Lafarge has access to 29.5 acre feet of Basin Ditch water through their lease agreement with the Cerise family. The Basin Ditch is located on the north end of the project. Because the water is currently used for irrigation an the property, It would need to be converted through water court to be used for any production purposes at the Cerise Mine site. Therefore, Lafarge plans to just continue to use this Basin Ditch water to irrigate the vegetation during the an -going reclamation activities at the mine site." The sentence on page 14 indicating that the Basin Ditch water was available for operational needs was not clearly written. When we wrote the sentence the "operational use" that we had in mind was just for the water to be used to irrigate the vegetation as the site is reclaimedthrough the mining process. 2. The applicant states an intent to provide water for operations and site facilities using two wells. The applicant is unclear if they Intent on drilling new wells or use existing wells. In the MIRA they state that two wells were drilled in October of 2010. The appendix includes a location map of the wells, a construction log, 24 hour pump tests, and water quality samples for these wells. However in a letter to me from Tetra Tech dated January 24, 2011, regarding my comments on the applicant's DRMS application (see attachment), they stated they had submitted applications for two well permits with receipt nos. 3648795A and 35487958, These applications were permitted on February 10, 2011 to construct new wells under permit nos. 74795-F and 74796-F at the same location as the existing wells. The data provided in the MIRA indicates these wells are in fact already drilled; it is possible that one of them was possibly constructed under Monitoring Hold Notice no. 49396. The applicant provided no information to the SEO in their well permit applications to indicate that the wells they were permitting had already been constructed. The applicant should specify what well permits they intend to operate under and, if the wells discussed in the MIRA are the same as those they intend on using for production, obtain new permits to use these existing wells. It should be noted that wells drilled under Monitoring Hole notices cannot be converted to production wells (see Rule 14.2 of the Water Well Construction TETRA TECH Page 10 of 10 Ms. Molly Orkild-Larson March 21, 2011 Rules). If the applicant intends to drill new wells and intends to maintain the validity of the current permits, the applicant must submit Well Construction Reports and Pump Installation Reports prior to February 10, 2012 to show they constructed the wells and installed the pumps after the issuance of the permit and prior to the permit expiration date. The applicant must maintain a valid contract with Basalt Water Conservancy District for the operation of these wells. Last, the applicant needs to submit construction reports for any wells that were drilled under monitoring hole notices. The applicant has not yet constructed the new production wells authorized under permit numbers 74795-F and 74796-F. The stated reports and documentation will be submitted when they are installed, and prior to permit expiration. Two wells were installed under Monitoring Hole Notice 49395 (TWA and TW -2), and will soon be permitted by the applicant as monitoring wells for use at least up until the two new production wells are installed. Well Construction Reports are attached for those two monitoring wells, along with supplemental Test Reports that were submitted to the 560 to record and document the pumping tests that were performed on the wells (Attachment 1). 3. If, at any point, construction or operation activities of this project affect the flow of a stream or ditch we recommend that the applicant consult with the local Water Commissioner. The local Water Commissioner is Bill Blakeslee and can be reached at bill.blakeslee@state.co.us. Lafarge will affect the flow of Crystal Creek when they construct the access to the site and have to pipe the creek; Lafarge will contact Bill prior to completing this work. Thank you for your consideration. Please contact me if you have any questions or if you need to further discuss any of our responses to the referral comments. Sincerely, TETRA TECH a',/midit4tekn64:4-p-, Pamela French Hora, AICP Senior Planner cc: Sean Frisch, Lafarge Attachment A: Proposed Well Location Map Attachment B: Anticipated Mining Schedule Attachment C: Cross Sections and Thalweg Profile Attachment D: Back Water Map Attachment E: Infiltration Calculations Attachment F: Schematic Design Report for Water System Attachment G: Holy Cross Will -serve Letter Attachment H: Slope Waiver Request Attachment I: Weed Management Plan Attachment 1: Well Construction Reports and Supplemental Test Reports Attachment A: Proposed Well Location Map J 0 0 SITE ENTRANCE 44i f 628x} - 100' 200' SCALE: 1 = 200' 1,44 WELL # GRE NT TES 626°_.76290 T000ILE,' IFIODUeb 1633;q34° 6 • PERMIT BOUNDARY :a4 ?[- TETRA TECH www.tetr8tech.eom 1966 S. Sunset SL, Sulte 1-F Longmont, CO 80501 PH= (303) 772-5282 FAX= (303)-772-7039 IAFARGE WEST, INC. CERISE MINE PROPOSED WELL LOCATION MAP Project No.: 133.23611-1 Dale: 10.7.10 DsaIgnsd By: CDD FIGURE 1 aarMeasures l Attachment B: Anticipated Mining Schedule Anticipated Mining Schedule 3/18/2011 Phase Disturbed Area in acres Mined Area in acres Projected Time to Mine m ears Anticipated Years When Mining will Occur Topsoil (in C.Y.) Overburden (in C.Y.) Gravel {in Tons} 1 27.8 6.1 1.9 2012-2014 22,000323,000 720,000 2 29.5 24.1 7.1 2014-2021 14,000 170,000 3,590,000 3 0 7,4 2.0 2021-2023 0 0 990,000 4A 8.2 8.1 3.4 2023-2026 6,000 136,000 1,680,000 4B 0 2.1 0.6 15.0 —1 2026-2027 2012-2027 0 42,000 0 629,000 300,000 7,280,000 TOTALS 65.5 47.8 Definitions: Disturbed Area: The Disturbed Area is any area which will be traveled upon, stockpiled upon or mined in any way. Mined Area: The Mined Area is the area from which sand and gravel resources will be extracted. Attachment C: Cross Sections and Thalweg Profile 0 coa d w rystai Spring Existing Plan: 1) Existing 819/2010 2) Revised Prop 3116/2011 River = Crystal Creek Reach = Cerise Entrance RS = 8 .038 -----4- .055 6290 0 Lesxend WS 100 -YR - Revised Prop WS 100 -YR - Existing Ground Bank Sta 50 100 150 200 250 Station (ft) Crystal Spring Existing Plan: 1) Existing 8/9/2010 .2) Revised Prop 3/1612011 River = Crystal Creek Reach = Cerise Entrance RS = 7.75 055 038 ><I.055 WS 100 -YR - Revised Prop WS 100 -YR - Existing Ground Bank Sta $265 0 50 Y 100 Station (ft) --r 150 200 r g 6285 Crystal Spring Existing Plan: 1) Existing 8/912010 2) Revised Prop 3/16/2011 River = Crystal Creek Reach = Cerise Entrance RS = 7.5" 055 _ . — .038 - .055 6280 6275 6270 6265^ 6260 0 6285 60 1©0 - 150 Station (ft) Crystal Spring Existing Plan: 1) Existing 819/2010 River Crystal Creek Reach = Cerise Entrance .038 - 055 Legend WS 100 -YR - Existing WS 100 -YR - Revised Prop Ground Bank Sta 200 2) Revised Prop 311612011 RS = 7.25" .055 6260 0 20 40 60 80 Station (ft) 100 120 Legend WS 100 -YR - Revised Prop WS 100 -YR - Existing Ground e Bank Sta 140 160 Crystal Spring Existing Plan: 1) Existing 8/9/2010 2) Revised Prop 3/16/2011 River = Crystal Creek Reach = Cerise Entrance RS = 7 .055 +i .038 —— .055 — �I 6280 6275 60 60 Station (ft) 100 120 140 Legend WS 100 -YR - Revised Prop WS 100 -YR - Existing Crystal Spring Existing Plan: 1) Existing 8/9/2010 2) Revised Prop 3/1612011 River = Crystal Creek Reach = Cerise Entrance RS = 6.66666* .055 - - +- .038 --___-..055 -- 6270- 6265- 6260- 6255 • 0 20 40 60 80 Station (ft) 160 Ground 0 Bank Sta Legend WS 100 -YR - Revised Prop WS 100 -YR - Existing Ground • Bank Sta • 120 140 c 0 7 as w 0 6270- .2 Crystal Spring Existing Plan: 1) Existing 8/9/2010 2) Revised Prop 3/16/2011 River = Crystal Creek Reach = Cerise Entrance RS = 6.33333* .055 +_ .038 - .055 - 525 6285 0 Legend WS 100 -YR - Revised Prop WS 100 -YR - Existing Ground m Bank Sta y 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Station (ft) Crystal Spring Existing Pian: 1) Existing 8/9/2010 2) Revised Prop 3/16/2011 River = Crystal Creek Reach = Cerise Entrance .055 RS=5.5 .038 + .055 Culy 6275 6265- 6255 i - -.-----, 0 20 40 60 80 Station (ft) Legend 100 120 140 WS 100 -YR - Revised Prop WS 100 -YR - Existing Ground 0 Bank Sta 6285- 6280 Crystal Spring Existing Plan: 1) Existing 81912010 2) Revised Prop 3116/2011 River = Crystal Creek Reach = Cerise Entrance RS = 5.5 CuIv .055 –— .038 4 .055 ---- 6275- iE 6270- E O W 6265- 6260- 6255 6250 0 6280 527 Legend WS 100 -YR - Existing WS 100 -YR - Revised Prop Ground Bank Sta 20 • 40 60 80• 100 120 140 160 180 Station (it) Crystal Spring Existing Plan: 1) Existing 81912010 2) Revised Prop 3/16/2011 River = Crystal Creek Reath = Cerise Entrance RS = 4.5" .055 - + .038 aid .055 6270- 0 6265- 6260-{ 625 0 20 40 60 80 Station (ft) 1 120 Legend WS 100 -YR - Existing WS 100 -YR - Revised Prop Ground i Bank Sta 140 160 180 6285 6280 6275• 6270 c 4 6265 up 6260 6255 6250 Crystal Spring Existing Plan: 1) Existing 8/912010 2) Revised Prop 3/16/2011 Crystal Creek Cerise Entrance - Legend WS 100 -YR - Existing WS 100 -YR - Revised Prop Ground 6245 � 200 0 400 600 . 800 Main Channel Distance (ft) Attachment D: Back Water M a p Ydri1.1 3441.v9M- i�S4AVid 89363YAYM3AWat931441331.4 l•4 els 456ZSd' NY trte4 40101 yC Attachment E: Infiltration Calculations TETRA TECH Cifeni:. g -F Description s ISF 1'i U t_ .filp1.LrR4 7D /N,(if. 4. S / • Professional Engineers • Job No.: L3 i _ 2 1L •fid&ueet 1 of g Designed By: Checked By: / 1`S Date Date" ■ I^ LI 7� � .L -Y a r l -O 1 J ` 1 ■■■• ..: 1■ 1111 5 - ■ I 1 1 ■■ Z 2 15 '- ?r ■ . __,TL,:C ,--- /4_4_2 L ■ ■ Ellanallili ■ Inn ■■ • III .rAiii ■ il ■■ 111 TiY,E _4. -# ' - _' itli , Ira 0 Pd2 1.1 'Iiil El 1�■1�11■ ¶ F' i .� h ■ ■ ■. ■ ■� sm■ ■■■■■■■■■■•■■■■ ■■■■■■�■■ ■■ ■■■■■■ . •••■■ ■ ■■■ A ,L74. trill! ■ ■ ■■ •2c ■■. ■■■■ _ ,I3. ' 9j3`�Ati i e ■■■■ r ■ f �'� ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■■ r'r2-z ■■■• ■ ■ ■. ■,r�■a.■■mom ■■■■■■■ ENE ■■■ IIN ■ ■ ■-- I11111.ti if ' �r V1 AA-" x'44.. L % 4 1, Y AL . 1. E ,r Jj irL. . AS57-1 . _ --gileiLQ i . 11■ , 12G /16/ II ■■■ II ■ ■ i T 1 ■■■ S Fr i illi■ E ■■■ •■■ ■ ■■■ ■ ■■ undialmina e.L: /WL ' i. �'' I. ........ 8.2v li tir.. .1 ~- l� -A-31 7 t4 MENU ,- r ■ 1 -r- FJ■Y (a-2 rn 1J �. 9 h q � � ■ ■ TETRA TECH Client. 4Th o • Professional Engineers • /' �j ,,/� �, / Job No JO 13511-/0.03 sheet 2 at 2 - [Jescripiion - �5 Ill/ f J/y - i � r I X4-71 4 Designed By: Oa( ,4-726A(, 100 F,, Ae - b= 1D.� , j. Tfre4. -11414 1 x,19. 44 L FITT Checked By; I_ 121 -1 • . Date. Date: I al ik Viz. { Attachment F: Schematic Design Report for Water System POTABLE WATER SYSTEM SCHEMATIC DESIGN CERISE MINE GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO Prepared for: Lafarge West, Inc. 10170 Church Ranch Way, Suite 200 Westminster, CO 80021 Prepared by: Tetra Tech 130 Ski Hill Road, Suite 130 PO Box 1659 Breckenridge, CO 80424 Tetra. Tech Job No. 133-23511-10003 March 21, 2011 TETRA TECH 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report presents the schematic design for the proposed potable water system to support the Cerise Mine locate in Garfield County, Colorado. This report focuses on the potable water system that will service the proposed office building located on site. It is understood that a separate water system will be utilized on site for the mining operation and that water system will be completely separate from the potable water system. The proposed Cerise Mine site will consist of one temporary office building located on site. This office building is approximately 300 square feet, and includes office, meeting area and a restroom. This building is expected to be in place for. up to 15 years, and then will be removed from the mine site. Based on the number of employees expected at the site, and daily but not permanent residential use of the mine, the proposed water system qualifies as a non -transient, non -community public water system as defined by the State of Colorado Primary Drinking Water Regulations. 1.1 Water Svstem The proposed water system will include a new well located approximately 350' from the office building, identified as Well #2. See plan of the site and proposed water system attached. A copper water service line will be installed from the well location to the proposed building. At or adjacent to the building, hypo -chlorination will be done for disinfection along with a pressure tank. 1.2 Water Demand Based on information provided by Lafarge, the Cerise Mine is expected to be operated with 20 — 35 full time employees, of which 2 — 3 will be working in the office building. The majority of the employees will be working at various locations throughout the mine. In addition to the full time employees, up to 10 other temporary employees may be at the Cerise Mine if a portable asphalt plant is used on the site for temporary projects. On an annual basis, the mine is expected to be open approximately 8 months per year. Water usage at the mine will include toilets, sink and drinking water within the temporary office building. It is anticipated that most of the employees will be working out in the mine, and use other portable restrooms located close to the proximity of their work, and therefore will not be regularly using the restroom located in the office. Therefore, the estimated water usage in the following calculations are conservative. Water usage at the site has been calculated as follows: 35 people x 22 gal/day = 770 total gal/day 770 gal/day x 8 months/year x 30 days/month = 184,800 gal/year -1- Potable Water System Design Cerise Mine, Garfield County, Colorado March 21, 2011 Based on a peaking factor of 5, the peak instantaneous water flow is calculated as follows: 770 gal/day x 5.0 / (10 hours/day x 60 min/hour) = 6.42 gal/min. According to the well testing performed at the Cerise Mine, well #2 will produce at least a flow of 25 gal/min and is capable of producing well above that rate. Based on the well testing performed, it is anticipated that the well is more than capable of providing the peak instantaneous water demand for the proposed system. 1.3 Water Quality EnviroGroup Limited performed water quality testing for the test wells drilled at the Cerise Mine. Based on that information, total coliforms were present in the test wells. However, the Ievels of the total coliforms are expected to be substantially less when the final well is installed for the drinking water system. Based on the expected levels of total coliforms, disinfection of the raw water is planned to include chlorination for the water system. The water quality testing data also indicated that Secondary MCL's were present in the samples taken during the well testing performed. Again, as identified the levels of these Secondary MCL's may be reduced with the final well installation. Based on the limited use of the water system for drinking expected, chlorination is the only treatment anticipated for the proposed water system. When the final well and pump is installed, primary and secondary water quality standard testing will be taken and the final system design will be completed to address any water quality issue that are identified in the final well, 1.4 Fire Protection The Carbondale and Rural Fire Protection District has reviewed the proposed Cerise Mine, and based on the proposed uses at the site they do not require any fire protection improvements for the proposed building. Potable Water System Design 21, 2011 Cerise Mine, Garfield County, Colorado 2.0 REFERENCES Close, Bence V. 2010, Aquifer Pumping Tests -- Cerise Property, EnviroGroup Limited. Close, Bence V. 2010, Water Quality Assessment for Cerise Property, EnviroGroup Limited. _3_ Potable Water System Design March 21, 2011 Cerise Mine, Garfield County, Colorado Attachment G: Holy Cross Will -Serve Letter Hora, Pam From: Sean.Frisch a�7lafarge-na.com Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2011 8:01 AM To: Hora, Parn Subject: Fw: Electric service From: Kimberly Parr [kparr@holycross.com] Sent: 03/17(2011 01:57 PM GMT To: Sean Frisch Subject: Electric service Mello Sean, As per our phone conversation, 0086 County Road 7.04 in Carbondale is within our service area. When you are ready to set up your service, please give the Billing department a call to set up your account. We will put you in touch with our Engineering department as well to provide you with specific new service requirements. We welcome you to our area and look forward to assisting you. Regards, KLvw Consumer Service Representative Office (970) 945-5491 Fax (970) 947-5465 jca r(c h &mum.] coin IDLY 'CROSS::ENERGY .r 1 Attachment H: Slope Waiver Request 1 [ ioz `8i 4i t/si iii Fri )11 C7 02 la Xi rn �r m m Attachment 1: Weed Management Plan Cerise Weed Control Plan Lafarge proposes a multi layered control plan to manage the site. Below you will find a chart with the various common weed types found in this area and the planned treatment methods. Lafarge reserves the right to select herbicides that will most effectively treat the specified weeds as needed. Lafarge will do monitoring of the site at a minimum of quarterly to ensure that weed control methods are effectively being applied and followed per this plan. Any unique situations that occur in the field will be addressed at that time in following this plan as closely as possible for the situation. All applications of mowing and herbicide will be done with a 4 - wheeler or hand sprayer depending on the location and access to the treatment area. These applications will be applied per the schedule below, to address any regrowth or new growth on the site. This schedule will continue until the weeds below are no longer a problem at the site. Weei;Type Russian Olive Tamerisk Diffused Knapweed Thistle (Canadian, Musk and Russian) White Top Kochia Cutting Controls This plant will be primarily treated through cutting during the spring. Additional cutting will occur in the fall for any growth that was not eradicated during the initial treatment. This plant will be primarily treated through cutting during the spring. Additional cutting will occur in the fall for any growth that was not eradicated during the initial treatment. Other Controls Herbicides will be applied to all cut stumps to ensure regrowth will not occur. Additional spraying will be done for any new growth in the area. Herbicides will be applied to all cut stumps to ensure regrowth will not occur. Additional spraying will be done for any new growth in the area. No plans for utilizing cutting as a treatment strategy. No plans for utilizing cutting as a treatment strategy. To control the Knapweed, a layers strategy will be used. In early spring an initial treatment of herbicide will be applied to limit seed production. Then in fall, another application of herbicide will be applied to address any new or regrowth that was not managed by the initial treatments. The application of herbicide will be applied in spring when budding is occurring to limit the seeding process. No plans for utilizing cutting as a treatment strategy. The application of herbicide will be applied in spring prior to flowering to prevent seeding. No plans for utilizing cutting as a treatment strategy. The application of herbicide will be applied in spring prior to flowering to prevent seeding. The establishment of vegetation will help control the spread and growth of Kochia. , Attachment J: Well Construction Reports and Supplemental Test Reports FORM NO GWs_31 04120D5 r WELL CONSTRUCTION AND TEST REPORT STATE OF COLORADO, OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER 1313 Sherman Si,, Room BM, Denver, CO 80203 Phone - Info 003)86S-3587 Main (m3)866-3581 Fax C303)886-3569 http:!/werw.water,state.CO.us t WELL. PERMIT NUMBER: 6/9394- 2. WELL OWNER INFORMATION 1r NAME OF WELL OWNER: Z e.,.i4r�ra W'e..ST _lac . MAILING ADDRESS: 3 7 /'/ (.-our7ley a24,J /0q CITY: &lfen&h.roi lini STATE: Le, ZIP CODE: 87601 . Tiirpl-inNF tut IMRFR r 1 For Office Use Only 3. WELL LOCATION AS DRILLED: rt)G. 1/4, 36- 1/4, Sec. DISTANCES FROM SEC. LINES: 0:J3O ft. from 0 N or Ej SUBDIVISION: Optional GPS Location: GPS Unit must use the following settings: must be meters, Datum must be NAO$3, Unit must be set to true N, STREET ADDRESS AT WELL LOCATION: oc.)k Govir 4, GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION /--63©c, feet DATE COMPLETED rolr9/to TOTAL DEPTH /S= 5. GEOLOGIC LOG. Depth (r - r) Q../ce Type , Twp. ❑ N or Q S. Range 0 E or IN W S section line and /, /& ft. from E or ❑ W section line. , LOT ro , BLOCK , FILING (UNIT) Format must be UTM, Units Owner's Well Designation: - Fasting: ❑ Zone 12 or ❑ Zone 13 F 1. N1rs R.7 Northing: DRILLING METHOD Ael�(..c.)asrra J9GlT7/)'!� feet DEPTH COMPLETED /5`c, feet E. HOLE DIAM (in.) From (ft) To (ft) GroIn Size Color Wate Loc. 6 --owl re - /�7u/•fa L Iv /52) PLAIN CASING: OD (in) Kind Wail Size (in) From (ft) To (ft) y Marc �--3 9,5" PERFORATED CASING: Screen Slot Size (in): ,y�o /sa Remarks: 8. FILTER PACK: 9. PACKER PLACEMENT: Material GO s. /u .c Type Size 1n/. r1 Interval 93 - i Depth 10. GROUTING RECORD Material Amount Density Interval Placement e riland q. -"/ Q -IS Ft ya,,,.Af 11. DISINFECTION: Type . Amt. Used 12. WELL TEST DATA C Check box if Test Data is submitted on Form Number G'VVS 39 Supplemental Well Test. TESTING METHOD z/ - fir d'tar.,) 4e -•r1 /ow -7r -7es7 Static Level to), 7 ff- Datefiime measured: r f rbc> {J O 914 Production Rate ^- — gpm. Pumping Level /03.6, 7 ft. DatefTlme measured /,//.J/o u' . c55'3.5 --Test Length (hrs) a y. 3 Remarks: 13. I have read the statements made herein and know the contents thereof, and they are true to my knowledge. This document is signed and certified in eccardance with Rule 17.4 of the Water Weil Construction Rules, 2 CCR 402-2. [The filing of a document that Contains false statements is a violation of section 37-91-108(1)(e), C.R.S., and Is punishable by fines up to $5400 and/or revocation of the contracting license.} Company Name:, . p �, Phone: License Number: L i l SI t1 � �T' {mus 5S I [ ``Z Ott ess: a -6=)I-9 CLQ D4{f Print Name and Title Date 2- -f �%� FARM NO GWS-31 04/2005 WELL CONSTRUCTION AND TEST REPORT STATE OF COLORADO, OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER 1313 Sherman SL, Room 818, Denver, CO 80203 Phone - Info (303) 865-3557 Main (303) 866-3581 Fax.(303) 886-3589 http;llwww.water.slate.co.us For Office Use Only 1. WELL PERMIT NUMBER: 41Q3c40 2. WELL OWNER INFORMATION NAME OF WELL OWNER: i.c- zf �. eS I y .TnG MAILING ADDRESS: 3Ygrf 640.0-4,, , !v y CETY: 6'/,,,,u,),...,1 5p, - n e S STATE: C ZIP CODE: g/G=rs/ TELEPHONE NUMBER. ( ) - _ 3. WELL LOCATION AS DRILLED: AJO. 114, .50 1/4 Sec. Ze ,, Twp. 0 N or g S, Range 0 E or ❑x w DISTANCES FROM SEC. LINES: /r No ft. from 0 N or 1 S section line and //Goo ft from 1'+ E or El VV section line, SUBDIVISION: , LOT r0 BLOCK FILING (UNIT) s Well Designation: 1 Optional GPS Location: GPS Unit must use the following settings: Format must be UTM, Units Eason Easkng: must be -Deters, Datum must be NAD83, Unit must be set to true N, E] Zone 12 or 0 Zone 13 STREET ADDRESS AT WELL LOCATION; 6.-,nay, /edit/el - e-:ar6enr:I: . it,, F orthin ' 4. GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION '4 C.: ) feet DRILLING METHOD i?›_r- , ss ran ga- - DATE COMPLETED /o/ ,/Iv TOTAL DEPTH / feet DEPTH COMPLETED /5EE) feet 5. GEOLOGIC LOG: 6. HOLE DIAM (in.) From (ft�� _ .. To..{ft} __ Depth (t) Type Grain Size Co or Water Loc. 9 0 / 70 O-?' Srie — re .6 'a 0 Grwt ---- fed r,../e+ .,20''ifb , :A:I-41&'nwel-" My/A-cat- „r / ' 7. PLAIN CASING: OD (in) Kind Wall Size (in) From (ft) To (ft) 1{ pot', 43 trS /,Cu y /4c, Gras r h/orun /C.o - / ..5,/d _ _ 4r64...h PERFORATED CASING: Screen Slot Size (in):. vr6 q 93_ Iso -- 8. FILTER PACK: Material CO si I».d 9, PACKER PLACEMENT: TYf Size /o.42[› Interval 53- (5 u _ i- 10- GROUTING RECORD Material Arnount Density foiHet,,J 95'4 Depth Interval Placement 0 -l5--v, Remarks: AolI 1 / s--4- r -11. 11.DISINFECTION: Ty■e Amt. Used 12. WELL TEST DATA P Check box if Test Data is submitted on Form Number GWS 39 Supplemental Welt Test. TESTING METHOD 4.1-,4r- r.Ar44,) d° ',,, purninj. -1,s./ Static Levet 1o1 1oii.17 ft. Datetfime measured: //////i..) of .-s-C. , Production Rate .2c"-- gpm. Pumping Leve] MC- 64/ ft. Date/Time measured /7/Q/et) 69'V.s� , Test Length (hrs) Y . Remarks: 13. I have read the statements made herein and know the contents thereof, and they are true to my knowledge. This document is signed and certified in accordance With Rule 17.4 of the Water Well Construction Rules, 2 CCR 402-2. [The filing of a document that contains false statements Is a violation of section 37-81-108(1}(e), C.R.B., and is punishable by fines vp to $5000 and/or revocation of the contracting license.] Company Name: L C (2 l Q.] C..rt.) .°RP`) `? 2j j License Number: 17 `Cl -z,e-z t_3.1.2 /'f-L.31 j L.-[E f 1i--Le ASO,ef -,. C o . e,0011 1 ' •r s: Sint e: ji J Mr., Print Name ande ��° £3 r . rO pile Ute- L- ;. z , r`ai C.Y /2 - Date v2.- i - 1.0 FCfM Ho. GW$ -39 Ti/90 SUPPLEMENTAL TEST REPORT STATE OF COLORADO, OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER WELL PERMIT NUMBER Lig3S4 2 OWNER NAME(S) L }trref (7 Glc SJ rz� Malting Address e,g r0,24I oar Ea` City, St. ZIP 6-41vd Spr;rs < C,�a rfGGf Phone ( i For Office Lis) only WELL LOCATION AS DRILLED; ,U E DISTANCES FROM SEC. EINES: 1730 ft, from (A� -A Sec. line. and (nosh or south) SUBDIVISION: 1/4 SF 1 /4, Sec..) a , Twp. S Range GJ STREET ADDRESS AT WELL LOCATION: ft. from Sec. line. OpWC, 6c, (asst or K»stj LOT BLACK FILING(UNIT)� Est c•z - C ,Ya p, 4. STATIC WATER LEVEL: ., Date !r/i//iO , lime Measurement Method: l.JL rye f , Length of airline (if used) ft. 5. PUMP: Type 6-/..,„qras Ga ., Horsepower 1 , Setting /34, 5 feet. Power Source j tr r Discharge pipe /, < In., Discharge Prcure psi 6. FLOW METER: Manufacturer /Pole,- ./92,/e„..-- , Type Diameter J inches, Average pumping rate a 7. a gpm., Vnlurrle pumped during test 7. 'TEST DATA: Date of Test rr///- f.? kw)/c..-, Time Pumping Level Drawdown Pumping rate .r/r (feet) (feet) (gpm) 11.3.a _ joo,geo I•frl d'•0.z, 14.fVlam• fG 1•Kt. ,?1 i's- ____s_,21 ___s_,213 flu • `[J l,a1 q.• lar'' r l 100 ••KA 1•We, 0:3‘74^'00.W3tf .3 06,...69._ loo • rGG. 1, rG a -Iraq )}¢69,5" loo. r'7- r•q1 .4r.al irf -a Recovery Data ...— Pumping Pressure Time Water Level (Psi) (feet) a. DISINFECTION; Type Amt. Used 9. Water Quality analysis available. E Yes Q No 1D Remarks -12..) -; 11 I have read the statements made herein and know the contents thereof, and that they are true to my knowledge. [Pursuant to Section 244-104 (13)(a) C.R.S., the making of false statements herein constitutes perjury in the second degree and is punishable as class 1 misdemeanor.] CONTRACTOR fi G - 7"% G Phone Mailing Address )/2/N .5 / J Name/Title (Please type or print) i ekD/ /r -r �=: /L Y Si 441 Date !/O'3//) 1;JMP: Type , Horsepower / , Setting /4/';7,.5" feet. PowerSource Discharge pipe /,s` in., Discharge P ress ure psi.., lrfr 10 FORM ND. 04-39 11I44 SUPPLEMENTAL TEST REPORT STATE OF COLORADO, OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER 1. WELL PERMIT NUMBER 'rant - 2. OWNER NAME(S) 44 Gra LcJc S o - Mailing Address 3-7-5rr' t.44..4y City, St Zip fxw arn.l rfitys cc- e/trte/ Phone ( For Office Use only 3. WELL LOCATION AS DRILLED: JOE- 1/4 S6: 1/4, See. .R G DISTANCES FROM SEC. LINES: 1, 0c ft, from S00 -ii, Sec, line, and 1,6ft. from er45..6 Sec. fine. (north or south) (east or we SUBDIVISION: LOT BLOCK FILIN3(UN1T) STREET ADDRESS AT WELL LOCATION: ,.,x ;UU d° rot f 1 1 fsf� a Twp. , , Range i' x'' 4. STATICWATER LEVEL: (22,..HB ft., Date 1/71/4U , Time Ore Measurement Method: r.F-U) , Length of airline (if used) ft.. 5. 6 FLOW METER: Manufacturer .+�7 s J , Type Diameter f inches, Average pumping rate at' 3 gpm., Volume pumped during test A-.3,374,00 c d 7 TEST DATA: Date of Test be/11-4,) Time Pumping Level (feet) oqe s' /va �1fr 1 L1°i. "57,tet l03 -%9I i y f$ /0.3. ..,3 Ab:.)(l /03.?L. 4Z3''R) /123).gt) o;403 /c_?3 ..30 CJS►.( 103, 35- o"06. /u3.3-/ Drawdown (feet) 0 0. 71 0. Fr.2 0•"� 0 -ESC. Pumping rate Pumping Pressure (gpm) (Psi) C3 .?41. 30 • t/1 •1-ca4 — Recovery Data. ----- Time Water Level (feet) DISINFECTION: Type . a Amt. Used S. Water Quality analysis aval Ia.fYt No Remarks /2„).- Pl.-- I1. I have read the statements made herein and know the contents thereof, and that they are true to my knowledge. [Pursuant to Section 24-4404 (13)(e) C.R.S., the making of false statements herein constitutes perjury in the secon� degree and is punishable as, class 1 misdemeanor.; CONTRACTOR - � 1 4/fir ' Pftorte CO ) Q q & 450 Lic. No. oh. Mailing Address 1 / - Nale please type or print) ;e /'/4,444 Oat // MEMORANDUM To: Molly Orkild-Larson From: Steve Anthony Re: Cerise/LaFarge MIPA 6545 Date: March 21, 2011 The weed management plan submitted as Attachment 1 in the 3/21/11 letter from Tetra Tech to Garfield County is acceptable. From: To: Subject: Date: adaista loifv OrfciId-Larson RE: Referral Comment Response Tuesday, March 22, 2011 2:55:44 PM Molly: I reviewed the response from Tetra Tech and have the following comments: 1. Obtaining permits from the ACoE should be a condition of approval. 2. — 7. Have been addressed adequately. 8. The estimate and revised security estimate should, be forwarded to Garfield 9. Addressed adequately 10. and 11. The Applicant provided a system design based on the existing well chemistry tests. The Applicant proposes to drill another well. New well results results should be provided as a condition of approval. Also if any water system are warranted because of the new well results, these should also be provided. 12. Addressed adequately 13. New access permits, approvals, construction, etc. with CDOT will need to a 14. Addressed adequately 15. To be determined. County for review. results and water and water analysis design changes ddressed. Regarding the improvements to the County Road: in the meeting it seemed as though Sean Frisch and Mike Prehm settled on the length of the road to be repaved past the entrance with the proposed gravel pit as 200 feet. Also it was determined that there should be a geotechnical investigation of the existing road and that a pavement section should be designed based on that investigation. The road should be reconstructed to this engineered design. Feet free to call with any questions or comments. Sincerely, Mountain Cross Engineering, Inc. Chris Hale, P.E. 826 112 Grand Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Ph: 970.945.5544 Fx: 970, 945,5558 STATE OF COLORADO DIVISION OF RECLAMATION, MINING AND SAFETY Department of Natural Resources 1313 Sherman St., Room 215 Denver, Colorado 80203 Phone: (303) 866-3567 FAX: (303) 832-8106 2/25/2011 Todd Ohlheiser Lafarge West, Inc. 10170 Church Ranch Way, Suite 200 Westminster, CO 80021 C 0 L 0 RAD0 DIVISION OF RECLAMATION MINING SAFETY John W. Hicker4iooper Governor Mike King Executive Director Loretta E, Pitieda Director RE: Cerise Mine, File No.M-2010.0$8, Construction Materials Regular (112) Operation Reclamation Permit Application Decision Letter — Financial and Performance Warranty Request Dear Mr. Ohlheiser: On February 25, 2011, the Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety (DRMS) approved the above noted permit application. The amount of financial warranty set by DRMS for this operation is an amount of ($1,1O7,856.00). A financial warranty of the entire amount, as well as a performance warranty, must be submitted to DRMS before a Reclamation Permit may be issued. Please make arrangements with Mary Rodriguez at the DRMS Denver Office, phone no. 303.866.3567, ext. 8138 for submittal of the Financial and Performance Warranties. PLEASE NOTE THAT MINING OPERATIONS MAY NOT COMMENCE UNTIL A PERMIT HAS BEEN ISSUED BY DRMS AFTER RECEIPT OF THE • IFINANCIAI. WARRANTY AND PERFORMANCE WARRANTY. A PERMIT WILL NOT BE ISSUED UNTIL TIME ADEQUACY OF BOTH THE FINANCIAL WARRANTY AND PERFORMANCE WARRANTY ARE VERIFIED BY DRMS. Please feel free to contact me, regarding any questions or concerns you may have, at the DRMS Grand Junction Field Office. Office of Denver • Grand Junction • Durango Office of Mined Land Reclamation Active and Inactive Mines Sincerely; Dustin Crapla Environmental Protection Specialist Department of Natural Resources Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety 101 South 3rd, Suite 301 Grand Junction, CO 81501 Phone: (970) 243-5299 Fax: (970) 241-1516 Cc Sean Frisch, Lafarge West, Inc, Parr flora, Tetra Tech Office of Mined Land Reclamation STATE OF COLORADO Denver • Grand function • Durango Office Of Active and In iieiiie-Mines Page 2 of 2 March 2z, 2011 Lafarge, N.A.