HomeMy WebLinkAbout20050686.tiff REFERRAL LIST --� ORIGINAL
NAME:Aggregate Industries-WCR, Inc. CASE NUMBER:
USR-1350
REFERRALS SENT: July 19,2001 REFERRALS TO BE RECEIVED BY:August 9, 2001
COUNTY TOWNS and CITIES
_Attorney Ault
_X Health Department _X_Brighton
Extension Service Broomfield
Emergency Management Office Dacono
_X Sheriff's Office Eaton
_X Public Works Erie
Housing Authority Evans
Airport Authority Firestone
_X Building Inspection _Fort Lupton
_X Code Enforcement Frederick
STATE Garden City
X_Division of Water Resources Gilcrest
Geological Survey Greeley
Department of Health _Grover
_X Department of Transportation Hudson
_X_Historical Society _Johnstown
_X_Water Conservation Board Keenesburg
Oil and Gas Conservation Commission Kersey
Division of Wildlife: LaSalle
Loveland Lochbuie
_X East of 1-25 Greeley Longmont
_X Division of Minerals/Geology Mead
FIRE DISTRICTS Milliken
Ault F-1 New Raymer
Berthoud F-2 Northglenn
Briggsdale F-24 _Nunn
_X_Brighton F-3 Pierce
Eaton F-4 Platteville
Fort Lupton F-5 Severance
Galeton F-6 Thornton
Hudson F-7 Windsor
Johnstown F-8
La Salle F-9
Mountain View F-10 COUNTIES
Milliken F-11 _X Adams
Nunn F-12 Boulder
Pawnee F-22 Larimer
Platteville F-13
_Platte Valley F-14 FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
Poudre Valley F-15 _X US Army Corps of Engineers
Raymer F-2 USDA-APHIS Veterinary Service
Southeast Weld F-16 Federal Aviation Administration
Windsor/Severance F-17 Federal Communication Commission
Wiggins F-18
Union Colony F-20 SOIL CONSERVATION DISTRICTS
Brighton
OTHER Fort Collins
School District Greeley
^ _X_Huett Seepage Ditch Company Longmont
_X_Brighton Ditch Company _X_West Adams m
_x US Fish&Wildlife = _
COMMISSION/BOARD MEMBER W
X_John Folsom
2005-0686 AMON
1114‘........N)
' , Weld County Referral
akJuly 19, 2001
COLORADO
The Weld County Department of Planning Services has received the following item for review:
Applicant Aggregate Industries-WCR, Case Number USR-1350
Inc.
Please Reply By August 9, 2001 Planner Kim Ogle
Project A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for Mineral
Resource Development facilities including Sand and Gravel Mining in the A
(Agricultural)Zone District.
Legal Part of the S2 NE4, W2 SE4, E2 SE4 Section 25, Ti N, R67W, part of the SW4
NW4, W2 SW4 Section 30, T1N, R66W and part of the NW4 NE4 of Section 36,
T1N, R67W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
Location %2 mile North of WCR 2; east/west of and adjacent to WCR 23.5; 1/4 mile south of
WCR 6.
Parcel Number 1469 25 000016, 1469 25 000018, 1469 25 100002, 1469 36 000037, 1469 36
000029, 1469 36 000038, & 1471 30 000002
The application is submitted to you for review and recommendation. Any comments or recommendation
you consider relevant to this request would be appreciated. Please reply by the above listed date so that
we may give full consideration to your recommendation. Any response not received before or on this date
may be deemed to be a positive response to the Department of Planning Services. If you have any further
questions regarding the application, please call the Planner associated with the request.
Weld County Planning Commission Hearing (if applicable) September 18, 2001
❑ We have reviewed the request and find that it does/does not comply with our Comprehensive Plan
St We have reviewed the request and find no conflicts with our interests.
❑ See attached letter.
•
Comments: • t
1bCn.Q. rurvi.
Signature Y' (VI[Yl Date c 1Y�J nt
�
Agency 11 jlhc.la
+Weld County Planning Dept. +1555 N. 17th Ave. Greeley,CO.80631 +(970)353-6100 ext.3540 +(970)304 EXHIBIT
it
Weld County Planning Dept,
JUL 3 1 ?opt
,--- (it ils,---- RECEIVED
Weld -County Referral
111 ' July 19, 2001
C.
COLORADO
The Weld County Department of Planning Services has received the following item for review:
Applicant Aggregate Industries-WCR, Case Number USR-1350
Inc.
Please Reply By August 9, 2001 Planner Kim Ogle
Project A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for Mineral
Resource Development facilities including Sand and Gravel Mining in the A
(Agricultural)Zone District.
Legal Part of the S2 NE4, W2 SE4, E2 SE4 Section 25, Ti N, R67W, part of the SW4
NW4, W2 SW4 Section 30, T1 N, R66W and part of the NW4 NE4 of Section 36,
T1N, R67W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
Location 1/2 mile North of WCR 2; east/west of and adjacent to WCR 23.5; 1/4 mile south of
WCR 6.
Parcel Number 1469 25 000016, 1469 25 000018, 1469 25 100002, 1469 36 000037, 1469 36
000029, 1469 36 000038, & 1471 30 000002
The application is submitted to you for review and recommendation. Any comments or recommendation
you consider relevant to this request would be appreciated. Please reply by the above listed date so that
we may give full consideration to your recommendation. Any response not received before or on this date
may be deemed to be a positive response to the Department of Planning Services. If you have any further -
questions regarding the application, please call the Planner associated with the request.
Weld County Planning Commission Hearing (if applicable) September 18, 2001
❑ We have reviewed the request and find that it does/does not comply with our Comprehensive Plan
We have reviewed the request and find no conflicts with our interests.
See attached letter.
Comments:Signature / C Date /r7
?/i, -(r7/
Agency - 1 Z-P EXHIBIT
+Weld County Planning Dept. +1555 N. 17th Ave. Greeley,CO.80631 +(970)353-6100 ext.3540 +(970)304 I
r
f 4 T_OF-.
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
/e t^ CORPS OF ENGINEERS, OMAHA DISTRICT
DENVER REGULATORY OFFICE, 9307 S. PLATTE CANYON ROAD
H ' I E..' I^
mI LITTLETON, COLOFanO 80128-6901
July 25, 2001
Weld County Planning Dept.
Mr. Kim Ogle
Weld County Planning Department
1555 N. 171°Ave. uJL. Z 7 2.00.1
Greeley,Colorado 80631
RE: Aggregate Industries-WCR, Case No. USR-1350 RECEIVED
Corps File No. 200080189
Dear Mr. Ogle:
Reference is made to the above-mentioned activity located in the SE 1 of Section 25, Township
1 North,Range 67 West; SW %of Section 30,Township 1 North, Range 66 West; and the NE '/4 of
Section 36, Township 1 North, Range 67 West, Weld County, Colorado.
Our office is aware of activities at this site. Mr. William Schenderlein of Applegate Group, Inc.
i- on behalf of Aggregate Industries-WCR, Inc. has been informed of the need for Department of the Army
permits at this project site and has acted accordingly.
If there are any questions concerning this matter, please contact Mr. Terry McKee at(303) 979-
4120 and reference Corps File No. 200080189.
Sincerely,
J. SaeGaPtilit:
a Timothy T. Carey
Chief,Denver Regulatory Office
tin
EXHIBIT
07/30/01 10:26 FAX 303 275 2371 US FISH & WILDLIFE a 002
OP 74,
an' Y United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
� •' Ecological Services
14 Colorado Field Office
755 Parfet Street, Suite 361
Lakewood, Colorado 80215
IN REPLY REFER TO:
ES/CO:COE-Omaha
Mail Stop 65412
MAY 10 2001
Tim Carey,Project Manager
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Denver Regulatory Office
9307. South Plate Canyon Road
Littleton, Colorado 80128-6901
Application No.: 200080189
Applicant: Aggregate Industries
Dear Mr. Carey:
Based on the authority conferred to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) by the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act(48 Stat. as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.), the Service offers
the following comments which constitute the report of the Department of the Interior to the
application referenced above, Aggregate Industries' request to place fill materials into
Wattenbera Lakes, nearby wetlands, and the South Platte River. The proposed work is
located in Sections 25 and 36,Township 1 North, Range 67 West, south of the Town of
Wattenburg, in Weld County, Colorado. The stated purpose of the work is to mine gravel and
construct water storage reservoirs.
After reviewing the Public Notice issued March 27, 2001, and conducting a site visit on April
17, 2001,the Service believes that substantial and unacceptable impacts.to aquatic resources
of national importance may result from the proposed project. We consider the proposed
project site a"fligh Value Resource Category#2 Wetland" according to the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service National Mitigation Policy. The designation criteria for Resource Category
2 is "habitat to be impacted is of high quality for the evaluation species and is relatively
scarce or becoming scarce on a national basis or in the ecoregion section." We recommend
denial of this permit by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Site/Project Description
The Individual Permit Application(Application) for Wattenburg Lakes, submitted by
TuttleApplegate, Inc., provides background on the 421-acre site. The site is entirely within
the 100-year floodplain of the South Platte River. Current land uses include livestock grazing,
oil and gas extraction, and a tree faun. Aquolls and Aquants are the dominant soils on the
site. These poorly drained soils are formed in alluvium and, according to the Application,
"the potential is good for development of wetland wildlife habitat and also as a source of
sand and gravel." The principal wetland features on the site are the Lupton Slough, the Huett
Ditch and the South Platte River. Wetland plant communities on site (excluding those along
the South Platte) are dominated by cattail, saltgrass, and bullrush. Cottonwood forest is
present near the South Platte River.
The project is a mining operation to be conducted in four phases:
• Phase 1 - Mine Area 1 (upland)to begin in 2001 and be completed in 6 months (a
future wetland mitigation site).
EXHIBIT
I _AS_
07/30/01 10:27 FAX 303 275 2371 US FISH & WILDLIFE Iooa
Page 2
• Phase 2 -Pond 2 to begin the first year and continue for approximately 5.5 years (a
future water reservoir).
• Phase 3 - Pond 1 to begin upon completion of Phase 2 mid continue for 2 years (a
future water reservoir).
• • Phase 4 - Mine Area 2 (upland)to begin presumably after Phase 3 and to be
completed in 6 months (a future wetland mitigation site).
