The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20012877 Yt u_yr v Elt.T.,;,in g L-, . a L 3/4& i i. d V _ September 19, 2001 Mr. Kim Ogle, Planner Weld County Planning Dept. 1555 N. 17th Street Greeley, CO 80631 Dear Mr. Ogle, We are writing again to show our opposition to the three pending mine permits for the greater Platteville area. We feel these operations would have negative impacts on our community. Thank you for taking our family's future into consideration. Sincerely, 4-0,62_, 1'4.11,0( / Jd'hn & Billie Jo Jameson 2001-2877 EXHIBIT Frank C. Stewart P.O. Box 365 Platteville, CO 80651 September 27, 2001 Kim Ogle, Planner Weld County Planning Service 1555 North 17th Avenue Greeley, CO 80631 Dear Mr. Ogle: I wish to ask you to deny or at least postpone the approval of a permit for mining the minerals of the South Platte River by Special Review Permit, USR 1306 for Platte Sand and Gravel, LLC for the following reasons: 1. It is against the law to remove Indian gravesites or other gravesites withoutpermission. Indians lived all up and down the South Platte River and its tributaries. Children were born to these families, and family members died and were buried near the family homes. Research by Otero Junior College in 1967, under the direction of archaeologist Galen Baker found archaeological artifacts in this area. On June 17, 1984 an electro-magnetic study of this site revealed the presence of many unmarked graves which were not identified with permanent markers by the researchers. A study should be made,with the sophisticated equipment now available, to identify all of.the burial sites and protect them from damage by any mining operations on this property or on any of the South Platte River drainage area. 2. The Bureau of Indian Affairs through the AAIA (American Indian Affairs Committee) should be asked to assist us in identifying all the gravesites along the South Platte River and its tributaries. This could help us preserve these historical sites and could save us some embarrassment and tremendous costs should we not act now to protect these sites. It appears the U.S. Government may be forced to make immense reparations to the surviving descendants of the Sand Creek Massacre by Col. Chivington. We don't want some future court to decide that Weld County permitted someone to apply for a permit to mine sand and gravel and destroy gravesites while removing the minerals. If the mining company has removed all the minerals included in that permit and has left the area, Weld County could be forced to make the reparations. Weld County might not be able to produce enough money to pay these descendants and be forced into bankruptcy. If the permitee is still here, we might be found equally responsible with those who destroyed the gravesites. I can help you make contact with some of the Indian people if you wish. 3. It has already become very hazardous to drive on U.S. Highway 50, Colorado 66, and the county roads in this area because of the increase in vehicular travel. I find it very difficult Weld County Manning Dept. EXHIBIT r � N - 2 - to enter or to cross any of these roads with my propane truck which weighs less than half as much as a loaded sand and gravel truck. Imagine how long it will take such a heavy truck to enter the line of traffic and accelerate to the speed of the traffic. There will probably be a great increase in the number of accidents. Will Weld County have any responsibility for these accidents because we permitted the mining activity? These trucks go like the wind on the county roads. In this area the roads are so narrow I am concerned for the school buses and the children waiting for the bus at the side of the road. 4. Please review the letter to Mr. Ogle by Grant and Nancy Fisher where they enumerated the site areas. Thank you for your consideration of my report. Frank Stewart 12570 Weld County Road 34 Platteville, CO 80651 (970) 785-2819 f / "'' C k 7 CAROL Harding- Re: URGENT!! Re: Docket Number"#2001-57 Page 1 From: Christine Howard <stvrainer@yahoo.com> To: Christine Howard <stvrainer@yahoo.com>, "79779; ??" <joe_pinner@msn.com>, <charding@co.weld.co.us> Date: 8/22/01 11:16AM Subject: Re: URGENT!! Re: Docket Number"#2001-57 Adding another name, #22 below: --- Christine Howard <stvrainer@yahoo.com>wrote: > This letter of Joe Pinner receives my full support > as >well as other St. Vrain family descendants and > friends. Because we are not able to be in > attendance > at today's meeting, PLEASE do give consideration to >this request. > Sincerely, 1. Christine St. Vrain-Howard - Santa Fe, NM 2. H.William Howard, Ill - Santa Fe, NM 3. Christa Tyler- Santa Fe, NM 4. Eric Tyler- Santa Fe, NM _ 5. Todd St. Vrain -Washington, DC 6. Rory Murphy- Bothell, WA 7. C. Marye St. Vrain- San Rafael, NM 8. Bobby Hooser- Francis, OK r ' 9. Abi Westwood -Albuquerque, NM 10. Steve Grimm- Englewood, CO 11. Tom Hooser- Oklahoma - •. 12. John Hooser-Ada, OK 13. Pam Hooser- Blossom, TX 14. Tom Hooser- Blossom, TX 15. Cheryl Eudy- St. Peters, MO 16. Dave Pino- Fremont, CA 17. Lenore Schwankovsky, Ph.D. - Claremont, CA 18. Devon Guthrie- Claremont, CA 19. Colin Guthrie- Claremont, CA 20. Arthur Derbigny- La Junta, CO 21. Alice Kelly- Red Rock, OK 22. Carla Delassus-Gress- San Francisco, CA > ---• "99999; ??" <joe_pinner@msn.com>wrote: > >August 20, 2001 > > Weld County Commissioners > > re: Docket Number#2001-57 > > Special Review Permit, USR 1306 > > Gentlemen: > > You must prohibit a Batch Plant and gravel mining > > operation along the Platte River north of and > > adjacent to Weld County Road 36. Mining this > 3-mile > > stretch of riverfront would forever destroy the > most > > historical area in Weld County, including: EXHIBIT CAROL Harding Re URGENT!! Re Docket Number' #2001-57 Page 2 > > Native American and pioneer graves, > > the site of WeldlQOs first court house, > > first post office, > > a historic fort, > > the township of St. Vrain, > > the Trapperl'tOs Trail, the Overland Trail, >the > >Taos Trail, > > the Wells Fargo route, > > the Golden City and Colorado Wagon Toll Road. > > I have lived in Weld County for 24 years and know > >this 3-mile stretch of riverfront is the prettiest > > place in Weld County. Prehistoric fossils line > this > > Wildcat Mound area. Eagle, deer, mountain lion, > and > >wild turkey thrive hereltOand we want to dig it > up? > > For