+ Corp, Attni Sean Frisch Down 'Walley Septic, LLC PA). Box 1929 • Rifle, CO 81650 970.625-5556 www.dvseptic.com Garfield 'County Building and Planning Department 1088'h Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81625 Re: Cerise Gravel Pit, Dear Sean: Please accept this letter as certification that Down Valley Septic, LLC provides sewage collection pod editable restrooms for Lafarge N.A., Corp I certify that Down Valley Septic, LLC wifi provide abcvQ services for Lafarge N.A., Corp. for the Cerise Gravel Pit Services will be provided as needed. Down Valley Septic, LLC fs available 24 hours a day. 7 days a week, and 365 days a year. collected sewage will be disposed of at the Slit Wastewater Treatment Facility, a state certified location, All portable restroom waste Will be disposed of at the Rifle Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility in Rifle, Colorado. Please contact me if you need any additional information at 970-625-5556 Thank you, 36c,Crt7C Scott Moyer coo Chown Valley Septic, LLC 970.625-5556 to, 9 mtki DI1�5r1131�b"b�4 Baa 9013SZB i 6 l r.., b r T 10. Liv rcla 0550 Wooden Deer Road Carbondale, Colorado 81623 March 25, 2011 Ms. Molly Arkild-Larson, Senior Planner Garfield County Building and Planning Department 108 8th Street Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Dear Ms. Arkild-Larson: 3 LIVE MAR 2 8 2011 GARFIELD COUNTY BUILDING & PLANNING It is my understanding that the LaFarge Corporation will be coming before the Garfield County Planning and Zoning Department with plans to expand their operations by creating a gravel mine on the Cerise property directly below my residence at 0550 Wooden Deer Road, Carbondale, Colorado 81623. I am writing to voice my objections to the plans of the Lafarge Corporation. It is also my understanding that Western Slope Materials are asking the Garfield. County Commissioners to allow them to over turn the ruling of December 8, 2010 regarding their expansion plans for the Blue Pit gravel mine. Since the Cerice and Blue properties are adjacent, this would create a very large and unsightly industrial complex in a residential and agricultural area. The impact on neighboring homes will be huge, and have a very negative affect on home values in the area. There would surely be an increased level of unpleasant noise from the increase in mechanized equipment such as rock crushers, conveyors, truck back-up beepers and general truck and employee traffic. The increase in traffic would have a dangerous impact on County Road 103 which is narrow, hilly and curvy. County Road 103 is our access to Highway 82 and the rest of the valley for schools, school buses and daily Life in general. Crystalline silica dust, a by-product of gravel processing is a carcinogen. If mining operations move closer to our homes, the level of dust will only increase. It already is a nasty factor, leaving a visible residue on windows and outdoor furniture, and more than likely, it is getting into our lungs. If asphalt plant operations are also permitted, we will also be subjected to clouds of horrid, greasy, black smoke. I dispute the applicant's claims that there would be "no significant long or short term effect on flora and fauna". Just the other day there was a herd of elk below my windows. 1 counted up to 65 and then gave up counting because there were so many more, Yesterday there were about 35 elk in those hay meadows of the Cerise's. The meadows are also home to eagles and hawks, and in the neighborhood we have raccoon, bear, bobcats, and mountain Hon. 0550 Wooden Deer Road Carbondale, Colorado 81623 March 25, 2011 The LaFarge mining operation on the Power's property is unsightly. The existing site has been a visual blight as seen from Highway 82 as well as from County Road 103. They do not seem interested in being good custodians of the earth. Please do not recommend that Garfield County permit the expansion of LaFarge mining on the Cerise property. Very truly yours, �{Q c Ctherine U. HubbardicoLA Mrs. Janet Johnson 0471 County Road 112 Carbondale, Colorado 82612 (970) 963-8244 jaylay@sopris.net March 29, 2011 Ms. Molly Arkild-Larson Senior Planner Garfield County Building and Planning Department 1o8 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 816o1 Dear Ms. Arkild-Larson: RECE WEB MAR 31 2011 CARD NG &LD LANNING BUIL Asa longtime resident of County Road 112 who uses County Road 103 daily for access to Highway 82, I feel I must strongly protest the proposal under consideration by your office for the Lafarge Company to increase its operations across County Road 103 to the Cerise Mine site. Not only would this proposed move increase the number of agricultural acres that would be destroyed by the mining operations, but the number of trucks and company cars accessing and exiting on County Road 103 would most certainly provide a safety hazard to motorists and bicyclist who use this road daily as well as a health hazard to the air and environment of the entire area. The:reasons for my objections to this proposal are as follows: SAF ET(/INCREASED TRAFFIC: As you are aware, County Road 103 is a two-lane, winding road in constant use though out the day and evening hours. County Road 103 is used by the many residents and homeowners of adjoining roads ... County Road 112, Crystal Springs Road, Cattle Creek Road, Wooden Deer Road, Deer Path Road, Red Wing Lane, County Road 113, Cain's Road, County Road 105, etc. The additional traffic from Lafarge using CR 103 as entrance and exit would severly impact all traffic using this road. A very important consideration by your office is the fact that the Roaring Fork School's bus drop-off, pickup and turnaround is located just a few hundred yards from the proposed new entry for Lafarge on CR 103. Children and their parents are on this road Monday through Friday. Additional truck traffic could cause additional traffic hazards. In the last few years, many construction trucks have being using CR 103 as a "short-cut" to their construction sites in the upper part of this proposed area. County Road 103 is also used by the many horse ranchers located on the previously mentioned county roads. This means a large number of horse trailers, trucks and towing vehicles using CR 103. Ms. Arkild-Larson Page Two March 29, 2011 ENVIRONMENT: Increased mining by Lafarge would most certainly destroy the natural habitat for the wildlife in this proposed area. Part of the joy of living in the Roaring Fork Valley -- and why others wish to move and make homes in this area -- is the open space where deer, elk, horses, cattle and others have access and a certain freedom which we and our families can enjoy either from afar or close-up. Lafarge proposes mining approximately 400,000 to 500,000 tons of aggregate a year out of the Cerise Mine. This would mean increased dust in our homes (and in our lungs) as well as carcinogen particles in the air. A real danger in an area known for clean air and ckiec, Increased operations by Lafarge would also increase the noise level -- already heard throughout the adjoining homes and roads -- of rock crushers, additional truck traffic and truck warning beepers. NATURAL AREA: As previously mentioned, County Road 103 is a curving, two-lane road and while it is a real work horse in the sense of daily traffic, it is also a beautiful and quiet refuge from the highway trucks and the speed demons of Highway 82. The proposed move by Lafarge from the west side of Highway 103 to the east side would mean approximately 1bo acres of gravel pits in this beautiful, agricultural area. Just as no one wants a garbage dump in their own back yard, no one wants 160 acres of dust, debris and additional traffic either. 1 strongly urge you to consider the negative impact this proposal would have on the natural beauty of this area, the air quality of this area, the safety of this area and the residents who truly appreciate this area, raise their families in this area and hope to keep it as beautiful an area as when they found it. I will be most happy to answer any concerns or questions you might have to this letter. Most sincerely, Mrs. J net Johnson 0471 County Road 112 Carbondale, CO 81623: From: Pan Jervis To: Molly ©rklld-Larson Cc: Pan Jervis; Crustal Springs Coalition Subject: La Farge Wring application Date: Tuesday, Apri4 05, 2011 8:36:16 AM Daniel R. Jervis 0276 Wooden Deer Road Carbondale, CO 81623 April 5, 2011 Dear Ms. Arkild-Larson, Chairperson; Please allow a couple of valuable minutes to read the following paragraphs which I would like to share with you. I have been a Garfield County resident since 1978, owned my own business until 2007 and choose to spend my remaining years here. For as long as I have lived close to the Roaring Fork River there has always been a prescence of Bald Eagles perching in the tallest trees along the river from November until March. i and most residents of the valley notice them and stop to watch and admire them. For the last three winters, a grove of cottonwoods situated on the Cerise property on the east border of County Road 103 has been conspicuously occupied by roosting/perching Bald Eagles. On many days, one can observe as many as 5 adult Bald Eagles perching in the morning sunshine, easily noticed from the road. Two photographs will be offered to the Planning Commission 'which show up to 7 eagles at one time perching in the Cerise trees. As long as I have lived here, I have never seen more than 2 Baldies in a single tree along the river where they spend most of their time. Realizing that eagles can roost anywhere they wish, please understand that these birds prefer a safe sanctuary to gather and roost overnight and that the grove of trees is now threatened by the mining proposal. I was present on August 11, 2010 at the P & Z forum held in the Garfield County annex when the Western Slope Aggregate proposal was approved by your committee. Three of the members voted against approval that evening. During the course of discussion, a man in the audience mentioned the upcoming LaFarge proposal and was reprimanded by you for speaking about a topic which was not relevant to the WSA proposal. Nevertheless, the subject of the prospect of two gravel mining operations side by side on adjoining properties was entered in to the discussion between members of the P & Z commission. The conversation was off the record but I distinctly recall that three of the members openly discussed their concern that the possibility of two mining operations on adjoining properties would present an unprecedented weight on their committee. Please, with valuable consideration realize that permitting two different companies the right to mine side by side would be a HUGE impact upon surrounding land owners and it would open the gate for similar applications countywide. 1 respectfully request that the commission deny the LaFarge application to mine the Cerise prooperty. LaFarge has become a global concrete monopoly and already has a mine adjacent to Aspen Glen. 1 extend my sincerest appreciation for your consideration on this matter. Daniel R. Jervis From: Crystal Springs CoIition To: Molly Drldld-Larson Subject: Lafarge application Date: Tuesday, April 05, 2011 9:34:33 AM Dear Ms. Morkild-Larson: My husband and I, along with our neighbors in Wooden Deer and our neighbors in the Crystal Springs/ Missouri Heights area, want to register our very strong opposition to the efforts of the Lafarge company to mine the Cerise property just below our subdivision. As you know, the Garfield Co. Commissioners have already approved the expansion of the WSA mine (aka "the Blue pit"), and there can be no need for an adjoining gravel pit to create even more noise and air pollution, truck traffic and the physical ruination of the landscape that we have all enjoyed for many years. TWO gravel pits are simply incompatible with the existing residential/ agricultural nature of this area. The local residents have suffered the effects of the present gravel pits with little complaint, but to now allow two adjoining pits in what is essentially our front yards would be indefensible. Please pass these remarks ori to your fellow board members and consider them when you are considering this application. We respectfully ask that the board DENY the application from Lafarge. Sue & Chris Coyle 501 Wooden Deer Rd. Carbondale, CO 81623 From: To: Subject: Rate: luciefitch(vahoo.com Molly Or}did-Larson Lafarge Grave Pit Tuesday, April 05, 2011 9:47:59 AM My name is Lucie Fitch and my husband and I live at 104 Wooden Deer Rd. We are the house closest to the Cerise Ranch in Wooden Deer and already are exposed to the dust and noise of the original Lafarge Pit and the dust and noise and visual impact of the WSA pit. The thought of having side to side gravel pits destroying our pristine view of Mt, Sopris plus the added dust and noise and pollution is truly frightening! We are in an Elk corridor and I have seen Eagles in the trees in the Cerise Ranch Trees. Who knows what will happen to these magnificent creatures. We implore you to deny Lafarge this permit . Thank you. Respectfully yours, Lucie Fitch Sent via Blackberry by AT&T From: Scott Minor To: ?lolly Orkild-Larson Subject: LaFarge Pit- Wooden Deer Date: Tuesday, April OS, 2011 10:98:52 AM Dear Molly, I am a home owner at 384 wooden deer road Carbondale, CO and have lived here for15 years. When I invested in our family's future by moving here I was currently working for Roaring Fork Redi Mix at the current LaFarge Pit. I new the full impacts of a gravel pit that existed at the Blue pit and Lafarge pit. However 1 never can not view either one from my home. It would be nice if the currant commissioner's could stop by my house and enjoy the view I have. I never envisioned another grave pit in the Cerise location with so many gravel pits already in the valley,This also will make it look like a continuation of one LARGE Operation. LaFarge still has a Gravel operation just north of Aspen Gen that has a 100 year lease with asphalt and redi-mix concrete permits. The Blue pit is in a nice corner location with no asphalt permits and has hours of operation. To put a gravel pit in the Cerise Ranch would be such a terrible location and affect so many homes of not only in Wooden Deer but the surrounding Ridges.Since I have been in the Redi mix operations for over 25 years and past president of the Colorado Redi Mix Assotiation I know that this is not the right place to put one. If the gravel pit was here when I moved in I would have known what it would do to the value of my house but now that the only investment I have left is my house I am strongly against this approval. This will also affect the property taxes collected by Garfield County I hope that you and the commissioner's can understand my concerns and will Deni this permit Sincerely Scott Joseph Minor. 970/948-7031 From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: LEIKRa Molly l Orkild•Larsarl crysta154rinoscoalitionfaa cimail.c Ln Lafarge Application Tuesday, April 05, 2011 11:21:32 AM My wife and I own a home located at 5365 County Road 100, Carbondale, CO $1623. Our property, in fact, is located on the ridge partially overlooking the Lafarge plant and gravel pit and it is a property which borders on the top east side of the Wooden Deer Development. k am writing this to object in the strongest manner possible to the expansion of the Lafarge gravel pit. My reasons are simple: 1) Most every day we are confronted with excessive noise from the moving vehicles and grinders within the present Larfarge pit. When the wind is blowing from the floor of the valley up our ridge, which is most of the daylight hours, as heat rises creating wind, the noise amplifies itself. The noise is Monday thru Saturday. 2) We are confronted with dust which is made up of silica, among other particles. This dust is excessive especially in the summer when we leave windows open and again when the wind is blowing up the ridge. It is my understanding that the silica in particular is a carcinogenic element which concerns me from a health standpoint 3) The traffic from this pit expansion will only increase on Highway 82 with heavily laden down vehicles which I must inform you sometimes travel at excessive speeds and over the speed limit. 4) While I believe in competition in any industry and business Lafarge has a competitor next door that already has applied for an expansion and now with Lafarge's expansion will only increase the eyesore of what was a beautiful green area used for agriculture and a refuge for migrating birds and animals. 5) If as I understand there will be a permit for a portable or non permanent asphalt plant this will only add to the ambient air pollution, petroleum fumes and other disagreeable smells and of course more noise which I wish to also object to. I wish to register my absolute objection to the expansion of the Lafarge Gravel and Concrete plant. Sincerely, Gordon F Viberg April 5, 2011 Re: LaFarge gravel pit expansion Dear Sir or Madam, 1 am writing this letter to you out of deep concern for the application that has been submitted by LaFarge to expand their gravel operations from the Powers Pit to the Cerise Mine. I live in the Wooden Deer Subdivision just north of where they are proposing to put the new gravel pit. As a homeowner who lives in this area, knows what the current site looks like, and has reviewed LaFarge's application to Garfield County, 1 believe their proposal raises serious concerns for not only the homeowner's in this area, but the citizens of Carbondale and Garfield County as a whole. As such, 1 have outlined many, but not all, of my concerns below: 1. Air quality — There are numerous environmental factors related to the mining of gravel including emissions that can cause respiratory and other health problems, and more specifically, health concerns from concrete and asphalt plants. Cement plants are known causes of releasing emissions, including mercury which is harmful to human health. In fact, LaFarge's operations in other states has prompted not only concerns among residents that live near their cement plants, but The New York Department of Health has launched a two phase health assessment specifically assessing environmental health issues related to exposure to contaminants from the LaFarge plant in Ravena, NY. LaFarge's application clearly states "the County will ensure extraction won't adversely affect the natural environment" to include air quality, water, habitat and visual resources. They go on to address the concerns of the emissions into the air in their "Fugitive Dust Control Plan". As a resident of this area that is so frequently dubbed "Misery Heights" because of the extremely high winds and high temperatures, 1 can tell you that their protocols for mitigating "fugitive dust" including watering the site down, putting covers on their trucks, and they way they are digging into the earth will not be sufficient given the landscape of this area. They are suggesting that the dust will not be picked up by wind which is untrue. 1 can confidently say this because 1 know how much dust and air pollution the Blue Pit and Powers Pit currently put into the air and on the windows in our neighborhood. These problems would only be increased when these two pits increase in size, or optimistically, remain the same size but move closer together. 2, Traffic — Lafarge's traffic study attempted to provide an analysis of the current road conditions and how they would be affected by the new plant. 1 think there are three points to be considered with their analysis a. Safety — LaFarge notes that all of the traffic should be heading south down County Road 103 and then east or west on Highway 82. This intersection is currently a T intersection with a stop sign for traffic coming from County Road 103. The intersection is also about equidistant from stop lights in either direction on Highway 82, each of which are about 1 Y2 miles away from our intersection. Basically, the cars moving along Highway 82 are moving at least 65 miles per hour, and in most cases, quicker by the time they reach Highway 82. As residents of this neighborhood, we all know even without the pit, this can be a dangerous place to merge onto Highway 82. The increased traffic (770 daily trips as estimated in section B of LaFarge's Site Traffic for Complete Traffic Study) would mean increased risk to anyone using these two roads. b. Traffic — Again, LaFarge's own estimate is that there will be 770 daily trips to and from LaFarge with the new facility. Currently, two cars stopped at County Road 103 and trying to head east adds about 5 minutes to a commute. These added trips would make it impossible for anyone who has to use County Road 103 to access Highway 82 to expect to get anywhere in a reasonable amount of time. c. Road maintenance — County Road 103 is simply not built to house this amount of heavy traffic_ LaFarge would be putting a considerable amount of stress on both this road and Highway 82 which ultimately is going to be incumbent upon the tax payers of the city, county, and state to pay. 3. Noise pollution — As residents of this area, we are already disturbed by the amount of noise pollution created by trucks and the gravel pit operations. This will steadily increase as this mine is moved to a new location where the population is denser than the current Power Pit area, and will be exacerbated by the existence of both gravel pits in this area. Additionally, in Lafarge's traffic study, they site that the mine will be operating from 7 a.m. through 9 p.m. Monday through Saturday. This is 14 hours of the day where residents can expect to be exposed to the noise from the new Cerise Pit. 4. Wildlife -- Please note that residents in our neighborhood have taken pictures of eagles nesting in the site where LaFarge proposes putting their gravel pit. Additionally, they maintain that there are no migration patterns in this area because it is currently a haying operation. This is simply not true as evidenced in residents of our subdivision seeing both mule deer and elk on this land. Additionally, Garfield County has recently added a wildlife fence to combat migration acroos Highway 82 to the border of this site, recognizing there is a need in this area. The Wildlife Study submitted by LaFarge encompassed one day in June of 2009. I don't consider this to be a very comprehensive or accurate study of the wildlife in the area, but rather an overview of what one could expect in this area. 5. Visual Impact Studies — All of the projections LaFarge submitted regarding the visual impact were taken from on the. Cerise site. They did not consider the visual impact to neighboring properties. The property north of the proposed Cerise pit site is all uphill from the site and looks down upon the property at a considerable slope. The berm and planting LaFarge is proposing would not be effective in shielding any of the gravel pit from neighbors. Additionally, I don't believe their landscaping plan with a projected planting budget of $61,639 is realistic in expecting to shield the gravel pit from view. I am additionally confused about where their vantage points are as they are not labeled. Vantage Point #4 seems to show a picture from CR 103 east towards the site of the new pit. It shows a berm running along the road that would shield the pit from view. This is confusing to me because the area of the berm is actually exactly where Crystal Springs Creek currently runs. 6. Asphalt plant — In addition to the environmental concerns already sited above, LaFarge is proposing that an independent company would operate the asphalt plant if and when it is added as part of the facility. This releases them from accountability for the negative impacts of this plant, and there are no safeguards in this proposal that target how this independent company would be held accountable for how they run their plant. 7. What does this plant have to offer the citizens of Garfield County? We have talked about all of the negative impacts this site could potentially have and I don't see any needed contribution for our County at this time. We have numerous gravel pits within Garfield County already, and there is simply no demand for the $7,280,000 tons of gravel they would like to be able to extract. Although these are not all of my concerns regarding the new gravel pit proposal, these are some of the concerns I believe need to be weighed and scrutinized by our representatives in Garfield County to protect their constituency. The Garfield County Comprehensive Plan clearly states Garfield County recognizes "private property owners also have certain legal rights and privileges, including the right to have the mineral estate developed in a reasonable matter and to have adverse land use impacts mitigated". I simply don't think this plan is consistent with that goal. Additionally, although the statutes of Colorado favor the right to mine, the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan originally zoned this area residential. The Comprehensive Plan is in part an outline of the goals of Garfield County, its constituency, and the long term goals including appropriations of land that the county would like to achieve. LaFarge references Western Slope Aggregates expansion and states that they take the planned expansion into consideration in their proposal. I would also ask that in keeping direction with the comprehensive plan and the goals of our community, that our representatives who will be considering this application also look at the broader scope of this expansion when coupled with the permits just granted to WSA. Sincerely, Sarah F. Burggraf From: Oct Naeoele To: Moliv 4r0d-Larson Subject: Crystal Springs Lafarge Date: Tuesday, Apr li 05, 2011 1139:46 AM To Whom It May Concern: 1 am a VERY concerned resident of Western Missouri Heights living at 1104 County Road 112. 1 highly oppose this proposal by Lafarge. They are a nuisance to our community. They scourge the and and are a complete eyesore to our beautiful surrounds. One of the wonderful things about living here is enjoying the peace and quiet. The proposal of LaFarge to open up another hole in our land and traverse 103 Road with trucks would be a huge mistake. Please, please, please vote down their proposal? They have extracted enough dirt and profits from our community and its time for them to go find another place to disrupt!! Sincerely, Robert Naegele 1104 County Road 112 Carbondale, CO 81623 970.963.0710 April 4, 2011 To the Garfield County Planning Commission, We encourage you to recommend against approving the application by LaFarge, for a gravel mining operation to be located on the Cerise property for several reasons. First, this would be directly adjacent to the WSA pit, which was recently approved for expansion, and would create continuous open pit mining from CR 103 on the west to near CR 100 on the east. We believe that, if approved, this would create a negative cumulative impact on the residents of this portion of Garfield County. Second, the addition of another extraction operation will significantly degrade our quality of life by impacting our views, increasing the levels of noise and particulates and severely decreasing the value and marketability of our property. We are very concerned with safety on CR 103 due to increased truck traffic into and out of the pit operation. CR 103 is used primarily by the residents of this area as access to State Highway 82 and is also a school bus route. The addition of heavy trucks to the mix of residential and school traffic on this small rural road is inadvisable. In the latest Comprehensive Plan, the county recognized the need to maintain adequate supplies of sand and gravel. We feel this need is met in the western part of the county by the numerous pits located between New Castle and Parachute and is being met in the eastern end by the LaFarge pit located between Glenwood and Carbondale and by the WSA pit located adjacent to this application. We believe that the stated goals of adequate materials are being met and there is limited need for an additional mine at this time. Again, we urge the Commission to seriously consider the cumulative impacts of this application on the residents of Wooden Deer Subdivision and the Crystal Springs area and recommend against approving this application. Respectfully submitted, Thomas D. & Marilyn A. Hays 0593 Wooden Deer Road Carbondale, Colorado From: jolufitchootonfine net To: MoJly Orklid-Larson Cc: Kollar Erne and Barbara • $ue Coyle Subject; Lafarge/Cerise Gravel Pit Application Date: Tuesday, April 05, 2011 11:55:46 AM This email will center on two critical elements: (1) the need versus greed element and (2) the human element. NEED VERSUS GREED. My research, and I intend to do more, shows there is absolutely no NEED currently for an additional gravel pit in the roaring fork valley or in garfield county. The operator of the elam pit in pitkin county told me that his pit has enough gravel to take care of the needs of the roaring fork valley all by itself for the next 20 years. The severs pit near aspen glen has virtually ceased gravel operations. Besides being Lafarge's western slope headquarters, they enjoy a 99 year lease. A manager there estimated they had another 15 years of gravel, certainly at the severely reduced levels of demand that exist today and very likely farther into the future than any of us think. From my observations in the valley, things are getting worse, not better. The WSA/Blue pit already existting and already granted an expansion against the wishes if its neighbors, has anywhere from 10 to 20 years of mining left on its old permit and an additional 25 to 50 years In their new permit granted by the garfield bocc in november of 2010. So the valley has an ample supply of top -grade gravel already permitted as far into the future as the lifetimes of any likely attendee at the upcoming p and z hearing. The data above excludes the eight sand and gravel pits listed in the yellow pages in the rifle/silt areas about which I expect to do research for a more comprehensive letter to the county commissioner. Keep in mind those pits are also located in garfield county, have already been permitted by garfield county, and, as I expect my research to show, represent serious gravel tonnage, in aggregate, far into the future. I would like to repeat, there is NO ECONOMIC NEED for the county to grant a permit for a new gravel pit at this time or perhaps forever as new, improved methods of construction developed in the future may obviate the need for gravel use. The time is right, I think, for the p and z to reccomend and for the bocc to act to table or postpone the Lafarge/Cerise application until a comprehensive study by the county can be accomplished to determine what the likely demand for gravel products 50 years into the future. It is my belief, based on research done so far, that such a study would reveal the TRUTH; that there is absolutely no NEED for an additional gravel pit. What remains is corporate GREED. THE HUMAN ELEMENT, So far in our wooden deer neighborhood, we have had one foreclosure, a number of lots have been for sale for a long time and several new homes have been postponed for various reasons; how the gravel pits play out among thein. In addition to the problems of noise, dust, traffic and wildlife dislocations about which I am sure you have heard plenty, Lafarge/Cerise has introduced the probability of an additional assault on the senses by allowing for the use of what they call " temporary " asphalt plants to their new site. Since we are now able to smell the cows on the Cerise ranch ( actually a pleasant smell ), we shudder at the prospect of smelling asphalt, which no one would argue is pleasant. The elam pit operator told me there are two permanent asphalt plants in the valley, one at elam and one at severs (Lafarge). He emphasized that when the construction boom in the valley was at its height, neither asphalt plant was ever operated at full capacity. Based on that, should the Lafarge/Cerise pit be permitted in some form or another, the p and z should recommend to the bocc that any introduction of asphalt making to this new pit on the edge of a residential area be strictly abolished. The two existing asphalt plants can handle any load, My final comment really emphasizes the human element connected to these " for profit " enterprises. The owners of the house above mine in wooden deer have been trying to sell their house for 1 1/2 years at a price now at half of where they started. They are in their eighties and need the money to live out their days near their daughter in grand junction. A rare prospective buyer spent 1 1/2 hours at the house recently and then was told about the gravel pit troubles by the realtor. The buyer hasn't been seen or heard from since. This is a human tragedy in the making. PLEASE RECOMMEND REJECTION OF THE LAFARGE/CERISE APPLICATION sincerely yours, jonathan flitch, 0104 Wooden deer road, carbondale. Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T From: GLEN HARRIS To: 1i' Orkild-Larson Date: Tuesday, April 05, 2011 12:41:56 PM To Whom It May Concern: I live directly behind WSA and the proposed Lafarge gravel operations. Having lived her for 40 years, I have never opposed the existing operation, recognizing the need for resources. Having said that, on the other hand, having that operation in front of my house, has not been without a sacrifice, i.e. noise, dust, traffic, and being awakened every morning between 6 or 7 o'clock. The thought of ripping open another operation adjacent to the existing pit, given the fact that these two operations will outlive me, and the demand for resources could easily be filled with the existing operation, I find this excessive at the least. In 50 (or maybe 100) years when the current operation is finished then look at opening another pit. Glen Harris 319 County Road 104 Carbondale CO 81623 April 5, 2011 Molly ©rkild-Larson Garfield County Planning Department 0375 County Road 352, Suite 2060 Rifle, CO 81650 Re: Cerise Mine Application by Lafarge Molly: With regard to the Cerise Mine application, please consider the following reasons for denial: The Cerise Mine will adversely affect the desirability of the immediate neighborhood and the entire community. Lafarge has been operating the existing Powers Mine, further away from the proposed pit, and the impacts have been outrageous. Wooden Deer residents have endured the noise and dust with the understanding the pit was nearing completion and there would finally be some peace and quiet. The Blue Pit (WSA) was recently expanded with at least 20 years of approved gravel extraction adjacent to the Cerise property. if the Cerise Mine is approved, the view will be interruptive by a continuous band of gravel pits; noise and dust will be coming through in stereo. The proposed scheme requires the entire area to be stripped mined and not reclaimed until the pit is finished. This will be a visual eyesore. The View Study intending to show the visual impact on Wooden Deer is a joke. Vantage Point 1 is obscured with 100 foot tall trees not indicative of the pinion and juniper trees in the area. Furthermore, the vantage point is taken from a height of 5'-8" above ground. Most of the south -facing decks in Wooden Deer are 12 to 15 feet above ground, putting the viewing eye well above the trees. Attached is a Google Earth view of the proposed Cerise Mine and already approved WSA gravel pit taken from the upper part of Wooden Deer near Vantage Point 1. Even this image does not capture the true feel of the actual impact. The visual impacts can only be accurately evaluated by visiting one of the homes in Wooden Deer. Due to the elevation difference between the Wooden Deer and the proposed pit, the proposed berms will not buffer the homes to the north as indicated in the application. There will be a direct line of site from the upper homes in Wooden Deer to the floor of the gravel pit. Noise and dust will easily travel over the beams. The prevailing winds blow from the southwest which puts Wooden Deer in the path of the impacts. Cumulative Impacts are not addressed in the application. To show that noise and dust levels will meet Colorado standards, the applicant only needs to "model" the impacts during the application process. Monitoring during the actual mining is not required in the application. When there is a problem with noise and dust, how will it be determined which pit is the source of the problem? Additionally, side by side pits should be required to meet higher noise and dust standards than for single pits. The Cumulative Impact Analysis Site Plan Map sequence illustrating how the Cerise Mine and the Blue Pit are projected to progress is completely inaccurate and does not represent anything WSA was approved for. The disclaimer in the upper right hand corner says it all. There is nothing binding that will tie together or coordinate the progression of the two pits. Lafarge claims the new pit is just a continued use, and that homeowners knew mining was in the area when they purchased their homes. When lots were purchased in the 1990's, the Cerise property was zoned residential and the existing Powers mine had only a few years left on its permit. (Since then, the existing Powers permit was given extensions without public approval). The Cerise Mine is not a continued use but a new pit that conflicts with the existing residential subdivision already approved by the County Commissioners. The neighborhood should not be expected to endure the impacts from both pits (WSA and Cerise) simultaneously. The impacts should be "spread out". There are currently three other gravel pits, one of which is already owned by Lafarge, that supply gravel to the Roaring Fork Valley. There is already plenty of competition to supply the needs of the upper part of Garfield County for the next 20 to 40 years. The gravel will not "go away" and should be saved for future extraction. Lafarge claims the Cerise Mine will not impair the stability or value of existing adjacent residences. Recently the resident at 499 Wooden Deer had a potential buyer for their house, but when they disclosed information about the proposed Cerise Mine, the buyer was no longer interested. Lafarge has been extracting gravel in Colorado for many years and sending the profits to France. Perhaps our economy would be better served if the gravel pits were owned by local companies where profits would stay in the valley. Sincerely, Ernest Kollar 0746 Wooden Deer Road Carbondale, CO 81623 Page 1 of 2 Attachments can contain viruses that may harm your computer. Attachments may not display correctly. Molly Orkild-Larson From: mkavasch@aol.com [mkavasch@aol.com] Sent: Tue 4/5/2011 2:36 PM To: Molly Grkild-Larson; erniekollar.woodendeer@gmail.carn; dmy[er@my erlawpc.com; soprissue©gmail.com; kavasch@reesehenry.com; jowensby@gmai#.corn Cc: Subject: Regarding LaFarge's New Gravel Pit Proposal Attachments: DSC00011,JPG(2O8KB) LI Gravel Pit 7A.]PG(312KB1 -- Gravel Pit 8.JPG(337KB) Gravel Pit 9,JPG(356K8) D Gravel Pit 10,JPG1347K8) D Gravel Pit 12.JPG(936KB) L l Gravel Pit 13.]PG(390KB) ii Gravel Pit 14.3PG (389108) Li Gravel Pit 15.3PG(238KB) LI Gravel Pit 16.JPG(190KB) Dear Ms_ Morkild-Larson: 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. WSA is also taking the time to negotiate with neighboring homeowners to lessen the impact of their emissions, noise, and lighting. Being the closest year-round residents who are not profiting from an existing or proposed gravel pit, but directly impacted by such, our family has a vested interest in seeing strong mitigations to prevent harm to air quality, wildlife, property values, and human health. We are also concerned about noise and light pollution. LaFarge's only proposed mitigation of harm is a 30 -foot berm directly behind the existing ranch house on the Cerise Ranch. That may offer some comfort to the rancher, but does nothing to address the concerns of anyone else affected by their operations. We are already seeing an increase in medical expenses from respiratory ailments in our family and the future, at best, promises more of the same. WSA has discussed mining from the floor of the pit to decrease dust levels somewhat, building a berm on the north end of the pit and planting trees to provide a dust and noise barrier. They have agreed to limit noise, lighting, and hours of operation. We are still discussing watering in the pit and other details to reduce the impact on neighboring homeowners. In addition to an unnessary gravel pit, LaFarge 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 studies on property values which documented losses of up to 56% of property value as a result of the proximity of an asphalt plant. 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 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." https://cits3mail.garfield-county. camlexchange/moi: ki Id -Larson fInbox/Regarding%20LaFar-g... 4/6/201 Page 2 of 2 This is a deer and elk migratory route and will Beverly 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 else 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. 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 noiseidustlodorllight 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 these needs for over 30 years into the future? Please recommend denial of LaFarge's request to the Garfield County commissioners. Enough has been asked of the residents of this area already. Thank you. Susan Lau and Mark Kavasch 0152 Wooden Deer Road https:I/cits3 mail.garfield-county.comlexchangettnorkild-larsonanbox/Regarding%20LaFarg... 4/612011 WA14-WW4 From: BillWalter To: Mplty orkild-Larson Subject: please stop the gravel pit expansion Date; Tuesday, April 05, 2011 6:23'24 PM Hello, I have purchased a beautiful home on Rimledge Road which overlooks to valley to the South, Carbondale, and a small part of the current gravel pit. I am currently in the final stages of designing an addition which has for its main view the pastures where the new expansion is planned. If the gravel pit expansion goes forward, my view will be incredibly marred and I will have a new direct view of and noise path from of Highway 82. Please do not allow this expansion to happen. I feel it will make our dream home less valuable and the view (which was the reason we purchased here) much diminished. Thanks you , Bill Walter 5349 County Road 100 Carbondale, CO 81623 970-618-7699 HjON€TAL ACOUSTICS AND VIBRATION CONSUL/IND April 6, 2011 Ms, Molly Orkild-Larson Garfield County - Senior Planner 0375 County Road 352, #2060 Rifle, Colorado 81650 Re: Addendum. to Analysis of Noise from Proposed Cerise Gravel Mine Dear Ms. ©rkild-Larson, Per your request, the following provides additional details regarding the compliance of the proposed Cerise Gravel Mine with applicable noise regulations. We understand that the County would like to see a more concise demonstration of compliance than that presented in our November 17, 2010 noise study report for the project. We can appreciate the fact that there is some confusion regarding noise compliance, as there are multiple nuances to the operations and the applicable statute that make demonstration of compliance relatively complex. We hope that the information presented herein is more definitive. Noise emissions from the proposed Cerise Gravel Mine must adhere to Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution, Article VII, Section 7-840, Additional Standards Applicable to Gravel Extraction. Paragraph C of Section 7-840 requires the "Volume of sound generated shall comply with the standards set forth in the Colorado Revised Statutes at the time any new application is made." Noise levels are regulated in the Colorado Revised Statutes in Title 25, Article 12, Noise Abatement. CRS §2542 noise limits are listed in Table 1, and depend on the time of day of operations, the land use of adjacent properties, and the type and nature of operations. The limits need to be met at a point 25 feet outside of the project boundary (permit boundary), as clearly stated by Garfield County resolution 7-840. Construction of the Cerise Mine will only occur during the daytime (7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.). Similarly, all noise -producing activities associated with operation of the project will only take place during the daytime. Therefore, only the daytime noise limits shown in Table 1 are applicable to the proposed project. Land use adjacent to the project varies from residential to the north, industrial to the west, and agricultural otherwise. For the purposes of this analysis then, the daytime `Residential' limit of 55 dBA needs to be met to the north, the daytime 'Industrial' limit of 80 dBA needs to be met to the west, and the daytime 'Light Industrial' (assumed for agricultural land use) limit of 70 dBA needs to be met in all other directions. The resulting daytime noise level limits in each direction are shown in Table 2. COLORADO • WISCONSIN • MAINE phone: (303) 666-0617 • www.hankardinc.com = fax (303) 600-0282 NVIRONMENTAL RND Y16i A.Ipk C Cl'ilJLt9Nfj Two caveats apply to these limits. During the daytime, the noise level limit can be increased by 10 dBA for 15 minutes in any one-hour period. This will be applicable to the mobile sources of mining noise, such as earth moving equipment approaching and receding from the edges of the permit boundary- Also, noise level limits are decreased by 5 dBA for intermittent, shrill type sounds, which on this project primarily applies to back-up alarms on earth moving equipment (unless `white -noise' back-up alarms are used, which are not impulsive or shrill). TABLE 1— Maximum Permissible Noise Levels (dBA) — Colorado Revised Statutes §25-12 Nighttime (2) (7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) 50 Zone Residential Daytime tit (2) (7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.) Light Industrial 1! �^'cp' �`''°�`S-��F-'+` -��i _-c`� �� • .n � -i' �` t'3,�`.-'.,.�x-a. �. tea: r `�'� -F (1) During the daytime, noise levels can be increased by 10 dBA for 15 minutes in any one-hour period (2) Noise level limit decreased by 5 dBA for intermittent, shrill type sounds TABLE 2 — Zoning and Land use of Properties Adjacent to Proposed Cerise Mine. Direction fromLand Use for Daytime Garfield County Garfield County ty Cerise Noise Noise Limit Parcel No. Zoning Project Analysis (lam to 7pm) Light industrial 70 2393-254-00-265 • SE ARRD (1) a -r+ Ag ill Ag (2) Ag t�} 2393-253-00-158 2393-264-00-004 SW 2393-264-00-005 SSE fa: Residential ;.res Light industrial 71, Light industrial 55 70 (3) ARRD = Agricultural Residential Rural Density (Z) No zoning given by Garfield County, 'Property Code' is agricultural (Ag) (3) Based on current land use, which is industrial (Powers Mine) 70 Addendum to Analysis of Noise from Proposed Cerise Gravel Mine page 2 April 6, 2011 �NiGARA NVIRONMENTAL t 1A CODiII..5 AHD YIiLA1lDN CDg341I rtC Noise levels were predicted from the proposed mining operations using the methods described in our November 17, 2010 noise study report for the project. The predicted noise levels along the boundary are repeated here, with one difference, and that is we have separated mobile and stationary equipment. We have also separated Mining Sequence 1 from the other sequences. Mining Sequence 1 consists of initial stripping and stockpiling, which includes the construction of the earthen berms along the north side of the mine that are intended to block noise from reaching residences. We are considering this construction (versus operation). The daytime noise limit for construction is 80 dBA, regardless of adjoining land use. We are also applying this to Sequence 8, which is Reclamation (takes place after the mine has stopped operating). Sequence 1 The noise producing activities associated with Sequence 1 consist of earth moving equipment (loaders, dozers, scrapers, etc.) stripping topsoil and overburden from the site and stockpiling it in various locations near the edge of the project, particularly to the north. According to measurements conducted by Hankard Environmental, a large piece of earth moving equipment such as a scraper produces 81 dBA at a distance of 50 feet. According to a comprehensive study of construction noise conducted for the Central Artery project in Boston, MA, a scraper produces a maximum noise level of 83 dB at a distance of 50 feet. On the Cerise project, scrapers will operate as close as 40 ft. to the permit boundary to the north, which is 65 feet from the noise compliance boundary (compliance must be met 25 ft, outside the permit boundary). Therefore, using the louder noise level (from Central Artery study), one scraper will produce a maximum noise level of 81 dBA at a point 25 ft. outside the Cerise permit boundary. This exceeds the limit of 80 dBA applicable to construction operations. If two scrapers were present the level would be 84 dBA. However, CRS §25-12 allows daytime construction noise levels to be 90 dBA for 15 minutes in any one hour. Therefore, earth moving equipment operating at maximum throttle, and doing so as close as 40 ft. to the permit boundary, may only operate for 15 minutes in any one hour. For example, if scrapers are driving by the edge of the boundary to dump loads, and each dump requires them to be near the boundary for 3 minutes, only 5 dumps can be conducted each hour. Once operations recede to a distance of approximately 100 ft. inside the permit boundary, scrapers and other equipment can operate at will. Sequences 2 - 7 The predicted noise level of all the stationary equipment to be employed in Sequences 2 - 7 are shown in Table 3, below (see attached map for location of prediction points). These levels include a 5 dB reduction in the noise level of the dust collector that is situated on top of the concrete batch plant (which can easily be achieved using a silencer or a barrier). From Table 3 it can be seen that none of the predicted noise levels exceed the applicable limits (particularly to the north, which is R1 through R6. Mobile earth moving equipment operating within approximately 100 feet of the permit boundary are subject to the 15 -minute limitation discussed above. Sequence 8 Operations during Sequence 8, Reclamation, consist of removing the overburden stockpiles and replanting the site. Operations during this sequence are subject to the same terms as that described for Sequence 1. Addendum to Analysis of Noise from Proposed Cerise Gravel Mine page 3 April6, 2011 HANKARD N V1RDN MENTAL AC 0U51,C5 nNJ WBfAIIOh CI)MSC411NG TABLE 3 - Predicted Stationary Equipment Daytime Noise Levels 25 feet Outside of Permit Line (dBA) Daytime Limit Prediction Location 2 Sequence 3 4 to 7 R01 64 53 51 49 61 59 60 53 59 58 4 55 45 45 50 60 57 50 55 55 70 52 49 67 51 54 70, 70 70 70 70 70 75 75 75 75 Addendum to Analysis of Noise from Proposed Cerise Gravel Mine April 6, 201 page 4 ANKARD ENVIRONMENTAL ACOUS C{ FNil Y[iae;lox C6NSULtING RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS Per Hankard Environmental report dated November 17, 2010 and the information described above, the proposed Cerise Mine will be in compliance with CRS §25-12 (and therefore Garfield County regulations) provided that the following measures are implemented: 1. The two earthen berms proposed along the north edge of the project must be constructed during Sequence 1. The northern berm must be approximately 50 feet tall and the western berm 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. Placea 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). 5. Use white noise back up alarms an 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 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.). Note that the 7:00 p.m. is allowed by Colorado, but Garfield County requires a curfew of 6:00 p.m. 7. Conduct all noise -producing activities associated with operations during the daytime (7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.). Please call if you have any questions. Sincerely, Michael Hankard President Addendum to Analysis of Noise from Proposed Cerise Gravel Mine page 5 April 6, 2011 R2Z , r R210/1/ /ifPhase1 i , 47�y .f/ R11/ R19 R18 l,.L HA NKAIID 1 NVIRONMENTA .. Ar,. o,isries AND Yinar. Kiran f:a M1xvii iar. R01 R05 --: R2? R02 RO4 R26 r» . Phase 3 Asphalt Plant (Sep 2 3 3) Aggregate Plast (Sec 2a3) Phase 44 Phase 2 ' Ri6w`� -a�-y �-- R1SR14 '� _--- 7— Aggregate Plant (See 24 to 7J R13 FIGURE i3' - PREDICTED NOISE LOCATIONS Asphalt Plant (Seq 4 to 7) R12 R06 ROT ROS R09 R10 R11 Analysis of Noise from Proposed cerise Gravel Mine in Garfield County, Colorado page B2 November 17, 2010 CRYSTAL SPRINGS COALITION Comments Regarding Cerise Mine Major Impact Review The following comments are submitted on behalf of the Crystal Springs Coalition. The Coalition is comprised of property owners in the Missouri Heights area, including the owners of residences within the Wooden Deer and Rimledge Subdivisions, both of which are in close proximity to the proposed Cerise Mine. For ease of comparison, the conrments of the Crystal Springs Coalition will generally follow the Narrative provided by Lafarge West, Inc. (the "Applicant"), in its Major Impact Review Application for the Cerise Mine. We will not respond to all of the matters addressed in the Application. However, silence with regard to any matter does not mean agreement with the Applicant, only that the Coalition has chosen to focus its attention primarily on the noise, air quality, traffic and cumulative impacts associated with the proposed Cerise Mine in these comments. 1. Garfield County Comprehensive Plan. THE GRAVEL MINING ACTIVITY AS PROPOSED DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES OF THE GARFIELD COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. a. Contrary to the Applicant's assertions on page 3 of the Narrative, addressing Section 7-102 of the Garfield County Code, the provisions of C.R.S. §34-1-301, et seq., including C.R.S. §34-1-305(1), otherwise known as the Preservation of Commercial Mineral Deposits Act (the "Act") does not apply in Garfield County. The Colorado Court of Appeals, in 1993, determined that the Act does not require local governments to allow mining in any area where it is commercially practicable, but only to preserve access to the -mineral deposits. And, this Act does not apply at all to counties whose population is less than 65,000. Local land use regulation is not pre-empted by this statute (See C. & M. Gravel v. BOCC of Boulder Caunty, 673 P.2d 1013 (Colo. App. 1983)). In that case, the Court of Appeals upheld Boulder County's denial of an application for a gravel mining operation based upon the failure to comply with County standards. The statutory language cited by the Applicant does not preclude the County from denying an application to develop a commercial mineral deposit where that deposit cannot be developed in a reasonable manner and where the adverse impacts on an established residential neighborhood in the immediate vicinity cannot be adequately mitigated. b. While County Objectives and Policies require mitigation in order to address negative impacts on adjacent property owners, the mitigation proposed by the Applicant is inadequate, as discussed in more detail below. c. Based upon the analysis conducted by consultants retained by the Crystal Springs 1 Coalition, dust, odors and fumes generated by the proposed mining activity will not be contained within the extraction site and will negatively impact neighboring land uses, especially the established residential neighborhoods of Wooden Deer and Rimledge (See, air quality comments in Section 2.a., below). d. While the Applicant proposes to reduce impacts on wildlife by keeping mining activity out of the Crystal Creek Riparian Corridor, the noise impacts of the mining activity will effectively negate any benefits to wildlife from the preservation of the Corridor, contrary to Objective 9.3 (See, comments regarding noise impacts in Section 2.b., below). 2. Compatibility. THE GRAVEL MINING ACTIVITIES AS PROPOSED ARE NOT COMPATIBLE WITH ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL USES. County Land Use Policies provide that any proposal regarding mineral extraction that cannot mitigate adverse impacts may be denied based upon a finding of incompatibility. The proposed mining operations will adversely affect the desirability of the immediate neighborhood, will seriously impair the value of existing residential properties, will adversely affect the quality of life experienced by the residents of those adjacent properties, and will create a public nuisance as a result of air pollution, noise pollution and excessive traffic. The nature, scale and intensity of the proposed gravel mining activity are clearly not compatible with adjacent residential land uses and will result in severe adverse impacts on neighboring residences and their occupants. The Applicant has not demonstrated that its proposed mining activities satisfy Section 7-301 and Section 7-840, G. 6 and 7 of the Code. In fact, it is hard to imagine uses that are more incompatible with a rural residential neighborhood than what is being proposed by the Applicant. Although the adverse impacts are many, these comments will focus on air quality, noise and the cumulative impacts resulting from the proximity of the Cerise Mine to the recently -approved gravel mining operations conducted by Western Slope Aggregate. a. Air Quality. The residents of Wooden Deer and Rirnledge have, for many years, experienced and endured the substantial adverse impacts of the Powers Pit. Dust from that operation routinely coats houses and cars, and causes health problems for the residents. The proposed reining operations are substantially closer to those residences than the Powers Pit and, without adequate mitigation and monitoring, the impacts from dust will increase. Neighbors have experienced aggravated sinus and allergy issues from dust, despite using multiple air cleaners in their homes. (See comments from residents.) Area residents find the insides of their homes covered in a layer of dust even when the windows are closed. One resident likened working outside his home to being down in the gravel pit from the amount of dust coating his body. South and southwest facing windows in the area are constantly plastered with sand and dirt and are often impossible to see out of. Some residents have noted that dust clouds from the existing gravel operations often make visibility at County Road 2 103 and Highway 82 intersections hazardous. As set forth in the analysis of the Cerise Mine Application conducted by Environmental Services, Inc., studies have shown that fine particulates pose a greater danger to human health than better known kinds of air pollution such as smog, sulfur dioxide and carbon monoxide. There is incontrovertible evidence that increased PM10 is related to increases in cardiopulmonary disease, asthma, bronchitis, emphysema, pneumoconiosis and premature death in those with pre-existing conditions. The elderly and the young are most affected. Crystalline silica dust is common from processing sand and gravel and is a known carcinogen. The Applicant states that it will comply with state and federal air quality standards. The Coalition retained Craig Heydenberk of Environmental Services, Inc. ("ESI") to evaluate that claim. As described in the ESI Report dated April 6, 2011, given the proposed production levels of 375,000 to 500,000 tons per year, it is highly unlikely that the Applicant will be able to meet Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment ("CDPHE") air quality standards, much less satisfy the requirements of Section 7-301B.1. of the Garfield County Code, which provides that "Dust, odors, gas, fumes, and glare shall not be emitted at levels that are objectionable to adjacent property." It is also unlikely that,even with mitigation, Applicant will be able to satisfy the Comp Plan requirement that dust, odors and fumes should be contained within the extraction site generating such emissions and should not negatively affect any surrounding land use. While the CDPHE regulations tolerate a minimum level of air pollution beyond the boundaries of the site, the County regulations do not. Section 7-840 B.2. of the County Code requires the Applicant to demonstrate how they will meet air pollution regulations. The Applicant has presented no such demonstration, stating only that they intend to comply with applicable standards. Sections 7-840 B.4. and H.12. preclude the County from granting any land use approvals until the Applicant submits evidence that all permits and, in particular, CDPHE air pollution permits, have been obtained. In this case, the Applicant has obtained CDPHE permits for equipment being utilized in the Powers Pit. However, that equipment cannot be utilized for operation of the Cerise Mine without submission, review and approval of a relocation notice. As part of the review by the CDPHE, the Applicant will be required to provide modeling studies to determine air quality impacts and the Applicant's ability to satisfy air quality standards. The Coalition understands that the process of reviewing the relocation request in on hold and that no modeling has been completed. Accordingly, the Applicant does not have all required air quality permits from CDPHE and, thus, approval of the Cerise Mine Application cannot be granted at this time. Furthermore, the lack of modeling makes it impossible to evaluate the air quality impacts or the effectiveness of any proposed mitigation. The Coalition believes that air quality is too important to be relegated to a condition of approval and that this Application should be denied until the Applicant receives a permit based upon a detailed description of its activities which can be independently analyzed and modeled for compliance with the State Standards, County Code provisions and other relevant standards and criteria. Given the experiences of the past relating to the operation of the Powers Pit, promises to comply with air quality standards hold little weight for the neighbors. Not only is an independent and thorough analysis required, but any approval must be conditioned upon a requirement for constant, real time monitoring of air quality at the Applicant's expense. The nature of the monitoring that must be required in order to protect neighbors from the harmful effects of air pollution are described in the ESI Report and in the proposed conditions of approval. Those conditions require that operations resulting in air quality violations cease immediately upon a reading by the monitoring devices that allowable emission levels are being exceeded. b. Noise. The proposed gravel mining activities cannot be conducted in a manner that does not constitute a public nuisance. Based upon the information provided by the Applicant and the analysis of anticipated noise levels performed by Geiler & Associates on behalf of the Coalition, the proposed ruining activity will not comply with applicable State and County regulations relating to noise pollution. As illustrated in Exhibit A to these comments, the anticipated noise levels on the westerly' and northerly sides of the permit area will be far in excess of the maximum levels allowed during the first three (3) phases of the project, when the crushing and other equipment is located on the surface, in the absence of mitigation. The Applicant has not provided any analysis ofthe extent to which mitigation may reduce noise levels. Based upon the Geiler & Associates report, the Coalition does not believe that the proposed mitigation will reduce noise levels below maximum thresholds. These phases are projected to last ten (10) years, during which the noise pollution resulting from the proposed mining activity will be constant and extreme, destroying the peace and quiet normally associated with rural residential properties. If the Planning Commission is inclined to approve the Application despite projected noise levels, the noise impacts must be constantly monitored, in real time, at Applicant's expense, with the understanding that noise -generating operations can be shut down immediately upon a determination that allowable noise levels are being exceeded. The Coalition believes that the appropriate category for the adjacent lands to the west, where the Powers Pit is currently located, should be Residential. The land is zoned Rural Residential, It is designated as appropriate for Industrial uses in the 2000 Comprehensive Plan in order to accommodate the continuation of the Powers Pit. However, the 2010 Comprehensive Plan designates the area as Residential, removing the Industrial designation, assuming that the Powers Pit will be reclaimed. For the purpose of controlling noisc impacts that could last 15-30 years, Residential would seem to be a more appropriate designation than Industrial. 4 c. Cumulative Impacts. County regulations (Sections 7-840 B.3. and G.7.) recognize that multiple activities in proximity to each other can generate cumulative impacts that are severe and adverse. Such is the case with the combination of the Cerise Mine and the mining activities recently approved for the so-called "Blue Pit" to be undertaken by Western Slope Aggregate. The operations are adjacent to each other on a bench immediately below the Wooden Deer and Rimledge Subdivisions. As illustrated on the maps submitted by the Applicant, there is insufficient distance between the combined operations to prevent what will be devastating cumulative impacts. The Applicant provides a cumulative impact analysis that misses the point of the regulation and erroneously presumes that the adverse impacts of the Powers Pit are acceptable to the neighbors. The reclamation of the Powers Pit does not mitigate the cumulative impacts of the Cerise Mine and the Western Slope Aggregate operations. Rather, reclamation of the Powers Pit is a requirement of previous State and County approvals relating to that operation and a pre -requisite to the current Application. Reclamation of the Powers Pit does nothing to reduce the cumulative impacts to roads, air quality and noise which result from two (2) major mining operations that are next to each other. The cumulative impact analysis supplied by the Applicant grossly tris -characterizes and underestimates the combined impacts of the two (2) projects and seems to take the position that their neighbors should have nothing to complain about since they built their homes near the current gravel operations. In other words, that the adverse impacts are self-inflicted. This approach belies an indifference to the real harm to real people that will result from the proposed mining activity. While it is true that the residential uses at Wooden Deer were approved and began following initial mining activity, what we have now are new mining projects that follow the establishment of residential uses. Residential uses have been enduring the significant negative impacts of mining for many years, in part because the mining came first. The Coalition believes that it is time for a shift of priorities and emphasis. Residential uses are now well established and likely to increase in the future. Accordingly, if mining activities cannot be sized, phased and operated to be compatible with the established residential uses, they should be denied. The key issues for the residential neighbors are air quality, noise and traffic. Given the experiences of the past relating to air and noise pollution, the members of the Coalition and, in particular, the neighbors living in Wooden Deer and Rimledge are extremely skeptical that the new operation will be compatible even with proposed mitigation. In short, the circumstances have changed. The proposed activities at the Cerise Mine are now the new uses and the neighbors are entitled to insist upon strict compliance with State, Federal and County standards as they apply to anticipated adverse impacts. 5 3. Supply and Demand. The needs of the Roaring Fork Valley for gravel, concrete and asphalt are now and, for the foreseeable future will be, insufficient to justify the adverse impacts of the proposed mining activity. Based upon interviews with Elam Construction, Western Slope Aggregate and the comments of Lafarge representatives, the demand for gravel and concrete has dropped significantly over the last several years and is not expected to increase any time soon. We have been advised by the Applicant that the Sievers Pit is being operated by Lafarge West, Inc. at a very low level in terms of aggregate production at this time and could easily increase production to satisfy demand. Accordingly, even if the Powers Pit is shut down and the Cerise Mine Application is denied, the combination of Elam, Western Slope Aggregate and the Sievers Pit can easily supply the aggregate needs of the Roaring Fork Valley for the next 15 to 30 years. The purchasers of aggregate will not be at a disadvantage due to lack of competition, since all of the current competitors will stay in business. 