In addition to the excavation and storage of overburden and sand/gravel on various portions
of the site during mining operations, a temporary fill in the active channel of the South Platte
River will occur during construction of a conveyor that will transport materials east across
the South Platte to a processing site. Also, the existing road crossing of Huett Ditch will be
widened to accommodate vehicles and an aggregate conveyor. Overburden and clay will be
compacted to form impervious pond side slopes upon completion of mining at Ponds 1 and 2.
Excavation of Ponds 1 and 2 will result in impacts to approximately 92 acres of wetlands. In
addition, temporary impacts to wetlands will total 0.17 acre and temporary impacts to waters
of the South Platte will total 0.6 acre.
Wetland Resources/Functional Assessment
A report entitled Environmental and Functional Assessment of the Wattenberg Lakes,
Colorado Site (Assessment),which included a Hydrogeomorphic Approach to wetland
assessment (HG , was produced for the project by Johnson Environmental Consulting and
included in appendices to the Application. Both floodplain and wetland functions on the
property were assessed using I UM.
The Assessment repeatedly emphasizes that scores of floodplain and wetland functions do
not equate to values:
It is important to understand that the HGM approach evaluates floodplain
and wetland functioning. It does not ascribe any societal value to the
evaluated systems, and poorly functioning systems could potentially be
deemed of high value to society based on regional conditions. Assignment of
value to functionally evaluated areas must be done by landowners, regulatory
agencies, and the public.
The Assessment concludes that the site has been subject to alterations and floodplain
functions are impaired. However, alluding to potential values:
Overall, Wattenburg Lakes FPAA is a large, but poorly functioning floodplain
system. The system has been significantly degraded by current land use and
development, and by the regulation of'South Platte River flows. Still it
performs floodplain functions to a higher degree than much of the South
Plane floodplain in the Front Range vicinity. The Wattenburg site is also
part of a dwindling number of open areas that still exist on the South Platte in
this area.
In specific regard to wetlands, which are the focus of this application, the Assessment
concludes that"individual wetlands have been less impacted than the floodplain as a whole."
In general, where wetland functions were judged to be degraded, lack of connectivity to the
South Platte appeared a significant contributor. Lupton Slough is the wetland complex on
site that would be most directly impacted by the proposed project. In reference to function
versus value of tall, emergent wetlands which are a principal component of the slough,the
Assessment states:
07/30/01 10:28 FAX 303 275 2371 US FISH & WILDLIFE Z004
Page 3
Because they are not connected in a continuous habitat corridor, but rather
function as wetland "islands, " the functionality of these wetlands decreases.
However, due to regional wetland losses and the relative scarceness of tall,
emergent wetlands, their value may be relatively high.
Portions of the Assessment quoted above emphasize that HGM is a useful tool for assessing
floodplain and wetland functions, but these functions must be placed in proper perspective
when judging the value of resources present or to be impacted. We believe that the author of
the Assessment clearly conveyed that biological and societal values of the wetlands on site,
and the flood plain complex as a whole, are high.
Fish and Wildlife Resources
Comments in the Application regarding wildlife are rather generic but imply a wide range of
wildlife likely use the site. While substantial field work supported the HGM assessment,no
apparent effort was made to directly monitor wildlife use of urisdictional wetlands or other
habitats on site. The Colorado Division of Wildlife's (CROW)"Significant Wildlife Habitat
Maps"depict the entire site as goose foraging and winter range, duck foraging area, and
pheasant range. In addition, the immediate South Platte River corridor is mapped as an area
of winter bald eagle concentration, duck winter concentration, great blue heron foraggimng
leopard frog range, turkey range, white pelican range, mule deer winter range, and wb ite
tailed deer winter range. Consistent with CDOW's mapping of significant wildlife habitats,
the Service views remaining natural habitats (and particularly wetlands) within the South
Platte River floodplain as high quality habitat for a variety of wildlife species.
One ofthel0 functions addressed in the HGM assessment is "maintaining characteristic
vertebrate habitats!' While the method developed for calculating scores for this function is
somewhat subjective and relates largely to a series of vegetation parameters, it is the function
most closely associated with fish and wildlife values on the site. Scores calculated for the
"vertebrate habitats" function for various wetlands on site ranged from 0.6 to 0.8 on a scale
of 0 to 1.0. Wetlands in the Lupton Slough rated highest on site for this function, with an
index score of 0.8. Its relatively high score for this function supports the Service's opinion
that Lupton Slough supports high quality wetlands,based on its size, diversity, function, and
value to wildlife.
The wetlands associated with Lupton Slough extend approximately 1.5 miles from south to
north in a serpentine fashion. The slough is dominated by tall emergent,wet meadow, and
saltgrass cover types, creating a diverse wetland complex. It supports the majority of tall
emergent wetlands on the site, as well as substantial acreage of tall emergent wetlands in
parts of the slough that are off of the site. Portions of the slough are impacted by grazing.
According to the Assessment, despite dry conditions in 2000, monitoring wells within the
slough showed " a flat hydrograph with standing water being present throughout the
summer" (well 11) and "a general trend of increasing water table heights throughout the
summer, with fluctuations apparently resulting from local weather events" (wells 7 and 9).
Based on no identified surface water source, the Assessment concluded that Lupton Slough
"must be supported by significant groundwater sources."
During the brief April 17, 2001, interagency site visit, a variety of wildlife was observed on
the site. Wetland species observed along Lupton Slough included great blue heron, common
snipe (displaying), Canada goose,mallard, and numerous territorial red-winged blackbirds.
Brief observations at Lupton Slough on April 28, 2001, documented use by cinnamon teal
and northern harrier (a courting pair). A comprehensive survey of wildlife associated with
the slough would likely document substantial use by wetland-dependent or wetland-
07/30/01 10:28 FAX 303 275 2371 US FISH & WILDLIFE 1005
Page 4
associated species including birds such as rails,bitterns, herons, shorebirds, songbirds such as
marsh wrens and yellowthroats, and additional waterfowl; mammals including muskrat; and a
variety of reptiles and amphibians.
Lupton Slough likely provides habitat for waterfowl year-round. Diverse wetlands present
provide nestmg habitat for mallards,teal, and other dabbling ducks_ Waterfowl foraging
habitat on the site may receive substantial use both in the breeding season and during
migration. Winter use is probably determined by the degree to which open seep wetlands
within the slough persist in cold winter weather. In general,the slough s proximity to the
South Platte River and nearby agricultural lands enhances its value to waterfowl and other
wildlife.
On the April 17, 2001, site visit, Huett Ditch held mallard, wood duck, and greater
yellowlegs. While Huett Ditch appears to support valuable wildlife habitat, portions of it
have been adversely impacted by heavy grazing.
Threatened and Endangered Species
Possible presence of the federally-threatened Preble's meadow jumping mouse (Preble's) on
the project site was addressed in the Application. While the Application stated that
"qualifing habitat was not encountered within the proposed project limits," our review of a
June 16 2000, letter to the Service from Robert Stoecker of Stoecker Ecological Consultants
and an August 8, 2000, reply from the Service to Mr. Stoecker indicates that this conclusion
is not valid. Mr. Stoecker's letter states that"The riparian along the South Platte does have
potential Preble's meadow jumping mouse habitat,but it is my understanding that the
gravelling operations will be more than 300 feet from the riparian corridor." The Service's
�.
response stated"the Service finds that report acceptable and agrees that Preble's habitat is not
present within the subject area(described as greater than 300 feet from the riparian corridor
along the South Platte River)." Our review of the proposed project suggests that mining
would occur as close as 50 feet from cottonwood forest and other riparian vegetation
immediately along the South Platte. In addition,the proposed conveyor system would cross
the South Platte. Accordingly, it is our conclusion that the proposed project may adversely
affect Preble's habitat, if occupied habitat occurs along the South Platte on the project site.
We urge the applicant review project plans and Mr. Stoecker's determination of habitat, and
take steps to resolve this issue.
The federally-threatened bald eagle is known to use the South Platte River corridor in the
area of the proposed project. Eagle use occurs primarily in the winter months. During
winter, bald eagles likely use the project area for hunting prairie dogs,waterfowl, and fish. In
recentyears a significant communal night roost of bald eagles has been documented along the
Platte River north of Wattenburg.
Since 1978, the Service has taken the position that Federal agency actions resulting in water
depletions to the Platte River system are likely to jeopardize the continued existence of one or
more Federally-listed threatened or endangered species and adversely modify or destroy
designated critical habitat along the Platte River in Nebraska. Any depletions resulting from
this project(including evaporative loss from reservoirs and created wetlands) that are not
addressed by the applicant through an appropriate augmentation plan may require review by
the Corps consistent with provisions of the ESA.
The black-tailed prairie dog, categorized as"warranted but precluded" by the Service, is
present in some upland portions of the site that are proposed for mining.
07/30/01 10:29 FAX 303 275 2371 US FISH & WILDLIFE a 006
Page 5
Project Impacts
The proposed project (Alternative IV)would impact 92 acres of the approximately 111 acres
of wetlands on site (about 83 percent) along with approximately 84 percent of wetland
functions as scored by the HGM analysis. Among wetland cover types present, 19.1 acres of
tall emergent wetlands, 34.6 acres of wet meadow, and 77.1 acres of salt-gass meadow(only
partly J'unsdictional)would be directly impacted. The project would largely obliterate Lupton
Slough,which the Service considers the most valuable wetland on the site, and would
fragment those portions of the slough remaining off of the site. Direct impacts to Huett Ditch
and the South Platte River would be temporary and relatively minor. Extensive upland areas
within the floodplain, including those supporting black-tailed prairie dogs, would also be
impacted.
Secondary impacts of the project to wetlands on or off the site are largely ignored in the
Application or assumed not to occur, despite the fact that excavation and lining of reservoirs
will undoubtedly alter hydrology both temporarily and permanently, on and off of the site.
Unless credible evidence to the contrary is produced, the Service must conclude that grave
impacts to remaining portions of the Lupton Slough wetlands will occur. Dewatering of pits
will draw down groundwater levels in adjacent wetlands, cottonwood groves and other
habitats. No measures are proposed to address these impacts. Creation of an impermeable
reservoir walls within Lupton Slough and just west of Huett Ditch may significantly alter
hydrology in these wetlands. In discussion of a non-seleted alternative the Application states
that"the pond liners may prevent groundwater from reaching the wetlands adjacent to the
ponds.
