The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20000624 November 9, 1999 Mr. Kim Ogle, Planner Weld County Department of Planning Services / , 1555 North 17"' Avenue Greeley,Colorado 80631 Dear Mr. Ogle: Hello,we are Mr. and Mrs.Joe Lohnes. We reside at 13804 Weld County Road#64, Greeley, Colorado. The purpose of this letter is to voice concerns and express opposition to the amended USR- 897 that has been submitted to Weld County by Camas Colorado,Inc. for review. As one of the nearest adjacent property owners to the proposed "cell#2" we would literally be a "stones throw" from that pit. We have a number of concerns which we respectfully submit for consideration during the review process. Despite promises from Camas of(eventually) having serene lake front property teaming with wildlife next door,we fear the following: >A negative impact on marketability and reduced property value >Noise and dust, the potential for two shifts working up to 6 days per week >Fluctuation of the water table, especially if the pit is built and lined >Proliferation of weeds >Impact to soil stability, potentially resulting in structural damage to our home >Increased traffic >Impact to wildlife, the riparian area and the Poudre ecosystem, including loss of habitat >Other"quality of life"issues We have few objections to the original USR Sled in 1990. However,we are committed,as are others, to objecting to the revised USR that would provide for gravel mining very close to our home. We plan to share our concerns and objections with the County Commissioners and other agencies involved in the review process. Although we are unavailable until after November 22,we will be available to discuss these and other issues with you at any time after that. We ask that all parties involved in the review process imagine themselves in our situation as concerns are reviewed. Thank you for your time and consideration. Our home phone number is(970)352-3591 Sincerely, Joseph 7 hoes W. or/44a_� Helen . Lohnes 2nes o.M ?O16 copy: F.R.A.M. steering committee 2000-0624 November 14, 1999 Mr. Kim Ogle, Planner Weld County Department of Planning Services 1555 North 17th Avenue Greeley Colorado 80631 Dear Mr. Ogle: We are Mr. and Mrs. Noble Benson. We reside at 30942 Rocky Road, in the Orr Minor Subdivision. We are writing this letter to express our concerns and opposition to the amended USR-897 submitted to Weld County by Camas Colorado Inc. for review. As an adjacent property owner bordering the proposed "cell #2", we have a number of concerns, which we respectfully submit for consideration during the review process, which include: Reduced property value and negative impact on marketability of our property Noise and dust pollution from heavy earthmoving equipment, potentially for two shifts six days per week, which the proposed berms will not block Impact on soil stability that could result in structural damage Increased traffic Impact on the Poudre River ecosystem, wildlife and it's habitat during and after mining and reclamation Alteration of the flood plain and water table Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely Neld County Planning Dep Noble Benson +� ?2-'),12 NOV 16 1999 Mary Benson RECEIVED MA / ' sue veld County Planning Lep Wayne L. at Joyce A. Dawson 30878 Rocky Road in\) 18 1999 Greeley, Colorado 80631 November 17, 1999 RECEIVED Mr. Kim Ogle, Planner Weld County Department of Planning Services 1555 North 17th Avenue Greeley, Colorado 80631 RE: AmUSR-897 (Camas Colorado, Inc.) Dear Mr. Ogle, We own property at 30878 Rocky Road, Greeley, Co. which is directly west of Cell 2 of the amendment to USR-897 permit. When we purchased this property in 1994 our hope was to live in a quiet, peaceful country setting for at least 10 years before the city of Greeley came out to meet us. We never dreamed that a gravel pit would ever be going in right next to us. In fact we were not even aware of the existing permit, or our decision to buy here might have been different. If the amendment to this permit is allowed the quality of life that we had hoped for here will be gone. We have several concerns and objections to this proposed amendment: What will this mining operation do to the ground water. There are several drain tiles in this proposed mining site. When they are removed or disturbed where will the water go? We are afraid that the ground water will rise and possibly flood several of the homes that are here. The only thing the permit application addresses is the lowering of the ground water, but what happens when the ground water levels rise? The amount of truck traffic that this operation will generate is a big concern. The application states that the majority of the truck traffic will go south on 83rd Avenue to Highway 34. We would like to know how this is going to be enforced and what if anything will be done to ensure safety at the intersection of 83rd Avenue and Highway 34. We use this intersection on a daily basis and when we are stopped attempting to make a left hand turn off Highway 34 onto 83rd Avenue people pass on the right(shoulder) all the time without slowing down or watching to see if someone is trying to make a left hand turn from the other direction. Someone is going to be seriously hurt or killed at that intersection. The increase in traffic with the additional trucks using the intersection increases this possibility greatly. Another area that is dangerous is the intersection at "O" Street and 59th Avenue. It is hard to see traffic coming from the west when stopped at the stop sign on the south side of"O" Street on 59th Avenue. The 35 MPH speed limit on "O" Street at Fanners Spur is very seldom obeyed now and we are afraid that with the increase in truck traffic this could be a serious problem. Even though the permit application says the majority of the trucks will use 83rd Avenue, there will still be increased traffic