4. Request for Recommendation of Denial. The Planning & Zoning Commission should recommend to the B©CC that the Cerise Mine Application be denied for the following reasons: a. The proposed mining activity does not comply with the goals, objectives and standards of the County's Comprehensive Plan. b. The proposed mining activities are not compatible with adjacent residential uses due to non-mitigatible adverse impacts associated with air pollution, noise pollution and cumulative impacts. c. The Applicant has not obtained required air quality permits or demonstrated its ability to satisfy air quality standards. d. The Applicant has not demonstrated that it can adequately mitigate noise impacts. 5. Conditions if Approved. If, despite the failure of the Applicant to demonstrate compliance with the critical review criteria of the Garfield County Code and Comprehensive Plan, the Planning & Zoning Commission is inclined to recommend approval of the Cerise Mine Application, the Coalition requests that the attached conditions of approval (Exhibit B) be adopted. Those conditions are intended to enhance and improve the mitigation efforts. G:1Clieat\Crystal Springs Coalition\Commenes.wpd 6 212211?222.2PP.PP PRese2e2222222■ }j \ - $ »=:=lsarel;»--;#; ) iii' //OI))k//!aJ/i)« g.t.g -�,,kr, .��a.e=22!»«=ftm;gQ=ma� EXHIBIT B PROPOSED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. 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. 2. The operation of the Cerise Mine shall comply with the provisions of Section 7- 840 and the provisions of Section 7-301 of the Garfield County Code. 3. The operation of the Cerise Mine shall comply with all applicable Federal, State, and local regulations governing the operation of this type of facility. 4_ Dust, odors and fumes shall be contained within the extraction site of the Cerise Mine generating such emissions and shall not negatively affect surrounding land use. Furthermore, operation of the Cerise Mine shall not emit heat, glare, radiation, dust, particulate matter or fumes beyond the permit boundary. The Applicant or Operator shall not allow the Cerise Mine to generate dust to exceed 150 umlcu.meter of dust per 24 hour. period. 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. Noise generated from the operation of the Cerise Mine shall not exceed the Residential Zone noise standards defined in Colorado statutes such that noise shall not exceed 55db(A) from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. when measured 25 feet outside of the permit boundary. 6. At its expense, the Applicant shall install and maintain monitoring devices which are capable of measuring the amount of particulate matter or other air pollutants occurring at the permit boundary and which transmits the data to designated off- site computers. Similarly, the Applicant shall, at its expense, install and maintain monitoring devices which are capable of measuring sound levels at the permit boundary and transmitting the data to designated off-site computers. Where measurements of air quality or noise indicate that allowable levels are being exceeded, 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 in compliance with air quality and noise standards. 7. 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. 8. The Reclamation Plan and Landscape Plan for the site shall utilize hydro -seeding with hydro -mulching using tackifier for all slopes greater than 5:1 as required by Section 7-840 of the ULUR. 9. 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. 10. 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 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday; heavy hauling from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturday; and crushing and digging from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturday. There shall be no operations on Sunday except in the case of an emergency or for standard maintenance purposes. b. All Trucks operating in the Pit (including third -party trucks not operated by the Owner or Operator, shall be subject to the following: 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 or descending the haul route shall not exceed speeds of 10 mph. 2 All trucks descending the haul route or approaching the haul route access on SR 82 shall not use engine Jake Brakes to decelerate. iv. All truck 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. 11. The Applicant acknowledges that the County has the following performance standards that could lead to revocation of the Cerise Mine Permit: a. All fabrication, service and repair operations shall be conducted within an enclosed building or obscured by a fence, natural topography or landscaping. b. All operations involving loading and unloading of vehicles shall be conducted on private property and shall not be conducted on a public right-of-way. c. All industrial wastes shall be disposed of in a manner consistent with statutes and requirements of CDPHE. d. Every use shall be operated so that the ground vibration inherently and recurrently generated is not perceptible without instruments at any point of any boundary line of the property. e. Every use shall be 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. 12. 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 3 or has been released prior to com;letion of adequate reclamation. The County shall be invited to any bond release inspection of the State Division of Redamation, 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 shall be constricted to a 3:1 slope. This shall be required to be shown on the Final Reclamation Plan approved herein and tendered to the DRMS. b. Mining Operations shall be allowed to progress so long as the Applicant reclaims each successive phase before moving ori to the next phase as shown on the Mining Plan. If the reclamation does not follow the Mining Plan or has not been completed within eighteen (18) 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 re -contouring, top -soiling, seeding, and mulching. The DRMS Final Reclamation Plan shall be resubmitted to Garfield County prior to the issuance of a Cerise Mine 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 implementation. Proof of a recalculated bond shall be provided to the County prior to issuance of a UUCP. 13. All in -pit haul trucks and excavating equipment used by Owner or Operator in the approved mining operations shall be equipped with "white noise" or similar backup alarms or no less effective alarm equipment. Standard backup alarms, as to the above identified equipment shall not be utilized. 14. Visual Impacts, The Applicant shall comply with the Visual Impact Analysis contained within its Application, 15. The BOCC shall have the power upon good cause being shown, to revoke or to modify the permit if the Applicant fails to comply with these Conditions of Approval or any other applicable County regulation; to require certain corrective measures to be taken; to direct the County staff or its agents to enter upon the premises and to take corrective measures required by the Board; to impose new or additional conditions, standards or 4 restrictions to address environmental concerns or neighborhood concerns, especially as required for considerations of public health, safety and welfare or to achieve the objectives and purposes of the original permit or to bring the permit into compliance with other laws or regulations regulating permits to or uses of the site. The costs of any required corrective measures shall be assessed against the Operator. 16. Neither temporary nor permanent asphalt operations shall be allowed within the permit boundary. Exhibit B - Proposed Conditions of Approval 040511.doc ESI Environmental Services, Inc. esi.craig@sopris.net (970) 948-8978 Cell (970) 963-8555 Office April 6, 2011 Via Email To: Mr. David J. Myler c/o Crystal Springs Coalition The Myler Law Firm 211 Midland Avenue Suite 201 Basalt, Colorado 81621 RE: Proposed Cerise/LaFarge Gravel Pit — Executive Summary Environmental Services, Inc. (ESI) is pleased to present this Executive Summary of our Preliminary Air Quality Compliance Evaluation. INTRODUCTION Our findings and recommendations are based on our review of the enclosed documents including but not necessarily limited to: • Portions of the Lafarge Permit Application for the Proposed Cerise Pit • The National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) • An Air Pollutant Emissions Notice (APEN) a An Air Quality Statement prepared by Buys & Associates, Inc. dated August 5, 2010 and prepared for LaFarge, West Inc. Cerise Mine including a Fugitive Dust Control Plan • Buys & Associates correspondence, dated November 18, 2010 4 Air Quality Requirements for Surface Mining and • Portions of the Mineral Rules and Regulations of the Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Board for The Extraction of Construction Materials (not enclosed). ESI also obtained information regarding the gravel pit permitting process and fugitive dust by performing interviews with Mr. Chuck Pray with the Air Pollution Control Division of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) and Mr. Tom Dunlop former Pitkin County Environmental Health Director. HEALTH IIAZZAIWS The Permit Application States: Fugitive Dust generated from disturbed areas is one of the primary causes of gravel pit pollution. Particulate Matter (PM) smaller than 10 micrometers is considered inhalable coarse matter. The size of PM is directly related to their potential for causing health problems. Information obtained from an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) website regarding PM, Environment, and Health is also enclosed. 429 Buckpoint Road Carbondale, CO 81623 FINDINGS The findings of our investigation are as follows: • Per a conversation with Mr. Pray with Air Pollution Control Division (Division) of the CDPHE the proposed Cerise Gravel Pit will be held to the following NAAQS: PM (10 and 2.5 µm) cannot be released from the facility at a concentration greater the 150 µm per cubic -meter within a 24-hour period. This air quality requirement appears to have originated from Clean Air Act that required the EPA to establish NAAQS. The NAAQS have also been adopted by the CDPHE and the Division. Mr. Pray has knowledge of the proposed LaFarge-Cerise Gravel Pit as he has reviewed the permit application and related materials submitted to the Division since approximately November, 2010. • The APEN indicates it had been received by the Division on November 8, 2010. ESI commented that the Estimated Emission Section (page 2 of 6) was not complete. Mr. Pray responded that the operator will usually leave this section blank as it will be prepared by the Division or a consultant retained by the operator. Mr. Pray added that he had not been provided or reviewed fugitive dust modeling scenarios necessary to demonstrate compliance with the NAAQS. Mr. Pray later commented that "LaFarge requested that we put a hold on the processing". • Mr. Pray commented that the APEN indicates that Primary Crushing and Screening/Classifying activities (page 5 of 6) will produce 1,000,000 maximum tons crushed per year. He added that he believed it would not be possible to meet the NAAQS at this production rate. Please note this section also indicates a maximum production rate of 800 tons crushed per hour. Hours of crushing is also indicated at 14 hours per day. • ESI commented to Mr. Pray that dust reportedly coats nearby houses and cars on windy days. Dust is also reported to have entered houses when windows are closed. Mr. Pray commented that this condition could possibly suggest evidence of an Air Quality Permit violation. He added that the Division has inspectors stationed in Denver and Ouray that are trained to visually observe dusty conditions and to make qualitative evaluations. The inspector needs to be on site and make their observations "at the moment of the occurrence" to validate possible reported violations. Mr. Pray concluded that he was not aware of NAAQS violations associated with either the LaFarge-Powers or Western Slope Aggregate gravel pit(s). • ESI also interviewed Mr. Tom Dunlop regarding Fugitive Dust Monitoring Equipment (FDME) previously installed at the Snowmass Base Village, Town of Snowmass Village, Colorado. Mr. Dunlop was retained by the Town of Snowmass Village as an Environmental Consultant during the development of the Snowmass Base Village. Mr. Dunlop estimated that the cost of FDME would range is cost from $15,000.00 to $20,000.00. FDME provides real-time measurements of emissions and transmits the data to designated off-site computers. The system included hourly readings and alarms that immediately notifies officials and contractors of measured concentrations approaching or exceeding the NAAQS. The FDME is sophisticated and 429 Buckpoint Road Carbondale. CO 81623 required installation, maintenance, and operation by qualified vendors. The FDME is sensitive and also required calibration and adjustment. The fugitive dust monitoring equipment was procured through a Boulder, CO based consultant. The FDME was recommended by Mr. Dunlop, and then required by Pitkin County Commissioners and the Town of Snowmass Village, as a Conditional Approval to the Snowmass Base Village project. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has specifications regarding the placement and operation of FDME. ESI reviewed the Buys & Associates correspondence, dated November 18, 2010 and Pages 5, 6 and 28-30 of the Permit Application. Our comments are as follows: Page 6, Section 9.5 of the Permit Application states: "Any proposal regarding the mineral extraction that cannot mitigate adverse impacts may be denied based on a finding of incompatibility, for the following reason": C. Adversely affecting the quality of life of existing adjacent residences. E. Creating a public danger or nuisance to the surrounding area Based on the reported occurrences of dust experienced by Crystal Springs Coalition members, it is possible that the quality of life has been compromised and a public nuisance may on occasion exist. • Both documents accentuate that "The Cerise Mine will operate in a manner that controls dust." If dust is experienced by residents of the Wooden Deer Subdivision then the possibility exists that permit violations, possibly generated from the existing pit(s), have occurred. • Number 3, page 29 of the Permit Application states: "Air National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAOSI only need to be met at the property line." An argument (from a gravel pit operator perspective) could be made that if modeling demonstrates that the NAAQS are met at the pit then there should be no fugitive dust conditions at offsite locations. The comment included in the second bullet also pertains. Number 3 on page 29 (very end) of the permit Application also states "Therefore, NAAOs will prevent cumulative air quality impacts." NAAQS by themselves will not control air quality impacts. The statement can only be made if it is based on, and limited to, modeling and conformance to the Fugitive Dust Control Plan. • The seventh bullet on page 30 of the Permit application States " A minimum 50 -foot setback around the Cerise property will be maintained to allow any fugitive dust to settle before being carried by wind." This statement potentially contradicts the NAAQS. It appears that they are anticipating dust, generated at the facility, to leave the pit. Wind has the potential to carry the dust to a 50 -foot setback. There is no reported engineered control in place to prevent the fugitive dust from being transported to offsite locations. • Both documents include a list of bulleted items. These comments are generally a reiteration of the Fugitive Dust Control Plan included as part of the Air Quality Statement prepared for LaFarge, West Inc. — Cerise Mine, prepared by Buys & Associates, Inc. and dated August 5, 2010 (enclosed). Please reference the eighth bullet on page 30 of the Permit Application. It states: "Emission control and limits as required by the CDPI E will be enforced and followed." Real-time monitoring for fugitive dust, and comparison to the NAAQS, is a reasonable recommendation. A review of the monitoring results, is suggested to evaluate if 429 Buckpoint Road Carbondale. CO 81623 potential permit violations have occurred, and to determining the possible need for enforcement action(s). RECOMMENDATIONS Based on information provided by the Air Pollution Control Division of the CDHPE: 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 Mr. Chuck Pray, it appears that air quality permit violations may have occurred from the existing gravel pit operations. ESI suggest 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. o 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. If you have any questions of require additional information please do not hesitate to contact me. LIMITATIONS This evaluation has been was performed in accordance with the generally accepted practices in the field of environmental consulting. The information contained in this correspondence is based entirely on interviews and research or readily available information. Environmental Services, Inc assumes no liability for independent conclusions or recommendations made by others in conjunction with the information presented in this report. It is not possible for Environmental Services, Inc. to provide guarantees with this assessment. With enclosures 429 Buckpoint Road Very truly yours, ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. By ►}. t-�' D. Craig Heyden erk Environmental C nsultant Carbondak. CO 81623 have the lowest floor (including basement) elevated above the highest adjacent grade at least as high as the depth number specified in feet on the community's FIRM (at least two feet if no depth number is specified), or; ii. together with attendant utility and sanitary facilities be designed so that below the base flood level the structure is watertight with walls substantially impermeable to the passage of water and with structural components having the capability of resisting hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads of effects of buoyancy. c. A registered professional engineer shall submit a certification to the County Floodplain Administrator that the standards of this Section have been fully satisfied. d. Require within Zones AH or AO adequate drainage paths around structures on slopes, to guide flood waters around and away from proposed structures. This standard does not apply as the area being permitted is not within an area of shallow flooding. 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. This mining site is not located within the 100 year floodplain of the Roaring Fork River or Crystal Creek; therefore, it has an extremely rare chance of impacting the integrity of either water course. Unlike rnost gravel mine sites, the Cerise site is situated on a plateau high above the adjacent waterways. Mining operations will be conducted in such a manner that the site will eventually become a large basin that is topographically isolated from any surrounding areas. 9. In -stream mining is not permitted. No in -stream mining is proposed. 10. All applications shall provide a de -water / discharge plan that provides a detailed graphic representation of how dewatering operations shall occur. This plan shall demonstrate that the discharge will not exceed state standards for discharge into a watercourse or wetland. There is no need for a discharge point with this application. Due to the fact that all mining will be above groundwater, de -watering will not be required as part of the mining process and all storm water will infiltrate or be directed to the drainage/tailings pond. 11. In all cases, the Application shall contain proof that the operation has adequate legal and physical water for the proposed application. Lafarge will lease water from Basalt Water Conservancy District to supply their operations at the Cerise Mine. Documentation from Basalt Water Conservancy District indicating that the District's Board approved Lafarge's request to lease water is provided in Section 16 of the application. 13. 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%. Lafarge will operate the Cerise Mine site in a manner that controls fugitive dust. Please see the Cerise Mine Major Impact Review Application Page 28 of 43 response below and the Air Quality Statement, copies of air permits, and letter from .Buys and Associates included in Section 20 of the application for more information. 1. All gravel operations in the County shalt comply with applicable County, State, and Federal regulations regulating air pollution and shall not be conducted in a manner constituting a public nuisance or hazard. The Cerise Mine will operate in a manner that complies with applicable air pollution regulations. For more detail, please see the Air Quality Statement and letter from Buys and Associates provided in Section 20 of the application. 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 Cerise Mine will only conduct repair and maintenance activities that require the use of equipment that generates odors beyond the permit boundary between 7:00 am and 8:00 pm, Monday through Saturday. 3. The proposed operation will be located a sufficient distance from other mining operations so as not to create cumulative impacts to air quality. Western Slope Aggregate's Blue Pit Mine, to the east of the Cerise Mine, has been approved to expand its operations. According to information presented at the public hearings for the Blue Pit expansion, and based on the projected timing of the Cerise Mine and the Blue Pit mining activities, there will be about a two year time frame when the mining activity in the Blue Pit (Area 4, Phase 2) will be immediately adjacent to the Cerise Mine (please see the Cumulative Impact Analysis Site Plan graphics found in Section 15 of the application for a graphic illustration of this). However, this will not lead to cumulative air quality impacts. The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) is the agency that issues air quality permits and their permit process requires all mines to meet National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) which take into consideration the impacts of the mining project and background concentrations of pollutants.In addition, the NAAQS require the mining operations to meet air quality standards at their property line. This means that when it comes to air quality, it doesn't matter if the Cerise Mine and Blue Pit are right next to each other or a mile apart In order to be in compliance with the NAAQS, the CDPHE will require both the Blue Pit and Cerise Mine to operate in a manner that prevents air quality from exceeding the NAAQS limits at each mine's property line. In order to ensure compliance, CDPHE may impose emission restrictions and/or require emission controls for the facilities. In addition, they may require dispersion modeling to demonstrate compliance with the NAAQS. Lafarge understands this may be required by CDPHE and they will comply. Therefore, NAAQS will prevent cumulative air quality impacts. In addition, Lafarge already has a fugitive dust control plan which they will follow during operations at the Cerise Mine to keep air quality in compliance with the NAAQS. This plan is as follows: • Exposed areas will be vegetated or stabilized to limit wind erosion and to provide screening. Cerise Mine Major Impact Review Application Page 29 of 43 • When necessary, a water truck will spray the gravel as it is removed and transported. • Water spray bars will be installed, operated and maintained in the conveyor system and crushing and screening plant. • Drop heights of gravel will be limited for conveyor loading, transfer paints, and screening and crushing activities. • On-site vehicle speeds will be limited. • Frequently traveled on-site roadways will be sprayed with water to minimize re - entrainment of dust from the surface of the road. • Dust _from loaded haul trucks will be limited by covering or watering as necessary. • A minimum SO foot setback around the Cerise property will be maintained to allow any fugitive dust to settle before being carried by wind. • Emission controls and limits as required by CDPHE will be enforced and followed. • Berms and mine walls will be constructed to serve as wind breaks. • Reclamation including complete revegetation of the site, once mining has been completed, to the Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety standards. 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. Copies of the air permits for all plants and processing equipment to be used on the site are provided in Section 20 of the application. C. Noise / Vibration All gravel extractionoperations 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. A detailed Noise Analysis report was prepared by Hankard Environmental for the Cerise Mine. The Cerise Mine will comply with applicable County, State and Federal noise pollution regulations and will conduct their operations in a manner that will not generate a public nuisance or hazard. Please see the Noise Analysis report in Section 21 of the application for details. 1. An Applicant shall submit a noise study that demonstrates the proposed gravel operation can meet the requirements in the matrix below based on measuring the sound levels of noise radiating from a property line at a distance of 25 feet or more beyond the subject property. (The image to the right shows a dashed line at 25 feet beyond the subject property where noise shall be measured.) A Noise Analysis for the Cerise Mine was prepared by Hankard Environmental, an acoustics and vibration consulting firm, and is provided in Section 21 of the application. 2. Note, the dB(A) threshold shown below shall be that of the receiver and not that of the emitter. For example, while the gravel operation would be considered an industrial operation, the dB(A) levels shown below are measured according to the neighboring uses so that if a residential use was located adjacent to the operation, sound levels could not exceed 55 dB(A) from 7 AM to 7 PM and 50 dB(A) from 7 PM to 7 AM. Cerise Mine Major Impact Review Application Page 30 of 43 Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Air Pollution Control Division Air Quality Requirements for Surface Mining Operations If you own or operate a surface mining operation. including a sand and gravel pit, borrow pit, or quarry, you may need to report air emissions to, or obtain an air permit from, the Air Pollution Control Division (APCD) at the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE). This document provides an overview of the air pollution reporting and permitting requirements that apply to Colorado surface mining operations. What Must Be Reported? The APCD regulates aft pollutants released from surface mining operations and from the equipment used at mining sites. Surface mining activities and mining equipment (such as crushers and screens) release fugitive dust that 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 (NOx), and sulfur dioxide (302 - if sulfur is present in the fuel). Emissions of fugitive dust and fuel combustion that exceed certain thresholds must be reported to the APCD through the submission of an Air Pollutant Emission Notice (APEN). Almost all surface mining operations and associated equipment require the filing of an APEN. The APEN forms are available through the APCD and downloadable at www. cd phe.state.co. us/ap/down loadforms. asp Reporting Emissions for Surface Mining Sites The APEN form titled Mining Operations 4 APEN and Application for Construction Permit and Fugitive Particulate Emissions Control Plan is used to report emissions from the mining site. This form requests information on the location and ownership of the site and detailed information on the nature of site emissions, production, and associated equipment. The APEN also requests information on the site-specific Fugitive Dust Control Plan. Dcriparmk or Public Fimld+ Reporting Emissions for Process Equipment The General APEN form is used to report air emissions from process equipment such as generators, crushers, screen decks, and conveyor systems. This form requires information about the equipment such as the type of equipment, make, model, and serial number, hours of operation, and quantity of material processed through the equipment. This form also requires information regarding whether the process equipment is portable or stationary: O Portable equipment can be moved from site to site; however, a "Notice of Relocation" must be submitted to the Division at least 10 days prior to relocation of permitted equipment. At your home base, maintain an up-to-date list of your equipment locations. To be considered "stationary" or "fixed," equipment must remain at the location indicated an the APEN for at least two years. If you decide to move permitted stationary equipment, you must submit an APEN to modify the permit for that equipment to a portable source prior to the move. Each individual piece of process equipment is typically reported on a separate General APEN form. However, multiple pieces of equipment may be grouped and reported on a single General APEN form if the equipment will always remain together (i.e., pieces of equipment can not be added or removed from the group). For example, if a portable group of equipment is moved to a new site, each piece of equipment in that group must move to the new site; no piece of equipment can be left behind. Grouping equipment onto a single Genera) APEN can help you avoid extra APEN filing fees, What Must Be Permitted? Based on the information provided on the APEN, the APCD will determine whether an air permit is required for your surface mining operation and/or equipment. As a rule of thumb: Surface mining operations that mine over 70,000 tons of product material per year (i.e., raw material removal or processing for sale, which could include top soil, overburden, and raw material) almost always require an air permit. Surface mining activities that mine less than 70,000 tons of product material per year are specifically exempt from permitting requirements (although they still require an APEN), Air Quality Requirements for Surface Mining Operations May 2006 Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Air Pollution Control Division • Surface mining equipment almost always requires an air permit. When a permit is required, the APEN will become part of the permit application package. > The Permit Process: In Colorado, Construction Permits are issued in two phases: Initial Approval and Final Approval. o An Initial Approval (IA) Permit allows the plant or process equipment to be constructed and begin operation. When an air permit is required, it is illegal to commence operation of the plant or process equipment until an IA Permit is issued by the APCD. Some exceptions for crushers and screens are provided under House Bill 1326. A Final Approval (FA) permit is issued after the owner certifies that the permitted operation is in compliance with the conditions of the Initial Approval Permit. A permit describes key areas that an operator needs to address to comply with Colorado air regulations. The permit 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. > Obtaining a Final Approval Permit In order to receive a Final Approval Permit for your surface mining site or equipment, you must certify compliance with your Initial Approval Permit. This self - certification process must be completed within 180 days (six months) of being issued an Initial Approval Permit. After 180 days, the APCD must finalize the permit or determine to continue or revoke the permit. Certifying compliance with the IA permit for a surface mining site typically involves submitting a Final Approval Self Certification Form. This form is available through the APCD and downloadable at: www.cdphe.state.co.us/apiclownioadforms.asO Certifying compliance with the IA permit for process equipment typically involves submitting a Final Approval Self Certification Form and the required opacity test results (i.e., either a 6 -minute opacity reading or a 1-3 hour opacity reading may be required depending on the type and design rate of the equipment). The APCD can assist you in determining the opacity readings required for your equipment. of Public imide and Frnworrment House Bill 1326— Flexibility for Crushers and Screens Owners or operators of surface mining operations are typically required to obtain an IA permit for process equipment prior to operating the equipment at the site. However, Colorado House Bill 1326 provides some flexibility for reporting and permitting crushers and screens. Under House Bill 1326,, the owner or operator of a permitted sand and gravel pit or crushed stone quarry may bring a new crusher or screen (and the engines that are integral to those crushers and screens) onsite and begin operation of this equipment by submitting an APEN to the APCD. Submission of an APEN will allow the source to operate the equipment until such time as the APCD is able to process and issue an IA Permit, or for temporary or rented equipment, until the equipment is removed from the site. You must notify the APCD (by adding a note to the APEN form) that you are submitting an APEN under the provisions of House Bill 1326. In cases where you intend to retain ownership of the equipment for the foreseeable future, you must request in writing that the APCD proceed with the permitting process. In cases where you intend to return temporary or rented equipment within a few months, you can avoid unnecessary permitting fees by requesting that the APCD "hold' the APEN until you remove the equipment and submit a cancellation letter to the APCD. Applicable Fees APEN Filing Fee: A filing fee of $119.96 is required to be submitted with each APEN. Annual Emission Fees: Ali sources required to file APENs must pay annual air emission fees. The APCD bills each source that is subject to an APEN an annual fee of $13.54 per ton of criteria pollutants emitted and $90.34 per ton of non -criteria (hazardous air pollutants) emitted. Fees are not assessed for fugitive dust emissions. Invoices are mailed in March through June of each year. Fees are subject to change by the legislature on an annual basis. Permitting Fees: The APCD assesses a permitting fee based on the amount of time it takes the APCD to process the application. The current processing fee is $59.98 per hour. These fees are also subject to change. Questions? The Small Business Assistance Program (SBAP) is available to assist you with questions you may have regarding environmental issues at your site. Contact the SBAP at (303) 692-3175 or (303) 692-3148. Air Quality Requirements for Surface Mining Operations May 2006 Particulate Matter [ Air & Radiation 1 US EPA Page 1 oft cuments%2aand%2O Settl ngs/Craig%2OH eydenberK/My%20 0ocu meats/ESh/PROJ ECTS% 2OMy1er%2O-%20Crystal%20springs%20Coaiition%201L cjtf3 { i til* 2 @ r;2Qpar !I fp Particulate Matter You ar'e here: EPA Home Air & Radiation Particulate Matter "Particulate matter," also known as particle pollution or PM, is a complex mixture of extremely small particles and liquid droplets. Particle pollution is made up of a number of components, including acids (such as nitrates and sulfates), organic chemicals, metals, and soil or dust particles. The size of particles is directly linked to their potential For causing health problems. EPA is concerned about particles that are 10 micrometers in diameter or smaller because those are the particles that generally pass through the throat and nose and enter the lungs. Once inhaled, these particles can affect the heart and lungs and cause serious health effects. EPA groups particle pollution into two categories: "Inhalable coarse particles," such as those found near roadways and dusty industries, are larger than 2.5 micrometers and smaller than 10 micrometers in diameter. "Fine particles," such as those found in smoke and haze, are 2.5 micrometers in diameter and smaller. These particles can be directly emitted from sources such as forest fires, or they can form when gases emitted from power plants, industries and automobiles react in the air. Basic Information - Basics about particle pollution. Health and Welfare - Effects of particle pollution. PM Standards - Links to technical information related to setting the national air quality standards for particle pollution. PM Designations - Regional, s Announcements January 15, 2009 - EPA is seeking comments on a proposal to revise the Agency's Air Quality Index. (AQI) states use to report daily concentrations for fine particle pollution. Read More Your Air Quality Good Unhealthy for Moderate Sensitive Groups Unhealthy very Unhealthy No data available Hazardous The AIRNow Web site offers daily air quality forecasts for ozone pollution as well as real- time air quality conditions for over 300 cities across the U.S. ate and local information related to PM nonattainment. PM Implementation - Programs and requirements for reducing particle pollution. Regulatory Actions - Links to proposed and final rules, fact sheets, and other rulemaking documents. Nonattainment Areas - Status of nonattainment areas (the Green Book) PM Research - Links to PM research and development, monitoring, and daily reporting and mhtrcll:file://C:1Doci.unents and SettingslCraig Heydenberk\My Documents\ESI\PROJECTS... 