Based on the recent Supreme Court ruling, isolation of some remaining wetlands on and off
the site may render them non jurisdictional under section 404. We request that the Corps
address whether this occurrence is possible on site.
Of significant concern is the cumulative impact of this and other aggregate extraction projects
to wetland and floodplain values along the South Platte River. In portions of Weld County
and Adams County,the floodplain of the South Platte River in dominated by previously
mined pits (now mostly forming lakes and reservoirs), active pits, and agricultural and other
lands on which future pits are planned. To date, applications for section 404 permits for such
projects appear to have been processed with little regard to cumulative or offsite impacts.
Numerous other projects may not fall under Corps jurisdiction but may have substantial
indirect impacts to wetlands and impacts to floodplain function along the South Platte. We
strongly encourage the Corps to address cumulative impacts when viewing section 404
permit applications for aggregate mines in the South Platte floodplain.
Lastly, issuance of a permit for the project, as proposed, would allow direct, secondary and
cumulative impacts to an unprecedented acreage of wetlands. The Service believes that
issuance of such a permit would set a unacceptable standard,that for aggregate extraction
projects, serious efforts need not be made to avoid impacts to complex and valuable wetland
systems along the Platte River.
Alternatives Analysis
The applicant, who proposes to impact 92 acres of viable wetlands in order to pursue a non-
water dependent project,would presumably require a comprehensive and persuasive
alternatives analysis. The one presented is neither. The Application states that Aggregate
Industries recently purchased the property. If this is the case,they should have been fully
aware of the wetland constraints on the site at time of purchase. Constraints imposed by the
07/30/01 10:29 FAX 303 275 2371 US FISH & WILDLIFE 2007
Page 6
dual project purpose (aggregate extraction and reservoir creation), lack of an alternative site
analysis for either project purpose,no discussion of specific aggregate and reservoir needs
and why they could not be met in combination both on and off site, a flawed economic
analysis, and no significant attempt at wetland avoidance,have produced an alternatives
analysis that we consider inadequate. While many aspects of the alternatives analysis require
explanation by the applicant, our comments are limited to the most obvious issues. We
anticipate that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)will provide comprehensive
comments.
If the applicant were denied a permit to impact any wetland on site,would a modified plan of
aggregate excavation and reservoir creation on site go forward nonetheless? When this
question was presented by the Service at the onsite meeting, no definitive answer could be
given by the applicant and their representatives. This points to the shortcomings of the
economic and logistical analyses contained in the alternatives analysis. If an alternative
impacting no wetlands might be viable, how can an argument be presented that impacting 92
acres of wetland is necessary from an economic or logistical basis? The economic analysis of
various alternatives is based on reduction of profits compared to a maximum profit scenario,
with no explanation as to why lesser profits would not be acceptable. For example,
avoidance of wetlands (Alternative V) would produce 44 percent less profit. There is no
indication that such a level of profit would not support a viable project.
The proposed mitigation includes construction of 90 acres of wetlands within uplands on and
near the site and an additional 25 acres of wetlands in Thornton. An option of creating water
storage reservoirs instead of mitigation wetlands at these same should be explored. On its
face, such a strategy would appear to offset need for impacting wetlands on site, at least for
creation of water storage reservoirs..
Mitigation Proposal
Given the inadequacies of the proposed project and the Service's recommendation for permit
denial, it appears premature to address the proposed mitigation in detail. In brief,
• We see no explanation or detail regarding the proposed 25-acre wetland creation in
Thornton.
• The mitigation plan states that"existing levees along the South Platte River may be
removed (emphasis added). The plan describes other mitigation activities that
"may" occur. If there is no commitment to these aspects of the proposed mitigation,
they should not be assumed in assessing this plan. Since improving connectivity
between the South Platte and the floodplain is a major thrust of the mitigation plan,
how would maintenance of the existing levee affect the plan?
• Since they are located entirely within the 100-year floodplain, at what frequency will
flooding of created mitigation wetlands occur? To what depth would they be
inundated in a 100-year flood event? In light of certain future flooding, does their
close proximity of created wetlands to the river channel threaten their long-term
existence?
• Will mitigation always be completed concurrently with construction impacts? Given
that mine area 2 (a proposed mitigation site)will be completed last,will this pose a
problem?
• In Appendix D of the HGM analysis (table on next to last page), the computation of
existing and post-project (including mitigation)wetland functions is confusing. Post-
07/30/01 10:30 FAX 303 275 2371 US FISH & WILDLIFE Zoos
Page 7
project wetland acres in wetlands B, C, and D have increased by 2.13, 5.70, and 3.11
acres, respectively. We find no corresponding mitigation that would account for
increases in jurisdictional wetland extent for these specific wetlands_ Since this
difference accounts for about 10 percent of the calculated wetland function score, an
explanation of these changes would appears critical to the analysis.
• What is the proposed timing for removal of cattle from wetlands on the project site?
• We note that the I3GM analysis shows that the vertebrate habitat function of wetlands
on the site is reduced by approximately 7%after completion of the mitigation.
Considering temporal loss of resources over the 9 or 10 years of the project,
additional tune needed for mitigation sites to reach their potential, and uncertainty of
complete mitigation success, it appears that significant wildlife values will be lost
under the proposed mitigation plan.
Summary/Recommendations
The proposed non-water dependent project includes approximately 92 acres of permanent
direct impacts to wetlands and the wildlife they support. In addition, we believe that
substantial indirect impacts to wetlands would result from fragmentation and altered
hydrology. The proposed plan falls within a pattern of past, present, and future aggregate
mining along the South Platte that should be addressed in a more comprehensive way. For
these reasons we recommend denial of the a permit for the project, as proposed.
We are willing to work with the applicant, the Corps, and others to pursue a modified project
design that is both protective of resources on site and accommodates the applicant's needs.
We suggest that the applicant work to:
• Develop an alternative that truly avoids wetlands to the maximum extent practicable,
and protects and enhances the functional integrity and wetland values of the Lupton
Sough.
• Enhance connectivity among the South Platte and other area wetlands.
• Resolve issues regarding Preble's and other threatened and endangered species on
site.
• Preform hydrologic studies to predict secondary impacts of excavations and slurry
walls from created reservoirs.
• Encourage a broader evaluation of mining in regard to wetland and floodplain values
of the South Platte River system, with participation of the aggregate industry, Corps,
EPA, Service, Colorado Department of Natural Resources, and pertinent counties.
If the Service can be of further assistance, please contact Peter Plage of this office at(303)
275-2370.
Since y,
,,,,
LeRoy Carlson
Colo o Field Supervisor
07/30/01 10:30 FAX 303 275 2371 US FISH & WILDLIFE IJ009
Page8
cc_ R6/ES (D. Buechler)
CDOW, Fort Collins, CO (M. Sherman)
EPA, Denver, CO (G. Rodreguez)
CDPI-I, Denver, CO
Plage
aenPete/404/2000,SO 189
•
w ��
�� 185
°� i9/eld' Count Referral
�� � Y
'veldt°Linty Planni•
ng DePtJuly 19, 2001
imp
C :-E3 072001
COLORADO RECEIVED
The Weld County Department of Planning Services has received the following item for review:
Applicant Aggregate Industries-WCR, Case Number US R-1350
Inc.
Please Reply By August 9, 2001 Planner Kim Ogle
Project A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for Mineral
Resource Development facilities including Sand and Gravel Mining in the A
(Agricultural)Zone District.
Legal Part of the S2 NE4, W2 SE4, E2 SE4 Section 25, Ti N, R67W, part of the SW4
NW4, W2 SW4 Section 30, Ti N, R66W and part of the NW4 NE4 of Section 36,
T1N, R67W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
Location 1/2 mile North of WCR 2; east/west of and adjacent to WCR 23.5; 1/4 mile south of
WCR 6.
Parcel Number 1469 25 000016, 1469 25 000018, 1469 25 100002, 1469 36 000037, 1469 36
000029, 1469 36 000038, & 1471 30 000002
The application is submitted to you for review and recommendation. Any comments or recommendation
you consider relevant to this request would be appreciated. Please reply by the above listed date so that
we may give full consideration to your recommendation. Any response not received before or on this date
may be deemed to be a positive response to the Department of Planning Services. If you have any further
questions regarding the application, please call the Planner associated with the request.
Weld County Planning Commission Hearing (if applicable) September 18, 2001
❑ We have reviewed the request and find that it does/does not comply with our Comprehensive Plan
❑ We have reviewed the request and find no conflicts with our interests.
❑ See attached letter.
Comments: '1\30 COYy\tp kL '}. coL4 vYv4 •
Signature ( �u -� — Date g/1/0 /
Agency /1�J1 C -- ACCes 5
+Weld County Planning Dept. +1555 N. 17th Ave. Greeley,CO.80631 +(970)353-6100 ext.3540 +(970)30• -•
EXHIBIT
RUG-06 01 14:40 FR0M:CD0W 303-498-9742 TO:970 304 6498 PAGE:02
STATE OF COLORADO
BM Owens,Governor (A0%
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
O.
DIVISION OF WILDLIFE 3 ` 40
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY Ekteupv 3t At ~
Russell George, Director
6060 Broadway For llildlrfe-
Denver, Colorado 80216 For People
Telephone: (303)297-1192
July 10, 2001
Carl Mount
Division of Minerals& Geology
1313 Sherman Street Room 215
Denver, CO 80203
Re: Aggregate Industries—WCR,Inc.; Wattenberg Lakes, File No. M-2001-008
Dear Mr. Mount:
The following constitute the comments of the Colorado Division of Wildlife. Mahe Sherman(Field
Habitat Biologist) and Mike Babler(District Wildlife Manager) have reviewed this Reclamation Permit
Application Consideration and made field visits to the site with the applicant and permitting contact on
March 2000 and April 20, 2001 as part of the 404 Application's Public Notice process.
We are extremely concerned over the immensity of acres of wetlands(91.61 that will be
permanently impacted by this miningapplication to excavate aggregate and construct water
storage reservoirs. We cannot recall a mining proposal in recent years for proposals across Weld,
Larirner, and Boulder counties that resulted in the permanent impact of wetland acreage even one-third
(-30.53 acres) in size as this proposal. We recommend the Division of Minerals and Geology please
consider further avoidance to permanent impacts to wetlands by considering alternative minim proposals
by the applicant at this site. Such alternatives were presented
in the recent 404 Permit Application to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. See `o`^F M /T r (elks v- kke/S.
