The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20050692.tiff 1,O41 c� Weld Coin:.,', ,' in D6'srtment ,'i CE Weld County R P ED wilge. January 5, 2005 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 February 1, 2005 Planner Kim Ogle Project An addendum to a Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a 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, Ti N, R67 W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. Location 1/2 mile North of CR 2; east/west of and adjacent to CR 23 '/:; 1/4 mile south of CR 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. Please note that new information may be added to applications under review during the review process. If you desire to examine or obtain this additional information, please call the Department of Planning Services. Weld County Planning Commission Hearing (if applicable) February 15, 2005 ❑ 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. (� t�� (I Comments: L2 c tt k� [�fe.Q c??E-r & 4.� di n' coq t.34i l�utre.d( KU J ^/#F r trtj e'-T.es�r Is I ( doss �{= -s,,.,.r-cam n U Signature / f Date Agency (Ad' A 10,6) CA4s3tt Ok.fekucl, Dj J +Weld County Planning Dept. +918 10'h Street, Greeley, CO.80631 4(970)353-6100 ext.3540 4(970)304-6498 i _ V'deld GoLi .meat As— t aid . Li , —tf is c„ r„ WESTMINSTER ri1 REC -' _[j Date: February 28, 2005 Mr. Kim Ogle Weld County Department of Planning Services 918 10th Street City of Westminster Greeley, CO 80631 Department of y Public Works and Utilities Re: USR 1350—Wattenberg Lakes Sand and Gravel Mining Application Vacation of USR-727 —Gartrell Enterprises 4800 West 92nd Avenue Westminster, Colorado 80031 Dear Mr. Ogle: 303-430-2400 FAX 303-650-1643 The City of Westminster owns parcels of land contained in Aggregate Industries proposed sand and gravel mining operation under USR-1350. We have been advised that another sand and gravel operation was previously permitted on one of these parcels and that the County is requiring that the old permit be vacated as a condition under the new permit. The City of Westminster, as owner of the subject parcel No. 14692500006, therefore submits this letter as its request that USR-727— Gartrell Enterprises be vacated. If the County requires any additional information or action in this matter, please contact Connie Davis at Aggregate Industries, (970) 336-6526. Very truly yours, 1 0' Josh Nims Water Resources Engineer City of Westminster cc: Aggregate Industries-WCR, Inc. - File 7'rnilry i on rrnMerl paper Page 1 of 1 — Carol Harding From: Jonathan Baurer Uwbaurer@brightonresources.com] " Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2005 1:49 PM To: Carol Harding Et Cc: Cindy Baurer; Peter Baurer; Carl Eiberger; Michael Refer Subject: USR 1530 Dear Carol Harding, My name is Jonathan Baurer and I am writing as a representative of my parents Peter and Cynthia Baurer. We have been working with Kim Ogle on issues regarding USR 1530 involving the property line between the home of Baurers, Carl Eiberger's home site and the property owned by Aggregate Industries. During the past several weeks, we have attempted to resolve this issue with Mike Refer of Aggregate Industries and it is my hope that it will indeed be resolved prior to the Commissioners hearing on March 16th; however, I simply wanted to provide you with my contact information before the meeting and let you know who I am prior to any more information specific contacts. Thank you for your time and consideration. Jonathan Baurer Jonathan W. Baurer, M.B.A. Brighton Resources, LLC www.BrightonResources.com (303) 667-4146 check out www.bead-happy.net check out www.rnomsjewelry.com 111 6 3/9/2005 tta 403$0 MEMORANDUM (vim TO: Board of Commissioners March 11, 2005 WIDcFROM: Esther Gesick, Deputy Clerk to the Board COLORADO SUBJECT: USR #1350 - Aggregate Industries - WCR, Inc. Francisco Rodriguez 1695 Mary Avenue Fort Lupton, CO 80621 (303)659-4295 On Friday, March 11, 2005, at 9:00 a.m., Mr. Rodriguez called and stated he would be unable to attend the public hearing scheduled for March 16, 2005, however, he expressed concerns with the proposal. He stated once the applicant starts digging, the water may pull away from his shallow well, leaving them without water. He referenced another site along Highway 85 where a mining operation has drilled and the Platte River has visibly dropped and a small nearby stream has also dried up. He questioned if that happens in his area, how with the situation be corrected. He stated they rely on the well for