4/1/2013. Particulate Matter ! Air & Radiation I US EPA Page 2 of 2 forecasting. Air Quality Trends - Progress made in reducing particle pollution. Air Emission Sources - Summarizes particulate matter emissions by source at national, state and local levels. Publications - Publications related to particle pollution. Related Links - Other information related to particle pollution. rnhtmi:fle:l/C:\D]ocuments and Settings\Craig I-ieydenberklMy Documents\ESPPROJECTS... 4/112011 Health & Environment l Particulate Matter 1 Air & Radiation l [US EPA Page 1 of 2 Particulate Matter You are here: EPA Homo Air & Radiation Particulate Matter Health and Environment Health and Environment The size of particles is directly linked to their potential for causing health problems. Small particles less thanlq micrometers in diameter pose the greatest problems, because they can get deep into your lungs, and some may even get into your bloodstream. Exposure to such particles can affect both your lungs and your heart. Small particles of concern include "inhalable coarse particles' (such as those found near roadways and dusty industries), which are larger than 2.5 micrometers and smaller than 10 micrometers in diameter; and "fine particles" (such as those found in smoke and haze), which are 2.5 micrometers in diameter and smaller. The Clean Air Act requires EPA to set air quality standards to protect both public health and the public welfare (e.g. crops and vegetation). Particle pollution affects both. Health Effects Particle pollution - especially fine particles - contains microscopic solids or liquid droplets that are so small that they can get deep into the lungs and cause serious health problems. Numerous scientific studies have linked particle pollution exposure to a variety of problerns, including: increased respiratory symptoms, such as irritation of the airways, coughing, or difficulty breathing, for example; decreased lung function; aggravated asthma; development of chronic bronchitis; irregular heartbeat; nonfatal heart attacks; and premature death in people with heart or lung disease. People with heart or lung diseases, children and older adults are the most likely to be affected by particle pollution exposure. However, even if you are healthy, you may experience temporary symptoms from exposure to elevated levels of particle pollution. For more information about asthma, visit www.epa.gov/asthma. Environmental Effects Visibility reduction Fine particles (PM2.$) are the major cause of reduced visibility (haze) in parts of the United States, including many of our treasured national parks and wilderness areas. For more information about visibility, visit www.epa.gov/visibility. Environmental damage Particles can be carried over long distances by wind and then settle on ground or water. The effects of this settling include: making lakes and streams acidic; changing the nutrient http.ilwww.epa.goviairiparticlepoflutionfhealtil.html 4/1/2011 Health & Environment Particulate Matter Air & Radiation ! US EPA Page 2 of 2 balance in coastal waters and large river basins d ietin the tatrients in soli: d m i sensitive forests and farm crops; and affecting r. r on about the effects of particle pollution and add rain. Aesthetic damage Particle pollution can stain and damage stone and other materials, including culturally important objects such as statues and monuments. More information about the effects of Particle pollution and add rain. You wife need Adobe Acrobat Reader to view the Adobe PDF files on this page. See EPA's PDF page for more information about getting and using the free Acrobat Reader. For more information on particle pollution, health and the environment, visit: Particle Pollution and Your Health: Learn who is at risk frorn exposure to particle pollution, what health effects you may experience as a result of particle exposure, and simple measures you can take to reduce your risk. (PDF, 2 pp, 320 KB) How Smoke From Fires Can Affect Your Health: It's important to limit your exposure to smoke -- especially if you may be susceptible. This publication provides steps you can take to protect your health. Air Quality Criteria Document for Particulate Matter (October 2004): This comprehensive assessment of scientific data about the heath and environmental effects of particulate matter is an important part of EPA's review of its particle pollution standards. http://www.epa.govlair/particlepoilution/lhealth.htn1l 4(11201 I Basic information 1 Particulate Matter j Air & Radiation i LS EPA Page 1 of 1 http://www.epa.gov/air/particlepollution/basic.htmi i..ast updated on Wednesday, March 16, 2011 Particulate Matter You are here: EPA Home Air & Rad ption Particulatei�=e1- Basic Information Basic Information Particle pollution (also called particulate matter or PM) is the term for a mixture of solid particles and liquid droplets found in the air. Some particles, such as dust, dirt, soot, or smoke, are large or dark enough to be seen with the naked eye. Others are so small, they can only be detected using an electron microscope. Particle pollution includes "inhalable coarse particles," with diameters larger than 2.5 micrometers and smaller than 10 micrometers and "fine particles," with diameters that are 2.5 micrometers and smaller. How small is 2.5 micrometers? Think about a single hair from your head. The average human hair is about 70 micrometers in diameter - making it 30 times larger than the largest fine particle, These particles come in many sizes and shapes and can be made up of hundreds of different chemicals. Some particles, known as primary particles are emitted directly from a source, such as construction sites, unpaved roads, fields, smokestacks or fires. Others form in complicated reactions in the atmosphere of chemicals such as sulfur dioxides and nitrogen oxides that are emitted from power plants, industries and automobiles. These particles, known as secondary particles, make up most of the fine particle pollution In the country. How Big is Particle Pollution? Stniarae thisfigure EPA regulates inhalable particles (fine and coarse). Particles larger than 10 micrometers (sand and large dust) are not regulated by EPA. More about EPA PM Standards and Regulatory Actions, Health: Particle pollution contains microscopic solids or liquid droplets that are so small that they can get deep into the lungs and cause serious health problems. The size of particles is directly linked to their potential for causing health problems. Small particles Tess than 10 micrometers in diameter pose the greatest problems, because they can get deep into your lungs, and some may even get into your bloodstream. More information about health. Visibility: Fine particles (PM2.5) are the major cause of reduced visibility (haze) in parts of the united States, including many of our treasured national parks and wilderness areas. More information about visibility. Reducing particle pollution: EPA's national and regional rules to reduce emissions of pollutants that form particle pollution will help state and local governments meet the Agency's national air quality standards. More information about reducing particle pollution. See the Fast Facts page for a quick summary of particle pollution basics. littp://www.epa.gov/air/particlepollution/hasic.html 4/1/2011 Fast Facts l Basic Information } Particulate Matter l Air & Radiation US EPA Page 1. of 1 http://www.epa.goviairiparticlepoliutiongastfacts.html Last updated on Wednesday, March 16, 2011 Particulate Matter You are here: .FPA Home Air & Radiation Particulate Matter Basic Information Fast Facts Fast Facts Particles that are less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter are known as "fine" particles; those larger than 23 micrometers, but less than 10 micrometers, are known as "coarse" particles. Fine particles are easily inhaled deep into the lungs where they may accumulate, react, be cleared or absorbed. Scientific studies have linked particle pollution, especially fine particles, with a series of significant health problems, including: increased respiratory symptoms, such as Irritation of the airways, coughing, or difficulty breathing, for example; decreased lung function; aggravated asthma; development of chronic bronchitis; irregular heartbeat; nonfatal heart attacks; and premature death in people with heart or lung disease. Particle pollution can cause coughing, wheezing, and decreased lung function even in otherwise healthy children and adults. Studies estimate that thousands of elderly people die prematurely each year from exposure to fine particles. The average adult breathes 3,000 gallons of air per day. According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, children and infants are among the most susceptible to many air pollutants. Children have increased exposure compared with adults because of higher minute ventilation and higher levels of physical activity. Fine particles can remain suspended in the air and travel long distances. For example, a puff of exhaust from a diesel truck in Los Angeles can end up over the Grand Canyon. Some of the pollutants which form haze have also been linked to serious health problems and environmental damage. Particle pollution settles on soil and water and harms the environment by changing the nutrient and chemical balance. Particle pollution, unlike ozone, can occur year-round. People can reduce their exposure to air pollution by checking their daily air quality Forecast and adjusting strenuous outdoor activities when an unhealthy AQI is forecast. http://www.epa.gov/air/pal ticlepollutionifastfacts.htinl 4/1/2011 x0-130-Ir-azvz-P3VY-T00T90z-cH Colorado Department of Public !lath and Environment Air Pollution Control Division >/ MINING OPERATIONS -- Air Pollutant Emission Notice (APFN) — and — Application for Construction 1 - and -- Fugitive Particulate Emissions Control Pian New Facility ❑Transfer of Ownership" ❑ Change in Production © No Change, API3N Page 1 of 6 All sections of this APEN and application must be completed prior to submittal to the Division for both new an facilities. An applicativrt with missing information may be determined incomplete and may result in longer engineer processing tithes. * Note: For transfer of ownership or company name change of a permit, you must also submit a Construction Permit Application forth. Permit Number New Permit 1 P GAI3{a'3 ( AIRS Number 047f'`z Gds t /00 f Company Name: Pit/Mine Name: Pit/Mine Location: Billing Address: Person to Contact: E -Mail Address: Lafarge Wast, Inc, Cerise Pit NE Corner of Intersection US Hwy 82 & C'rysinl Springs Rd. , Carbondale, CO County; Garfield 10170 Church Ranch Way, Suite 200 Zip Code: 80021 Weshninster, CO Wall Wright Phone Number; 3034$7-4466 Waiter.Wright®rL.afargc-nn.coiti Fax Number: 303-657.4339 Please provide description of the activity: (Also, please provide a site map) Aggregate Processing Potential for a Ready Mix Concrete plant with maximum production of 100,000 cubic yards per year. Potential for a temporary portable asphalt plant with maximum production of 600,000 tons per year. If facility is NOT yet constructed: What is the projected start-up date? 1/1/2012 Normal Operation of this Source: 24 'fours per day 6 Days per week 52 Weeks per year Seasonal Throughput (opo of Annual); Dec - Feb Vaires Mar - May Varies lune - Aug Varies Sept - Nov Varies Estimated Maximum Annual Production: 1,000,000 Tons Per Year Commodity Produced: (Please be consistent with the Division of Minerals and Geology Ninth) EI Aggregate / Sand and Gravel Cl Stone q Coal. Q Minerals or Metals Type: 0 Other: Revised September 2004 fifth; '14N'S1.cdpill`,titiIt(.cir.t1S iltl'4�,ll IF�tl.fll'.111lilt Colorado Department of Public l-leelth and Environment Air Pollution Control Division Page 2 of 6 MINING OPERATIONS ESTIMATED EMISSIONS Year For Which Aetual II App les: NA Pollutantrequested Estimated Emissions ([ous)er) at throughputs Actual Emissions From Data Year Estimation Method Controlled Uncontrolled I'atticulatc PM -l0 A. TOPSOIL REMOVAL Maximum Tons Removed Per Day; 10,500 Tons Removed Pcr Year: 100,000 Proposed Controls For'Fopsoll removal: F,( Moist Material 0 Water Spray q Other (specify) B. TOPSOIL STOCKPILE(S) Maximum Stored At One Time: 100,000 'Tons Proposed Controls For Topsoil Stockpile: Watering As Needed Times/Day ❑ Chemical Stabilizer q Compacting Of Piles Q Enclosures 'Type' (Complete or Partial) p Revegetation Revegetatlon Must Occur Within One Year Of Soil Disturbance © Other (specify) C. OVERBURDEN REMOVAL Equipment Used For Removal, Scraper Maximum' Tons Removed I'er Day 13y 1)ragline: NA. Tons Removed Per Year 13y Drugline: Number Of Scraper limas I'er Doty: Number Of Scraper Flours Per Year: Proposed Controls For Overburden Removal: Moist Material I] Water Spray O Other (specify) Revised Segtembca 2004 NA 8 when sti ipping; stripping occurs 60-90 days/year —480-720 Intro , \boo • l{iItc, trite en tae 'stat iu+tit!}.itf ittl Colorado Department of Public l Iealth and l.nvironmcnt Air Pollution Control Division -- MINING OPERATIONS - D. OVERRURDEJ STOCKPILE(S) Maximum Stored At One Time 750,000 ions Proposed Controls For Overburden Stockpile: Watering As Needed `i ltnes/Day D Chemical Stabilizer © Compacting Of Piles © Enclosures O Revegctation D other (specify) (Complcie or Partial) Page 3 of 6 Revegetation Must Occur Within One Year Cif Sall Disturbance E. DRILLING Number Of Holes Drilled Per Day: NA Number Of Holes Drilled Per Year: Proposal Controls For Drilling: © Water Injection p Chemical Stabilizer ID Bag Collectors D Other (specify) F. BLASTING Number Of Blasts Per Day: Number Of Blasts Per Year: Type of Blasting Material Used: Tons of Blasting Material Used: Hours Of Emissions Per Day: NA G. RAW MATERIAL REMOVAL Maximum Tons Removed Per Day: 12,000 Tons Removed Per Year: Drop Height: Specify Moisture Content: 1,000,000 8 (loader operations) Feet Not Known %, (if' known) Proposed Controls For Raw Material Removal:: Moist Material CI Water Spray O Other (specify) R. RAW MATERIAL STOCKPILES) 650,000 tons Maximum Stored At One Time: (only first year of operation)___ Proposed Controls For Raw Material Stockpile: As Needed 'l'ilies/Day ID Watering D Chemical Stabilizer o Compacting Of Piles D Enclosures Type: D Revegetation Revised September 2004 (Complete or Partial) Revegetation Must Occur Within One Year Of Soil l)isiurbance ht p:r�lt 34'.c4IpIi tt,co ts 'op al icn 4FS'.iitrnI C o1orado Department of Public Health and Environment Alt Pollution Control Division Page 4 of U - MINING OPERATIONS 0 Other (specify) Revised September 2004 1 lir%.5.%11'4%.C'tlphe.,11.k1ti.00.il1 .1k131Ti Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Air Pollution Control Division MINING OPERATIONS �. PROCESSING Will processing (i.e., crushing, screening, etc.) occur on site? Yes Page 5 a6 NOTE: Ai PROCESS 1 QIUNIz?NR' REQUIRES A Srr:PARA•F} APPI,I( ATrc)N AND A ' I:N. PRIMARY CRUSHING Maximum tons crushed per year: 1 ,000,000 Tons Maximum tons crushed per hour: 800 'forts Hours of crushing per day: 14 Proposed Controls: Moist Material ® Water Spray D Enclosure Type; O Other (specify) SEConivAEty CRUSHING Maximum tons crushed per year. Tons Maximum tons crushed per hour: Tons Hours of crushing per day: Proposed Controls: I,] Moist Material 0 Water Spray El Enclosure Type: 0 Other (specify) SCREENING/CLASSIFYING Maximum tons screened per year: 01'0D0'00 Maximum tons screened per hour: 800 Flours of screening per day: 14 Proposed CorlrrhIS: Moist Material Water Spray p Enclosure Type;: 0 Other (specify) Tons Tons pESCR f NIN ;/C1JASSIEYING Maximum tons screened per year: Maximum tons screened per hour: [lours of screening per day: Proposed Controls: [] Moist Material ID Water Spray Enclosure Type: 3. CONVEYORS/TRANSFER POINTS Tons Of Material Conveyed Per Year Tons Of Material Conveyed Per Day Proposed Controls D Enclosure Type: El Other (specify) Number Of Transfer Points Proposed Controls 01inciosure Type: ❑ Water Spray El Chemical Siabllirer Other (specify) D Other (specify) 1,000,000 'Tons. 12,000 Tons. Moist Material 20-30 Moist Material (Indicate On A Separate Diagram Iiow Conveyor System Is Set Up) Tons Torts (Complete or Partial) (Complete or Partin') Revised September 2004 lultti 117411'.iiIlSlri' 1Ii1It.Cl7 tfs irp'sIiltiowirOItIrai Colorado Department of Public Health And Environment Air Pollution Control Division Page 6 of 6 - MINING OPERATIONS - K. FINISHED PRODUCT STOCKPIL.CSS) Maximum Stored Al One Time: 750,000 '1'ona Proposed Controls For Finished Product Stockpile: i`3 Watering As Needed TimesJDny 0 Chemical Stabilizer D Compacting Of Piles U Enclosures Type: ❑ Revegetation Other (specify) (Complete or Partial) Rcvegetatlon Must Occur Within One Year OfSoil Disturbance Moist Material RAW MATERIAL TRANSPORT FROM REMOVAL SITE TO STOCKPILE(S) Haul road distance (one way) Not reel Swap lied Rand surface silt content (If known) NA s'o Posted speed limit on haul road NA m.p.h. p Watering L7 Frequent (Watering Frequency of 2 or More Times Per Day) El As Needed O Chemical Stabilizer O Gravelling Other: Processed irntnediately upon removal Vehicle Typo C:n'nay irmpty Weigh; No. Of Trip Per/Day } Tona Tons 2 Tons 'Pons 3 Tans Tons 4 Tons Tons M. FINISHIED PRODUCT TRANSPORT (ON SITE) Amount of material for off sile transfer: 1,000,000 'tons per year On-site haul road distance (one way) -900 Feet Road surface silt content (if known) Not Known % Posted speed limit on-site: l5 m.p.h. • Watering p Frequent (Watering Frequence of 2 or More Times Per Day) As deeded l] Chemical Stabilizer Gravelling Paving Other: Vehicl 1'yge Capacity Empty Webb!, gips Pcr/Day I 18 -Wheelers -24 'tons -16.75 Tons 100-150 10 -Wheelers Revised September 2004 x-13 Tons ,.1 0.75 Tons 75-150 }pli10...±vWSci in;,slnty,e0.y,,sra} 1, Vitionamijkgl Colorado Department of Public health and Environment Air Pollution Control Division - MINING OPERATIONS N. SITE DISTURBANCE Total Area of Site: --9$ Acres Total Disturbed Area of Site: --65 Acres Proposed Controls: ,x. Watering ❑ Frequent (Watering Frequency of 2 or More Times Per Day) As Needed • Chemical Stabilizer ❑ Revegetation Revegetalion Must Occur Within One Year Of Site Disturbance © Seeding With Mulch O Seeding Without Mulch o Oilier (specify) Additional Sources of Emissions List any other sources of emissions and related controls (includes fugitive emissions) u Signature of Legally Authorized Person (not a vendor nr consultant) Date Todd Ohlheiser VI' - Aggregate Nemo (piense print) Title 4 Check the appropriate box if you want: ►�1 Copy of Preliminary Analysis conducted by the Division To review a drab of the permit prior to issuance (Checking any of Ihesc 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 APFN shall be fled no less thin 30 days prior to ibe expiration date of this API'N form. Send this form along with S152.90 to: Telephone: (303) 692-3150 Revised September 2004 Colorado fDepartntent of Public Health and Environment Air Pollution Control Division A PCD -SS -i31 4300 Cherry Creek Drive South Denver, CO 00246-1530 Illllf; . ttll t. u.Ipiie.' alc.,c ri(r ; ) illlnl Planning Commission 04113111 MOL 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 165.48 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. GENERAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION RW f CERISE b, ' e MINE • r i CERISE MINE mum' um' MAP o x�aI� 11,1 Clifford Cerise Ranch Company, LLLP (Applicant) seeks approval of a Major Impact Review Permit to extract mine sand and gravel on their property located on the northeast corner of State Highway 82 (SH 82) and County Road 103 (CR 103). Presently, Lafarge West, Inc.. has a lease agreement with the Applicant to mine and process the aggregate on-site. The lease also allows for an on-site concrete plant and temporary asphalt plant. The subject property is approximately 98 acres of which 65.48 acres of the property is proposed to be mined. The subject parcel consists of agricultural land consisting of several residences, outbuildings, corrals on the northern portion of the site and pastureland to the south. The property is defined by steep slopes along its' western and southern boundaries and Crystal Springs Creek runs along the western edge of the parcel. The 65 acres to be mined consists mainly of pastureland. Pinon and juniper trees located along the west and southwest slopes of the property assist in screening the parcel from portions of SH 82 and portions of CR 103. Basin Ditch bisects the subject property and is approximately 20 feet north of the proposed gravel mine's boundary. The entire property is fenced. The 65 acres to be mined (Cerise Mine) is adjacent to rural residential to the north, agricultural/gravel mining (Blue Pit Mine) to the east, SH 82 to the south, and CR 103 and gravel mining (Powers Mine) to the west. The Wooden Deer subdivision is located further to the north of the site and will maintain views of the land proposed to be mined. While the existing residences on the subject parcel are accessed off of CR 104, the proposed mining site will be accessed off of CR 103 which is a paved county road approximately 24 feet in width. CR 103 is flanked by steep slopes on both sides of the road; the parcel to the west slopes steeply up: and, the land to the east slopes sharply down to Crystal Springs Creek. The Cerise Mine is proposed to commence operations in the spring of 2012. With the opening of this site the existing gravel operation (Powers Mine) adjacent and to the west will be closed. It is anticipate the Cerise Mine will be mined for approximately 15 years followed by two years of reclamation. However, this timeline is an estimate and is dependent upon demand and market conditions. The proposed mining operation will consist of an office/scale house with restroom facilities and parking, scale, Ready Mix concrete plant, temporary asphalt plant, aggregate processing plant (including crushing and wash plants), conveyors and feeders, Motor Central Control (MCC) building, fuel storage tanks with secondary containment, a trash dumpster, two to four portable toilets to be located near portable equipment or the face of the mine, a tailing pond, and overburden, topsoil and material stockpiles. Equipment proposed for the Cerise Mine includes: four loaders, two diesel powered generator set (as needed), one dozer, two to four scrapers, one grader, one backhoe, one water truck, two to three pumps (as needed), and one skid steer. Based on this anticipated schedule, Lafarge will mine approximately 375,000 - 500,000 tons per year and 7,280,000 total tons of gravel over the life time of the mine. Historically, Lafarge has mined up to 660,000 tons per year of aggregate from their Powers Mine and therefore this estimate of tons per year for the Cerise Pit is achievable. Mining is to occur in five phases (Phase 1, Phase 2, Phase 3, Phase 4A, and Phase 4B). From the Mining and Reclamation Maps provided in the application the site is proposed to be mined at 1:1 or 3:1 slopes and reclaimed at 3:1 (see Sheet 11 of Site Plan). The depth of the mine will be approximately 86 feet deep but will depend on geologic/soil conditions. Reclamation at a 3:1 slope is a deviation from the Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008, as amended, Section 7-840 (H)(1)(b)(1) which specifies 5:1 slopes for dry land slope areas. The Applicant is seeking approval to deviate from the 5:1 to 3:1 reclaimed slopes from the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC). See Exhibit S. The Ready Mix concrete plant's height is 45 feet which deviates from the maximum building height for non-residential structures in the Rural Zone District which is 40 feet. The Applicant needs to either seek a height variance before the Board of Adjustment or amend the Rural Zoning District text to allow for this increase in height. There will be up to 45 people working at the site; 20-35 people employed by Lafarge and the other potentia110 people will work at the temporary asphalt plant. Hours of operation will be 7:00 am to 8:00 pm Monday through Saturday with crushing, digging, and heavy hauling allowed from 7:00 am to 6:00 pm allowing for administrative 2 and maintenance activities to take place until 8-00 p.m. No operations except emergency maintenance to ensure the integrity of operating equipment shall take place on Sunday. 11. BACKGROUND Gravel operations presently exist in the SH 82 corridor and adjacent to the proposed Cerise Mine, The Powers Mine is located at the northwest corner of SH 82 and CR 103 and the Blue Pit Mine adjacent and east of the proposed site. The Powers Mine is scheduled to close in 2012 upon the opening of the Cerise Mine, The Blue Pit Special Use Permit (SUP) for gravel extraction was originally approved by Garfield County in 1981 (Resolution 81-384). An amendment to the SUP to maintain the existing gravel operations and add an additional 64 acres to the permitted area (82.70 acres) was before the BOCC last year. Of the 64 acres requested, the BOCC only approved the mining of the cells along SH 82 (Mining Area 2 -18.49 acres and Mining Area 4 - 22.05 acres). The Blue Pit's Mining Area 4 is adjacent to the Cerise Mine, III. SITE DESCRIPTION The Cerise Mine is located approximately two miles directly northeast of Carbondale, Colorado, north of SH 82, and east and adjacent to CR 103. Access will be provided by CR 103. The site plan shown below illustrates the proposed gravel operation location. Vicinity Map The subject property (97.81 acre parcel) is bounded on the south by SH 82, on the east by private property containing the Blue Pit Mine, on the north by Wood Deer Subdivision, and by CR 103 to the west. Crystal Creek is situated along the west boundary of the parcel and the Basin Ditch runs through the property in an east west direction. IV. SITE PLAN Mining of the site is to occur in five (5) phases (Phase 1, Phase 2, Phase 3, Phase 4A, and Phase 4B) with the following mining schedule. Anticipated Mining Schedule Phase Disturbed Area (in acres} Mine Area (in acres) Projected Time of Mine (in years) Anticipated Years When Mining Will Occur Topsoil (CY.) Overburden (C.Y.) Gravel (Tons) 1 27.8 6.1 1.9 2012 - 2014 2014 - 2021 22,000 14,000 323,000 170,000 720,000 3,590,000 2 29.5 24.1 7.1 3 0 7.4 2 2021 - 2023 0 0 990,000 4A 8.2 8.1 3.4 2023 - 2026 6,000 136,000 1,680,000 4B 0 2.1 0.6 2026 - 2027 0 0 300,000 TOTAL 65.5 47.8 15 2012-2027 42,000 629,000 7,280,000 As the site is being mined, Lafarge will concurrently reclaim the mined areas as much as possible. Overburden will be used to create 3:1 reclaimed slopes and the slopes will be re -vegetated. This will help minimize the visual impacts of the operation as well as speed up the completion of reclamation after all mining is complete. The mining phases are described as follows: Pre -Mining Phase/Mining Sequence 1 Pre -Mining Phase • Construct 30 foot wide access road from CR 103 to the mining area (crosses Crystal Springs Creek); • Strip topsail and overburden from the west half of the site and stockpile topsoil along a portion of the west property line and overburden along the north property line; and, • Setup temporary parking area. Phase 1/Mining Sequence 2 (6.1 acres) Mining Phase/Mining Sequence 2 • Excavate aggregate to create a tailings pond/detention pond to be used for the life of the mine and stockpile product excavated. • Set up office/scale house and install ISDS system; • Parking lot for office is built; • Set up aggregate processing plant in the area that will be mined as Phase 3; • Set up concrete plant (west of the aggregate processing plant); • Set up concrete batch plant; and, • Process aggregate from Phase 1. 4 ill • • MINING SEQUENCE 1 PRE MINING PHASEA W 44 .}.I4 • �]y�'-.v4 ✓t `.` �•� �� f Fly"^" _—� 1t�Nl� �I V • ,r,•a,oxq. . jr a� P1. 14404., .10•4010 3 • MINING SEQUENCE 2 PHASE 1 MINING 34.4 :_ass: 3 I .44 4440 4 5 Phase 2/Mining Sequence 3 (24.1 acres) Mining Phase • Once aggregate from Phase 1 is processed Phase 2 will commence; • Strip topsoil and overburden. Overburden is stockpiled in area along north property line; and, • Mine aggregate from the southeast portion of the site. Phase 3/Mining Sequences 4 and 5 (7.4 acres) Mining Phase • Move aggregate processing plant and temporary asphalt batch plant to floor of the Phase 2 pit (all of the other plant site improvements will remain in place); and, • Mine area where aggregate processing plant was located. Partial Reclamation • Portions of slopes in Phase 3 are reclaimed (3:1 slope) with overburden located along north property line. 6 MINING SEQUENCE 3fi'*f P.° S I t w PHASE 2 COMM f _...•` x ° r of t�. Y. 7 �✓ „y ,.^ g .waa;.rf!� ` �fi P fs ern — f i! t�+ "° r 72�d t"C, l v KEY MAP :v 1 1 ! .v3'r_ .-'�; � IP .Y �FE �" WwNM .�--.-y1+l w,ww.r � y v�^ass;�s,.w"""' a '�Aj 4 I ! • '' ._.�` . r A _y r+rr.rr�m�..0.4� -�u-. gi ie r�'r� rK :1tnr 1,11,5,,,,,.., Y.. • . .... r j` a I. 1 1 x� Y i < .. • 1 r 1 ! ' - / #B ........1°411 j� r t ....wry•.,r• -&:�`'/r .�s 'yam. Ii dty�-:�.{ °',� r fi t��_��4��si w..• --`� sr , s" , s llf 7 •*.ii 0 ti ' i��ill ��_ ....i iii S .,.III � d +.0 i1 y}MFRS ilid� t" {y ---""-•-•-...,,_ ' �. Efifm.$59 q �i' `r fid{}' C ... ' - i R` �S' .i'7vw*a +....,4 g t. IiG dC. 4t di I . ... i tt[{[ dill.. y i1 ar �' R ri ...... Phase 3/Mining Sequences 4 and 5 (7.4 acres) Mining Phase • Move aggregate processing plant and temporary asphalt batch plant to floor of the Phase 2 pit (all of the other plant site improvements will remain in place); and, • Mine area where aggregate processing plant was located. Partial Reclamation • Portions of slopes in Phase 3 are reclaimed (3:1 slope) with overburden located along north property line. 6 mau .. JI KEY MA Iwo.w r+ e vow }nen_ i — nw wHww _rm.'—. — •— -� 1wMer....a•e MINIIIM=MIM.oweewbee O women MINING SEQUENCE 4 PHASE 3 MINING tl tti 117'g•,��C Ij ij3 limmawsmi 6 7 • MINING.SEQUENCE 5 �ti ` f i ..- t', a 'I' i ce 1 .41 1 PHASE 3 PARTIAL RECLAMATION s % f / .}�,9+ t I �� ' — . •• r,.:%" CA11 — �iiy . ' �, , t ( � ' - z�� j,. r' ' /• ;;i • i KEY MAP :� eMi Rz� ' , .'''r/I t \- Y1f / Y° 1 `.' /I ` . f'J y Frar. e.\ ((»» •. Me.w.eruss 'r • •'%.•.,;aw`., V, ' r �.< :� ..- !Y •' • i ,,r ^ y / ne>:......+ .1.41.....1.41.....4 P; �..." % f f�_' •. fi. � : I . /• Ob\\� � ^` l K . __..... rl�zs•"•"s4' A � ±./ w o,,• .ww..e..... ak '�8�.? �' ♦ sg . '` ,f/:,b ♦e7 }. y t t.fyyi A ? a 7 �t /�®•t \ '`�•a £" 6�.`^J' i�� X ! i d ',.p.............7. Y ! { % •.. J> ..' .elap ; '..'t, r r'' Z 1 \?e�s+w i/ { • r . r.was `..�� f"s z N "•.. .. iso •..y \ •� 4 �F.� t . ...��••. ../"-Y �eyi , .,rH. I. i�' . ' y ' —i —aII • I�. Y •yah �t� �:�a,°.� ��-'�IIy �cd. 3i� �. tl -. s• ,5k�i'F ap .