Attached are letters from both the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in Denver (USEPA) (by
Richard Claggett)and the U.S. Fish.and Wildlife Service (by LeRoy Carbon)to the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers' Denver Regulatory Office (USAC) regarding these agencies comments pertaining to the
recent Public Notice for a 404 Permit. I have also attached a letter from the USEPA to the USAC's
Omaha District office which references serious concerns about the proposed mining project, The
Colorado Division of Wildlife are in total agreement with the concerns stated in these letters and wishes
you take into consideration all potential negative impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitat contained in
these letters.
We recommend that if wetlands will be impacted then the operator limit disturbance to wetlands and
riparian habitat to between September 15 to April 15 to avoid the probable disturbance to bird species
that may be using this area during the critical breeding season.
Note that the Division of Wildlife does not have information on potential threatened/endangered plants
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES,Greg E.Walther,Etoacuttre Director
WILDLIFE COMMISSION,Bernard L.Blade,Jr.,Chanman • Rick Enstom,Vioe.Channan • Phdp Jam EXHIBIT
Members.Torn Burke • Maik Lae/alley • Marianna Raf000ubs • Robert Shoemaker • Olue V.
$3 �_
AUG-06 01 14:40 FROM:CDOW 303-498-9742 TO:970 304 6498 PAGE:03
or invertebrates which may occur at this site. For plant or invertebrate information,you might wish to
contact:
Colorado Natural Heritage Program
254 General Services Building
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, CO 80523
ph: (970)491-1309 FAX: (970)491-0279
The Division of Wildlife appreciates this opportunity to comment on this mining project. If you have any
questions, please contact me at(970)472-4435. Thank you.
Sincerelyy,,o, "
Scott Hoover, Action NE Regional Manager
by Mile Sherman, Field Habitat Biologist
Cc: Rick Moss,NE Senior Habitat Biologist
Katie Kinney, Area Wildlife Manager
Mike Babler,District Wildlife Manager
STATE OF COLORADO
Bill Owens,Governor cP"" 0O
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES • Sr,� •
DIVISION OF WILDLIFE 0,ao It �
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
JI
°% 5$4,r Orr RuaaeN George,Director 7p
DDenver,Broadway
Colorado 80216 '�'A� For Wrldlife-
Telephone:(303)297-1192 T a VSO. For People
C
August 10, 2001 c`1,2Aft
�
Kim Ogle G�
Weld County Planning Dept.
1555 N. 17th Ave.
Greeley, CO 80631
RE: Case Number USR-1350—Wattenburg Lakes Sand and Gravel Mine
Dear Mr. Ogle:
These comments are intended to supplement the letters already submitted by Mike Sherman and Mike
Babler, as well as U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. I was the District Wildlife Manager in the Wattenburg
area for four years, from 1995-1999. During that time I began a Bald Eagle monitoring project along the
South Platte River for the purpose of identifying locations of Bald Eagle night roosts and the numbers of
r eagles utilizing these roosts.
Observations conducted during the winters of 1996-2001 have consistently included Bald Eagles hunting
and roosting in the vicinity of the project area. In addition,the Colorado Bird Observatory identified a
night roost near WCR 6 on the river during the winter of 1996-1997 and have data from the monitoring
work they have conducted at that location. Our data indicates heavy and consistent usage by Bald Eagles
in the project area, most recently last winter when Bald Eagle numbers ranged from 1-14 with an average
of 6.8 during the period of early December 2000 until March 2001.
A sand and gravel operation in close proximity to an established hunting area and night roost would likely
have a detrimental effect to utilization by Bald Eagles. It is strongly recommended that the developer
contract to have monitoring of the roost conducted during an entire winter(December-March) and
demarcating the extent of the roost. This will enable the Division of Wildlife to establish guidelines to
protect this important Bald Eagle hunting/roosting area.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project.
Sincerely,
g 'kege
Sharlene Haeger
District Wildlife Manager
cc: Katie Kinney, Jerry Craig, Mike Sherman, Mike Babler
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES,Greg E.Welcher,Executive Director
WILDLIFE COMMISSION,Pock Enstrom,Chair•Robert Shoemaker, rice-Chair•Marianna Raltopoulos,Secretary
I
MEMORANDUM
TO: Kim Ogle, Planner II DATE: August 6, 2001
r4eA(
I FROM: Donald Carroll, Engineering Administc rd eonty Planning Dept.
CSUBJECT: USR-1350, Aggregate Industries-WCR, Inc.
COLORADO RECEIVED
The Weld County Public Works Department has reviewed this proposal; this project falls primarily under the purview
of the Use by Special Review Standards, Weld County Code, Chapter 23, Article II, Division 4, Section 23. Our
comments and requirements are as follows:
COMMENTS:
WCR 23.50 is designated on the Transportation Plan Map as a local gravel road,which requires a 60-foot right-of-way
at full build out. There is presently a 60-foot right-of-way. This road is maintained by Weld County. Pursuant to the
definition of SETBACK in the Weld County Code, Chapter 23, Article III, Section 23-3-50, the required setback is
measured from the future right-of-way line.
WCR 2.75 and 4.50 also border the proposed facility. These are designated as local gravel roads.
Traffic Counts: Our most current traffic count for WCR 23.50 is 270 vehicles taken in a 24 hour period dated November
27, 2000. The Weld County Public Works Department is in the process of recounting the roads at this location and
should be able to supply a newer traffic count prior to the final Commissioner Hearings.
..EQUIREMENTS:
Traffic Impact Study:The Public Works Department has reviewed your submitted traffic study,which was completed
by Gene Coppola. This traffic study combines Mobile Premix Concrete,Aggregate Industries, and Asphalt Paving,all
located on WCR 6 and access on to U.S. 85. Diane Houghtaling's, Traffic Engineer, memo will reflect any additional
items that need to be addressed prior to approval. Refer to amended USR-921 memo for access requirements.
Improvements Agreement: The applicant has an existing Improvements Agreement for the upgrade and
maintenance of WCR 6 from the pit entrance east to U.S. 85. The traffic study has identified additional intersection
improvements associated with heavy hauling that are required at the entrance and the intersection.
Storm Water Drainage: Ground and storm water will flow along trenches by gravity to the collection basins. Prior to
discharging into the South Platte River,the collected ground water and/or storm water will be evaluated for the presence
of contaminants. This portion of the permit would fall under the jurisdiction of the State of Colorado, as it discharges
into waters of the United States.
WCR 23.50 Improvements Agreement:The applicant is indicating all employee vehicles will access the propertyfrom
WCR 23.50, approximately 3/4 mile north of WCR 2.
Weld County Public Works is proposing to upgrade WCR 23.50 with chemical stabilized base at this location between
WCR 2 and WCR 6.
The applicant shall enter into a Road Improvements Agreement with Weld County Public Works for their proportional
share of traffic which will be utilizing WCR 23.50 for their main access point to the facility. Weld County is presently
counting WCR 23.50, WCR 2.75, and WCR 4.50 to determine the background traffic that exists at this location.
ne applicant is indicating that there will be two inlet structures across WCR 23.50. The applicant shall obtain a Weld
County Right-of-Way Permit prior to doing any excavating within Weld County rights-of-way. P ease mntart 1Nnlr1
County Public Works Office to obtain that permit. EXHIBIT
pc: USR-1350 M:\wpfiles\don-c\planl6usr.wpd 1 la
a
Memorandum
TO: Kim Ogle, Department of Planning Services
9
DATE: August 9, 2001
COLORADO FROM: Charlotte Davis, Environmental Health Services
SUBJECT: USR- 1350, Aggregate Industries-WCR, Inc.
Environmental Health Services has reviewed this proposal for a mineral resource development
facilities including sand and gravel mining. We have no objections to the proposal, however,
We have no objections to the proposal, however, in reviewing the application we have observed
that the applicant is proposing bottled water as the facility's source of water. We do not believe
that bottled water is an"adequate" source of water for this type of operation. The facility plans
to operate at this location for 8 to 12 years, thus we believe a permanent water supply, i.e. well,
community system, etc is more appropriate to serve the sanitary needs of the staff and visitors to
the facility.
We recommend that the following requirements be met prior to allowing the plat to be recorded:
1. Submit an Air Pollution Emission Notice (A.P.E.N.) and Emissions Permit application to
the Air Pollution Control Division, Colorado Department of Health and Environment for
emissions of criteria, hazardous or odorous air pollutants. Sources of such emissions
include but are not limited to the following: sandblasting operations, mining, spray paint
booths, dry cleaners, haul road traffic, composting, boilers and incinerators.
2. Submit a dust abatement plan to the Environmental Health Services, Weld County
Department of Public Health& Environment, for approval prior to operation.
3. The applicant shall provide evidence that the facility has an adequate water supply (i.e.
well or community water system).
4. An individual sewage disposal system is required for the proposed employee/storage
trailer and shall be installed according to the Weld County Individual Sewage Disposal
Regulations. The septic system is required to be designed by a Colorado Registered
Professional Engineer according to the Weld County Individual Sewage Disposal
Regulations. The installation of the septic system shall comply with the Weld County
I.S.D.S. flood plain policy.
EXHIBIT
USR-1350
Aggregate Industries
Page 2
5. All septic systems located on the property shall have appropriate permits from the Weld
County Department of Public Health& Environment. The Environmental Health
Division of the Weld County Department of Public Health& Environment was unable to
locate a septic permit for the septic system serving the existing residential structure on the
property. Any existing septic system which is not currently permitted through the Weld
County Department of Public Health& Environment will require an I.S.D.S. Evaluation
prior to the issuance of the required septic permit. In the event the system is found to be
inadequate, the system must be brought into compliance with current I.S.D.S. regulations.
6. If applicable, a CPDS Permit shall be obtained from the Water Quality Control Division
of the Colorado Department of Health for any proposed discharge into State Waterways.
7. In accordance with the Above Ground Storage Tank Regulations (7 CCR 1101-14) a
spillage retention berm shall be constructed around the tank battery. The volume retained
by the spillage berm should be greater than the volume of the largest tank inside the berm.
Alternative protective measures may be allowed provided they comply with the Above
Ground Storage Tank Regulations.