what? > > Countless other sites can provide gravel. Only >this > > beautiful site holds such rich historical > > significance. Once destroyed by the greed of > outside > > developers, we will have lost this natural beauty, > >this connection to our heritage, forever. > > With urban sprawl rapidly headed north to Greeley > > and beyond, where are you going to leave a green > > space? Where will our grandchildren go to close > >their eyes and imagine the past? If there is a > place > > in all of Weld that should be preserved for future > > generations, this is it. Deny this permit. Vote > for > >the citizens and heritage of Weld County. You can > > find a way. > > Most Sincerely, > > R.S. Joe Pinner > > 2140 39th Avenue > > Greeley, Colorado 80634 > > 970-330-9075 > >Joe Pinner > > mailto:joe_pinner@msn.com (home) > > mailto:Joe.Pinner@XcelEnergy.com (work) > > http://fsv.homestead.com (FSV Website) > Do You Yahoo!? > Make international calls for as low as$.04/minute CAROL Harding Re. URGENT!! Re Docket Number #2001-57 Page 3 >with Yahoo! Messenger > http://phonecard.yahoo.com/ Do You Yahoo!? Make international calls for as low as$.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger http://phonecard.yahoo.com/ CC: <gvaad@co.weld.co.us>, <rmadsen@co.weld.co.us>, <dlong@co.weld.co.us>, <bjerke@co.weld.co.us>, <mgeile@co.weld.co.us>, Mike Peters <peters@greeleytrib.com>, <england@greeleytrib.com>, <cobler@greeleytrib.com> Mike Geile - FT. St.Vrain Page 1 From: "Savino, Richard {QA-Boulder}" <RICHARD.SAVINO@ROCHE.COM> To: "'gvaad@co.weld.co.us'" <gvaad@co.weld.co.us>, "'rmadsen@co.weld.co.us"' <rmadsen@co.weld.co.us>, "'dlong@co.weld.co.us"' <dlong@co.weld.co.us>, "'bjerke@co.weld.co.us"' <bjerke@co.weld.co.us>, "'mgeile@co.weld.co.us"' <mgeile@co.weld.co.us> Date: 8/24/01 1:31 PM Subject: FT. St. Vrain Dear Commissioners: I wish to add my voice to those opposing the cement and gravel plant and other'improvements' around the Ft. St. Vrain site. I am a local public television producer and plan on filming efforts to save and preserve this site. I was involved in earlier efforts with CDOT and others with Ft. _l Junction and the I-25 expansion and prison site several years back. We cannot afford to lose this site now. The key to this and other sites is to keep them in the context of the area they were originally built in. The Fort must remain on the original site, surrounded by the natural setting. Without that you lose all perspective of history. You may as well place it in a city J park. What is important is a place where people can go to sense the past, ;� not just see it. I appreciate your efforts and the difficult job you all have. Please make the right choice. Once history is erased, it can never be replaced. Respectfully yours, Richard Savino EXHIBIT 66 Ole MEMORANDUM ` at at;•IH-- TO: Board of County Commissioners August 30, 2001 voileFROM: Carol Harding, Office Manager COLORADO SUBJECT: Fees - Platte Sand and Gravel, LLC The application of Platte Sand and Gravel, LLC was referred to the Planning Commission for rehearing on October 2, 2001, after receipt of new referral responses. Monica and Lee disagree about whether you intended the applicant to resubmit an application from the beginning with new fees attached, or return the revised or supplemental application back to the Planning Commission with the applicant paying additional costs such as postage and publication costs. In reviewing the record, the majority of the Board either did not give an opinion or said it was not appropriate to start over(which would necessitate new fees). I have highlighted the appropriate comments in the attached hearing certification. The motion specified the Board"refer the revised or supplemental application. . . back to the Planning Commission to be reconsidered September 26, 2001, after new referrals have been sent out." The motion was then amended to have the Planning Commission hearing held on October 2,2001. If the Board wishes the applicant to again pay the entire fee (approximately $1,100), the matter should be placed on the agenda for official determination of that choice. Please indicate below what action should be taken: Process as Amended Process as New Reconsider Application (Pay only Application (Pay at Regular Additional Fees) All Fees) Board Meeting Mike Bill Glenn Rob Dave EXHIBIT SALLY I 09—te — c2clJ/ V4'e,"d CcdntY Planning Dap F. September 28, 2001 } Mr. Kim Ogle, Planner Weld County Department of Planning Services 1555 N. 17th Avenue Greeley, CO 80631 RE: USR#1306,Platte Sand and Gravel, LLC Dear Mr. Ogle: We are writing in regard to the Platte Sand & Gravel, LLC application for a sand and gravel mining operation northwest of Platteville. Our property on County Road 36 is approximately one mile east of the proposed operation and will be impacted if they use CR 36 as a haul route. It would be preferable that the property remains in agriculture; however, we recognize this is a valuable gravel resource which will be exploited, if not now, then in the future. We also understand, if this proposal meets or is in compliance with all county, state, and federal requirements, approval will probably follow. If approval is granted by both the Planning Commission and the County Commissioners, we ask that requirements be imposed to lessen the impact on surrounding land owners and the environment. This means,to name a few: • all haul roads must be specifically identified, paved and constructed to specifications sufficient to support the proposed truck traffic • limitation of mining and processing activities to daylight hours only • reclamation of mined areas be closely monitored to insure compliance with county and NCRS requirements • preservation of historical sites,both known and to be identified • protection of wetlands and other environmentally sensitive areas for wildlife • insure there will be no detrimental effect on existing domestic and irrigation wells (this may require an extended term liability bond). The developers additionally propose to use the site for cement and asphalt batch plants and recycling of concrete and asphalt. We strongly do object to this use as it is not compatible with the area. Particularly, we oppose their plan of concrete and asphalt -- - 1 - EXHIBIT 1 `2 it recycling as these operations are industrial in nature which would not only visually pollute but would very probably be environmentally damaging to this agricultural area and the Platte River. It should be noted that intensive use for industrial purposes on agriculturally-zoned land is akin to "spot zoning" which we understand is illegal. Thank you for your attention to the above points. Sin rely, 11-A Richard Le 1 C� Barbara A. Lengel 12117 Weld County Road 36 Platteville, Colorado 80651 P.S. Any extraordinary costs resulting from this proposal must be paid by the developer and not Weld County taxpayers. _ 2 - �' KE. -- CASE # U3R - 13040 EXHIBIT Kerr, Oak C- G3It Cu u \ Rr� IY\ N c_ \\-,„ u of )( 5e ,_ti i \-\ lO ClAdCe`i`J t ‘ l5o i �r" 1°;A _\ � - C n �i � � (� � '.1� \ A ( \�� != � rt ( .1 1 rave (11 i i c l_(> ci �.A_I r) e.'r r r, ; r- - \..c. ( \ a I (T1 Cw cl_( ,t_ANI ' ) e.'