their water because it costs too much to invest in a public water tap. Mr. Rodriguez was provided with the phone number of Connie Davis, Land Resources Assistant for the applicant, as well as Kim Ogle, Planner. l a4/35v Page 1 of 2 Carol Harding From: Jonathan Baurer Uwbaurer@brightonresources.com] Sent: Monday, March 14, 2005 6:53 PM To: Carol Harding; Kim Ogle Cc: Cindy Baurer; Peter Baurer; Connie Davis; Carl Eiberger; Michael Refer Subject: USR 1530 Dear Mr. Kim Ogle, Mr. Peter Baurer, Mrs. Cynthia Baurer and Mr. Carl Eiberger would like to officially request that the issues regarding USR 1530 be continued for one (1)month in an effort to seek resolution between the property owners at 754 WCR 23 3/G and Aggregate Industries. This request is made for the following reasons. During the Public Hearing before the Weld County Commission on Tuesday, February 15th, 2005, the issue of mining project and home separation was both formally addressed and independently discussed. It was the assertion of the property owners that their yard required structural separation from the mining project in order to mitigate dust and noise pollution, trespassing, and ensure ongoing quiet enjoyment of their home. Both Mr. Carl Eiberger and I spoke to the fact that we are committed to negotiating in good faith with Aggregate Industries in an effort to resolve this matter through the consideration of several options. These options included wooden and metal fencing, earth structures, as well as various landscape materials. Mr. Mike Refer of Aggregate Industries subsequently stated on record that Aggregate Industries was "committed to working"with the property owners to resolve the issue prior to the meeting on March 16th 2005. Based upon this stated commitment, Peter and Cynthia Baurer did not make return travel plans to Colorado and I (as their representative) did not cancel my travel plans out of the state for the week of March 16th. Mike Refer's commitment to work with us has been entirely ignored. Absolutely no apparent effort has been made by Aggregate Industries to propose any formal settlement offer of any type to the land owners, or any other related parties. It was stated by Mike Refer that the primary concern with the originally discussed engineered wooden fence structure was the fact that the overall cost would exceed $120,000. It should be recognized that due to the proximity between the Baurer's home and this mining operation, the Baurers have been advised that they should expect a 25% - 30% decrease in their home value. This translates to a$240,000.00 deduction in appraised home value for the Baurers. It therefore may seem quite fair and reasonable for Aggregate Industries to born the cost of a $120,000.00 improvement to their project to help mitigate this neighbor's loss and protect their right of continued quiet enjoyment. I have attached a document detailing the events and communication attempts that have been made on behalf of the Baurers and Mr. Eiberger. Because Mike Refer of Aggregate Industries made the verbal assertion at the February 15th meeting that they would be willing to develop improvements including fence,trees, and earth with a capital cost of approximately$60,000, we feel as though there is room to resolve this matter by simply working with Aggregate Industries independently if there is a continuance to this issue and USR 1530. Thank you for your time and consideration of this matter, EXHIBIT i 3/15/2005 t &e #1350 Page 2 of 2 Jonathan Baurer Jonathan W. Baurer, M.B.A. Brighton Resources, LLC www.BrightonResources.com (303) 667-4146 check out www.bead-happy.net check out www.momsjewelry.com 3/15/2005 Timeline of Events RE: USR 1530 The issue regarding property separation between the home of Mr. and Mrs. Baurer, Mr. Eiberger and Aggregate Industries was first addressed several weeks prior to the public forum held on February loth, 2005. It was anticipated at the beginning of the discussions between Peter Baurer and Mike Refer that a resolution may be created even prior to that first event; however, due to the failure of Aggregate Industries to produce any formal offer of resolution, Jonathan Baurer and Carl Eiberger spoke on record at the meeting in an effort to convey their concerns in a formal matter. At that time, Mike Refer addressed their concerns both on record and during informal person-to- person discussions and verbally expressed a"commitment to work on this issue"with the Baurers and Mr. Eiberger. This commitment was in no way honored. TUESDAY,FEBRUARY 