8. The applicant shall submit a waste handling plan, for approval, to the Environmental
Health Services Division of the Weld County Department of Public Health&
Environment. The plan shall include at a minimum, the following:
1) A list of wastes which are expected to be generated on site (this should include
expected volumes and types of waste generated).
2) A list of the type and volume of chemicals expected to be stored on site.
3) The waste handler and facility where the waste will be disposed (including the
facility name, address, and phone number).
We recommend that the following requirements be incorporated into the permit as "development
standards":
1. The facility shall operate in accordance with the approved dust control plan. The facility
shall have sufficient equipment available to implement appropriate dust control.
Additional control measures shall be implemented as required by the Weld County Health
Officer.
2. The facility shall provide an adequate water supply for drinking and sanitary purposes.
3. All liquid and solid wastes (as defined in the Solid Wastes Disposal Sites and Facilities
Act, 30-20-100.5, C.R.S., as amended) shall be stored and removed for final disposal in a
-- manner that protects against surface and groundwater contamination.
4. No permanent disposal of wastes shall be permitted at this site. This is not meant to
include those wastes specifically excluded from the definition of a"solid waste" in the
USR-1350
Aggregate Industries
Page 3
Solid Wastes Disposal Sites and Facilities Act, 30-20-100.5, C.R.S., as amended.
5. Waste materials shall be handled, stored, and disposed in a manner that controls fugitive
dust, blowing debris, and other potential nuisance conditions.
6. Fugitive dust shall be controlled on this site.
7. This facility shall adhere to the maximum permissible noise levels allowed in the
Industrial Zone as delineated in 25-12-103 C.R.S., as amended.
8. The applicant shall remove, handle, and stockpile overburden, soil, sand and gravel from
the facility area in a manner that will prevent nuisance conditions.
9. If applicable, the applicant shall obtain a stormwater discharge permit from the Colorado
Department of Public Health& Environment, Water Quality Control Division.
10. The operation shall comply with all applicable rules and regulations of the Colorado
Division of Minerals and Geology.
11. All fuel tanks, septic tanks, temporary buildings, and any other hazardous items that
might wash away during flooding shall be securely anchored and adequately flood
proofed to avoid creation of a health hazard.
12. Adequate hand washing and toilet facilities shall be provided for employees.
13. The operation shall comply with the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA).
14. The operation shall comply with the Mine Safety and Health Act(MSHA).
15. Portable toilets may be utilized on sites that are temporary locations of the working face
and portable processing equipment, etc. for up to six months at each location.
STATE OF COLORADO
COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
Division of Minerals and Geology
1313Depa ment f Street,
Resources
m715
1313 Sherman Room
Denver,Colorado 80203
Phone:(303)866-2611
FAX:(303)866-2461 DEPARTMENT OF
August 6,2001 Weld County Planning Dent
egal Location: Pt.S25,T1 N,R67W; NATURAL
s30,T1 N, R66W;S36,T1 N,R67W RESOURCES
2001 CGS Review No.WE-02-0012 Bill Owens
Governor
RECEIVED Greg E.Walcher
Executive Director
Ms. Kim Ogle Michael B.Lang
Division Director
Land Use Planner
Weld County Planning Department Vicki Cowart
a
1555 N. 17th AveGeologist
and Director
Greeley,CO 80631
Re:Wattenburg Lakes,Weld County,Colorado
Dear Ms. Ogle:
In response to your request and in accordance with House Bill1041 (1974), I visited this property to
review the plat. A Weld Co. Special Use Permit application and a Division of Minerals and Geology
(DMG) Regular (112) Operation Reclamation Permit Application, both prepared by Applegate Group,
were included in the referral.
The site is located on the banks of the Platte River and consists of gently sloping grassland and
wetlands. The site's geology consists of flat lying sand and gravel alluvium deposits of the Platte River
underlain by either the Denver or Arapaho formations.
The following condition was observed in the referral and during the site visit:
1) 1) Floodplain. The majority of this site is located in the floodplain of the South Platte River. Since
the intended use of this property does not include any permanent residential structures, threat to
public safety, outside the mining personnel, is minimal. A hydrologic study of the site may reveal
any effect the mining operation and its reclamation plan may have the flow regime South Platte
River.
2) Watertable. Excessive draw-down of the shallow water table resulting from the planned dewatering
procedure for dry-pit operation, may influence water levels and water quality in nearby wells.
Groundwater levels in the area of the mine should be monitored to determine if any nearby wells
are effected by the operation.
In summary, there are no conditions on the site that preclude special use as a gravel mine. Please be
advised that the DMG will be the regulatory authority on the site during all phases of mine operation.
The owner shall be responsible to follow all applicable regulations required by permit(s) issued by the
DMG.
Please feel free to contact me at(303)866-2611 if you have any questions or concerns.
EXHIBIT
h zo
• Page 2 August 6,2001
Sincerely,
#10i ;11/7
Sean P. Gaffney
Geologist
CC: Mr. William Schenderlein, Applegate Group, Inc.
"�■� Weld County Referral
July 19, 2001
Ci
COLORADO
The Weld County Department of Planning Services has received the following item for review:
Applicant Aggregate Industries-WCR, Case Number USR-1350
Inc.
Please Reply By August 9, 2001 Planner Kim Ogle
Project A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for Mineral
Resource Development facilities including Sand and Gravel Mining in the A
(Agricultural)Zone District.
Legal Part of the S2 NE4,W2 SE4, E2 SE4 Section 25, Ti N, R67W, part of the SW4
NW4, W2 SW4 Section 30, T1 N, R66W and part of the NW4 NE4 of Section 36,
T1 N, R67W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
Location /z mile North of WCR 2; east/west of and adjacent to WCR 23.5; 1/4 mile south of
WCR 6.
Parcel Number 1469 25 000016, 1469 25 000018, 1469 25 100002, 1469 36 000037, 1469 36
000029, 1469 36 000038, & 1471 30 000002
The application is submitted to you for review and recommendation. Any comments or recommendation
you consider relevant to this request would be appreciated. Please reply by the above listed date so that
we may give full consideration to your recommendation. Any response not received before or on this date
may be deemed to be a positive response to the Department of Planning Services. If you have any further
questions regarding the application, please call the Planner associated with the request.
Weld County Planning Commission Hearing (if applicable) September 18, 2001
❑ e have reviewed the request and find that it does/does not comply with our Comprehensive Plan
We have reviewed the request and find no conflicts with our interests.
❑ See attached letter.
Comments: /� n
Signature (�- oD� At 1� ) / Date 4. Lam r
Agency �C 7 � `snip a .. . A 1i
cin
4 Weld County Planning Dept. +1555 N. 17th Ave. Greeley,CO.80631 +(970)353-6100 ext.3540 +(970)30, EXHIBIT
I A1
STATE OF COLORADO
^1FFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER oecoto
Division of Water Resources Pia se_
Department of Natural Resources Q
O. �
1313 Sherman Street, Room 818 moo, t o,.
I *
Denver,Colorado 80203 A4 'te75'
Phone:(303)866-3581 August 13, 2001 aAq
FAX:(303)866-3589
Bill Owens
http://water.state.co.us/default.htm 6 Q�p Governor
�� e://6/ 4t. Greg E.Walcher
' Executive Director
Kim Ogle /t Hal D.Simpson,P.E.
Weld County Planning Dept. IM State Engineer
1555 N. 17th Ave.
Greeley, CO 80631
RE: Special Review Permit for a Mineral Resource Development facilities
including Sand and Gravel Mining
Case No. USR-1350
Section 25 and 36,TIN, R67W and Section 30,T1 N, R66, 6th P.M.
Water Division 1,Water District 2
Dear Kim Ogle:
We have reviewed the above referenced use by special review for a proposed sand and
gravel mining operation to be located within a 421-acre area. The duration of the mining
operation is estimated to be 8 to 12 years.
Based on the submitted information the Gravel Mining operation will cause depletions to
the South Platte River due to evaporative losses from exposed ground water and operational
losses from water lost in the product and dust control. The anticipated net depletion for this
Gravel Mining operation is 57 acre-feet annually. It is proposed that the depletions will be
replaced by a 4/6 share of the Brighton Ditch, one share of the New Brantner Ditch and a lease of
fully consumable effluent from the City of Westminster.
A Temporary Substitute Water Supply Plan and well permit must be obtained from the
State Engineers office to replace the depletions caused by the operation.
The State Engineer's Office recommends that prior to Weld County offering final project
approval, the applicant must satisfy this agency's potential concerns as they relate to water rights.
Gravel pit operators typically must first obtain approval from the Colorado Division of Minerals
and Geology prior to mining.
Should you have any questions, please contact Joanna Williams of this office.
Sincerely,
7/ , ��
Kenneth W. Knox
Assistant State Engineer
KWK/JMW
CC: Richard Stenzel, Division Engineer
Perry Pit TSSP File
EXHIBIT
_IS_
Aug 17 01 02: 10p Greater Brighton Fire 3036594103 p. 2
.\11�Ii�1rG/' '
1/411
GREATER El-MU-ETON FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
425 South Main Street
Brighton, Colorado 80601 •
303-659-4101
Weld County Department of Planning Services August 17, 2001
do Kim Ogle,Planner
1555 North 17th Avenue
Greeley, Colorado 80631
Subject: Aggregate Industries -Case Number USR-1350
The following comments are made in response to the above noted site plan reviews. The
Uniform Fire Code, 1997 Edition,and other codes or standards referenced within the Fire
Code as adopted by the County Commissioners, governs these comments and resulting
requirements.
i^ General Comments:
1. Primary entrance addressing is required with numbers being 5" in height and'A"
stroke on a contrasting background.
2. Two access roads shall be provided to the site,capable of handling fire apparatus
in all potential weather conditions during and after construction. The roadway
must be a minimum of 24 feet in width without parked cars in that area. All
roadways will have a turning radius of 32 feet maximum inside radius and 52 feet
minimum outside radius. Dead-end roads exceeding 150' in length shall terminate
in an approved turn around.
3. A knox type key box, or other means, shall provide access 24/7.
4. Plans shall be submitted to the Fire District regarding fuel storage and dispensing
systems.
Should there be any questions concerning these requirements, please do no hesitate to
contact this office.