._ Ck:" ,;() ;:3. �~ ; Th e.'S I S 9'c L.:1-, \ -/ i (3N e a_ r y kxo.\- 4-\C le-(7 (Tyr, t r1 ; t-.. n( ( ) -}} \)) LK S (\LCyYl k V,. ti c. , 1)1)) )(SO cci. V) e i .\ ;u C.( I. . Ott c:)) v1 ( .�rw .,, , 1. Ci.: r-_ (A.,5 ma. r� c� :; 1 Cc c lC5 _�. hn..k. Po.S s \ci yr i [°..S e ( 1L. C.o M( :Y � ,) c .;5C°- c .y D . f1� vOhc_ t • � C C_A c'.; ) r'er1 z i.:V C C;D C (j (jv C, ��t�_`(1* y d B Gt�.ah,e.ce l,ae 1J e )) \\ t \ ‘ s ck. , ( C\CIA (��i � l. � N r ',a,a, <l e� c� q o A to e`s (A 1 it- c c, e C A-V\ P .M \\as t, 1 i . e.c__.-\ ,coo cr T e ()Vine r "ko cj 0 b7 O ( \ cVe +c put\ \ °ve - o`n, p Nay* e.. \� co� ec\ -1- v1 x:,1-. {� ± -Pry .yy . .S c--cVA a'"V A (2 r O-\l e A M 111 c.. ® e. 1h ��r�. v % \1 e. �. ve.ts \ Ore \'1ccv\ly -\"Ta-kV\c. 'G v..flsa e or,- cS 1c'hn iM, er\V\o`N. "One a≥ae-ei d.u.s\- �_�h��n \s r, \(lea1 \'err C Brea no) Q.onccrr, \1 as c1 ,en.‘ Sc61k \A1 e .a\3C c. \C\o,N e A L cs Y o n9 C:3`c oox\c\ e h:,\dX e )`\-)1o.\' I Qe_ us o..cro.ss -he C.oac ran\ LA.s the1r Sate-±y \ s most- cone.er n o u1/4.s a. s i s 11�.. S .-Vey CA ch,iarer, n h,s circa U11r CAA' ()cc &'cr:1 Cae Q`\v1akcen are cum ,r\ ( L \ e90 c o h\ C 5 Su e. The \axv} e J S a t\d CN\n6 Grave \ /V"a1t e. COt1Ce\rris ' L1. (- :\ Sslae. Ci'(1 1 e \h-)u, iv +h e PIG. a .Sar\d a c\d � G fav�l s sk3.A eA A:No, •-r-h 'No t3seca s ,te \rvaaA S ,{ vc\ (� .h1�. oo� m, 1 n9 9c-oury t ha`r talere. \V\Cue Vou:6 \-yv they tsoU \c '•( 03e \\ac‘t/P 1 1 A (Ai°vy cc) �,os o They 1 cVc. % h . T1ney 'a� e \\au1 ect an G\\0LVO. ecc p c. ; \ 'he proposeA o rca C eoupke CA k\cnts \\ r,s Sect.so, tt . They 90 ctcp\ (has* ov-r 1eSka er\ee US 4\, e\\'r \C.a$ s w 1 \d t t - `e w 1 t\ Ste o ca ,, '% t h e 9`�c�►; ..e Sa cad Gcosie\ i tn ie goes to • The a re re bAJ Tnc ves k 4 nes4 1 n 1" e. p fop c5 Se a area.,. `Vhe:v c Cbrl-erle ti\ou.1a be. d \skuYbed _ There ire Wtic� Tta:rVe Gityri9 the `c'1Velr as Wet\ as deer . \ Their Y0,\O'dL oc.�\e� ve \c pet \ . There are so " ,iefvf 'rvtt4a4 areas k,Je a\ ready been 6 ethres,led \n {-\-‘ e `name TO resS The as d b e l' mt * i `c1o} 5 @Ur C_ht ‘are.n and g v'ana e:\ntare' ujAsk never Know the \& o c,aer Qma \raec uAy `i\cLk ve anal Weak. 'tV YtpraseM.s. c\os1 (c) S I \vhpl.ore pkGSe. Coc1sstcdec- �i\1 *fie oss'kUe c. ofl3ecuencLes \ hs plc \c Scsv\ cm,A Grc,ve\ 'j \ne cetk\c\ Cause. OS' Troa"4 yOU Vox- \four \('rl e RespeeA 'k&\\\j 1 r 13 4.5 \AL. R 3 Fd \ V { 4 . _ / h T - t IWe:We:d 4C:an if t'tanning Door, ECEaVP EXHIBIT I 0 flak - ACRES CASE NO USR x506 15,26%ACRES _ Ds AT M .. NAME H F 3. '‘ -' irA/ sisk IN_�G mIs A PURLIc HEA .;ONCERNING THIS PROPERI i D AT915-10th i, DO 80631. STREET. Gtie - ,)DORADO 80631. ON Go 'v 119%+.Ai ,o QC or VII CALL THE FOR MORE 'al ,nrl„I ION CALL THE BANNING WELD COUNTY DEPT.OF PLANNING wawaSERVICES AT 356-0000. AI ------------ Fau Fp�L-� to vANIS PV 02 =Y 1 Vim. , ,."., ` ,- '-` �7 1 _ . ---y •\;" iT S & \-7 f iiq i� ,v.' ;_ - ,� • / : _Tf �. tom' ODO. •r A,- tit; r • r t . __ .., 9"1 , issia4 gar_ stil : ..L.911,,,. , il d :,..nda - �T r v;1 r ��1iacii� 1 en I f sr_ j � , o • n ; * dary :4 r //s0-. ,y-.IMIIIIIIFA `� , i _ L 7441 1ps911 re t ) [" F —/i � � 18 _ 7 ^rte brd -all , f Wells ir, r4�9 S t ' I AC t. Wester me T u. / t 30 � a t era �•`/ .Lt• \ i r F: VI) ,,,...:§, ., r c�J T�' 91 p �C . , ,e, dr A 7 \ J1 �� OCf1L 1Ct0 I r ell .7� 4 MI /' IIII`�� d1 Oo c\ 1 -' 1 C- rasa _� 7 { 7 - \ . 4.nd L - WC _ -\_, 1 41 Psi Pt, 1 . m r Orgill �,�,` Wells r 7'7-�` -�'4 -- _ l 1" ail ;_ i \� !^' _ '� �� c 2 WCR 32.5, ul' r r�N. \ Oil '--)‘ N.kik . -li 100-Year , 4w�,�,�t ;� L . T' ► ,. - _- , 4L° / . _ tun2dary 2 ._ i .1/4/ 1 2,-•, 2 _ . - 1462 tilt 47 �.i `alt Ylr3" A"� -_ �l\��I 1 ara'��.�^�'-' _---_. , . . OW 4 Mill k" A iii me i =Wed / r eiT er ' � I I te J ter ; -;., t 1 . C • _ 1173 - � 'Is� o f et Mit t Environmental Services. LLC S at H MINA Longmont_CO-970 535 9318 EXHIBIT a i. d di 8 1;5/ igr. cY� .y vs 4A- '44 4 P �t i �. +4vwA"�"IF }"« h 11 -,a "7 % %, v i ',F ;En 1 i r-T' '8i e _ 6 Os y is : ♦ t t1.'t-g i1 r ,r / �r7P'{ ' f 7 44 44 -� i s ay / I in / t,.F-4844:418!‘ c., ./ 14 `f ` 44 �F r •n.e .r tom. - y' a '..: _. .. :;�. - - yam.` - _ " ' PA. "^- •A ,� of _ j... 5 ✓------ f ..�= 19LZ r a. `�y V t i x''44/ i HS -w -�° « ,sa, , - k { rS � \t- ',,. ✓ {� -MINE S r ` ` I-12 II__.. 1 Ealar. „ � t I{ir 4b II imal dir • s n iI { - J J ;o Clv ' 1 IN I ,„ I I LRNAL ROAD - ""'-- - r q,� pu \ a244 avV 21 iimmans 10:„ 0. 40eit S(Sal MINE pit& ciasi i __...� Platte Sand and Gravel - S&H Mine vs Approved Weld County Mining Operations Comparison • OC F Tv ,- 1 ,t- vs /te` a CJ ijk"` / s,/iIi;i/ •cOQ fk 41/ F r IS. �� ° 7- ot Q b ea .1- ° / it• e 1i * `e m c e� .'f ifa . .?47- c • I.