^l . II M1 � � ' i i ill •µ.Vi I t • wy; \, �� I .. a • Tt • 1 1 � i g� Q. $ ylr�y lik `i.:!' -' e ��:• y.ti Y• r�'u..VA:�\v.,lrllr�:fSIIII•yn.,..,q.1 _ Qi��* a tier "3 7 7 Phase 4AIMining Sequence 6 (8.1 acres) Mining and Reclamation Phase • Remove overburden along north property in to reclaim slopes in Phase 3 to 3:1 gradient; • Mine aggregate in area where removed overburden was located; and, MINING SEQUENCE 6 PI -ASE 4A MINING KEY MAP O oil1IIIIIIi gum Phase 4B/Mining Sequence 7 (2.1 acres) Mining Phase • Remove concrete plant and other plant site improvements from the site; and, • Mine the area where office, parking area, concrete plant, etc. where located. Final ReciamationlMining Sequence 8 Final Reclamation • Remove aggregate plant and temporary batch plant; • Tailings pond is reclaimed to its original grade; • Reclaim remaining slopes to 3:1 slopes with overburden; and, • Entire site is reseeded; and, • Access asphalt road to remain. 8 KEY MAP --' MINING SEQUENCE 7 ,, PHASE 43 MIMING Aotz.A. F• E 8.0 9 MINING SEQUENCE 8 FINAL RECLAMATION CONTOURS 3 I A Omar; 11.1alored 10 9 V. REFFERAL AGENCY COMMENTS Staff referred the application to the following State agencies and/or County Departments for their review and comment. Comments received are noted below and incorporated within the appropriate section of this memorandum. Comment letters are attached and labeled as noted. Garfield County Road and Bridge (Exhibits G and H). In emails dated February 26, 2011 and March 10, 2011 this department states that with the addition of the heavy truck traffic on CR 103, 200 feet north of the proposed access road on CR 103 to SH 82 should be engineered and reconstructed to accommodate the truck traffic proposed. Improvements suggested include providing shoulders, paint stripping, signage, and a right turn lane into the site. This department also recommends other improvements such as the realignment of CR 103 and SH 82 and a right turn land on CR 103 to access SH 82. A County Driveway Permit will be required in order for the site's road to access onto CR 103 and permits will be required for all vehicles that are oversize/overweight. Garfield County Vegetation Manager (Exhibits I and S): An email from this department indicated that the Applicant needs to develop a Weed Management Plan. In response, the Applicant submitted a Weed Management Plan. The follow up email from this department dated March 21, 2011 indicates that the Weed Management Plan is acceptable. County Consulting Engineer, Mountain Cross Engineering (Exhibit J): A letter received from this consultant indicating the following: • Provide a copy of the 404 permit, if necessary, to the Garfield County Planning Department; • Provide information that addresses the head water created by the 100 -year event in Crystal Spring Creek; • Provide information that explains how runoff from all mining phases will be conveyed to the tailings pond and calculations showing the anticipated infiltration rate compared to the anticipated storm water runoff. Also, provide calculations showing the volume of runoff compared to the anticipated infiltration rate; • The Applicant should discuss any problems anticipated from the ground water of Crystal Creek and Basin Ditch including slope stability analyses that assumed dry slope conditions; • The proposed potable water well location is near storage tanks, truck wash, and parking. The Applicant should consider providing a zone to protect the well head; • Provide a design and cost estimate for an irrigation system to deliver water from the Basin Ditch; • Provide a potable water system design for the office; • Address how the presence of coliforms in one of the test wells will be addressed; • Provide "will serve" letters from utility providers; • Reconstruction of the auxiliary lanes on Highway 82 is necessary per the traffic study. The plan included in the application material was conceptual. The Applicant should address the timing of this reconstruction and the coordination with CDOT for design approvals and construction; • The Applicant needs to requests a waiver for 3:1 reclaimed slopes vs. 5:1. This office has no concerns with the steeper slopes provided that the above comments concerning slope stability are adequately addressed; and, 10 • At present the reclamation security will not be held by Garfield County. County legal should evaluate any requirements necessary for Garfield County to access the security. Garfield County Environmental Health (Exhibit K): An email was received from this department with the following comments: • The number of employees (more than 24) will be using the water from the on-site potable water well. This supply is considered a non -transient, non -community water system by the Colorado Department Public Health and Environment (CDPHE), Water Quality Control Division (WQCD) and will need to meet all applicable regulations for this type of system; • The crushing and screening equipment, concrete batch plant, and portable asphalt batch plant have current air quality permits. For air quality compliance, this department recommends to set a condition of approval of the permit requiring a copy of the equipment relocation notices be provided to Garfield County Planning staff; and, • This agency recommends that the stated gravel production limits for mining be conditioned on approval of the Land Use Change Permit. Colorado Division of Water Resources (Exhibit L): This agency indicated the following: • If the applicant wishes to use the Basin Ditch irrigation right for anything other than the decreed irrigation use, the Applicant will need to change the decree in Water Court or obtain approval of an SWSP for a temporary change prior to any change in use; • Provide clarification of what water wells are onsite and are to be used for this operation; • The applicant must maintain a valid contract with the Basalt Water Conservancy District for the operation of these wells; • The Applicant needs to submit construction reports for any wells that were drilled under monitoring hole notices; and, • Contact the local Water Commissioner is Bill Blakeslee if, at any point, construction or operation activities of this project affect the flow of a stream or ditch. Colorado Geological Survey (Exhibit M): This agency points out in an email and in a follow up phone conversation on March 7, 2011 that there are subsidence risks in the area but if the mining occurs as discussed in the application, the side slopes proposed should be stable. This agency finds this application acceptable and no further analysis is required. Colorado Department of Transportation (Exhibit N): An email from this agency indicates that the project does not have direct access onto SH 82. However, based on the traffic study prepared by Gene Coppola, PE, an access permit will be required for both GR 103 and SH 82. CDOT will do a complete review of the access application for SH 82 once received. Colorado Mined Land Reclamation: No comments received. Colorado Public Health and Environment: No comments received. Colorado Division of Wildlife (Exhibit 0): In a letter from this agency it is stated that the location of the gravel pit should have minimal impact to wildlife and that due to black 11 bear activity in the area the use of wildlife proof dumpsters and centralized trash storage buildings be used. Town of Carbondale (Exhibit P): An email from the Town of Carbondale noted that the application was reviewed by their Planning Commission on February 24, 2011 at a public meeting. The Planning Commission indicated that the proposed gravel pit would not have any impacts on the Town of Carbondale. U.S, Army Corps of Engineers (Exhibit. 0): An email from this agency indicated that they wish to consider the full footprint of the mining area and this would have to be done during the vegetative growing season to confirm the delineated wetland boundaries to make a jurisdictional determination and deem which Section 404 permit is appropriate and determine if compensatory mitigation will be required. Carbondale Fire Protection District (Exhibit R): The District reviewed application to be acceptable. Basin Ditch Company: No comments received. Concerned Citizens (Exhibit X): Two letters and 13 emails have been received regarding the Cerise Mine. The concerns expressed include: • Close proximity of the mining to their homes; • Concerns of decreased property values; • The size of having two mining pits next to each other; • Increase of noise from the mining operation; • Increase of dust and impacts on their health; • Health concerns regarding the asphalt batch plant; • Impacts to wildlife (elk, Bald eagles, etc.); • Fear the Cerise Mine being maintained and operated like the Powers Mine; • Increase in traffic on GR 103 will cause safety hazards for motorists, bicyclists, and school children; • Impacts to CR 103 due to heavy traffic; • Cerise Mine is not compatible with the surrounding area; • Impacts of views to the south; and, • Need for another gravel mine since existing pits can sufficiently provide the area with materials; and, • Need for an asphalt batch plant when other plants exist in the area. VI. REVIEW STANDARDS & STAFF COMMENTS Major Impact Review for Gravel Extraction are required to adequately address topics in the listed submittal requirements of Section 4-501 (F) Major Impact Review which includes: Land Suitability Analysis (Section 4-502(D)), Impact Analysis (Section 4- 502(E)), Erosion and Sediment Control (Section 4-502 (C)(4)), the General Development Standards found in Article VII of the Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008 (ULUR). Pursuant to Divisions 1-3 of Article VII all applications for land use change shall conform to the listed standards. Divisions 1-3 discuss General Approval Standards, Resource Protection, and Site Planning and Development. The Applicant has addressed all of the requirements of the ULUR that apply to this Major Impact Review and specifically for Gravel Extraction with standards listed in Section 7-840, Additional Standards Applicable to Gravel Extraction. The following provides a review of 12 specific standards that are of interest when considering the impacts caused by Gravel Extraction followed by a Staff Comment: Section 4-502 (D) Land Suitability Analysis 1. Public Access to Site. Show historic public access to or through the site. 2. Access to adjoining Roadways. Identify access to adjoining roads and site distance and intersection constraints. 3. Easements. Show all easements defining, limiting or allowing use types and access. Staff Response (For items 1-3): The site will be accessed from CR 103 and no sight distance or intersection constraints are evident with this proposed access location. The following easements were identified on the site plan including: • Rocky Mountain Natural Gas Company: Buried 10 -inch gas line with meter located within a 25' easement along the south boundary of the proposed gravel pit. This pipeline will be accessible via the east property line. • Holy Cross Energy — Overhead electric within a 30 foot easement accessible along east property line. • Qwest -- Buried telephone line located west and adjacent to CR103, no easement width given. • CR 103 — 60' easement. • Basin Ditch — No easement identified on site plan however this ditch is not on the proposed site. The ditch's access will not be affected since it is outside the mining area. 4. Topography and Slope. Topography and slope determination. Staff Comment: The subject parcel is situated above CR 103 and SH 82 consists of steep slopes (13% to 60%) along the south and west borders of the property which flattens out creating a plateau. This plateau maintains a slope of approximately 5%. The site to be mined is situated in the flat area of the subject parcel. 5. Natural Features. Significant natural features on-site and off-site. Staff Comment: Significant features include steep slopes along the south and west sides of the subject property and Crystal Spring Creek situated along the western perimeter of the parcel. The Basin Ditch bisects the property in an east/west direction but is outside the area to be mined. 6. Drainage Features. Existing drainages and impoundments, natural and manmade. Staff Comment: Crystal Spring Creek is located east and adjacent to CR 103 and outside the site with the exception of where the access road connects to CR 103. A natural drainageway is located in the southwestern portion of the site and several irrigation laterals cross the parcel. The Basin Ditch is located north and adjacent to the site. 7. Water. Historic irrigation, tailwater issues, water demands, adequate water supply plan pursuant to Section 7-104. Staff Comment: The property has historically been irrigated with water from the Basin Ditch. As part of the lease agreement between Lafarge and the Applicant, the irrigation water can be used for irrigating vegetation on the property for the life of the mine and mining operations but Lafarge plans to use the water from the Basin Ditch 13 only for irrigation purposes. In order to use ditch water for production purposes Lafarge would have to go through water court to request a change in the use of these water rights. Lafarge has no interest in going through water court and therefore will lease water from the Basalt Water Conservancy District for all of the consumptive use needs (both production and domestic needs). The leased water is obtained by two water wells; one production well and one domestic water well (Permit Numbers 74795F and 74795F). 8. Floodplain. Flood plain and flood fringe delineations. Staff Comment: The Garfield County Geographic Information System does not identify the site in a designated floodplain or flood hazard area. 9. Soils. Soils determination, percolation constraints, as applicable. Staff Comment: The site consists of Almy loam, 1 to 12 percent slopes, Empedrado loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes, and Fiuvaquents, 0 to 10 percent slopes soils. The Colorado Geologic Survey (Exhibit M) identified the area as having collapsible soils and indicated that if the site is mined as proposed they wouldn't have any concerns. 10. Hazards. Geologic hazards on-site, and adjacent to site. Staff Comment: The Garfield County Geographic Information System identifies the site as not having any geologic hazards. The site is north of the Roaring Fork River on an undifferentiated terrace and pediment alluvial deposit Holocene to Pleistocene in age and composed of various amounts of cobbles, gravels, sands, silts, and clays. The site subsurface conditions were investigated through an exploratory drilling program conducted by Deere and Ault and EnviroGroup. The results of exploratory borings indicate that bedrock was not encountered to the maximum depth explored (119') within the proposed mine limit. Sand and gravel will form most of the mine slope which are generally strong and stable, particularly when no groundwater is present. The Stability Analysis prepared by TetraTech dated July 19, 2010 indicates that structures within 200 feet from the mining limits will not be impacted from the proposed mining after review of mining techniques and existing geology and soils on- site. The Colorado Geological Survey indicates that there are subsidence risks in the area but if the mining occurs as discussed in the application, the side slopes proposed should be stable. This agency finds this application acceptable and no further analysis is required. 11. Natural Habitat. Existing flora and fauna habitat, wetlands, migration routes, Staff Comments: A Natural Habitat Statement was prepared by Buys & Associates, Inc. for the site. The report notes that the site consists primarily of irrigated hay with narrow stretches of pinon and juniper located along the western edge and southwest corner of the subject parcel. Dry hill slopes adjacent to SH 82 and CR 103 are covered in sagebrush and grasses. Crystal Spring Creek meanders through the western portion of the subject parcel and contains fringe wetlands and riparian vegetation including mature and young cottonwoods. Based upon the existing habitats on the subject parcel, five Federally or State -listed species have the potential to occur in the area including the bald eagle, whooping crane, Townsend's big -eared bat and midget faded rattlesnake, and Barrow's goldeneye. Although potential habitats for these species may exist, these species 14 have a low probability of occurrence. The Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) states in their referral letter (Exhibit 0) that this mine should have minimal impact on wildlife. However, due to black bear activity in the area wildlife proof dumpsters are recommended Nospecial status plant species (Federally listed, State listed and species of concern) were identified on the property 12. Resource Areas. Protected or Registered Archaeological, cultural, paleontological and historic resource areas. Staff Comment: Grand River Institute prepared a Class 1 Cultural and Paleontological Resources Inventory (dated June 15, 2010) which states that no protected or registered archaeological, cultural, paleontological or historic resource areas are located on the subject property. Section 4-502 (E) Impact Analysis The Impact Analysis shall provide a description of the impacts that the proposed land use change may cause, based upon the standards that the proposed use roust satisfy. The Impact Analysis shall include a complete description of how the applicant will ensure that impacts will be mitigated and standards will be satisfied. The following information shall be included in the Impact Analysis. 1. Adjacent Property. An address list of real property adjacent to the subject property, and the mailing address for each of the property owners. Staff Comments: The Applicant provided an address list for property owners within 200 feet of the parcel for public notice which is located under Tab 7 of the application. 2. Adjacent Land Use. Existing use of adjacent property and neighboring properties within 7500' radius. Staff Comments: The site is located in an area of agriculture, gravel mining, and rural residential uses. 3. Site Features. A description of site features such as streams, areas subject to flooding, lakes, high ground water areas, topography, vegetative cover, climatology, and other features that may aid in the evaluation of the proposed development Staff Comments: From CR 103 and SH 82 the site steeply slopes up to a plateau used for agriculture. The irrigated fields are used to grow alfalfa and pasture grass and are bisected by several irrigation ditches. Pinon and juniper dominant the southwest slopes while sagebrush and grasses are predominant along the west and southern slopes of the subject property. Crystal Spring Creek is nestled at the foot of the west slope of the subject parcel and maintains a cottonwood tree gallery and wetlands. The Basin Ditch is north and adjacent to the site and not within the mining area. The site is approximately 70 feet above SH 82 and situated outside any floodplains. The groundwater elevation on the site is 96 to 99 feet below the ground surface, Lafarge proposes to monitor with piezometers the groundwater during mining to ensure that all mining remains above the groundwater elevation. Two piezometers are located along the south boundary and one at the northwest corner of the site. 15 Climate data for the site is assumed to be similar to that of the Glenwood Springs #2 (053359) weather station. The average precipitation is 16.47 inches. The average temperatures range from the 80's in the summer to low teens during winters. 4. Soil Characteristics. A description of soil characteristics of the site which have a significant influence on the proposed use of the land. Staff Comment: The site consists of Almy loam, 1 to 12 percent slopes, Empedrado loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes, and Fluvaquents, 0 to 10 percent slopes soils. The Colorado Geological Survey indicates that there are subsidence risks in the area but if the mining occurs as discussed in the application, the side slopes proposed should be stable. This agency finds this application acceptable and no further analysis is required. 5. Geology and Hazard. A description of the geologic characteristics of the area including any potential natural or man-made hazards, and a determination of what effect such factors would have on the proposed use of the land. Staff Comment: The Garfield County Geographic Information System identifies the site as not having any geologic hazards. The site is north of the Roaring Fork River on an undifferentiated terrace and pediment alluvial deposit Holocene to Pleistocene in age and composed of various amounts of cobbles, gravels, sands, silts, and clays. The site subsurface conditions were investigated through an exploratory drilling program conducted by Deere and Ault and EnviroGroup. The results of exploratory borings indicate that bedrock was not encountered to the maximum depth explored (119') within the proposed mine limit. Sand and gravel will form most of the mine slope which are generally strong and stable, particularly when no groundwater is present. The Stability Analysis prepared by TetraTech dated July 19, 2010 indicates that structures within 200 feet from the mining limits will not be impacted from the proposed mining after review of mining techniques and existing geology and soils on- site. The Colorado Geological Survey indicates that there are subsidence risks in the area but if the mining occurs as discussed in the application, the side slopes proposed should be stable. This agency finds this application acceptable and no further analysis is required_ 6. Effect on Existing Water Supply and Adequacy of Supply. Evaluation of the effect of the proposed land use on the capacity of the source of water supply to meet existing and future domestic and agricultural requirements and meeting the adequate water supply requirements of Section 7-104. Staff Comment: The proposed gravel operation needs 40.5 acre feet of water to satisfy their annual consumptive use requirements. The Basalt Water Conservancy District (BWCD) has agreed to lease Lafarge the water required to meet the projected consumptive use requirements of the site. The water that Lafarge will lease from BWCD will be obtained from two wells on the property; one well will provide the production water and the other will provide potable water for domestic use in the office. In October 2010, two test wells were installed on the site in the approximate locations of the permitted wells. A 24 hour pump test was run on these wells and it was determined that there an ample supply of water to support the Cerise Mine. 16 As mentioned by the Garfield County Environmental Health Department, the number of employees (more than 24) will be using the water from the on-site potable water well. This supply is considered a non -transient, non -community water system by the Colorado Department Public Health and Environment (CDPHE), Water Quality Control Division (WQCD) and will need to meet all applicable regulations for this type of system. 7. Effect on Groundwater and Aquifer Recharge Areas. Evaluation of the relationship of the subject parcel to floodplains, the nature of soils and subsoils and their ability to adequately support waste disposal, the slope of the land, the effect of sewage effluents, and the pollution of surface runoff, stream flow and groundwater. Staff Comments: An Individual Septic Disposal System (ISDS) is to be located adjacent to the office and outside any identified flood hazard zones. Several port -a - potties will be located around the site to accommodate employees and will be serviced by Down Valley Septic. A service letter has been provided (Exhibit W). The application narrative reports that groundwater is located 96 to 99 feet below the ground surface and all mining activities are to stay above the groundwater. If any spills occur on-site, the Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan (SPCC) will be followed to contain these spills. 8. Environmental Effects. Determination of the existing environmental conditions on the parcel to be developed and the effects of development on those conditions, including: a. Determination of the long term and short term effect on flora and fauna. Staff Comment: The Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) states in their referral letter (Exhibit 0) the proposed mining should have minimal impact on wildlife. No special status plant species (Federally listed, State listed and species of concern) were identified on the property. b. Determination of the effect on significant archaeological, cultural, paleontological, historic resources. Staff Comment: Grand River Institute prepared a Class I Cultural and Paleontological Resources Inventory (dated June 15, 2010) which states that no protected or registered archaeological, cultural, paleontological or historic resource areas are located on the subject property. c. Determination of the effect on designated environmental resources, including critical wildlife habitat. (1) Impacts on wildlife and domestic animals through creation of hazardous attractions, alteration of existing native vegetation, blockade of migration routes, use patterns or other disruptions. Staff Comment: A Natural Habitat Statement was prepared by Buys & Associates, Inc. for the site. The report notes that the site consists primarily of irrigated hay with narrow stretches of pinon and juniper located along the western edge and southwest corner of the subject parcel. Dry hill slopes are found adjacent to SH 82 and CR 103 and are covered in sagebrush and grasses. Crystal Spring Creek flows through the western portion of the subject parcel and contains fringe wetlands and riparian vegetation such as cottonwoods. 17 Majority of the property has previously undergone disturbance from agricultural activities and habitats exhibit little vegetation diversity. Native vegetation communities have been significantly diminished and rangeland plants have become the dominant species. The cultivated fields provide potential habitat for elk, mule deer, fox, coyotes, variety of song birds, and small mammals common to the Roaring Fork Valley. Five federally or State -listed species have the potential to occur in the area but the potential for these species to occur on-site are low. The Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) states in their referral letter (Exhibit 0) that this mine should have minimal impact on wildlife. No special status plant species (Federally listed, State listed and species of concern) were identified on the property_ No migration routes were identified by CDOW or in the Natural Habitat Statement. d. Evaluation of any potential radiation hazard that may have been identified by the State or County Health Departments. Staff Comment: There are no radiation hazards identified for this site. e. Spill Prevention Control and Counter Measures plan, if applicable. Staff Comments: The Application includes a Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure Plan (Tab 27 in application) prepared by Lafarge. The plan details on-site storage and handling of liquids, how spills are handled, emergency response, and training. 9. Traffic. Assessment of traffic impacts based upon a traffic study prepared in compliance with Section 4-502(J). Staff Comment: The property has access off of CR 103. Comments from CDOT and Garfield County Road and Bridge Department indicate that a County Driveway Permit will be required for this application. The Traffic Study prepared by Gene Coppola, PE (dated August 4, 2010) concludes that the Cerise Mine "will not adversely impact the area street system. This is verified by the finding that the identified roadway geometry will facilitate safe and efficient operating conditions for the foreseeable future." Based an documented analysis and investigation, the traffic report concludes: • Existing traffic on SH 82 is 17,700 vehicles per day; • The gravel operation at peak day and peak season activity will generate 88 morning highway peak hour trips, 63 afternoon highway peak hour trips, and 770 trips per day at full site utilization; • On an average annual day, an estimated 45 morning peak hour trips, 30 afternoon peak hour trips, and 400 daily trips are expected; • All warranted auxiliary lanes currently exist at the SH 82/CR 103 intersection. The west bound right turn lane deceleration lane and east bound left turn acceleration lane on SH 82 are substandard as per the current Access Code criteria. However, these lanes can be lengthened to meet current design standards. The westbound right turn acceleration lane and eastbound left turn deceleration lane on SH 82 are acceptable in their current form_ 1.8 • No auxiliary lanes (right or left hand turn lanes) will be warranted at the CR 103 and gravel operation access road; • Turning radii at the SH 82/CR 103 and the CR 103/Cerise access intersections should have radii capable of serving a W13-67 design vehicle; and, • CR 103 intersects SH 82 at about 75 degrees making for a severe right turn for westbound SH 82 traffic turning north onto CR 103. By installing a WB -67 turning radius the intersection will become wider and allow the CR 103 centerline shift to the east thereby increasing the approach width for southbound vehicles; • Truck warning signs should be installed on the CR 103 approach to the site access road and a stop sign placed on the access road approach to CR 103; and, • With the indicated improvements, acceptable operating levels of service will be achieved and maintained through the long term for all traffic movements at all intersections, CDOT also requires an access permit for the proposed mining operation. Presently, this permit has not been submitted to CDOT and it will be the responsibility of the Applicant to pursue this permit. The County will not issue a Land Use Change Permit for this application until this permit is obtained from CDOT and all conditions of this permit will be set as conditions of approval_ 10. Nuisance. Impacts on adjacent land from generation of vapor, dust, smoke, noise, glare or vibration, or other emanations. Staff Comments: 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 pollutant generating activities that this report identified include: • 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. The Air Quality Statement also provided a Fugitive Dust Control Plan for the site and is to be implemented to prevent, reduce, and mitigate fugitive dust for this mining operation_ This plan will be followed during operations at the Cerise Mine to keep air quality in compliance with NAAQS. Fugitive Air Permits 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. 19 An overall Fugitive Air Permit for the entire mining operation will be submitted to CDPHE once Garfield County approval is received_ This air permit must identify all mining operations/equipment approved by the County in order to calculate accurate air emissions for the entire site. Cumulative impacts to the air will also be reviewed as part of this permit and will included the Cerise Mine and other PM10 dust emission sources (identified by CDPHE) within 10 kilometers of the proposed mine. According to CDPHE, the Cerise Mine can not obtain a permit from them unless their air emissions meet all National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Staff recommends that a condition of the Land Use Change Permit be that the Applicant shall obtain the Fugitive Air Permit for the entire mining operation. Noise Gravel extraction emits constant noise levels. Noise levels related to certain uses in Colorado (as well as is referenced in the County's land use regulations) is governed by state law (CRS §25-12-103). The law provides that the noise emitter cannot exceed certain noise levels (measured at 25 feet beyond the gravel extraction property line) based on the adjacent receiver property's use. In this case of the Cerise Mine there are several uses that surround the subject extraction property that the County identifies as residential (north), light industrial (south), and industrial (west and east). Hankard Environmental prepared a Noise Analysis report (dated November 17, 2010) and an addendum (Exhibit Y) for the Cerise Mine. These reports states that the noise generated from the proposed mine will be in compliance with applicable limits (CRS §25-12-103), provided that certain mitigation (reduction) measures are implemented. As indicated in the addendum, the construction (movement of the topsoil and overburden and berm building/deconstruction may reach 80 dB which is allowed during times of construction. Hankard Environmental believes that "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 the addendum, the noise mitigation (reduction) measures required to bring all operations into compliance with County noise regulations and are indentified as follows: 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 scrappers 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); 5. 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, 7. Conduct all noise -producing activities associated with operations during the daytime (7:00 am to 6:00 pm). 