Respectfully,
Todd Godek
Fire Prevention Office
EXHIBIT
1 25
RUG-06 01 14:41 FROM:COON 303-498-9742 T0:970 304 6498 PAGE:04
gnst'�. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
�_ REGION VIII
999 18th STREET - SUITE 500
DENVER, COLORADO 80202-2466
May 10, 2001
Ref SEPR-EP
Tim Carey, Project Manager
Corps of Engineers
Denver Regulatory Office
9307 South Platte Canyon Road
Littleton, Colorado 80123-6901
RE: PN 200080189, Aggregate Industries
WCR Inc, Wattenberg Lakes
Dear Mr. Carey:
We have reviewed the referenced Public Notice (PN) for the authorization to excavate and place
fill materials into Wattenberg Lakes, wetlands, and the South Platte River in Weld County,
Colorado. The stated purpose in the application is for the construction of an aggregate mining
facility and water storage reservoir. A Lime extension of two weeks was requested by this office.
This site was visited on two occasions and a pre-application meeting was held.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is concerned about this proposed project and
the potential for significant direct, indirect, and cumulative adverse impacts to the aquatic
ecosystem. The applicant's preferred alternative directly impacts 91.6 acres of wetlands which far
exceeds any aggregate permit, or any other permit activity, issued by the Corps' Denver
Regulatory Office along the South Platte River in Colorado, This project area is part of slough of
the South 'Platte River that provides many benefits to wildlife and society, including water quality
improvements. It is located in limited remnant channels of the South Platte River that, in our
view, will potentially be under pressure for further aggregate extraction activities and permits.
These sloughs and oxbows provide large extent of quality habitat surrounded by commercial and
agricultural land uses. Some have lost their regulatory oversight. Accordingly, we believe this
may be an aquatic resource of national importance. Indirect impacts to other wetlands from the
drastic change in ground water flow associated with the clay lined water supply storage may result
in additional losses. The direct and indirect impacts to wetlands are significant impacts due to
their large scale.
These activities are clearly non-water dependent because they do not require access or proximity
to, or siting within, a special aquatic site to fulfill their basic project purpose. According to the
404 (b)(1) Guidelines there is a presumption (unless clearly demonstrated otherwise) that there
are less damaging alternatives available to the applicant that do not impact waters of the U.S.
The Guidelines define non-water dependant activity as that which does not require access or
��� EXHIBIT
1 24
RUG-06 01 14:41 FROM:CDOW 303-498-9742 TO:970 304 6498 PRGE:05
proximity to, or siting within a special aquatic site to fulfill its basic project purpose. The
extraction of aggregate is a non-water dependant activity. It can be and is accomplished in
upland areas, Water storage can and should be located out of riparian areas and wetlands.
The applicant has narrowly defined the proposed project purpose by combining multi-purposes
that each have a narrow scope. The applicant has limited the search for alternatives by
incorporating additional conditions such as "in an economical viable manner", and "on available
lands nearest to commercial demand". The guidance, provided by the Department of the Army's
Director of Civil Work from the Plantation Landing Resort permit elevation case, recognizes
minimization of costs as a legitimate factor in determining the applicant's purpose and the purpose
of the project. While the factor is something for the Corps to consider. "that factor alone must
not be allowed to control or unduly influence the Corps' definition of the project purpose or
practicable alternatives or any other part of the 404(b)(I) evaluation". The applicant's statement
of"on available lands nearest to commercial demand" conceptually narrows the location of this
project to only one site, and that is nearest to commercial demand.
The applicant has further restricted the evaluation of practicable alternative by adding a second
project purpose of building a water storage facility, and in a similar fashion as above, narrows this
purpose by requiring that it be compatible in location, volume, and timing with the City of
Westminister's needs. Any information relating to the needs of the City with regards to location,
volume, and timing are absent from the PN and the application.
The Corps should independently determine the scope of the project purpose. The multiple
purposes need to be separated in the alternative analysis. In this manner, an alternative for one
project purpose does not limit the scope of analysis for the other project purpose. Both of these
proposals are non-water dependent.
Cumulative Impacts
The Colorado Division of Minerals and Geology has issued 38 sand/gravel/aggregate mining
permits since the 1970s in the township/range next to the South Platte River in Weld County.
Colorado. Of that total number, 19 are still active. The Corps has 18 actions in Weld County
with five of these resulting in a 404 permits. Such activity is increasing due to the demand for
aggregate along the Colorado Front Range and the apparent lack of alternative sand and gravel
which do not require wetland fill. As the Council of Environmental Quality regulations indicate, a
conclusion regarding significance can not be avoided by breaking the Corps' individual permit
actions down into small component parts (See 40 CFR I508.27(b)(7)). "Cumulative impact" is
the impact on the environment which results from incremental impact of action when added to
other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future action regardless of what (Federal or non-
Federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from
individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time
(40 CFTC 1508.7),
.p.
'— Printed an Recycled Paper
2
RUG-06 01 14:41 FROM:COON 303-498-9742 TO:970 304 6498 PRGE:06
•
r.
The cumulative impact may include increased nitrate loading to downstream community water
supplies. A critical cumulative impact from this, and similar sand and gravel operations that
should be investigated, involves the potential combined changes in nitrate loading upon
community water sources obtained from the South Platte River alluvial aquifer. The existing
ground-water supplied wetlands along the South Platte River receive their essential flow from
canal and field tailwater seepage from irrigation. As excess nutrients from agricultural practices
move down gradient towards the South Platte River, the concentration of nitrates in the ground
water is reduced by the interaction with aquatic plants and soils in these wetland areas
Communities dependent upon South Platte alluvial sources must treat for nitrate reduction, at
considerable public expense, in order to meet EPA's public health criteria. (The public health
criteria for nitrate is not to exceed W ppm to avoid complications associated with pregnant
women.) For example, the City of Thornton is treating its water supply obtained from the South
Platte alluvium, which at times exceeds 20 ppm nitrate, by using a reverse osmosis treatment
process. The cumulative impact of the loss of adjacent wetlands which could result in increased
nitrate concentrations in downstream community water supplies should be thoroughly investigated
by the Corps prior to approving this or other similar permit applications.
The proposed action may establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects since the
applicant proposes a unique purpose for a sand and gravel operation to provide community water
storage in reclaimed pit ponds. The City of Westminister intends to use these reclaimed pit ponds
for community water supply through a flow augmentation process. Consequently, the applicant
proposes to construct pits with a clay slurry wall which will isolate these reclaimed pits from
ground water. This may establish a precedent for the purpose of aggregate mining that may also
alter the local ground water conditions unlike prior sand and gravel operations permitted by the
Corps (See CFR 1508.27(b)(6)).
Therefore, EPA concludes on this point that the Corps proposed action is a major federal action
significantly affecting the human environment and that the Corps should prepare an Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS)to analyze these significant impacts, including cumulative impacts from
other similar sand and gravel operations along the South Platte River in Weld and Adams County,
Colorado.
Alternatives
The alternative analysis puts an overemphasis on costs and profitability. While the economic
analysis (Table 6) speaks directly to profitability, the logistical analysis incorporates cost
considerations in the evaluation, The applicant states of trying to balance the environmental,
economic, and logistical considerations on choosing an alternative. We feel the balance is highly
weighted to cost and profitability at the expense of the environment.
All the alternatives presented by the applicant either directly impact the wetlands on site through
excavation, or impact the wetlands indirectly by interrupting the ground water hydrology. Even
the complete avoidance alternative ( Alt. 5) isolates all wetlands with constructed slurry walls
:4.
Printed on Recycled Paper
3
RUG-06 01 14:42 FR0M:CD0W 303-498-9742 T0:970 304 6498 PRGE:07
•
Entrenched into bedrock. The applicant claims Alt. 5 would not be an environmental advantage
because it would not require mitigation. This exemplifies of a fundamental lack of understanding
on the part of the applicants and their permitting consultant. The 404 (b)(1) Guidelines are
regulations designed first to avoid impacts to wetlands.
The burden of proof for demonstrating that the preferred alternative is the least environmentally
damaging rests upon the applicant. Where insufficient information is provided to determine
compliance, the Guidelines require that no permit be issued (40CFR 230.12(a)(3)(iv).
There is very little hydrologic information supplied by the applicant relating to Huett Ditch. Field
observations have been made that indicate this water course remains unfrozen during parts of the
year when other nearby water is frozen. This would indicate a ground water influence. Areas
that remain ice free for longer periods of time than surrounding environs offer valuable habitat and
a water source. The applicant states that ground water is not the primary source of hydrology for
Huett Ditch; however, ground water appears to be influencing this aquatic resource. This water
conveyance continues to the north providing valuable resources off the site and should not be
degraded by any actions on this proposed site.
Alternative analysis frequently mentions the indirect impact to wetland on site caused by the
excavation and construction of the slurry wall. However, the analysis lacks any raised concerns
for the wetlands outside the property bounds, and in small areas of wetlands that are avoided on
the site. These should be considered impacts caused by the applicants' actions. For example. a)
the 10 acres of tall emergent wetland on the outside the southeast portion of the proposed project
site would be surrounded by slurry walls and ponds on three of the four sides of the wetland.
Ground water mounding or ground water diversions caused by the applicant preferred alternative
will likely change the character and/or extent of this aquatic resource; b) the Lupton slough
wetlands northwest of proposed pond 1 will have the ground water intercepted by the slurry wall
for the pond. These tall emergent and wet meadow wetlands appear to be close to10 acres; c) the
applicant's preferred alternative describes reduced impact to portion of salt grass meadow north
of pond 2. However, the applicant is proposing to cut this wetland from the larger wetland
complex both on the surface (through pond construction )and below ground (through slurry wall
construction); d) the slurry wall runs parallel to Huett Ditch throughout the project site. There
are bands of wetlands that extend away from the Huetts' main channel and in an up-gradient
manner. Since water in the ditch flows in a downward di�eetion, and these are off the main
channel and upgradient, then the hydrology for these wetlands should be of a ground water
source. The slurry wall will cut off water to these areas as well as other wetlands adjacent to the
channel.
The alternative analysis does not present any consideration to alternative to the conveyer system
over the South Platte River. Alternative methods of conveying aggregate to the other side of the
river or relocating the mobile processing facility to the west side of the river, should be evaluated.