% USR* Date Project I Name IS IV ti ct af r Cl y k 4- , of C. 4 4 Q G 44 =Iilit "1 . I s 1 A11144.44+44441++++11 _ _ 1 1219 111 r Sami Land ' 110 296 20-30 1 A No 25 Yes Yes No No No No No No No NOV �iu . . . . f . a s _ . J , 1329 2001 Loveland Ready Mix Dry 68 200 20 NA A Yes 25 No Yes No No No No No No No No No Unanimous Unanimous 1265 1188 Cry/R Li�plon Dry $6 NA 13 NA A Yes 15 Yes Yes Aci No No No No No No No No 1095 1996 Odenbaugh Wet 6.6 80 8 4 A No NA No No Yes No No No No No Nc No No Unanimous Unanimous 4 840 tee Anemia/Carr Sits Dry 1300 1800 20-45 S A No NA No No No No No No No No No No No allEffelLta Validgnia AM248 1965 Varna Dry 110 155 NQ, 5 A Yes 50 No No Nc No No Nc No Yes No No No Unanimous Unanimous , • • ''Joss Chasm S141tt 19L2 Sir Dam,Dry, 14 20 NA _ 4 A Yes_c_ No_No No No,No No No'No No Yee No *\:4 Not Apph able: Not 4lailabte EXHIBIT 141.14_ Platte Sand and Gravel S & HMine Mined Land Reclaimation Board (MLRB) Permit Approved MLRB Financial Warranty Approved MLRB Reclaimation Bond Approved Traffic Study Approved Dewatering Protection Plan Approved CDPES Water Discharge Permit Approved Water Substitute Supply Plan Approved State Engineers Office Open Pit Well Permit Approved Western Mutual Ditch Company Water Agreement Signed Western Mutual Ditch Company Easement Agreement Signed Western Mutual Ditch Company Crossing Agreement Signed Xcel Energy Agreement Signed H&S Resources Oil & Gas Agreement Signed Patina Oil & Gas Agreement Signed Ptasnik/Decker/Platte - Dewatering Mitigation Agreement Signed Gibraltar Development Agreement Signed Platteville/Gilcrest Fire and Emergency Issues Completed Wetlands Study Completed Prebles Meadow Jumping Mouse Study Completed Ute Ladies' Tresses Orchid Study Completed Road Improvements Agreement Drafted Alternative Traffic Route Study Submitted °0 x Town of Milliken No Conflict W .warn M r It lt�• S } f. I'r1 ll 11 .c.:, _ f. _..., i . ... ._ . , , , 1. '. t I t 1 ' r •r ~ • 4 1 b . , .. .. 10. .tj y Ik,, *a...i!. ' .. iI , • o { ` k • li L # kr I it k•rLI I . 4" lie i 4 •' •' y I \< z ,. .g 'f` Pf fit \ .•t '' i + - Y, !! • I ]war, 4 4• i ,{ � ,yam i. . y,. '_ f '� A �� _ _.. o EXHIBIT 11 a c Phi- ,.c,(U >\6 N- v_P J>i -�= �,.. ...r t v,ne it) v-.)c 2,?Pe �)ED i cA'1`� Sing DIAN0Auct-bi l'Am rOTAsPitu IRiN7 NA-C C IGN,e vILE IV--,ADC.2-5.5 ip Ci 7rz-Eo6e- C---- cy i O N 7 `3C(2 35 C- Cor c.Al e 1 - ;e Q ,,,:k- Pi-Ant-,/i is lM yo(AC' L- k /177? �' ,2 . 3(a P P HCti\ Sco / I t R Ljk (k) /A:tkc ti ( (r k I/i au... ?„,,,,--L 'rt. q i'2.(c (th.u-y It' L ! %itCo<<,c - .- ill 661 6 e'U.L'atc[ 1l C1-2,c ,4.tu-uG //LCD Lid 6_,C3G7 �EeILt_� , / z lJ , -567/ceffi 1 —a- e� `11E4 ,/ +,s-tac-/e� l e e- -4— Jz. (3{ atri b,,t,r L i l Yu 114 (6; WcC3 ,6 i a-f-1-c- O;it - GU J t 0,f C�hlCkE; i '/ ar �� w134- WC2 3"3 Ptddfevi(le ,- ,C�C4h Cj-� t- c1ti- 668°)) �9 #u 1s � b e , hanail Eb.€ /-4+ � &CA ± aY75 cim9,3 49(G iir(/e o, ,,ebc�e, aert si- /X99,5 le/eE 3 1e--I/ ( (7, t-V (-errd , v\, .-l- „Sl_L - / l 5 -cce)cie 06 l ( ),' I I c ) 61 /raGe/I/40a i d ":0991 11- 411 4/721-7; dd /4 el)s;c-S-itin C-- 5 `leja : g_45-9 7 ,C- e t atm_ tbti, Ce) (v i -b 'R l (,,14/1 /O117 3(; 'IPlar&iiiii '1 (9 , / �](ufi,„JJ ,./ frk11M1/ C i73N/c,il st t'rrll l-�i„Li//� co Ir 1 L �57n.N- '^ ' :tIL. 55'.; if' Lt)C<' 3 / iC /'u j/ (1, Cc 1vs'ati ( }D /c1S ! J1�..ic-7elD \AL1r.;•�\`i a . k i q/ (%-� i, 9(-7 c. :1:4--y,.S Ge— �L' c.c r29Y<± C C7 (-'42. I�iYvi �i �d"fPi � _ � j tt., d ',IT) .et( jz /(7 44'c',e 36 .L� e CO. yy- �, /)4v : - ') d -, dro ci , ��'/S � c�1 ?G /L /L�//.e✓//iL C 5--e7 (."; ) ) g \A IFe J31-6-1,4”,1 x01 1 ai / /r,;UL ,td 3," ii AM,'- -<-- ('0 oc-5-r Dully . , M. May-1-7 J x2,t^1i fk ' 7wz3 ce 3E, hala - ,k gU4,51�� C%' 52 f' / kl1 P .:: , ,0 d,Q,_Te, i,e t. C.✓',/, Q /li ht, Ile i- A Cam. lYatoytociz. a0Pkrrev, /leYt#; erne-n1'n19Hu1L 4 /6/J9L,Ct23 (/ ''2c c906c/ 1( 3 g, Fir m Pv fii<9,--, i 2c01eNa CC2 i3 n1; !(Uke(4 Co 5o,9 t 1 F ,/'c Z7,WA ST -.5Aa2224 iQ*ail L25-7O LJC,e 31 ?� vCiel4„ , ,,z:4,s-/ /li o I Q yvut. ,? 1, / , 77/ ,fie 3e- fL4 Lrr- )///( k 5u6 / CUR fT'm J /E (9;;( -7 _ 1/57/ iJLR3222 PLA'TTEvi&LE 5 ) My comments today are based on information stated in public hearings and by facts and figures provided by the applicant. The Board of County Commissioners on August 22nd felt a need to send back to the planning commission the original application from Platte Sand and Gravel with revisions so the planning commission could give a fair recommendation based on the referral agencies review of these revisions. These revisions shown on the cover letter ( page 1 in your packets) from Tom Haren show 11 items and stated the primary revision is a reduction of the main mining area to 180 acres and permit time of 20 years. Mr. Haren also states " the revised information is a reduction from the original application and therefore is NOT a substantial change" We disagree with with Mr. Haren. There is a substantial change to the application with regards to traffic and annual production rates. The origional application states that the Sharkey lake area would be the first area mined and would take 45 years (+-) to extract 600,000 tons annually. The sharkey lake area is 351 acres. Using these figures from the origional application, 7.8 acres would be mined annually. In the revisions to the application to complete the mining of 180 acres in 20 years would increase the acres by 1.2 acres to 9 acres per year. In the first 20 years we EXHIBIT I74It now have a 1.2 acre per year increase instead of a substancial decrease that the applicant wants you to believe. Now I would like to show some figures that will support comments I will state later. ( Page 2 in you packet) I will give you time to review these figures before proceeding. In the revisions the applicant includes a traffic impact study. Althlough this study may be correct for the numbers stated, the numbers provided by the applicant are incorrect. We first take issue with the figure on page 10 of that study. (Page 3) in your packets. In peak season conditions they state they will have 78 trucks per day in and 78 trucks per day out. This figure includes all cement delivery trucks , bulk raw cement tankers , asphalt trucks, bulk asphalt tankers and precast delivery trucks. This is where the figures I previously refer to on page 2 become significant. If Platte Sand and Gravel plans on doing what they say, mine 180 acres 45 ft. deep in 20 years, there is NO WAY they can export the annual amount of material by using 78 trucks. Mr. Tom Sharkey stood before the Platteville Town Board and stated the facility could use 20 cement mixer trucks daily. Using a very conservative estimate of 2 round trips per day per truck that now utilizes 80 truck trips. 