20 Staff recommends that these noise mitigation standards be made a condition of approval of this application. As stated above, the Applicant indicates that "construction" of the Cerise Mine will occur in Phases 1-Pre-Mining/Mine Sequence 1 and Final Reclamation/Mine Sequence 8. As per Section 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)). The statue, however, does not describe what activities are included as "construction." After conferring with the County Attorney's Office, 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 he permitted. This would permit these specific activities to produce noise levels up to 80 dB(A). As per the addendum by Hankard Environmental, they believe CRS §25-12 allows daytime construction noise levels to be 90 dB(A) for 15 minutes in any one hour. The County is unclear if this interpretation is valid since it has never been proposed. Further investigation by the County must occur in order to make a determination on this matter and whether it will be allowed. The BOCC could allow these specific activities to occur so long as there is a defined timeframe (phasing) allocated to this more noisy activity so that the residents nearby have an understanding and expectation as to how long that would last in any given phase. Based on all of this information, should the BOCC decide to allow certain activities associated with mine construction, such as removal of overburden, as "construction„ for noise purposes then the BOCC should require a timeframe of when this can occur. Glare All lighting on-site is to be shield and directed inward and downward. All buildings shall be painted in natural earth tones and equipment non -reflective. Vibration Lafarge will not conduct any activities within the Cerise Mine permit boundary that causes perceptible ground vibration at any point along the boundary line of the Cerise property. 11. Reclamation Plan. A reclamation plan consistent with the standards in Section 7-212 (B). Staff Comments: The proposed gravel mine is required to be reviewed by Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining, and Safety (DRIVES). This agency has approved this mining application. Additional discussion is found under Section 7-840, Reclamation. Section 7-100 GENERAL APPROVAL STANDARDS FOR LAND USE CHANGE PERMITS 21 1. Section 7-101 Compliance with Zone District Use Restrictions Staff Comments: The Cerise property is in the Rural Zoning District and a gravel extraction facility is considered a permitted land use subject to Major Impact Review. All development standards are met with the exception of the height of the concrete plant which is 45 feet in height. Forty feet is the maximum height permitted in this zone district. 2. Section 7-102 Compliance with Comprehensive Plan and Intergovernmental Agreements Staff Comments: The property is located in Study Area 1 of the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2000. The Comprehensive Plan Proposed Land Use Districts map identifies the site as Residential Medium 6 to < 10 acres/dwelling and Natural Resource map indicates the site as Resource Extraction. The Natural Resource map further defines the area as "Sand and Gravel with Ground Water over 20 feet" indicating its importance as a resource. This application complies with Section 111, Goals, Objectives, Policies, and Programs that apply under Chapter 9 - Natural Resource Extraction and Chapter 11- Gravel Extraction Operations as follows: Natural Resource Extraction Goals Garfield County recognizes that under Colorado law, the surface and mineral interests have certain legal rights and privileges, including the right to extract and develop these interests. Furthermore, private property owners also have certain legal rights and privileges, including the right to have the mineral estate developed in a reasonable matter and to have adverse land use impacts mitigated. Ob(ectives 9.1 The County will require adequate mitigation to address impacts of mineral extraction on private property owners, without undue burden on the legal rights of mineral lessees. 9.3 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. Policies: 9.1 Garfield County, to the extent legally possible, will require adequate mitigation to address the impacts of mineral extraction on adjacent land owners. These measures may include the following: A. Landscaping and screening; B. Modification of phasing or area to be mined; C. Roadway improvements and signage; D. Safe and efficient access routes; E. Drainage improvements to project surface and groundwater. 9.2 Garfield County, in coordination with relevant special districts, authorities and municipalities will require that developers of energy or mineral extraction projects finance the construction and operation of any public improvements which, now or in the future, will be required by their projects. 22 9.4 Dust, odors and fumes should be contained within the extraction site generating such emissions and should not negatively affect any surrounding land use. Gravel Extractions Operations Goals 11.1 Garfield County recognizes that under Colorado law, the surface and mineral interests have certain legal rights and privileges, including the right to extract and develop these interests. Furthermore, private property owners also have certain legal rights, responsibilities and privileges, including the right to have mineral estate developed in a reasonable manner and to have adverse land use impacts mitigated during extraction as well as requiring responsible reclamation of land after extraction processes are completed. 11.2 Garfield County will encourage a land use pattern that recognizes the environmental sensitivity of the land does not overburden the physical capacity of the land and is in the best interest of the health, safety, and welfare of Garfield County. 11.4 Garfield County will encourage development of a diversified industrial base for the County which recognizes and addresses the human resources, natural resources and physical location -to -market capabilities of the community, and the social and environmental impacts of industrial uses. Obiectives 11.0 To ensure that industrial development is compatible with adjacent land uses and mitigate impacts identified during the plan review process. 11.1 Encourage the location of industrial development in areas where visual, noise, air quality and infrastructure impacts are reduced. 11.2 Ensure that the type. size and scope of industrial development is consistent with the long-term land use objectives of the County. 11.3 Ensure that Zoning Regulations addressing Industrial uses reflect the changing land use patterns and demographics of the County and encourage the further diversification of the County's economy. 11.4 Visual corridors are considered an important physical attribute of the County and policies will reflect the need to carefully plan these areas. 11.5 Ensure the compatibility of development proposals with existing farms and ranches and ensure that active agricultural uses and existing residential uses are buffered from higher -intensity adjacent uses. 11.6 Garfield County encourages specific project design to recognize the physical features of the land in a manner that is compatible with the physical environment. 11.7 Garfield County will ensure that specifically identified natural, scenic and ecological resources and critical wildlife habitats are recognized as important assets 23 11.£3 The County will require adequate mitigation to address impacts of mineral extraction on private property owners, without undue burden an the legal rights of mineral owners or lessees. 11.9 The County, through the implementation of the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning and Special Use Permit policies, will address future compatibility issues with current mining operations. 11.10 Garfield County will encourage mineral extraction activities to adequately mitigate adverse affects on the natural environment, including air quality, water quality, wildlife habitat, or important visual resources. Policies 11.0 The project review process will include the identification and mitigation of transportation impacts related to industrial development. 11.1 Garfield County shall discourage development that cannot be adequately mitigated in areas identified as having severe environmental constraints such as active landslides, debris flows, unstable slopes, bedrock slides, major mudflows, radioactive tailings. 11.2 Natural drainage patterns will be preserved or mitigated so the cumulative impact of public and private land use activities will not cause storm drainage and floodwater patterns to exceed the capacity of natural or constructed drainage ways, or to subject other areas to an increased potential for damage due to flooding, erosion or sedimentation or result in pollution to streams, rivers or other natural bodies of water. 11.3 Garfield County will require development to protect critical wildlife habitat as identified by state and federal agencies. Development within these designations that cannot be designed, constructed and conducted so as to have a minimum adverse impact upon such habitat or these wildlife species, shall be discouraged. 11.4 Garfield County, to the extent legally possible, will require adequate mitigation to address the impacts of mineral extraction on adjacent land owners. These measures may include the following: I. Landscaping and screening, II. Modification of phasing or area to be mined; III. Roadway improvements and signage; IV. Safe and efficient access routes; V. Drainage improvements to protect surface and groundwater. 11.5 Garfield County will require adequate mitigation for dust, odors, and fumes generated by gravel extraction activities. Garfield County Comprehensive Plan 2030 The Garfield County Comprehensive Plan 2030 also encourages resource extraction. This is expressed in Section 9 — Mineral Extraction which states "Resource extraction, including oil and gas development, has been encouraged to remain in the county due to their contribution they make to the county's overall goal of having a diverse and stable economy. While resource industries are welcomed in the county, they have been 24 expected to fairly mitigate negative impacts that might have resulted due to their operations," Ultimately, this gravel extraction project is an industrial activity with long-term impacts to the land and is not generally compatible with residential uses; however, both the Comprehensive Plan and the ULUR indicate that gravel extraction can be "compatible" if adequate mitigation is proposed that is acceptable to the BOCC. 3. Section 7-103 Compatibility Staff Comment: The site is located in an area of agriculture, gravel mining, and rural residential uses. The proposed mining operation is compatible with the adjacent Powers Mine and Blue Pit Mine situated to the west and east of the site, respectively and views of the property from SH 82 is not possible due to a 70 foot elevation difference and vegetation, Pinon and junipers situated along the southwestern edges of the subject property screen the site from parcels to the west and south. There are residential properties to the north of the Cerise Site (i.e., Wooden Deer Subdivision) which are at a higher elevation than the Cerise Mine. Therefore, the Applicant is proposing measures to mitigate impacts on that area to address compatibility issues. Large, vegetated berms will be created on the north side of the site to screen and buffer the Cerise Mine from residential uses to the north. In addition, Lafarge will move their aggregate processing plant and the temporary asphalt plant site to the bottom of the mining cell following Phase 2 mining. Placing these operations down at the bottom of the mine will further help to minimize the impact of these operations on the residential area. Currently, the access to the subject property is off of CR 104 and the continued use of this point of access would have been easier for the Applicant. However, access off of CR 103 to the mining operation was selected in order to reduce impacts to surrounding properties and neighborhoods. This proposed access is south of any residential roads or driveways on CR 103. Therefore, trucks won't be passing by existing homes as they drive south to SH 82. 4. Section 7-704 Sufficient Legal and Physical Source of Water Staff Comment_ The property has historically been irrigated with water from the Basin Ditch. As part of the lease agreement between Lafarge and the Applicant, 29.5 acre feet of irrigation water can be used for irrigating vegetation on the property for the life of the mine and mining operations. However, in order to use ditch water for production purposes Lafarge would have to go through water court to request a change in the use of these water rights. In lieu of using the ditch water for production, Lafarge is going to lease 40.5 acre feet of water from the Basalt Water Conservancy District to supply the site with all of the water needed to meet the operational and domestic use needs, This is the maximum amount of water that would be needed at the Cerise Mine site if all proposed activities were producing at full capacity and no recycled water was being used. However, Lafarge always has recycling systems on-site and is generally able to recycle more than 50% of the water used in processing. Therefore, 40.5 acre feet will be more than enough water to operate the site and meet the domestic water needs. Documentation from the Basalt Water Conservancy District indicating that the District has agreed to lease water to Lafarge is also included in Tab 16 of the application. 25 The water that Lafarge will lease from Basalt Water Conservancy District will be obtained from two wells on the property, one well will provide production water and the other will provide potable water for domestic use. The production well is located in the southwest corner of the site and domestic well adjacent to the office. Test welts were drilled for both of these proposed wells in order to test the quantity and quality of water that could be obtained. A 24 hour pump test was run on both wells and it was determined that the aquifer and wells can provide an ample supply of water to support the Cerise Mine. The pump test results can also be found in Tab 16. Based on the water quality results from the tests run on a water samples taken from the test wells, the water in one of the wells showed the presence of coliforms and exceeded Secondary Maximum Concentration levels on multiple parameters. The Applicant indicates that the drilling of these wells were for pump tests and therefore suitable procedures for drilling potable water wells were not implemented. The Applicant believes that this could of lead to some degradation of the water quality. Lafarge indicates when drilling the permanent potable well, proper disinfection and development procedures suitable to potable water supply will be applied. Based on this comment, the Consulting Engineering is satisfied in requesting as a condition of approval that both the permitted wells' water be tested for quality and quantity and this information provided to County staff, As mentioned by the Garfield County Environmental Health Department, more than 24 employees will be using the water from the on-site potable water well. This supply is considered a non -transient, non -community water system by the Colorado Department Public Health and Environment (CDPHE), Water Quality Control Division (WQCD) and will need to meet all applicable regulations for this type of system. Fire Protection (7-403) As per the Major Impact Review submittal requirements, the Applicant provided a copy of the site plan to the Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District to review adequate storage of flammable or explosive solids or gases. A letter was received from the district (dated August 3, 2010) stating the site storage was acceptable. Also, this district's referral response (Exhibit R) indicated they have no issues with the proposed mining operation. 5. Section 7-105 Adequate Water Supply Staff Comment Lafarge will have two wells on the Cerise Mine site. It is anticipated that 40.5 acre-feet of water per year is required for the proposed mining operation. Operational consumption of well water for the mining and domestic use is shown below. Water Used For Assumption Annual Water Use Requirement Aggregate Production 500,000 Tons 14.7 Acre -Feet Concrete Production 100,000 C.Y. 15.3 Acre -Feet Dust Control 400,000 Gals/Month for 8 Months 9.8 Acre -Feet Truck Washing 20,000 Gals/Month for 8 Months 0.5 Acre -Feet Domestic 5,000 Gals/Month 0.2 Acre -Feet TOTAL ANNUAL OPERATIONAL CONSUMPTIVE USE 40.5 Acre -Feet 26 Water conservation measures that are to be implemented at the site include a wash plant with a thickener tank installed within the plant system. This type of tank/system enables solids to settle out of the process water used within the plant so that the water can be re -used within the production processes of the plant. Approximately 50% of all water used within the wash plant will be recycled with the use of this tank. Additionally, all other process water on site will be diverted to the tailings pond. Solids will settle in the pond and then the water will be re -used for various on-site processes. 6. Section 7-106 Adequate Water Distribution and Wastewater Systems Staff Comments: Wells will be used to provide the required water to the site for both operational needs and potable water. In addition, Basin Ditch water will be available for operational need uses. An ISDS will be installed in the plant site area for the restroom facilities in the office building and several port -a --potties will be located throughout the site for use by employees working in the field_ The Applicant will have the port -a -potties serviced by Down Valley Septic. 7. Section 7-107 Adequate Public Utilities Staff Comments: Will serve letter for Qwest has not been provided with the application. Staff recommends this letter be obtained from the applicable company as a condition of approval. 8. Section 7-108 Access and Roadways Staff Comment: The site will be accessed from CR 103 which will need a County Driveway Permit. A traffic study was prepared by Gene Coppola, PE (Tab 22 in the application). 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, 9. Section 7-109 No Significant Risk from Natural Hazards Staff Comment: The Garfield County Geographic Information System identifies the site as not having any geologic hazards. The site is north of the Roaring Fork River on an undifferentiated terrace and pediment alluvial deposit Holocene to Pleistocene in age and composed of various amounts of cobbles, gravels, sands, silts, and clays. The site subsurface conditions were investigated through an exploratory drilling program conducted by Deere and Ault and EnviroGroup. The results of exploratory borings indicate that bedrock was not encountered to the maximum depth explored (119') within the proposed mine limit. Sand and gravel will form most of the mine slope which are generally strong and stable, particularly when no groundwater is present. The Stability Analysis prepared by TetraTech dated July 19, 2010 indicates that structures within 200 feet from the mining limits will not be impacted from the proposed mining after review of mining techniques and existing geology and soils on- site. The Colorado Geological Survey indicates that there are subsidence risks in the area but if the mining occurs as discussed in the application, the side slopes proposed should be stable. This agency finds this application acceptable and no further analysis is required. 27 Section 7-200 GENERAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STANDARDS FOR LAND USE CHANGE PERMITS 1. Section 7-201 Protection of Agricultural Lands Staff Comment: The Garfield County GIS identifies the soil in the north quarter of the mining area as "Prime, Irrigated." The entire site will be mined but later reclaimed as pastureland. 2. Section 7-202 Protection of Wildlife Habitat Areas Staff Comment: A Natural Habitat Statement was prepared by Buys & Associates, Inc, for the site. The report notes that the site consists primarily of irrigated hay with narrow stretches of pinon and juniper located along the western edge and southwest corner of the subject parcel. Dry hill slopes are found adjacent to SH 82 and CR 103 and are covered in sagebrush and grasses. Crystal Spring Creek flows through the western portion of the subject parcel and contains fringe wetlands and riparian vegetation such as cottonwoods.. Majority of the property has previously undergone disturbance from agricultural activities and habitats exhibit little vegetation diversity. Native vegetation communities have been significantly diminished and rangeland plants have become the dominant species. The cultivated fields do provide potential habitat for elk, mule deer, fox, coyotes, variety of song birds and small mammals common to the Roaring Fork Valley. Five Federally or State -listed species have the potential to occur in the area but the potential for these species to occur on-site are low. The Colorado Division of Wildlife (CROW) states in their referral letter (Exhibit 0) that this mine should have minimal impact on wildlife. However, due to black bear activity in the area wildlife proof dumpsters are recommended. No special status plant species (Federally listed, State listed and species of concern) were identified on the property. 3, Section 7-203 Protection of Wetlands and Waterbodies Staff Comment: Wetlands exist along Crystal Spring Creek. Lafarge believes a Nationwide Permit will be necessary to fill the wetlands and construct the access road across Crystal Springs Creek. The U.S Army Corps of Engineers wishes to confirm the delineated wetland boundaries and determine what Section 404 permit is appropriate. Staff recommends that the appropriate Section 404 Permit be provided to County staff prior to issuance of a Land Use Change Permit. 4. Section 7-204 Protection of Water Quality from Pollutants Staff Comment: A SPCC Plan by Lafarge West Inc. (dated October 29, 2010) is provided in the application under Tab 27. This plan addresses on-site storage, handling of liquids, spills protocols, emergency response, and training to reduce the groundwater contamination. The plan also indicates approximately 25,220 gallons oil storage will be stored on-site. Diesel fuel and gasoline will be stored in two 10,000 gallon and one 5,000 gallon tanks situated within an impervious secondary containment_ A 1,000 gallon tank of propane and approximately 4-55 gallon drums of oil, 5 kegs of grease, and 500 gallon tank of admixture. Storage of this material and machine (vehicle or mobile machinery) maintenance will not be performed within 100 feet of any water body. Inspection of storage tanks will be conducted by state agencies. 28 There will be no waste collection and temporary storage of solid or liquid waste on the Cerise Mine site. 5. Section 7-205 Erosion and Sedimentation Staff Comment: The application contains Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (SSCP) prepared by Lafarge (Tab 12 of application) with Erosion Control Maps (14 sheet plan set). The Proposed Erosion Control Plan (sheet ER -8) states that all runoff from the scale house, asphalt plant, concrete plant, drainage and parking area shall flow to the south and west to the proposed oil and grease separators and then into the tailing pond and stormwater that falls within a mining cell will be allowed to infiltrate into the sand and gravel soil. Sheet ER -8 also shows a silt fence will be constructed at the perimeter of the site where overburden and topsoil stockpiles, and the access road are located. The placement of the silt fence at the toe of the north overburden stockpile will help protect the Basin Ditch from sedimentation. All overburden and topsoil stockpiles will be reseeded for stabilization and erosion control. 6. Section 7-206 Drainage & Section 7-207 Stormwater Run -Off Staff Comment: The Applicant states that stormwater that falls within the active mining cell will remain in the cell and infiltrate into the ground through the exposed sand and gravel soil. Based on the maximum expected size of the mine, runoff from drainage basins B4 and D2 will be captured in the active mine cell. The minimum pond size required to allow the stormwater to infiltrate into the ground within 72 hours is 5,380 square feet. The infiltration pond will not be permanent, and the location will move around in the bottom of the active mine as mining activities dictate. Stormwater that falls within the mining operations and plant area will be directed to the proposed tailings pond to be constructed in Phase 1. This includes runoff from drainage basins B3, D4, and D5, and the minimum pond size required to allow the stormwater to infiltrate into the ground within 72 hours is approximately 67,000 square feet. Based on the size of the current tailings pond designed, the pond is greater than the minimum size required with approximately 80,000 square feet of pond area available. 7. Section 7-208 Air Quality Staff Comments: 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 Pian, and discusses cumulative impacts of the proposed mining operation. Potential pollutant generating activities that this report identified include: • 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. 29 The Air Quality Statement also provided a Fugitive Dust Control Pian for the site and is to be implemented to prevent, reduce, and mitigate fugitive dust for this mining operation. This plan will be followed during operations at the Cerise Mine to keep air quality in compliance with NAAQS. Fugitive Air Permits 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. Each of these permits identifies the parameters, including air emissions, under which the equipment can operate. An overall Fugitive Air Permit for the entire mining operation will be submitted to CDPHE once Garfield County approval is received. This air permit must identify all mining operations/equipment approved by the County in order to calculate an accurate air emissions for the entire site. Cumulative impacts to the air will also be reviewed as part of this permit and will included the Cerise Mine and other PM,° dust emission sources (identified by CDPHE) within 10 kilometers of the proposed mine. According to CDPHE, the Cerise Mine can not obtain a permit from them unless their air emissions meet all National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Staff recommends that a condition of the Land Use Change Permit be that the Applicant shall obtain the Fugitive Air Permit for the entire mining operation, 8. Section 7-209 Areas Subject to Wildfire Hazards Staff Comments: The site is identified as a "Low Hazard" area on the Garfield County Wildfire Hazard Map. 9. Section 7-210 Areas Subject to Natural Hazards and Geologic Hazards Staff Comment: The Garfield County Geographic Information System identifies the site as not having any geologic hazards. The site is north of the Roaring Fork River on an undifferentiated terrace and pediment alluvial deposit Holocene to Pleistocene in age and composed of various amounts of cobbles, gravels, sands, silts, and clays. The site subsurface conditions were investigated through an exploratory drilling program conducted by Deere and Ault and EnviroGroup. The results of exploratory borings indicate that bedrock was not encountered to the maximum depth explored (119') within the proposed mine limit. Sand and gravel will form most of the mine slope which are generally strong and stable, particularly when no groundwater is present. The Stability Analysis prepared by TetraTech dated July 19, 2010 indicates that structures within 200 feet from the mining limits will not be impacted from the proposed mining after review of mining techniques and existing geology and soils on- site. The Colorado Geological Survey indicates that there are subsidence risks in the area but if the mining occurs as discussed in the application, the side slopes proposed should be stable. This agency finds this application acceptable and no further analysis is required. 10. Section 7-211 Areas with Archeological, Paleontological or Historical Importance Staff Comment: Grand River Institute prepared a Class I Cultural and Paleontological Resources Inventory (dated June 15, 2010).which states that no protected or 30 registered archaeological, cultural, paleontological or historic resource areas are located on the subject property. 11. Section 7-212 Reclamation Staff Comments: The Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (SSCP) prepared by Lafarge West Inc. contains a Reclamation Plan for the site (Sheet ER -7). The reclaimed slopes of the mine are 3:1 and re -vegetated with pastureland seed mix (see Landscape Plan, Tab 12). A road will access the bottom of the reclaimed pit and a rip rap swale will be positioned on the upside of the road. The drainage area disturbed by the access road will be reseeded with native grass seed mix. The proposed mine requires review and approval for a Reclamation Permit by the Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining, and Safety. Approval of the mining permit is attached as Exhibit V and lists the reclamation surety for the Cerise Pit operations. A Landscape Pian (Tab 12 of the application) is also provided to be implemented after the site is reclaimed. Section 7-703 Standards Within View Protection Overlay. Development shall be located in such a manner that minimizes the visual impact of associated structures along the skyline at the crest of the ridge from an established view corridor identified in the Comprehensive Plan of 2000. svoin VA,/ Oki 25 aview c4 Doii Staff Comments: in the map above the Garfield County Geographic Information System identifies the visual corridor seen from major roads such as SH 82. The proposed mining area will be screened from the "view corridor", as identified by the Comprehensive Plan, by being approximately 70 feet above SH 82. Trees along the west and southwestern corner of the site also assist in screening the proposed mining operations. 31 Section 7- 894 Additional Standards Applicable to Mining and Extraction Uses. A. Roads 1. Impact Mitigation Staff Comment: Lafarge shall bear the cost of all road and bridge improvements, repairs, and maintenance necessitated by the proposed mining operation. 2. Vehicle Weight Staff Comment: Lafarge states they will comply with Garfield County Overweight Vehicle Regulations and obtain all necessary Road and Bridge permits. 3. Seasonal Traffic Limitation Staff Comment: The number of trucks proposed to access the Cerise Mine is addressed in the traffic study (Section 22 of the application). No traffic limitations have been proposed. B. Routing Designation of construction and haul routes for a specific mining operation application shall comply with the following standards: 1. Avoidance of Developed Areas Staff Comment: Access to the Cerise Pit will be off of County Road 103, south of any access to residential streets or driveways. 2. Timing of Hauling Staff Comment: As per the Traffic Impact Study prepared by Gene Coppola, PE (Tab 22 in the application) "the site will not adversely impact the area street system." However, if truck traffic congestions and safety issues arise, Lafarge is willing to work with the County to resolve any issues. 3. Load Control Staff Comment: During transit, all loads leaving the site will be watered or covered as necessary to suppress dust. The haul route for the trucks is paved so dust will not be generated as they travel the route. C. Wildlife Staff Comment: The Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) states in their referral letter (Exhibit 0) the proposed mining should have minimal impact on wildlife. No special status plant species (Federally listed, State listed and species of concern) were identified on the property. D. Emergency Preparedness Staff Comments: An Emergency Preparedness Plan was not included in the application. Staff recommends this plan be submitted to the County prior to the issuance of a Land Use Change permit. Section 7-810 Additional Standards Applicable to Industrial Use A. All fabrication, service and repair operations shall be conducted within an enclosed building or obscured by a fence, natural topography or landscaping. Staff Comments: No structures are proposed for repair services. If repairs are to occur they shall be obscured by the natural topography and vegetation and overburden berms. 32 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. Staff Comments: This requirement is met. C. All outdoor storage facilities for fuel, raw materials and products shall be screened by natural topography or enclosed by a fence or wall adequate to conceal such facilities from adjacent property. 1. All outside storage abutting or facing a lot in a residential or commercial zone shall be screened by natural topography or enclosed by a site -obscuring fence to obstruct the storage area from view. The fence shall be of materia! and design that will not detract from adjacent residences. Staff Comments: Storage of fuels and product materials are screened by existing vegetation, seeded berms, or the existing and proposed topography. D. All industrial wastes shall be disposed of in a manner consistent with statutes and requirements of CDPHE. Staff Comments: No industrial wastes are proposed with this use. E. The volume of sound generated shall comply with the standards set forth in the Colorado Revised Statutes. Gravel extraction emits constant noise levels. Noise levels related to certain uses in Colorado (as well as is referenced in the County's land use regulations) is governed by state law (CRS §25-12-103). The law provides that the noise emitter cannot exceed certain noise levels (measured at 25 feet beyond the gravel extraction property line) based on the adjacent receiver property's use. In this case of the Cerise Mine there are several uses that surround the subject extraction property that the County identifies as residential (north), light industrial (south), and industrial (west and east). Hankard Environmental prepared a Noise Analysis report (dated November 17, 2010) and an addendum (Exhibit Y) for the Cerise Mine. These reports states that the noise generated from the proposed mine will be in compliance with applicable limits (CRS §25-12-103), provided that certain mitigation (reduction) measures are implemented. As indicated in the addendum, the construction (movement of the topsoil and overburden and berm building/deconstruction may reach 80 dB which is allowed during times of construction. Hankard Environmental believes that "construction"" will occur in Phases 1 — Pre-ruining/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 the addendum, the noise mitigation (reduction) measures required to bring all operations into compliance with County noise regulations and are indentified as follows: 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 scrappers cannot operate for more than 15 minutes in any one hour while within approximately 100 feet of the permit boundary; 33 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); 5. 