The proposal mentions crossing the River at the narrowest portion to avoid additional impacts to
the river. However, from the aerial photography the crossing appears to he one of the widest
areas in this general vicinity and disturbs two river gravel bars. The design also shows the box
culverts redirecting flow to the west river bank and possibly causing bank erosion and that may
. .
Printed on Recycled Pipe.
4
RUG-06 01 14:43 FR0M:CD0W 303-498-9742 T0:970 304 6498 PAGE:08
eventually require additional placement of fill material into the river. Alternatives need to be
evaluated to further minimize impacts to Waters of the US and not potentially add to the erosional
forces of the river.
The impact from this proposed conveyer system is stated as temporary. However this project as
proposed will last a minimum of 8.5 years. These impacts to waters of the US should be require
additional mitigation due to the long term nature of this project.
HGM
While this effort in functional analysis provides insights to the site, for the model to have greater
utility in the regulatory field a better understanding of the assumptions and the mechanics is
needed. A session with Mr. Johnson and the permit reviewers should be conducted. Specific
questions relayed through the on-site consultant to Mr. Johnson do not help in gaining a working
knowledge that this approach requires. As such, we have the following comments:
Reference Condition: To adequately assign numeric values and get a fair view of the functionality
of these type systems, reference standard/condition must be documented. One of the basic tenets
of the hydrogeomorphic approach is a comparison to reference standards. There was an
acknowledgment that time and resources were not available to accomplish this. Many of the
variables in this river floodplain are shared throughout this portion of the South Platte River.
Hydrologic variables, such as watershed modification and frequency of overbank flooding, are
low scoring variables for much of the South Platte River in the vicinity. If reference standards
were actually developed, it would likely be on the South Platte River and these variables would
not play a critical role in the index because they are the best that can be expected under the
current management of the river.
Use of uplands FCI in alternative analysis: Some of the described functions seem to allow the
investigator to go beyond wetlands and into uplands. However, these uplands contribute the
majority of acres to the evaluated Floodplain Assessment Area. While the Corps should consider
all impacts to aquatic resources, including upland buffers, Section 404 of the Clean Water Act's
main focus is on avoiding and minimizing impacts to Waters of the US. Additional efforts are
needed actually document the effect of using such a large amount of non jurisdictional resources
in the evaluation of alternatives for avoiding and minimizing impacts to jurisdictional resources
We have concerns over the use of this model in alternative analyses in that it presents a skewed
perspective of impacts to regulated wetland resources. For example, a 1.3% change of the
Functional Capacity Index (FC1 ) between Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 results in an additional
impact to 40 acres of wetlands.. What appears to be a small percentage change of the FCI results
(i. e. 1.3%) results in 70% more impacts to the regulated aquatic resources.
The assumptions made, due to either the lack of resources and/or issues beyond capability of
HGM methodology, all appear to lower the resource value, As mentioned in the report, remnant
river channels are important to society values, especially when they are surrounded by extensive
Printed on Recycled Paper
5
RUG-06 01 14:43 FR0M:CD0W 303-498-9742 T0:970 304 6498 PAGE:09
industrial, commercial and agricultural land uses. HGM does not incorporate biological functions
to any great extent. Indirect impacts are not evaluated. We feel the indirect impact from this
project may be approaching a similar magnitude as the direct impacts.
Mitigation
This location in Weld County contains valued amounts of native vegetation along the South Platte
River. The applicant proposed to locate 27% of mitigation wetlands off site at another property
owned by the applicant. Because the existing area is highly valued, the proposed project should
not further fragment the area and hence all mitigation should be on site.
The Corps Denver Regulatory Office Compensatory Policy for Long-term Projects presents two
options for these types of projects. Option B requires purchasing wetland credits at a mitigation
bank as impacts occur, and providing on-site mitigation once the project is completed. Since no
approved mitigation bank has close to the number of acres need by this proposed project, this
option probably would not be chosen by the applicant. Option A requires concurrent mitigation
as impacts occur. Due to the site hydrology alteration to wetlands from dewatering trenches or
slurry wall construction, once these activities commence the applicant should be required to begin
mitigation on all impact for the entire site.
Even if all mitigation is begun concurrently with impacts, the temporal loss of wetland functions
and values will still be evident. The formation of wetland hydric soils takes decades to form.
Many functions of wetlands can be attributed to the wetland soils. The Dist/chits p is an
extremely slow growing species. Seventy to seventy-five percent (depending on the jurisdictional
number of acres) of wetlands on this site is a Disrichlis sp. community.
The PN and application contain no hydrological analyses to support the wetlands mitigation plan.
This, as well as other factors, lends evidence to an unsuccessful mitigation plan.
The proposed wetland mitigation includes backfilling of exhausted gravel pits (MAI, MA2, Platte
Valley cells) with process fines, clay, and overburden and establishment of a land surface elevation
that will maintain adequate depths to ground water. However, by filling the pits with all fine
grained material the configuration of the water table will potentially be significantly different than
the exisiting water table. The fine grained material will have significantly lower hydraulic
conductivity than the surrounding coarse grained material. As ground water from upgradient
flows to the backfilled material, it will preferentially flow around the fine grained materials in the
surrounding coarse grained materials. This could constrain the ability to deliver sufficient ground
water to maintain the wetlands.
The slough that trend north and east through the area will be impacted by the mining. This
includes the portion of the slough downgradient of the proposed ponds. The ponds will essentially
behave as a barrier to ground water flow. The flow of ground water to the remaining portion of
the slough downgradient of the ponds will likely be restricted and the result could be a significant
loss of water to the remaining portion of the slough. The potential for off site wetland loss due to
the applicants' proposed actions needs further investigation and remediation
-:11 Printed on Recycled Paper
6
RUG-06 01 14:44 FR0M:CD0W 303-498-9742 T0:970 304 6498 PAGE: 10
•
The applicant proposes to not have specific mitigation requirements because it is relying on
replacing lost functions based on HGM interim guides. While this functional assessment
development aids in understanding flood plain functionality, without additional confirmation of
reference conditions and standards, and peer review of the guide, it should not be heavily relied on
to provide the basic replacement of the areal wetland impacts. Only after in-kind wetland impacts
replacement have occurred should FCI be used to increase floodplain functionality. Specific
requirements on plant species, composition, and mitigation techniques need to documented in the
permit as special conditions. Mitigation plant species should not be based upon commercial
availability seeds. Plant suppliers and nurseries can and would collect seed or propagules, if
needed, that can be propagated in the greenhouse ahead of time for specific projects,
The MA2 area is the last phase to be mined. It is also the proposed site for mitigation. The
proposal is for fines from the mining process be used in the MA2 mitigation site. However,
excavation from the earlier phases will be completed by the time the MA2 site is mined and
reclaimed. The source of fines will be very limited. This area potentially will be filled with less
suitable materials for wetland establishment (such as clay and clayrock) and will contribute to less
successful mitigation. Specific soil specification for the proposed mitigation needs to be included
as special conditions to the permit.
In conclusion, the EPA believes this project is not in compliance with the 404 (b)(1) Guidelines
due to the potential availability of less damaging alternatives, and the potential for significant
degradation to wetlands. This project, as currently proposed, may result in substantial and
unacceptable impacts to aquatic resources of national importance. Accordingly, we recommend
the Corps deny this permit as proposed. Additionally, EPA concludes the Corps' proposed action
is a major federal action significantly effecting the human environment and that the Corps should
prepare an Environmental Impact Statement to analyze these significant impacts, including
cumulative impacts from other similar sand and gravel operations along the South Platte River in
Weld and Adams County, Colorado.
If you have any questions concerning this letter, please contact Glenn Rodriguez
at 303-312-6832.
Sincerely,
7
Richard Claggett,
Chief, Wetlands and Watersheds Unit
Ecosystems Protection Program
cc. Lee Carlson, USFWS, Lakewood
Mike Sherman, COOW, Fort Collins
.y.
�� Fumed on Recycled Pape,
7
PUG-06 01 14:48 FROM:COON 303-498-9742 TO:970 304 6498 PAGE: 18
s°`rD st _ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
(e) REGION
flBB 18TM STREET - SUITE 500 par DENVER, CO 50102-2155
http://www.epa.govIreglon05
Ref SEPR-EP
MAY 3 1 2001
Colonel Mark E. Tillotson
District Engineer, Omaha District
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
215 North 17 Street
Omaha, Neb. 68101-0005
RE: Public Notice 200080189, Aggregate Industries
WCR Inc., Wattenberg Lakes
Dear Colonel Tillotson:
The Environmental Protection Agency Region 8 (EPA)has serious concerns regarding the
potential significant direct, indirect, and cumulative adverse impacts to aquatic resources of
national importance resulting from the above referenced proposed project. As a result, EPA is
sending this letter pursuant to Part IV of the 1992 Clean Water Act Section 404 (q)
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the EPA and the Department of Army regarding
elevation of an individual permit decision.
The proposed project purpose (gravel mining) is not a water dependant activity and, as
such, there is a presumption that less environmentally damaging alternatives are available unless
clearly demonstrated otherwise. The Applicant has not provided information to show upland
alternatives are not practicable. The Applicant's preferred alternative is to impact 91..6 acres of
wetlands for aggregate extraction and a municipal water supply reservoir when mining is
completed. This proposal will cause significant degradation to an aquatic resource of national
importance. This proposal will also contribute to the significant degradation from the cumulative
perspective to these habitat types in the project area as well as within the local watershed.
Extensive comments were sent to the USACE Denver Regulatory Office on May 10, 2001.
Site Description
This site is located on the southern end of Weld County in Colorado. The excavation and
fill activity is proposed to occur mainly in a slough west of the South Platte River. This feature is
part of an old meander channel of the South Platte River. According to the Applicant, there are
over 110 acres of wetlands on the project site and additional riparian areas along the South Platte
River and Huetts Ditch. The Applicant had requested a further jurisdictional determination for
many of the wetlands on the project site. The Corps has acknowledged that most of the wetlands
on the project site are waters of the U.S. or, adjacent to, waters of the U.S. The ecological
community types at the site include: riparian cottonwood forest, tall emergent wetlands, wet
meadows, active gravel beds, surface water channels, and salt grass meadows. This land is
currently used for livestock grazing, oil and gas production, and a horticultural plant nursery.
According to the Weld County Assessor most of the land west of the South Platte River is owned
by the City of Westminister.