40 in - 40 out. You now have exceeded the 78 peak season truck figure by 2 trips. This does not allow any O trucks for export of material to the Denver market wUich was the primary reason stated by the applicant for the need of the pit, to supply their concrete plants in Denver. The figures they provide do not add up! On any given day, if you would not count any cement mixer trucks, cement tankers, oil tankers, asphalt trucks, or precast delivery trucks and dedicate all 78 haul trucks to export of material to the denver market,the daily total is only 1950 tons. That figure falls short by 2608 tons per day. Either the applicant is planning on a revision to extend the life of the pit beyond 20 years or exceeding the proposed number of trips per day. Either choice would be unaccptable. That senerio is not what you are here considering today. You are considering an application for mining 180 acres not to exceed 20 years. Weld County memorandum from Donald Carroll engineering administrator dated August 27, 2001 and also marked exhibit 12 R states: The traffic study identifies the need for a left turn bay on SH 66 for WCR 21 based on the existing traffic level. One problem with this intersection is, it is at full buildout and addiditional right of way will be needed and the applicant would need to aquire that right of way. Also intersection improvements are needed to accommodate truck turning movements at all the intersecions on the proposed haul route. Addiditional right of way may be required at ALL of these intersections. Another major item neglected in the traffic study is the intersection of Highway 66 and I-25. Currently there is no turn lane for traffic traveling west on HWY 66 to south bound I-25. The structure over I-25 is a two lane structure for east and west bound traffic with no room for additional turn lanes. The applicant states that 60% of the trucks leaving the site will use the Highway 66 west route to I-25. That figure is 109 trucks per day. That also means 109 trucks exiting north bound I-25 to east bound HWY 66 daily. CDOT needs to make comment as there is nothing stated in this application reguarding this dangerous intersection. The intersection of WCR 23 and 36 which is the proposed exit from the pit site may not be have addiquit right of way for the needed improvements. Weld County Public works Depaartment needs to address this issue. If you now will refere to page 4 in your packets you will find information on current daily traffic counts provided by the traffic study. If the 20 year production rates for 215 days per year are followed the following increased daily traffic count would be: WCR 23 663 vehicles per day WCR 32.5 1226 vehicles per day WCR 21 1399 vehicles per day The intersection of WCR 21 and State Highway 66 will INCREASE by 1399 vehicles daily. All of this information reflects the truck trips only. 5 Site employees and all the other misc. traffic involved is an addiditional 118 vehicles per day. Use there figures and do the math. Another area of concern is the definition of local deliveries. The applicant states that roads in the area around the pit may be utilized for local deliveries. Weld County Public Works Department defines local deliveries as 2 to 3 vehicles per day. This needs to be defined with the input from the Department?ublic Works. The following is a list of some of the Questions that need to be asked and satisfacturaly answered. "/ 1 . How can the applicant mine 180 acres 4511 deep in a 20 year duration using only 78 trucks? 2. Are there any limits and restrictions included in this permit? If this application is approved as submitted, would the applicant have the right to increase the production and number of trucks to accomodate their needs? 3. Are you voting on a revised application that is a reduction but in all actuallity a increace for the first 20 years? 4. Have any Highway 66 and I-25 intersection improvements been considered in this application? 5. Is there adequate Right of Way for the access improvements needed at the WCR 36 and 23 intersection? 6. Is the traffic study accurate for the real numbers or accurate for the numbers provided by the applicant? 7. Is the defination of local deliveries clearly defined? After the public testimony is closed today, we the people of the community can say no more. The applicant will have the right to comment without rebuttal. All of you, the members on the planning commission will be our only voice. Speak loud for us to make sure our and your questions and concerns are satisfactory answered. The community, the people and all our decendents are the ones that will be impacted by the reality of this pit. Approval by you today will put the applicant one step closer to harming the safety and well being of ourestablished community and way of life. Our dreams reach far beyond 20 years. Thanks to everyone here today for listening to our sincere concerns. I would be happy to answer any questions from the members of the planning commission. KIRKHAM MICHAELOmaha • Des Moines • Denver Phoenix•Ellsworth&Louisburg,KS CONSULTING ENGINEERS www.kirkham.com August 17, 2001 Mr. Stan Odenbaugh 11100 Weld County Road #38 Platteville, Colorado 80651 RE: Review of Platte Sand & Gravel S&H Mine TIS Dear Mr. Odenbaugh: The purpose of this letter is to provide summary comments from the review of the Platte Sand & Gravel S&H Mine Traffic Impact Study(TIS) completed on May 7, 2001 by Eugene G. Coppola. The review was based on ITE's (Institute of Transportation Engineers) Site Impact Traffic Evaluation Handbook and Weld County standards for traffic impact studies of gravel mines. General Information The purpose of a traffic study is to analyze the effect of the proposed site to the adjacent transportation network. The study uses technical analysis applied to a specific study area, which ranges from 1 mile to several miles surrounding the proposed site. Based on requirements in the ITE Site Impact Traffic Evaluation Handbook the following list describes the basic elements of a traffic impact study: - Project Description - Analysis of Existing Conditions o Roadway Network Description o Peak Hour and Daily Traffic Volumes Count o Peak Hot Intersection Capacity Analysis - Proposed Land Use and Site Analysis o Land Use Type and Intensity Description o Access Location/Type Discussion and Internal Circulation Analysis - Future Traffic Projections o Site Traffic Estimation o Site Traffic Distribution and Assignment onto Roadway Network o Background Traffic Estimation o Total Traffic Estimation - Future Year Operations o Background Traffic Intersection Capacity Analysis o Total Traffic Intersection Capacity Analysis o Auxiliary Lane Evaluation o Future Roadway Network Improvements - Summary 5600 South Quebec Street • Suite 200 D • Greenwood Village,CO 80111 • (303)694-2300•FAX (303)694-2822 365 DAYS PER YEAR HAUL ESTIMATES CALCULATIONS OF MATERIAL