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, 7. Conduct all noise -producing activities associated with operations during the daytime (7:00 am to 6:00 pm). Staff recommends that these noise mitigation standards be trade a condition of approval of this application. As stated above, the Applicant indicates that "construction" of the Cerise Mine will occur in Phases 1-Pre-Mining/Mine Sequence 1 and Final Reclamation/Mine Sequence 8. As per Section 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)). The statue, however, does not describe what activities are included as "construction." After conferring with the County Attorney's Office, 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); arid, (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). As per the addendum by Hankard Environmental, they believe CRS §25-12 allows daytime construction noise levels to be 90 dB(A) for 15 minutes in any one hour. The County is unclear if this interpretation is valid since it has never been proposed. Further investigation by the County must occur in order to make a determination on this matter and whether it will be allowed. The BOCC could allow these specific activities to occur so long as there is a defined timeframe (phasing) allocated to this more noisy activity so that the residents nearby have an understanding and expectation as to how long that would last in any given phase. Based on all of this information, should the BOCC decide to allow certain activities associated with mine construction, such as removal of overburden, as "construction" for noise purposes then the BOCC should require a timeframe of when this can occur. F. 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. Staff Comments: Ground vibration beyond the site boundary is not anticipated. G. Every use shall be so operated that it does not emit heat, glare, radiation or fumes which substantially interfere with the existing use of adjoining 34 property or which constitutes a public nuisance or hazard. Flaring of gases, aircraft warning signal and reflective painting of storage tanks, or other legal requirements for safety or air pollution control measures shall be exempted from this provision. Staff Comments: The application includes copies of Construction Permits approved by the CDPHE (see Tab 20). 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. Section 7-840 Additional Standards Applicable to Gravel Extraction A. Water Quantity 8 Quality impacts I Floodplain impacts Staff Comments: This section generally applies to gravel operations that are located within a Floodplain which this site is not. However, there are other requirements within this section that apply and are addressed below. The Proposed Erosion Control Plan (sheet ER -8) states that all runoff from the scale house, asphalt plant, concrete plant, drainage and parking area shall flow to the south and west to the proposed oil and grease separators and then into the tailing pond and stormwater that falls within a mining cell will be allowed to infiltrate into the sand and gravel soil. Sheet ER -6 also shows a silt fence will be constructed at the perimeter of the site where overburden and topsoil stockpiles, and the access road are located. The placement of the silt fence at the toe of the north overburden stockpile will help protect the Basin Ditch from sedimentation. All overburden and topsoil stockpiles will be reseeded for stabilization and erosion control. A Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) is also provided under Tab 12 of the application. The SWMP describes the development and implementation of stormwater management controls specifically designed for the Cerise Pit including: SWMP administration, identification of potential pollutant sources and Best Management Practices, Spill Prevention and Response Procedures, etc. This document will be finalized upon approval of the mining plan by the County and Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety. Lafarge has designed the Cerise Mine to keep all process water for the mining operations and stormwater runoff on-site. The majority of water used in processing will be recycled and any excess water will be diverted to the tailings pond along with stormwater runoff for reuse or infiltration. Since no water is being discharged from the site, no Colorado Discharge Permit System (CDPS) permit is required (see letter from Lafarge West Inc. under Tab 26 of the application). Since mining will occur above the groundwater, de -watering will not be required as part of the mining process and all stormwater will infiltrate or be directed to the tailing pond. However, the Applicant has obtained a CDPS permit to allow for any natural precipitation to leave the site,. The application includes a SPCC Plan in Tab 27 prepared by Lafarge. This plan details how major and minor spills will be handled, emergency response to be implemented, and training. 35 A letter and email from the Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District (see Tab 19 in the application) and Exhibit R state that this agency found the proposal to be acceptable and had no further comments. Lafarge has legal and physical water for the proposed application by leasing water from Basalt Water Conservancy District to supply their operations at the Cerise Mine. Documentation from Basalt Water Conservancy District indicating that the District's Board approved Lafarge's request to lease water is provided under Tab 16 of the application. B. Air Quality Staff Comments: 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 Pian, and discusses cumulative impacts of the proposed mining operation. Potential pollutant generating activities that this report identified include: • 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. The Air Quality Statement also provided a Fugitive Dust Control Plan for the site and is to be implemented to prevent, reduce, and mitigate fugitive dust for this mining operation. This plan will be followed during operations at the Cerise Mine to keep air quality in compliance with NAAQS. Fugitive Air Permits The Applicant has provided Construction Permits under Tab 20 of the application that have been obtained for all equipment to be used for the mining operation. Each of these permits identifies the parameters of which the equipment can operate including air emissions. An overall Fugitive Air Permit for the entire mining operation will be submitted to CDPHE once Garfield County approval is received. This air permit must identify ail mining operationslequipment approved by the County in order to calculate an accurate air emissions for the entire site. Cumulative impacts to the air will also be reviewed as part of this permit and will included the Cerise Mine and other PM10 dust emission sources (identified by CDPHE) within 10 kilometers of the proposed mine. According to CDPHE, the Cerise Mine can not obtain a permit from them unless their air emissions meet all National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Staff recommends that a condition of the Land Use Change Permit be that the Applicant shall obtain the Fugitive Air Permit for the entire mining operation. C. Noise / Vibration Gravel extraction emits constant noise levels. Noise levels related to certain uses in Colorado (as well as is referenced in the County's land use regulations) is governed by state law (CRS §25-12-103). The law provides that the noise emitter cannot 36 exceed certain noise levels (measured at 25 feet beyond the gravel extraction property line) based on the adjacent receiver property's use. In this case of the Cerise Mine there are several uses that surround the subject extraction property that the County identifies as residential (north), light industrial (south), and industrial (west and east). Hankard Environmental prepared a Noise Analysis report (dated Novernber 17, 2010) and an addendum (Exhibit Y) for the Cerise Mine. These reports states that the noise generated from the proposed mine will be in compliance with applicable limits (CRS X25-12-103), provided that certain mitigation (reduction) measures are implemented. As indicated in the addendum, the construction (movement of the topsoil and overburden and berm building/deconstruction may reach 80 dB which is allowed during times of construction. Hankard Environmental believes that "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 the addendum, the noise mitigation (reduction) measures required to bring all operations into compliance with County noise regulations and are indentified as follows: 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 scrappers 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); 5. 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, 7. Conduct all noise -producing activities associated with operations during the daytime (7:00 am to 6:00 pm). Staff recommends that these noise mitigation standards be made a condition of approval of this application. As stated above, the Applicant indicates that "construction" of the Cerise Mine will occur in Phases 1-Pre-Mining/Mine Sequence 1 and Final Reclamation/Mine Sequence 8. As per Section 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)). The statue, however, does not describe what activities are included as "construction." After conferring with the County Attorney's Office, 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) 37 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). As per the addendum by Harikard Environmental, they believe CRS §25-12 allows daytime construction noise levels to be 90 dB(A) for 15 minutes in any one hour. The County is unclear if this interpretation is valid since it has never been proposed. Further investigation by the County must occur in order to make a determination on this matter and whether it will be allowed. The BOCC could allow these specific activities to occur so long as there is a defined timeframe (phasing) allocated to this more noisy activity so that the residents nearby have an understanding and expectation as to how long that would last in any given phase. Based on all of this information, should the BOCC decide to allow certain activities associated with mine construction, such as removal of overburden, as "construction" for noise purposes then the BOCC should require a timeframe of when this can occur_ Lafarge indicates that the operation will not conduct any activities within the site that cause perceptible ground vibration at any point along the boundary line of the Cerise property. U. Visual Impacts Staff Comments: The proposed operation is to be mined in five phases. Mining and reclamation are to occur concurrently to assist in reducing visual impacts to the surrounding area. Due to the topography of the property, the mining activities on-site will be difficult to see from SH 82 and other areas south of the property. However, land north of the Cerise Mine is at a higher elevation and looks down on the property. Therefore, Lafarge is taking steps to minimize the visual impact for those neighbors. Early in the process, topsoil and overburden stockpiles will be placed on the west and north edges of the permit boundary. These stockpiles will be re -vegetated and serve as screens to block views into the mine site from the north. To further minimize the visual impact of the mining activities, Lafarge will move the aggregate processing plant equipment onto the mine floor as soon as Phase 2 mining is completed. The access point into the site has been located along CR 103 away from any residential streets or driveways and so that trucks coming and going from the site to SH 82 will not pass any homes. Lighting will also be kept to a minimum. All on-site lighting wilt be downcast and shielded so not shine directly onto other properties_ An unobtrusive site identification sign will be placed at the entrance to the facility. A View Study model was prepared to help ail parties involved to understand the effectiveness of the proposed screening and berming. Several screen shots from that study are provided in Tab 15 of the application. 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 as they mine will occur and the Cerise Mine shall 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. 38 E. Impacts to County Road System Staff Comment: The property has access off of CR 103. Comments from CDOT and Garfield County Road and Bridge Department indicate that a County Driveway Permit will be required for this application. The Traffic Study prepared by Gene Coppola, PE (dated August 4, 2010) concludes that the Cerise Mine "will not adversely impact the area street system. This is verified by the finding that the identified roadway geometry will facilitate safe and efficient operating conditions for the foreseeable future.' Based on documented analysis and investigation, the traffic report concludes: • Existing traffic on SH 82 is 17,700 vehicles per day; • The gravel operation at peak day and peak season activity will generate 88 morning highway peak hour trips, 63 afternoon highway peak hour trips, and 770 trips per day at full site utilization; • On an average annual day, an estimated 45 morning peak hour trips, 30 afternoon peak hour trips, and 400 daily trips are expected; • All warranted auxiliary lanes currently exist at the SH 82/CR 103 intersection. The west bound right turn lane deceleration lane and east bound Ieft turn acceleration lane on SH 82 are substandard as per the current Access Code criteria. However, these lanes can be lengthened to meet current design standards. The westbound right turn acceleration lane and eastbound Ieft turn deceleration lane on SH 82 are acceptable in their current form. • No auxiliary lanes (right or Ieft hand turn lanes) will be warranted at the CR 103 and gravel operation access road; • Turning radii at the SH 82/CR 103 and the CR 103/Cerise access intersections should have radii capable of serving a WB -67 design vehicle; and, • CR 103 intersects SH 82 at about 75 degrees making for a severe right turn for westbound SH 82 traffic turning north onto CR 103. By installing a WB -67 turning radius the intersection will become wider and allow the CR 103 centerline shift to the east thereby increasing the approach width for southbound vehicles; • Truck warning signs should be installed on the CR 103 approach to the site access road and a stop sign placed on the access road approach to CR 103; and, • With the indicated improvements, acceptable operating levels of service will be achieved and maintained through the long term for all traffic movements at all intersections. CDOT also requires an access permit for the proposed mining operation. Presently, this permit has not been submitted to CDOT and it will be the responsibility of the Applicant to pursue this permit. The County will not issue a Land Use Change Permit for this application until this permit is obtained from CDOT and all conditions of this permit will be set as conditions of approval. Cumulative traffic impacts from mining in the area are considered in the Gene Coppola's Traffic Analysis and will be considered in the CDOT Access Permit. As stated above, 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. 39 F. Impacts to Wildlife Staff Comment: A Natural Habitat Statement was prepared by Buys & Associates, Inc. for the site. The report notes that the site consists primarily of irrigated hay with narrow stretches of pinon and juniper located along the western edge and southwest corner of the subject parcel. Dry hill slopes are found adjacent to SH 82 and CR 103 and are covered in sagebrush and grasses. Crystal Spring Creek flows through the western portion of the subject parcel and contains fringe wetlands and riparian vegetation such as cottonwoods. Majority of the property has previously undergone disturbance from agricultural activities and habitats exhibit little vegetation diversity. Native vegetation communities have been significantly diminished and rangeland plants have become the dominant species. The cultivated fields do provide potential habitat for elk, mule deer, fox, coyotes, variety of song birds and small mammals common to the Roaring Fork Valley. Four Federally and State -listed species have the potential to occur in the area but the potential for these species to occur on-site are low. The Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) states in their referral letter (Exhibit 0) that this mine should have minimal impact on wildlife. However, due to black bear activity in the area wildlife proof dumpsters are recommended. No special status plant species (Federally listed, State listed and species of concern) were identified on the property. A Weed Management Plan was provided by the Applicant on March 21, 2011 (Exhibit S) and was reviewed by the Garfield County Vegetation Manager who found it acceptable. G. Compatibility with Surrounding Land Uses Staff Comment: The site is located in an area of agriculture, gravel mining, and rural residential uses. The proposed mining operation is compatible with the adjacent Powers and Blue Pit Mines situated to the west and east of the site, respectively and views of the property from SH 82 is not possible due to a 70 foot elevation difference and vegetation. Pinon and junipers situated along the southwestern edges of the subject property screen the site from parcels to the west and south. There are residential properties to the north of the Cerise Site (i.e., Wooden Deer Subdivision) which are at a higher elevation than the Cerise Mine. Therefore, the Applicant is proposing measures to mitigate impacts on that area to address compatibility issues, Large, vegetated berms will be created on the north side of the site to screen and buffer the Cerise Mine from residential uses to the north. In addition, Lafarge will move their aggregate processing plant and the temporary asphalt plant site to the bottom of the mining cell following Phase 2 mining. Placing these operations down at the bottom of the mine will further help to minimize the impact of these operations on the residential area. Currently, the access to the subject property is off of CR 104 and the continued use of this point of access would have been easier for the Applicant. However, access off of CR 103 to the mining operation was selected in order to reduce impacts to surrounding properties and neighborhoods. This proposed access is south of any residential roads or driveways on CR 103 Therefore, trucks won't be passing by existing homes as they drive south to SH 82. 40 H. Reclamation I Enforcement Staff Comments: The final site reclamation is shown on the Mining Sequence 8 (Final Reclamation Contours), Sheet 10 of the Site Plan, and demonstrates final site contours. Slopes are proposed at 3:1 for the mined area and revegetation with pastureland grasses as specified on the Landscape Plan located under Tab 13 of the application. Slopes,Wetland Slope Areas: Staff Comments: This section does not apply. Slopes/Drvland Slope Areas: Staff Comments: The final site reclamation as shown on the Reclamation Plan Map demonstrates final site contours of 3:1. The ULUR requires dry land scopes to be 5:1 with at least 85% of the slopes 5:1 or shallower. An Applicant may propose an alternate slope plan for a dry land area which modifies the standards to accommodate special needs when: a. The existing terrain slope is steep (greater than 5:1); or; b. Where there is little or no available on-site backfill material; or, c. Other special needs or uses that may be proposed by the applicant. Lafarge proposes to reclaim the Phase 1 mining cell back to original grade and the Phase 2 through 4A mining cell with 3:1 slopes. Deviation from the 5:1 slope requirement is the result of not having sufficient amounts of overburden material to backfill the site to a less steep slope. Lafarge also indicated that the property owners have agreed to 3:1 slopes and to re -vegetate their property with pasture grasses to continue the agricultural use that currently exists on their property. Vegetation/Wetland Criteria Staff Comments: This section does not apply. Vegetation/Dryland Criteria: Staff Comments: The revegetation plan is addressed in the Landscape Plan (Tab 13 of the application). The Landscape Plan proposes the revegetation of the mined area in irrigated pasture/hay mix and areas disturbed within the Crystal Springs Creek corridor to be reseeded with a native grass seed mix. Seeding methods shall either be drilling with crimp mulching or hydro -seeding. Rocky Mountain Juniper, Pinon, Narrowleaf Cottonwood, and aspen trees are proposed around the perimeter of the site and all vegetated areas are to be irrigated by the Basin Ditch. The Landscape Plan also identifies that the site is to be reseeded either by drilling with crimp mulching or hydro -seeding. Mulch shall be weed free and shall be applied at a rate of no less than 3,000 pounds per acre. Hydro -seeding with hydro -mulching and tackifier shall be used on steep (greater than 5:1) slopes. Hydro -mulching shall be a minimum rate of 2,000 pounds of wood fiber per acre. A Native Seed Mix will be used in the riparian corridor and Irrigated Pasture/Hay Seed Mix for the remaining portion of the site. A condition has been added to meet the minimum requirements of the ULUR. Lake / Pond Shape and Character: Staff Comments: This section does not apply. 41 Additional Standards (items 4-14 in Section 7-840 (H)) Staff Comments: The remaining portions of Section 7-840 (H) discuss various standards including additional bonding for site restoration, an annual report, site inspections, required state and federal permit submittal, bond release, and compliance with the Garfield County noxious weed control regulations and eradication of invasive species. On pages 42 and 43 the Applicant acknowledges or agrees to items 6, 7, 8, 9,10,11,12 and 13 requirements of the ULUR for gravel extraction. A cost estimate for reclamation has been submitted to the DRMS and Lafarge posted a bond based on this estimate. A copy of the cost estimate that was submitted to and accepted by the DRMS is included in the Major Impact Review Application in Tab 25. The Garfield County Vegetation Management Department indicates that the Weed Management Plan provided is acceptable (Exhibit S). VII, RECOMMENDED FINDINGS 1. That the public hearing before the Planning Commission was extensive and complete; all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted; and that ail interested parties were heard at those hearings. 2. That the hearings before the Planning Commission was 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. The proposed use is in the best interest of the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County. 4. 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. 5. The 3:1 slopes are an appropriate deviation as per Section 7-840 (H)(1)(b)(3) of the ULUR of 2008. VII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Applicant has applied for a Land Use Change Permit for "Extraction" of gravel. As conditioned, the request addresses the ULUR requirements for approving a Major Impact Review and issuing a permit for this specific use. Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve with conditions with the following conditions: 1. That all representations made by the Applicant in the application, and at the public hearing before the Planning Commission, shall be conditions of approval, unless specifically altered by the Board of County Commissioners. 2. That the operation of the facility be done in accordance with all applicable Federal, State, and local regulations governing the operation of this type of facility. 42 3. Site operations shall not emit heat, glare, radiation, dust or fumes which substantially interfere with the existing use of adjoining property or which constitutes a public nuisance or hazard. 4. 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. 5. All lighting associated with the property shall be directed inward and downward towards the interior of the property. 6. The Applicant shall install all signage as specified in Gene Coppola's Traffic Study including: 1) stop sign (R1-1) placed on the access road approach to CR 103; and, 2) two truck warning signs (W8-6) on the CR 103 approach to the site access road. 7. All vehicles using CR 103 to access the Cerise Mine shall abide by Garfield County's oversize/overweight system. All vehicles requiring oversize/overweight permits shall be obtained from the Garfield County Road and Bridge Department. 8. Prior to the issuance of Land Use Change Permit, the Applicant shall obtain a Driveway Access Permit from the Garfield County Road and Bridge Department. A copy of this permit shall be submitted to the Garfield County Planning Department. 9. Prior to the issuance of a Land Use Change Permit, the Applicant shall conduct a geotechnical investigation of CR 103 and based on this analysis, provide a pavement section design to the Garfield County Planning Department for review. The portion of CR 103 that is to be analyzed commences 200 feet north of the Cerise Mine's access road to SH 82 and this portion of road shall be reconstructed to the proposed engineered design. 10. Prior to the issuance of a Land Use Change Permit, the Applicant shall enter into an agreement with the County pursuant to the Garfield County Road and Right - of -Way Use Regulations regarding the improvement of CR 103, 11. Prior to the issuance of a Land Use Change Permit, the Applicant shall obtain the appropriate State Highway Access Permit from Colorado Department of Transportation. All conditions of the access permit shall be conditions of this permit. 12. Prior to the issuance of a Land Use Change Permit, the Applicant shall provide Garfield County Planning Department with a Fugitive Air Permit from CDPHE for the entire approved mining site. 13. The reclamation plan of the site shall include using hydro -seeding with hydro - mulching and tackifier for all slopes greater than 5:1 as required by Section 7-840 of the ULUR. 14. The gravel pit shall be allowed to operate Monday through Saturday from 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM with crushing, digging, and heavy hauling allowed from 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM allowing for administrative and maintenance activities to take place 43 until 8:00 PM. There shall be no operations on Sunday except emergency maintenance. 15. During periods of operation, all noise generated from the operation shall not exceed the CRS §25-12-103 such that noise shall not exceed dB(A) for specified adjacent land uses. 16. The Applicant shall implement the following noise mitigation standards: A. 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; B. While constructing these berms, earth moving equipment such as scrappers cannot operate for more than 15 minutes in any one hour while within approximately 100 feet of the permit boundary; C. 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); D. Equip the electrical generators (gen-sets) with commercial grade silencers or better (at least 20 dB of insertion loss); E. Use white noise back up alarms on all Lafarge mobile equipment. Backing up by contractor vehicles not outfitted with these alarms should be minimized; F. Conduct all construction activities during the daytime (7:00 am to 6:00 pm); and, G. Conduct all noise -producing activities associated with operations during the daytime (7:00 am to 6:00 prn). 17. The Operator or Property Owner shall submit an annual report to the County Building and Planning Department with GPS measurements shown on a map showing the current disturbance, what areas have been backfilled, where topsoil stockpiles are located, all site structures, what areas have been seeded, mulched, and what is planned for the ensuing 12 months. 18. The County can request a site inspection with 24 hour's notice to the Operator or Property Owner. Full access to any part of the site will be granted. On request, all paperwork must be shown. 19. A full list of all other permits shall be provided to the County within 24 hours of their request. Any person at any time can call the following agencies directly and request an inspection if they believe a condition of that agencies permit is being violated. A. CDPHE Air Quality Control 303-692-3150 B. CDPHE Water Quality Control 303-692-3500 C. UD Army Corps of Engineers 970-243-1199 D. Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety 303-866-3567 E. CDOT Grand Junction office 970-248-7000 20. The Property Owner and Operator acknowledge that the County has the following performance standards , and failure to comply with such standards could lead to revocation of the Land Use Change Permit: A. All fabrication, service and repair operations shall be conducted within an enclosed building or obscured by a fence, natural topography or landscaping; B. All operations involving loading and unloading of vehicles shall be conducted on private property and shall not be conducted on a public right-of-way; C. All industrial wastes shall be disposed of in a manner consistent with statutes and requirements of CDPHE; 44 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; and, 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 property or which constitutes a public nuisance or hazard. Flaring of gases, aircraft warning signal and reflective painting of storage tanks, or other legal requirements for safety or air pollution control measures shall be exempted from this provision. 21. 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. 22. The reclamation bond that shall be held by the DRMS shall be for the reclamation plan approved by the BOCC. No Land Use Change Permit shall be issued until proof of the bond is in place. 23. Prior to the issuance of a Land Use Change Permit, the Applicant shall provide a cost estimate for the irrigation system to the Garfield County Planning Department for review. The DRMS financial security bond shall be updated to reflect this cost and a copy of the revised bond submitted to the County Planning Department. 24. All of the conditions of the County permit and the State Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety are binding. The Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety can withhold the reclamation bond if the final reclamation is not executed according to the plans. 25. The Applicant shall be required to submit a report annually, until such time as the release of the reclamation bond, of the gravel operation for Garfield County Planning Staff review. Upon review of any deficiencies pursuant to conditions of approval or other local, state, or federal permits, Staff may forward the report to the BOCC for full review of the Major Impact Review Permit. This report shall include 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 map shall be overlain on the approved site pian which includes the approved phasing area locations, and mine permit boundary. Copies of annual reports required by and submitted to other agencies will be attached to the annual report submitted to the Garfield County Planning Department. 26_ The Applicant shall provide a copy of the applicable 404 permit to the Garfield County Planning Department prior to the issuance of a Land Use Change Permit. 27. The Applicant shall meet all applicable Colorado Department of Public Health regulations for a non -transient, non -community water system when the number of individuals using the potable water well is more than 24. 45 28. Prior to the issuance of a Land Use Change Permit, the Applicant shall submit copies of all equipment relocation notices to the Garfield County Planning Department. 29. Prior to the issuance of a Land Use Change Permit, the Applicant shall provide the Garfield County Planning Department a will serve letter from Qwest. 30. Prior to the issuance of a Land Use Change Permit an Emergency Preparedness Plan shall be submitted to the Garfield County Planning Department for review.. 31. Prior to the issuance of a Land Use Change Permit, the Applicant shall submit to the Garfield Planning Department a final Stormwater Management Plan. 32. Prior to the issuance of a Land Use Change Permit, the Applicant shall drill the two permanent permitted wells (Permit Numbers 74795-F and 74796-F) and provide the results demonstrating quantity and quality of both wells to the Garfield County Planning Department for their review. 33. After drilling the permanent water wells as described in Condition 32, the water system design for the office/scale house shall be evaluated and any modifications to the proposed design shall be submitted to the Garfield County Planning Department for review. This task shall occur prior to the issuance of Land Use Change Permit. 34. Prior to the issuance of a Land Use Change Permit, the Applicant shall have the two wells installed as Monitoring Hole Notice 40396 (TVV-1 and TW -2) permitted as monitoring wells. Provide Garfield County Planning Department with the new permits. 35. The Applicant shall contact Bill Blakeslee, Water Commissioner, when development of the Cerise Mine impacts Crystal Spring Creek. 36. The site shall have wildlife proof dumpsters. VIII. RECOMMENDED MOTION I move to approve a Land Use Change Permit through the Major Impact Review for the "Extraction" of gravel on 65.48 acres, on property owned by Clifford Cerise Ranch Company, LLLP with the Staff recommended findings and conditions. 46