16,2005 Jonathan Baurer and Carl Eiberger expressed their concerns regarding the property line in a public forum as well as independently with Mike Refer. At that time,the Baurers and Mr.Eiberger suggested a fence which would be suitably engineered for the project. Mike Refer expressed concerns regarding the relative cost and committed to proposing a solution which would incorporate half of the originally proposed fence as well as trees,earth and other landscape materials to help mitigate the Baurers concerns. MONDAY,FEBRUARY 21,2005 Jonathan Baurer phones Mike Refer to discuss particular resolution requests,costs, and time-line of events. It is again reiterated by Mike Refer that Aggregate Industries is committed to resolving this issue and that a proposal will be made which will include approximately$60,000.00 in fencing, earth structures,trees, and various landscape materials. At the time of this phone call,Mike Refer specifically tell Jonathan Baurer that a proposal from Aggregate Industries should be expected"at the beginning of next week." WEDNESDAY,MARCH 2,2005 Jonathan Baurer sent the following e-mail to Mike Refer this day due to the fact that Aggregate Industries had failed to offer a proposal earlier in the week as promised. Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2005 09:19:39 -0800 (PST) From: "Jonathan Baurer" <jwbaurer@brightonresources.com> !Add to Address Book Subject: Stillwater Lake Ranch To: "Michael Refer" <mike.refer@aggregate.com> "Cindy Baurer" <cindybaurer@earthlink.net>, "Peter Baurer" <peterbaurer@earthlink.net>, "Carl CC: Eiberger" <black.bear@comcast.net> Hi Mike, I am just following up on the progress of a property line resolution proposal for the area between your new mining project and the r home owned by Mr.and Mrs.Baurer. You had mentioned that you anticipated having a proposal for the Baurers and Mr.Eiberger this week and I just wanted to make myself available to you if you had any further questions,comments,or concerns. Although I am out of town until the end of the week, I can be reached either by e-mail or my cell phone at(303)667-4146. Thank you, Jonathan W.Baurer,M.B.A. Brighton Resources,LLC www.BrightonResources.com (303)667-4146 FRIDAY,MARCH 4,2005 Because no phone calls,voice-mails, e-mails,or return contacts were attempted by Aggregate Industries, Jonathan Baurer again attempted to talk with Mike Refer by leaving a voice-mail message on this afternoon. The message simply stated that Jonathan Baurer would like to receive word from Mike Refer explaining the progress of a proposal on the issue. MONDAY,MARCH 7,2005 Having still heard no response in this matter and the proposal now being one(1)full week delinquent, Jonathan Baurer again left a voice-mail message with Mike Refer in the afternoon explaining a desire to simply engage in communication with Aggregate Industries. TUESDAY,MARCH 8,2005 Due to the complete lack of response,Jonathan Baurer assumed at this point that Mike Refer must have become unavailable to discuss this matter. Therefore,Jonathan Baurer wrote the following e-mail to Connie Davis again requesting a return contact. Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2005 12:09:57 -0800 (PST) q From: "Jonathan Baurer" <jwbaurer@brightonresources.com> nAdd to Address Book Subject: Stillwater Lake Ranch/ USR 1530 To: connie.davis@aggregate.com "Cindy Baurer" <cindybaurer@earthlink.net>, "Peter Baurer" <peterbaurer@earthlink.net>, "Carl CC: Eiberger" <black.bear@comcast.net>, "Michael Refer" <mike.refer@aggregate.com> Hi Connie, My name is Jonathan Baurer and I am a point of contact for Peter and Cindy Baurer as well as Carl Eiberger for their property located just south of the planned Aggregate project north of Brighton. I was at the Weld County meeting last month when Mike Refer and I were discussing a barrier between our home and yard and your '^ mining operation. It was agreed that we would likely be able to reach a resolution to this issue before the Commissioners meeting next Wednesday. r1 Would you please be able to contact me and let me know where we are in the process of resolving this issue? I apologize for rushing this,but if it does not look like there will be a resolution by the end of the week then I need to change some travel plans to ensure that I can be in town for the meeting on the 16th. I can be reached anytime on my cell phone(303)667.4146 or at my e-mail jwbaurer@brightonresources.com. Thank you very much for your help. Jonathan W.Baurer,M.B.A. Brighton Resources,LLC www.BrightonResources.com (303)667-4146 TUESDAY,MARCH 8,2005 With no response from Aggregate Industries by the end of business that day, the following e-mail was sent to Kim Ogle. Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2005 16:59:48 -0800 (PST) re, From: "Jonathan Baurer" <jwbaurer@brightonresources.com> nAdd to Address Book Subject: USR 1530 To: kogle@co.weld.co.us "Cindy Baurer" <cindybaurer@earthlink.net>, "Peter Baurer" <peterbaurer@earthlink.net>, "Carl CC: Eiberger" <black.bear@comcast.net>, "Michael Refer" <mike.refer@aggregate.com> Hi Kim, I am writing to give you an up-date regarding the noise,site,and dust pollution barrier between the Aggregate project and my parent's home. As discussed during the meeting last month,a suitable solution for Peter Baurer,Carl Eiberger,and Cindy Baurer would be a privacy type fence placed along the property line between their yard and the industrial project. As mentioned,this is Important to them for several reasons. First,there should be a clear delineation of the property line to ensure the avoidance of further trespassing onto the Baurer/Eiberger property. Additionally,the fence is necessary in order to maintain a visual and dust barrier for the property value, Most importantly the fence will aid in their continued legally due quiet enjoyment of their home. I have investigated the fence option with several companies and done my due diligence in concern to flood hazard development engineering standards. I have found that there are two options that would be acceptable to the land owners. Option one is the wooden structure that we discussed during our last meeting;however,as Mike Refer suggested,to engineer this to the standards specified by the PE is quite expensive. As a sign of good faith,we would be happy to accept the less expensive offer of fencing the property line with a suitably engineered chain link fence equipped with an opaque noise,sound and dust barrier. The ultimate cost of this type of fencing is dependant upon the engineers final recommendations;however,because the area is in a 100 year flood plain and not a flow or flood area,it may be assumed that the cost will be below the$45-$55 per liner foot high end quotes that I received for fencing that is actually engineered to be in a flow or flood area and may be closer to$30 per liner foot. This type of engineered fence is not considered either an obstruction or hazard by the PE. It was my hope to come to a resolution with Aggregate Industries prior to the Commissioners meeting on the 16th;however,even though I have placed several phone calls and e-mail messages to Mike Refer and other Aggregate representatives,at the time of this e-mail I have not received the courtesy of a return contact of any type. Because it now appears as though I may need to be present at the Commissioners meeting to represent my parents,would you please e-mail 0wbaurer@brightonresources.com)or call me(303-667-4146)with the time and place of the meeting? Thank you very much for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Jonathan Baurer Jonathan W.Baurer,M.B.A. Brighton Resources,LLC www.BrightonResources.com (303)667-4146 WEDNESDAY,MARCH 9,2005 Having been otherwise ignored and under the impression that Aggregate Industries was now un-interested in resolving the issue,Jonathan Baurer was surprised to receive the following e-mail from Mike Refer which again offered no proposal or even expected time-line for a resolution. Subject: RE: USR 1530 Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2005 08:21:20 -0700 From: "Refer, Mike" <mike.refer@aggregate.com> Ell View Contact Details To: "Jonathan Baurer" <jwbaurer@brightonresources.com>, kogle@co.weld.co.us "Cindy Baurer" <cindybaurer@earthlink.net>, "Peter Baurer" <peterbaurer@earthlink.net>, "Carl CC: Eiberger" <black.bear@comcast.net> Jonathan: We are working on your issues. Daily emails and voicemails are not necessary. Mike ,•••"-1/4WEDNESDAY,MARCH 9,2005 At this point,Jonathan Baurer e-mailed Carol Harding with the following message to appraise her of the situation. Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2005 12:49:12 -0800 (PST)From: "Jonathan Baurer" <jwbaurer@brightonresources.com> !9r,lAdd to Address Book Subject: USR 1530 To: charding@co.weld.co.us "Cindy Baurer" <cindybaurer@earthlink.net>, "Peter Baurer" <peterbaurer@earthlink.net>, "Carl CC: Eiberger" <black.bear@comcast.net>, "Michael Refer" <mike.refer@aggregate.com> Dear Carol Harding, My name is Jonathan Baurer and I am writing as a representative of my parents Peter and Cynthia Baurer. We have been working with Kim Ogle on issues regarding USR 1530 involving the property line between the home of Baurers,Carl Eiberger's home site and the property owned by Aggregate Industries. During the past several weeks,we have attempted to resolve this issue with Mike Refer of Aggregate Industries and it is my hope that it will indeed be resolved prior to the Commissioners hearing on March 16th;however,I simply wanted to provide you with my contact information before the meeting and let you know who I am prior to any more information specific contacts. Thank you for your time and consideration. Jonathan W.Baurer,M.B.A. Brighton Resources,LLC www.BrightonResources.com (303)667-4146 THURSDAY,MARCH 10,2005 In a final sign of good faith effort by Jonathan Baurer to establish communications and a subsequent resolution with Mike Refer,Jonathan Baurer sent the following e-mail message. Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 10:25:18 -0800 (PST) From: "Jonathan Baurer" <jwbaurer@brightonresources.com> Add to Address Book Subject: USR 1530 To: "Michael Refer" <mike.refer@aggregate.com> "Cindy Baurer" <cindybaurer@earthlink.net>, "Peter Baurer" <peterbaurer@earthlink.net>, "Carl CC: Eiberger" <black.bear@comcast.net> Hi Mike, I am writing to let you know that we are still committed to seeking a resolution on the property line issue. Given the time constraints that we are now facing,I am concerned about being able to work through any potential details that may arise with a landscape proposal from Aggregate Industries. Based upon the fact that you stated during the meeting on February 15th that Aggregate Industries is committed to resolving this issue with with the Baurers and Mr.Eiberger prior to the next Commissioners meeting,all of the Baurers(including myself)assumed that it would not be necessary to change our pre-arranged travel itineraries to attend the meeting on the 16th. That is why I have been so disappointed in Aggregate Industries failure to return any of our e-mails or phone messages. Unless we reach a resolution by tomorrow,we are going to ask the county for a continuance on this issue. My proposal for a quick solution is simple. Aggregate Industries should simply give us the$60,000.00 that you already committed to spend on the improvement so that we might complete the project ourselves. We are offering this settlement out of extreme good will. It should be noted that even the most expensive fence option is below$120,000.00. This only represents 1/2 of the $240,000.00 total loss of the appraised home value that the Baurers will incur with a 25%-30%deduction in property value due to the proximity of your project. As another sign or our continued commitment to work with you,this total sum of$60,000.00 would be applied as a credit to Aggregate Industries if the Baurer/Eiberger property is purchased in the future by Aggregate Industries. Please contact me as soon as possible. I am happy to meet with you in Golden anytime tomorrow(Friday)or over the weekend. Sincerely, Jonathan Baurer MONDAY,MARCH 14,2005 As of the date of this letter,no response of any type has been made to the any of the Baurers or Mr. Eiberger. L'IN'. "iv "TM- , z x" �... „5„ S+JP vi 1 MORE INFORMATION CALL �� x sr COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF ,:„1:24 R'"f � EARNING SERVICES ATs'L .t'T ,.. ` • � �'x Ah .t 970)353-6100 ell 3540 � y'�tc .s4`' ea ;0- r n'. - .., r �=' r. , it • w, �,.. *- ,, . a s;,-�a ., x Weir _C • ...kvx4t.Gw.L' "'+w.�.-' -"' 7k)j•' q- G * }s . S•"L'}i £f ,�V'.dlx_ nrfMiie�>. Y.�... � L!F....n+� y,.'? _ ... x4 Ct ,J as4TAI 441 '9 1 C Y'4r1 if EXHIBIT usit* 3 p C7y'n y a } s„ ' w [£'p x�a. TI•�*T` t t >� � ' +"�' y5aSF ("r,i IY i i 21 w r-#. i r "' -, .$r* , 't4 <t,.'z t wry %"+ 1 ` F• { ,• a'r� � � rt, _ f T *��* p'+�a5 • 't✓ ` t •� �. - � � Sr. 1 J t?,Jtf?- il " Yy +ail Mil , - • t¢`" I , f S r 'd' '/'1 , , $ !.♦ •; h. ' } 4j f•{§ :' .3'4'34 � �yh' � •�i \ + ' R i art lr•� allr` ^ (� ay t� fS� i , "' ax `" Nt 4 'A'. : i .Y. , /L, _p—_r_ 5 t gpr�j S .< flail/ JC�'x + • +^•,�'�• j •' � yi••_jt4 n } ,, yA 4e� t ,MS? � I . x� ik 1v .r tr. a/ • • r/ s rf ♦ •,. } (• k,'J %(a It j ':. J / • f! ` '#'$ ''t t,`• , 4,rli' i' i! fu,,, .! V /pqj �, i a (R' n •{ i-/I •yd . • Y * ��) �F I,' i + r e a•'• V 4 '. � �� '/ �a. v �A , �'7Y•a� •afx � � 1 ' : t .3 1Ei 1�0614i �( r � �I / ��, l irpx'- M a` V.r ^,x 3. ysrr; ., J� t )N ii!S iy yam .{{ A+' j �(]7_ rG !