AMOUNTS 43,560 sf per acre X 4511 depth= 1,960,200 cf. 1,960,200 cf/27 cf=72,600 cy. 72,600 cy per acre X 180 acres=130,068,000 cy. 130,068,000 cy. using a conversion factor of 1.5 tons per cy. = 19,602,000 tons 19,602,000 tons/20 years = 980,100 tons per year 980,100 tons/ 365 days per year=2,685 tons per day 2,685 tons per day/ 25 tons per truck load = 107 LOADS PER DAY 215 DAYS PER YEAR HAUL ESTIMATES (Industry average) Same 19,602,000 tons/20 years = 980,100 tons per year 980,100 tons/215 days per year=4,558 tons per day 4558 / 25 tons per load= 182 LOADS PER DAY This is the more realistic estimate of the two. Original vs. Revision 351 original acreage for sharkey lake 351 /45 years= 7.8 acres mined annually 180 acres in revision 180 acres/20 years= 9 acres mined annually A_L.2`aextperyear increase! • _--- In talks with Weld County, additional information must be provided for analysis of a gravel mine site that includes: - Safety Analysis.Including Accident Study and Intersection Sight Distance Evaluation - Geometric Study o Turning Radius Analysis at Each Study Intersection • Utilizing AASHTO Turning Templates and Current Aerial Photography o Auxiliary Lane Evaluation and Feasibility Study - Mitigation Required if Safety or Geometric Deficiencies Exist Each of these elements from ITE and Weld County must be provided in the study in order for the report to be complete and acceptable for submittal. Report Review In general, the report contained most of the information required in a basic traffic impact study. The TIS examined existing conditions, general site traffic concerns and future traffic operations. Some basic elements that were not contained included a background traffic capacity analysis and a site area internal circulation analysis. The background traffic analysis shows how the roadway network operates in future years without the inclusion of the proposed site traffic, and should be included in the study. For this report, an internal circulation analysis is not considered crucial and can be included to better show that traffic pattern within the site boundaries. The review also showed that some of the required information needed for submittal to Weld County was found to be lacking. The TIS did not include an accident analysis or an auxiliary lane feasibility analysis. The accident analysis includes the study of current Weld County accident data to find trends, if any,that exist along the study area roadways and intersections. The purpose of the accident study is to show that the proposed site traffic will not contribute to the accident related trends found along each roadway and intersection. • The auxiliary lane feasibility analysis evaluates the proposed lane configurations and their impact on the current roadway system and adjacent property. Auxiliary lanes were found to be warranted along S.H. 66 within the horizon years of the project, however discussion of installation should be included. A topic which was included but showed no supporting data was the design vehicle turning analysis. The design vehicle analysis should include evaluation of current AASHTO(American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials)Turning Vehicle Templates superimposed onto an aerial photograph of each intersection. The turning templates illustrate if additional pavement will need to be added to the study intersections to support the proposed design vehicle. 2 Recommendations In order to make the report more complete and provide a better estimate of future impact to the surrounding area, the following recommendations are provided. 1) Inclusion of an accident analysis,auxiliary lane feasibility analysis and additional geometric information on the design vehicle analysis. The inclusion of these items is necessary to show that the proposed gravel mine will not adversely effect safety and operations within the study area. 2) The report used site traffic projections obtained from Environment Inc., which are averages taken from an unspecified gravel operation. In order to validate the traffic information,it is recommended that a gravel mine in the Weld County or surrounding area be counted for daily and peak hour traffic. The actual traffic count would provide a better base in which to estimate the site traffic and number of trucks entering and exiting the site. 3) From discussions with Weld County, several safety, operational and geometric deficiencies currently exist on S.H. 66. These include higher than average accident rates,substandard 2:1 side slopes on the roadway embankments and the lack ofpaved shoulders along both sides of the highway. Discussion should be provided in the traffic study, which addresses the deficiencies and shows that additional truck and passenger vehicle traffic generated by the proposed gravel mine will not contribute to, or cause additional problems along the S.H. 66 corridor. 4) A traffic signal warrant analysis should be completed for each County Road intersection with S.H. 66 and 85. The analysis should include the latest MUTCD standards. 5) An overall capacity analysis of the S.H. 66 and 85 corridors should also be investigated as part of the report. The TIS looked only at intersection capacity as it relates to existing and peak hour volumes. A roadway link capacity analysis confirms if the highway operates with acceptable delay and if mitigation measures are necessary to improve the operation of the link. 3 Please contact me at (303) 694-2300, should you have any questions regarding this letter or need additional information. Sincerely, KIRKHAM MICHAEL CONSULTING ENGINEERS Jeremy Hahn Traffic Engineer Jrh U:VEREMY\PLATTE REVIEW DOC 4 USR#1306, Platte Sand & Gravel, LLC Proposed Amendments to Development Standards offered by Platteville United Neighbors October 2, 2001 1. Mineral resource development facilities limited to direct mining activity only of sand and gravel deposits on site of the permit. No batching for asphalt. No pre-cast concrete facility. No concrete/recycling plants. 2. Amend the application to limit the permit to 10 years from time of permit approval by Board of County Commissioners. 3. No permanent disposal of inert or hazardous wastes, including concrete or asphalt waste material. 4. Site specific noise level study and remediation plan required prior to permit. 