RUG-06 01 14:49 FROM:CDOW 303-498-9742 TO:970 304 6498 PAGE:19
Aquatic Resource of National Importance
The proposed site is part of a remnant channel of the South Platte River. These sloughs
contain extensive wetlands which, in addition to their habitat functions, provide a critical water
quality function to ground water as well as surface water. Most of this area contains ground
water high in nitrates which originate, in part, from adjacent agricultural fields. Many of the
nearby communities, which in the past have relied on ground water for a potable water supply,
have had to resort to alternate water sources or expensive water treatments such as reverse
osmosis to provide suitable drinking water. The town of Wattenberg, which is immediately
adjacent to the proposed project site, has recently been ordered by the Colorado Department of
Public Health and Environment to use bottled water due to nitrate levels in their ground water
supply which exceed the drinking water standard.
Wetlands have been shown to reduce the amount of nutrients through biomass conversion,
burial, and gasification. Created wetlands have demonstrated an average inorganic nitrogen
reduction of 96% over a fourteen-year period. (EPA 832-R-93-005). This particular
slough/wetland complex intercepts the northwesterly ground water flow before it enters the South
Platte River. This wetland complex, as well as others along the South Platte River, potentially
provide a water quality enhancement function to the River as well as to potable water users of
tributary ground water.
This project area contains extensive wetlands along the South Platte River. There are
over 110 acres of jurisdictional wetlands comprised of wet meadows, tall emergent communities,
salt grass meadows, riparian corridors, and river gravel bars. It is considered "Significant
Wildlife Habitat" by the Colorado Division Of Wildlife. This extensive complex of wetlands
contributes to its' resource value. It is part of a remnant native plant community along the South
Platte River surrounded by agricultural crop lands. It is designated as a US Fish and Wildlife
Resource Category#2, which represents high quality scarce habitat that is becoming more scarce.
Approximately 70 acres of the wetlands are an inland salt grass (Distichlis sp.)
community, This specific area is noted for the lush growth of this species along the Front Range
of Colorado. The Colorado Natural Heritage Program has stated that this plant association is
"threatened" in the State due to agricultural conversions and ground water development. Due to
its' growth and seed germination characteristics, Distichlis sp. is a very slow growing species. It
requires alkaline or saline soil conditions, and represents an ecological niche between freshwater
and saline wetlands.
Impacts
According to the Colorado Mine Land Reclamation database, in Adams County,
Colorado, (immediately south of Weld county)there are 43 active sand/gravel/aggregate mines
within the township and range adjacent to the South Platte River. This permitted area covers
more than 5000 acres. There are 37 completed mines in Adams County comprising over 1.000
acres. In Weld County, Colorado, there are 19 active sand/gravel/aggregate mines within the
township and range adjacent to the South Platte River. This permitted area comprises
2
RUG-06 01 14:49 FR0M:CD0W 303-498-9742 T0:970 304 6496 PAGE:20
approximately 2000 acres. There are also 19 completed mines within Weld County for more than
300 acres. At the proposed Wattenberg Lakes project site, there are three similar
sand/gravel/aggregate extraction mines located immediately to the north, the south, and to the
east. Consequently, the cumulative direct and indirect impacts of aggregate mining is a major
concern.
This project proposes to install slurry walls from bedrock to the surface to de-water the
mine site and to prevent surface water and ground water interaction for the subsequent water
supply reservoir. These subsurface structures will alter the groundwater flow. The ground water
may mound up behind the walls and/or be diverted around the structures. Most of the wetland
hydrology on this site is supplied by ground water. The proposed ground water slurry walls will
alter the hydrology of approximately 20 acres of wetlands immediately adjacent to the Applicant's
property. One particular wetland will be nearly surrounded by slurry walls.
Some similar mines in the area utilize slurry walls. Due to the competitive nature of the
industry, much of this information relating to location of the walls and its' effect on ground water
(if known), is not shared with adjacent mine operators. Due to the current and predicted
extensive use of the subsurface structures, the potential for altering the regional ground water
flow patterns is magnified. Flow patterns diverted by one mine owner may be re-diverted and
concentrated by an adjacent mine owner. Mounded ground water may be expressed at the surface
in a concentrated flow and cause additional erosion concerns. Down gradient wetlands and
riparian areas may lose their hydrology source due to altered flows and contribute to additional
off-site adverse impacts. Wetlands that experience mounded ground water may change from
meadow wetlands to standing water or perhaps ponds.
As mentioned earlier, wetlands effectively remove soluble nitrogen. The removal is
accomplished by being incorporated into plant biomass, conversion to gaseous nitrogen, and
burial within the wetland soils. The nearby towns of Ft. Lupton, Brighton, and now Wattenberg
are required to treat and/or find alternative supplies for potable water due to the unhealthy levels
of nitrate in their ground water supplies. The continued removal of ground water intercepting
wetlands at this, and other sites in the area, will potentially further aggravate the drinking
water/human health concerns in the region.
The magnitude of direct and potentially indirect impacts to waters of the U.S. and
wetlands of this proposal far exceeds any proposal that the Denver Regulatory Office of the
USACE has permitted in the past. The applicant's alternatives (including the no-direct impact
alternative) potentially adversely effect most, if not all, the wetlands on the site. As mentioned, in
part, in our May 10, 2001 comment letter, the proposed mitigation will likely be unsuccessful due
to many factors. The Applicant assumes that ground water will supply the hydrology for the
mitigation site. However ground water flow is likely to be blocked by the construction of slurry
walls. The proposed mitigation site is back filled with fine grained materials. Ground water will
preferentially flow around, rather than through, these materials. Additionally, the South Platte
River is generally a gaining river in this reach; the ground water flow is to the river. The general
sub surface flow will not be to the mitigation wetlands. The existing slough wetlands are located
approximately one-half mile from the river. Almost two thirds of the mitigation wetlands are
proposed to be located approximately 300 feet from the river. This location shortens the distance
3
RUG-06 01 14:50 FR0M:CD0W 303-498-9742 T0:970 304 6498 PAGE:21
•
•
and travel time that ground water would travel to the river. This shortened period would lessen
the amount of time for nitrate processing in wetlands as well as other cover types. In addition,
twenty seven percent of the mitigation wetlands are located off site. This location would not
contribute to the local nitrate processes. The proposed mitigation does not compensate for the
temporal loss of the valued resource and further would permanently fragment a high quality
scarce resource.
The U.S. Geological Survey and the Colorado Geological Survey have recently completed
an aggregate infrastructure study that maps and describes aggregate resources along the Front
Range in Colorado. The study area included Weld County, Colorado, and clearly indicated
probable aggregate sources located along the South Platte River, north of this site, as well as
other sites away from the River. Furthermore, it shows probable aggregate location in areas
primarily in agricultural use, as opposed to valuable native plant communities. These areas should
be evaluated as potential alternatives to the proposed Wattenberg Lakes site.
Policy Considerations
Cumulative impact is the impact on the environment which results from incremental
impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions
regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions.
Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking
place over a period of time (40 CFR 1.508.7). Due to 1)the number and acreage of active and
completed mines in the Adams and Weld County vicinity of the South Platte River, 2)the wide
use of ground water flow altering methods that can regionally and locally effect wetland
resources, 3)the magnitude of proposed impacts, and 4) the anticipated future activities of
aggregate mines along the South Platte River, EPA concludes that the Corp's proposed action is a
major federal action significantly affecting the human environment. And therefore, the Corps
should prepare an Environmental Impact Statement(EIS) to analyze these significant impacts,
including cumulative impacts from existing and reasonably foreseeable sand and gravel operations
along the South Platte River in Weld and Adams Counties, Colorado.
In 2000, a Public Notice (#200080040)was issued for gravel extraction just north of this
proposal in a similar oxbow/slough complex next to the South Platte River. This complex
contained over 30 acres of a fresh water marsh mosaic. However, the US ACE determined that
no permit was required for impacts to this ecological important wetland. This site is in the same
designated "Significant Wildlife Habitat" area as the Wattenberg Lakes' proposal. This case
contributes to the cumulative impacts resulting from the individual actions.
There is evidence in Adams County, along the South Platte River, of how mining can
occur and its effect on the landscape. Due to the location of the mapped probable aggregate
resource in Weld County and the likelihood of future Section 404 permit applications, this area
should also be considered for a Special Area Management Plan (SAMP). The SAMP planning
process should identify the location and conditions under which specific aquatic resource areas
(i.e. wetlands, streams, ponds and lakes)may be developed, and other locations where aquatic
resources would be protected, maintained, and restored to a more or less natural state. It should
bring together the aggregate industry, county, state, federal agencies, and non-government groups
4
AUG-06 01 14:51 FROM:CDOW 303-498-9742 T0:970 304 6498 PAGE:22
to better plan for the future rather than relying on the individual application process that is
occurring today.
In conclusion, we believe the proposed project is not in compliance with the Section
404(b)(1) Guidelines and that the Corps should deny this permit. The full range of alternatives
has not been seriously considered and, since this is not a water dependant activity, the
presumption is that less environmentally damaging alternates are available unless clearly
demonstrated otherwise. The Applicant has not made this demonstration. As stated in our May
10, 2001, letter, the project purposes has been narrowly defined (which limits the evaluation of
potential alternatives); there is an over reliance on the use of cost and profitability to evaluate
alternatives; compensatory mitigation will likely be unsuccessful; and the proposed activity will
result in significant degradation of the aquatic ecosystem. Region 8 of the EPA believes that the
project, as currently proposed, will have substantial and unacceptable impacts on aquatic
resources of national importance, and considers the proposed project as a candidate for elevation
pursuant to the 1992 Memorandum of Agreement between the Department of the Army and
USEPA. Your careful consideration of this matter and the future actions to be taken are
important for protecting the remaining wetland and other aquatic resources along the Front Range
of Colorado. We appreciate your time and consideration of this permit issue and look forward to
discussing our concerns with you. Any questions of a technical nature may be directed to Glenn
I Rodriguez at 303-312-6832.
Sincerely,
0..t/rack W. McGraw,
Acting Regional Administrator
cc: Tim Carey, Tri-Lakes COE
Mike Sherman, CDOW
Lee Carlson,USFWS
Clay Miller USEPA HQ
Anne Roche, USEPA HQ
Tracie Nadeau, USEPA,HQ
5
Hello