^ �• Y i �' '+•1_ i .,g n • n r r}R • 3 1 F ppl 44-^,. t!f n. iye#••iiiil iR' , .n " P rl '^ti$i• t. " .t, ' ' ? ; -« a '� ‘ W44 Meadow:lii PUMP y P w F . *1%14; r J �! t {' { ''r t'. 1S ry_ r �u y* ,Zs; , Any aunEs t 'r a v / rf,. r~ y 1 ' a �" ♦ µi' M It ., n ne a ki*P2 +lam �� F i,. 1. Ali • / M{• 1 r�4i et _.1tSc,yt•+. •I i • 17a S ,a44 • F. xJ� a j , � ETLA � � sF ;r Mot rpd r< fir" I v III A'^N! �"R „, 't' ws +. 1 a J. .iia ' ,� \ w' � , .: .•k is w• ,. 1 i. ,, • t14z 1 , I u►� `, * '� *a1 e _ ? it t r s 1 ` - EXHIBIT "'yrl -r r\ „ et,„:" t q y Ni 3 e unto '• I I` II• j , , / j�•. , \ 1 x.ta'� i F� j a j?aM•" ' ©19972004AIrPI1.OfaUS ' �,, USR-1350 - WATTENBERG LAKES 2005 PRESENTATION TO BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INTRODUCTION A. Presentation organized to provide Board w/understanding of sequence of events leading up to the development of the application before you today and in anticipation of questions Board might have 1. (CD) - History of project and County permit process as background info 2. (BS) - Application materials before Board for consideration today 3. Available to respond to questions — Connie Davis, Bill Schenderlein, Mike Refer, Jamie Gaboriau & Mike Savage BACKGROUND A. USR-1350 is replacement source for aggregate currently being mined under USR-905 (Platte Valley Operation, east of and adjacent to the proposed operation.) (Note: originally proposed as replacement for York) 1. Material extracted from USR-1350 to be conveyed to USR-905 processing facilities when its reserves are depleted. 2. Originally anticipated depletion of USR-905 reserves by April, 2005 but have made adjustments in attempt to prolong B. County application submitted July, 2001 to assure all permitting would be in place prior to depletion of USR-905 reserves. 1. PC hearing - October 16, 2001 a. a. Issues related to 404 application were major concern to PC • Largely based on referral comments from USFWS and EPA. • As those agencies serve in an advisory capacity to the Army Corps of Engineers, which has regulatory authority for issuing 404 permits, AI believed that obtaining a determination of status of the 404 permit by the Federal agencies would resolve concerns raised by PC. 2. AI proposed PC hearing continuance to provide opportunity to resolve issues related to 404 permit 3. PC voted to continue indefinitely C. 404 Permit 1. 2000 - Background prep work for permit application 1. Wetland delineation & Corps jurisdictional determinatio r— 2. Hydro geomorphic study (HGM) (floodplain and wetland functional assessment tool to establish baseline functionality of site requested by Corps), included: a. Site assessment, field investigations, data collection & analysis & prep of final report b. Installation & weekly measurements during growing season of groundwater wells in delineated jurisdictional wetlands c. Development of site-specific guidebook for study by consultant contracted by AI 2. 2001 1. March - Application submitted to Corps; PN issued 3/27/01 2. Corps received public & agency comments, including EPA & USFWS letters, which were duplicated & submitted to Weld Planning in processing of USR permit 3. AI met w/federal agencies to determine most pressing issues: a. No mining in slough b. Groundwater hydrology evaluation c. Want completed EIS d. Corps requested alternatives analysis w/economic impact to AI 4. AI developed alternative design a. Agencies reviewed & came up w/their own sketch of what they thought might be acceptable 5. September - Submitted response to all comments rec'd by Corps w/revised layout No. VI 3. 2002 1. January — agencies met re AI's 9/29/01 response & Alt. VI & determined impacts still not acceptable 2. AI meetings w/Corps re Acceptable Impacts, & AI began developing: a. Revised Alternative VII map based on agency sketch b. Conceptual mitigation plan map w/18 acres of mitigation wetlands proposed on PV site 3. Corps requested detailed mitigation plan showing phasing of replacements i. Also acknowledged forthcoming commencement of r-, cumulative effects study that CRPA was to conduct in response to agency concerns, but stated that they would not wait for completion of study (will provide additional info re study) 4. November - Revised Alternative VII (10/16/02) & conceptual mitigation plan showing phasing submitted to Corps 4. 