5. A dust abatement study and mitigation plan that controls all sources of dust including those generated by haul route usage. Minimally this requires paving of haul routes both internal and external to the site. 6. Adequate perimeter fencing beyond posting of"No Trespassing" signage. 7. Hours of operation limited to hours of daylight, not to exceed 7 A.M. - 6:00 P.M. for mining & hauling 5:30 P.M. - 9:30 P.M. for maintenance Days of operation limited to Monday - Friday No weekend operations besides Saturday maintenance 8. No dry mining allowed on this site. 9. A Cultural Resource Survey of the permit area to protect all unmarked graves and archaeological, historical and prehistoric sites. 10. Evidence of written resolution of the issues expressed by: RE-1 School District Board Town of Platteville 11. Road Improvement Agreement established with County Public Works and CDOT that completes necessary improvements prior to start of operations. 12. County agencies remain accountable and responsible for applicants compliance with Development and Operation Standards. This includes regular monitoring for • Air quality • Dust abatement • Noise abatement • Speed limits • Traffic safety and speed limit controls • Fire and emergency services protection • Hours/days of operation 13. Noncompliance by applicant will result in revocation of permit requiring immediate ceasing of operation. TO Weld County Planning commission 1 *Ili. • I `u, r / 4311 Highway 66, Suite 4 • Longmont, CO 80504 Office (970) 535-9318 MN' Denver (303) 485-7838 Fax: (970) 535-9854 Mr. Kim Ogle August 15, 2001 I Weld County Planning&Zoning Department 1555 N. 17th Avenue Greeley, CO 80631 Dear Mr. Ogle, Included herein is a revised Use by Special Review for a Mining Operation Application page and mining description along with maps for the Platte Sand and Gravel, LLC, S&H mine. The revised information is a reduction from the original application and therefore is not a substantial change. The primary revision in the application is a reduction of the main mining area to 180 acres and a reduction of the requested time for the permit to 20 years. Additionally, this submittal includes the following exhibits to supplement the record: 1. Mined Land Reclamation Board (MLRB) permit for the S&H mine 2. Western Mutual Ditch Company Water Agreement 3. Western Mutual Ditch Company Easement Agreement 4. Western Mutual Ditch Company Crossing Agreement 5. Traffic Impact Study — 6. Draft Road Improvements Agreement 7. Xcel Energy Agreement 8. Ptasnik/Decker/Platte Sand and Gravel- Dewatering Mitigation Agreement 9. Dewatering recharge protection plan 10. Colorado Department of Public Health& Environment Discharge Permit 11. Approved Substitute Supply Plan We fjly believe that the reduction in both size and scope of the requested permit, the -location of the mining site within the property along with the above agreements, plans and permiq al,leviates many of the concerns expressed during the Planning and Zoning Hearing. 1Y, mas re E vironmental Consultant Pc: Clerk to the Board Bruce Rippe(2) Your "Pro Ag"Environmental Professionals 365 DAYS PER YEAR HAUL ESTIMATES CALCULATIONS OF MATERIAL AMOUNTS 43,560 sf per acre X 45ft depth= 1,960,200 cf. 1,960,200 cf/27 cf=72,600 cy. 72,600 cy per acre X 180 acres=130,068,000 cy. 130,068,000 cy. using a conversion factor of 1.5 tons per cy. = 19,602,000 tons 19,602,000 tons/20 years= 980,100 tons per year 980,100 tons/365 days per year= 2,685 tons per day 2,685 tons per day/25 tons per truck load= 107 LOADS PER DAY 215 DAYS PER YEAR HAUL ESTIMATES (Industry average) Same 19,602,000 tons/20 years= 980,100 tons per year 980,100 tons/215 days per year=4,558 tons per day 4558 /25 tons per load = 182 LOADS PER DAY This is the more realistic estimate of the two. Original vs. Revision 351 original acreage for sharkey lake 351 /45 years= 7.8 acres mined annually 180 acres in revision 180 acres/20 years= 9 acres mined annually A 1.2 acre per year increase! As shown, peak production will occur from May through July. This quarter represents 35% of the annual output. Average conditions are 71% of the peak quarter. Platte Sand & Gravel in collaboration with Environment, Inc. has prepared an estimate of site activity and haul routes. The estimate reflects peak season activity. This information is summarized below for a representative peak season day with support documentation provided in Appendix C. PEAK SEASON CONDITIONS EMPLOYEES ; TRUCKS MISC. TOTAL TIME In j Out In Out In Out j In Out i Total 0300-0359 10 I 10 10 0400-0459 0500-0559 10 j 4 10 i 4 14 0600-0659 10 6 10 6 j 16 0700-0759 4 15 4 I 15 19 0800-0859 6 5 6 j 5 j 11 i 0900-0959 15 1 5 2 2 17 1 7 24 1000-1059 h 10 5 4 2 j 2 17 16 23 1100-1159 10 5 4 1 1 1 16 5 21 1200-1259 j 4 4 2 j 2 1 6 6 12 1300-1359 j j 4 4 1 11 5 5 . 10 1400-1459 10 4 4 1 j 1 j 5 15 j 20 1500-1559 4 11 4 11 15 1600-1659 10 4 8 j 4 18 22 1700-1759 10 11 4 I 11 14 25 1800-1859 8 8 8 1900-1959 4 4 I 4 2000-2059 10 10 I 10 2100-2159 10 I j 10 I 10 2200-2259 TOTAL 50 50 78 I 78 9 I 9 137 137 1 274 10 i m v; A CR 36 Wc23L 71) wc,i( 23 — 4 [ m 4- q82 - N N U 0] NI • N1 744 CR 32 1/2 lern c R 2/ t 4-g2 1 Sat LEGEND: uwc/f j+ y82. xxx Daily Traffic :Cif) 0 = 5";•-ft Tra-FP;c Q _ 7oTAL DQ SH•66 TR iPS Figure 3 • CURRENT DAILY TRAFFIC 1 . How can the applicant mine 180 acres 45ft deep in a 20 year duration using only 78 trucks? 2. Are there any limits and restrictions included in this permit? If this application is approved as submitted, would the applicant have the right to increase the production and number of trucks to accomodate their needs? 3. Are you voting on a revised application that is a reduction but in all actuallity a increace for the first 20 years? 4. Have any Highway 66 and I-25 intersection improvements been considered in this application? 5. Is there adequate Right of Way for the access improvements needed at the WCR 36 and 23 intersection? 6. Is the traffic study accurate for the real numbers or accurate for the numbers provided by the applicant? 7. Is the defination of local deliveries clearly defined? W KIRKHAM Omaha • Des Moines • Denver MICHAEL Phoenix •Ellsworth&Louisburg, KS CONSULTING ENGINEERS www.kirkham.com August 17, 2001 Mr. Stan Odenbaugh 11100 Weld County Road#38 Platteville, Colorado 80651 RE: Review of Platte Sand & Gravel S&H Mine TIS Dear Mr. Odenbaugh: The purpose of this letter is to provide summary comments from the review of the Platte Sand & Gravel S&H Mine Traffic Impact Study(TIS) completed on May 7, 2001 by Eugene G. Coppola. The review was based on ITE's (Institute of Transportation Engineers) Site Impact Traffic Evaluation Handbook and Weld County standards for traffic impact studies of gravel mines. General Information The purpose of a traffic study is to analyze the effect of the proposed site to the adjacent transportation network. The study uses technical analysis applied to a specific study area, which ranges from 1 mile to several miles surrounding the proposed site. Based on requirements in the ITE Site Impact Traffic Evaluation Handbook the following list describes the basic elements of a traffic impact study: - Project Description Analysis of Existing Conditions o Roadway Network Description o Peak Hour and Daily Traffic Volumes Count o Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis - Proposed Land Use and Site Analysis o Land Use Type and Intensity Description o Access Location/Type Discussion and Internal Circulation Analysis - Future Traffic Projections o Site Traffic Estimation o Site Traffic Distribution and Assignment onto Roadway Network o Background Traffic Estimation o Total Traffic Estimation - Future Year Operations o Background Traffic Intersection Capacity Analysis o Total Traffic Intersection Capacity Analysis o Auxiliary Lane Evaluation o Future Roadway Network Improvements - Summary 5600 South Quebec Street • Suite 200 D • Greenwood Village,CO S0'111 • (303)694-2300• FAX (303)694-2822 In talks with Weld County, additional information must be provided for analysis of a gravel mine site that includes: - Safety Analysis,Including Accident Study and Intersection Sight Distance Evaluation - Geomctrk Study o Turning Radius Analysis at Each Study Intersection • Utilizing AASHTO Turning Templates and Current Aerial Photography o Auxiliary Lane Evaluation and Feasibility Study - Mitigation Required if Safety or Geometric Deficiencies Exist Each of these elements from ITE and Weld County must be provided in the study in order for the report to be complete and acceptable for submittal. Report Review In general, the report contained most of the information required in a basic traffic impact study. The TIS examined existing conditions, general site traffic concerns and future traffic operations. Some basic elements that were not contained included a background traffic capacity analysis and a site area internal circulation analysis. The background traffic analysis shows how the roadway network operates in future years without the inclusion of the proposed site traffic, and should be included in the study. For this report, an internal circulation analysis is not considered crucial and can be included to better show that traffic pattern within the site boundaries. The review also showed that some of the required information needed for submittal to Weld County was found to be lacking. The TIS did not include an accident analysis or an auxiliary lane feasibility analysis. The accident analysis includes the study of current Weld County accident data to find trends, if any,that exist along the study area roadways and intersections. The purpose of the accident study is to show that the proposed site traffic will not contribute to the accident related trends found along each roadway and intersection. • The auxiliary lane feasibility analysis evaluates the proposed lane configurations and their impact on the current roadway system and adjacent property. Auxiliary lanes were found to be warranted along S.H. 66 within the horizon years of the project, however discussion of installation should be included. A topic which was included but showed no supporting data was the design vehicle turning analysis. The design vehicle analysis should include evaluation of current AASHTO(American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials)Turning Vehicle Templates superimposed onto an aerial photograph of each intersection. The turning templates illustrate if additional pavement will need to be added to the study intersections to support the proposed design vehicle. 2 ra Recommendations In order to make the report more complete and provide a better estimate of future impact to the surrounding area, the following recommendations are provided. 1) Inclusion ofan accident analysis, auxiliary lane feasibility analysis and additional geometric information on the design vehicle analysis. The inclusion of these items is necessary to show that the proposed gravel mine will not adversely effect safety and operations within the study area. 2) The report used site traffic projections obtained from Environment Inc.,which are averages taken from an unspecified gravel operation. In order to validate the traffic information,it is recommended that a gravel mine in the Weld County or surrounding area be counted for daily and peak hour traffic. The actual traffic count would provide a better base in which to estimate the site traffic and number of trucks entering and exiting the site. 3) From discussions with Weld County, several safety, operational and geometric deficiencies currently exist on S.H. 66. These include higher than average accident rates, substandard 2:1 side slopes on the roadway embankments and the lack of paved shoulders along both sides of the highway. Discussion should be provided in the traffic study, which addresses the deficiencies and shows that additional truck and passenger vehicle traffic generated by the proposed gravel mine will not contribute to, or cause additional problems along the S.H. 66 corridor. 4) A traffic signal warrant analysis should be completed for each County Road intersection with S.H. 66 and 85. The analysis should include the latest MUTCD standards. 5) An overall capacity analysis of the S.H. 66 and 85 corridors should also be investigated as part of the report. The TIS looked only at intersection capacity as it relates to existing and peak hour volumes. A roadway link capacity analysis confirms if the highway operates with acceptable delay and if mitigation measures are necessary to improve the operation of the link. 3 Please contact me at (303) 694-2300, should you have any questions regarding this letter or need additional information. Sincerely, KIRKHAM MICHAEL CONSULTING ENGINEERS Jeremy Hahn Traffic Engineer Jrh U:VEREMY\PLATTE REVIEW.DOC 4 Hello