2003 1. January - Agencies met & determined latest plan submitted to Corps was not acceptable & continued to threaten to elevate if Corps approved i. Agencies produced new sketch based on acceptable wetland impacts ii. Corps now states that, before Wattenberg permit (if revised) will be issued, the they will want to review info presented in S Platte Study 2. Corps & AI met re options & reducing impacts per agencies' 1/21/03 sketch—AI requests written approval from USFWS & EPA if drawn to that 3. April — Corps advises that agencies agreed but wanted to see permit conditions and mitigation plan with the map before giving final ok 4. June - Corps draft permit w/special conditions sent to EPA & USFWS i. EPA & USFWS conditionally withdrew threats to elevate but expressed continuing concerns 5. July - Corps incorporated additional special conditions to address other agency concerns & provided draft permit & requested from AI: i. Comments on draft permit ii. Mitigation plan & map based on 1/21/03 sketch iii. Water augmentation plan for mining iv. Depletions analysis for reservoir losses a. Result could trigger Sec. 7 consultation w/USFWS, but b. Corps would try to put condition in permit to delay consultation & allow proceeding w/project 5. 2004 1. February— South Platte River corridor study completed 2. March - AI submits to Corps: i. Comments & edits to draft permit i-. ii. Final drawings (mine/reservoir layout date 3/4/04, mitigation plan dated 2/23/04 & well location map re GW monitoring dated 10/14/03) iii. Detailed Mitigation Plan dated March 2004 3. AI was advised that, due to off site potential downstream effects to endangered species in Nebraska from depletions, formal Sec. 7 consultation process with the USFW triggered i. Required AI to perform a Biological Assessment to determine risk to Nebraska endangered species ii. Submitted to Corps then to USFW— summer 2004 iii. Draft Biological Opinion from USFW received by AI in December. AI decided not to challenge their findings; waiting for the final BO. 4. A cultural survey was required to comply with the National Historic Preservation Act. Showed no impact. 5. July a. Corps draft 4 of permit incorporated AI comments, minor Corps edits b. AI finalized responses to EPA (5/13/04) & USFWS ,,.. (5/4/04) questions 6. 2005 1. AI has diligently worked with the ACOE, USFWS and the EPA since October, 2001 to address their concerns. 2. 2/4/05 - Corps finished their Record of Decision, requested final BO from USFWS 3. Eagle Nest— AI understood that BO was ready for signature & submittal to Corps on 2/18/05, however a. 2/17/04 —K Ogle advised AI that DOW reported possible new eagle's nest on site. b. 2/18/05 - AI advised USFWS & Corps re nest &USFWS determined to withhold final BO c. 2/18-3/10/05 a. Site investigations to ascertain if other eagle nests on Wattenberg/PV sites b. Discussions w/agencies 7 research re eagle nesting & migration behavior, activity buffer zones around nests c. On-site meeting w/agencies d. Re-evaluation of phasing of mining, timing of wetland mitigation replacements to avoid eagle impacts e. Continued nest site monitoring, which to date is unconfirmed as to whether or not eggs have been laid f 3/10/05 —met w/agencies re proposed re-phasing, buffer zones & time-frames and continued eagle monitoring, all of which has been agreed upon & is currently being incorporated as a supplement to the BA prepared by AI's consultant, the BO to be issued by USFWS & the 404 permit conditions g. Anticipate issuance of 404 permit with 30-60 days, during which time AI proposes to proceed w/activities outside of wetland areas & the agreed upon buffer zone; these areas are being staked in the field to assure compliance 4. 404 permit process has resulted in: a. Aggregate recovery reduction of over 25% to 9.38 mcy b. Water storage reduced apx. 37% to 3,834.8 of c. Wetlands impacts reduced by apx. 70% reduction i. 63 acres of virgin wetlands left in-tact ii. 28.6 acres of disturbed wetlands will be replaced by same form & function or better at the same rate areas are disturbed resulting in No Net Loss iii. Due to timing of phasing & need to provide replacements @ PV up front, wetlands replacement will exceed disturbance by 6.6 acres for a total of 35.2 d. 404 permit with i. 21 General Conditions ii. Roughly 22 site specific conditions of unprecedented scope iii. Jamie Gaboriau and Mike Refer will be available to provide additional information on the 404 process if you have questions after our presentation. D. South Platte River Corridor Study 1. Agency concerns raised thru AI's permit process prompted extensive study of cumulative effects of aggregate mining along the SP River 2. Funded through CRPA, industry representatives developed scope of study in conjunction w/federal agencies designed to assess significance and magnitude of any effects along SPR corridor from Chatfield Dam to confluence of Cache La Poudre & SP 3. Included investigation of .-. i. Changes to geomorphology of river (stream channel geometry and location) ii. Changes to hydrology—water quantity, quality & flow regime iii. Changes to type and size of vegetation communities iv. Changes to type & areal extent of wetlands v. Changes to type & extent of wildlife habitat 4. Study conducted & report prepared by team of wetland scientists, ecologists, wildlife biologists, engineering geologists, hydrologists, planning specialists and socioeconomists a. Information collected from USGS, USFWS, USACE, CDOW, Denver Museum of Nature & Science, CU and CRPA members. b. Time frames evaluated included 50's, 70's & 90's and a projection of changes through the 2010 decade 5. Study concluded a. Significant alteration of the natural river corridor occurred prior to aggregate mining, largely due to: i. Diversions of water for agricultural use ii. Development of water storage and flood control projects iii. Most significant cumulative effects are related to residential development & agriculture, as these activities create most significant alterations to natural conditions and have least potential for mitigation of impacts. iv. Aggregate mining reclaimed to open water result in slight to moderate alteration of natural conditions, however this activity provides opportunity to enhance natural environment. v. The landform changes, riparian habitat & wetland projects associated with aggregate mining along the SP River enhance & broaden the wildlife corridor with open water bodies and protect the corridor from further development 2. This was a two year project, starting in 2002 and concluded in 2003, with report completed in February 2004. 3. Mike Savage, author of the study, will be available for questions following Bill's presentation E. Groundwater Concerns 1. Third concern expressed by agencies, which the 2001 PC reiterated 2. AI implemented monitoring & mitigation plan January 2002 a. Installed 9 deep monitoring wells around site b. Measurements taken monthly for over 3 years & will continue throughout life of mine 3. Groundwater evaluation prepared based on measurement date & submitted to DMG 4. DMG approved the monitoring & mitigation plan which were incorporated into the requirements of the 112 mining permit 5. Town of Wattenberg well incorporated into monitoring plan by agreement 6. 404 Permit special conditions also include additional monitoring & mitigation requirements. F. County Process 1. August 2003 — a. Accepted extraction plan was agreed upon with the Federal agencies, & Corps began developing the terms of the special conditions of the 404 permit b. AI met w/Planning Staff to ascertain appropriate process for proceeding w/County application c. Opinion of staff was that AI could continue to hearing with its existing application upon submittal of an addendum to the application incorporating the modifications resulting from the 404 permit process. HOWEVER d. As issuance of the 404 permit was pending final development of the special conditions, Staff also encouraged AI obtain written verification from Federal agencies that concerns addressed e. EPA & USFWS were reluctant to respond however their concerns have been addressed through the special conditions of the permit f. With acknowledgement from Corps that concerns related to the 404 permit had been addressed and issuance of the permit forthcoming, AI submitted its addendum to USR-1350 in December 2004 i. Addendum addresses concerns of the only referral agencies to have filed opposition to the USR and was submitted in response to the outstanding concerns of the Planning Commission. G. AI has worked diligently w/federal agencies since October 2001 to address their concerns, H. With time & patience afforded by Weld County staff, Kim Ogle, Char Davis & Don Carroll, we believe that we have identified and responded to conditions of approval I. Other permit processes have been approved, including: a. County approved Flood Hazard Development permit b. State Division of Minerals and Geology 112 permit. c. Well permit and Temporary Substitute Supply Plan approved by State Engineers Office. d. Additionally air emission and water discharge permit amendment applications filed & will be approved before commencing activities associated with those permits. Hello