on "O" Street as the drivers will use it if it will make their route shorter. The permit application states that there will be berms put in to buffer our view of the pits and decrease the noise and dust levels. We are concerned that these berms will not be maintained and will become mounds of dirt covered with weeds as it is presently at the Camas site on "F" Street. We would like to know what is going to be planted on these berms and how, and for how long they will be maintained. ie. weed control, mowing, watering, fertilizing. We do not want to look at a 4'pile of dirt covered with 6'tall weeds. What will happen to all the wildlife is another question we have. Just this week we saw 3 deer playing in the field to the east of us. It is a joy to be able to sit on out patio and watch the wildlife. What a shame that this will not be an option to us if this mining operation is allowed. Where will all the wildlife go when the mining is in full operation? Not here! The lakes in the reclamation plan do not look like they will be very wildlife friendly, with all their straight shore lines and steep grades into the water. Will the wildlife even come back after 20 to 30 years of disruption to their habitat. Nowhere in this application do I see anything that addresses the mosquito and insect problem. We have a big enough problem now, what will it be like when the amount of standing water is increased. How are the noise and dust levels going to be monitored? We are concerned about this for ourselves as well as our animals. We have hones that are pastured directly west of the proposed Cell 2. If the mining is allowed to run for 9 hours a day 6 days a week this is an enormous concern for us. Our property value is a big concern for us, as well. We are afraid that the value of our property will not increase as we have hoped or that we will have trouble selling if we choose to do so during the mining operation. We are also concerned about what structural damage the actual mining could cause to our home, out buildings and fencing. When we bought we knew that we would eventually be selling this and moving on. It will be hard to sell if there is a gravel pit in full operation right next to the property line. We are opposed to amending this USR-897 permit to include Cell 2. We are now aware that the existing permit was in place when we purchased our land and that it will proceed as planned. We can not object to the permit that is already in place, but we do want to go on record as objecting to the amendment to this permit. Amending this permit will greatly affect our quality of life and upset the quiet, peaceful country living we now enjoy and have a negative impact on our property value. It seems to us that you set a precedent when you allowed the development of our subdivision ((hr Minor Sub Division). How can you now in good conscience surround us on three sides with gravel pits? Sincerely, Wayne L. & Joyce A. Dawso State Senator; Dale Owens cc: County Commissioners; Glenn Vaad George Baxter Barbara Kirkmeyer Mike Geile Dale Hall State Senator; Dale Owens Page I of 4 VP/d C.°u7 t y win; ng 4l November 18, 1999 qt,)�. [�p+)r0 7999 Mr. Kim Ogle, Planner EC`'� ff v p Weld County Department of Planning Services 1555 North 17'h Avenue Greeley, CO 80631 Dear Mr. Ogle: SUBJECT: AmUSR-897,Camas Colorado, Inc. My name is Kim Davis. I reside at 30856 Rocky Road, in the Orr Minor Subdivision. Two months ago I was informed of Camas Colorado, Inc.'s (hereinafter "Camas") intention to amend their existing USR by adding property immediately adjacent(east) to my property. These past two months of intensive research have reinforced my initial assessment of the situation in that I am categorically opposed to the proposed mining and reclamation plan in its entirety. The proposal as it currently exists is not compatible with surrounding land uses. There are several disconcerting issues concerning Camas' plans. I do not profess to be an expert in the fields of community planning, aggregate extraction. mined land reclamation or permitting. However, my professional background does qualify me as an informed and concerned resident of Weld County and the Riverview Resource area; one who possesses 16 years of government regulatory experience on the state and Federal levels. In reviewing the documents contained in the original USR, the amendment application and the DMG Regular 112 Operation Permit Application I am extremely concerned by the number of inconsistencies, missing documents and omissions. Further, I am profoundly concerned about the countywide development trend regarding issues of this magnitude. The most pressing concerns are delineated and discussed below. Attachments of supporting documents are provided as appropriate 1. Disregard for statutes and regulations 2. Inconsistent information provided in and between the application/file documents 3. Incomplete supporting documentation 4. The impact of the proposed mining and reclamation plan leading to the alteration of the floodplain and natural groundwater flow causing flooding. 5. The incomplete assessment of the groundwater and floodplain issues by Camas and TuttleApplegate 6. Increased truck traffic on already burdened roads and dangerous intersections 7. Increased noise levels during excavation and the hours of operation 8. The effects of normal environmental conditions such as wind and rain 9. Routine maintenance of the property during the course of the mining and reclamation 10. Revegetation and maintenance of the property once mining has ceased 11. Impact on the riparian flora and fauna during the mining operation and as a result of the reclamation 12. Impact on property values 13. Insect populations, particularly mosquitoes and the abatement of such 14. Unavailable elected representation 1. Statutes and Regulations: Attached is a copy of the FRAM (Families for Responsible Aggregate Mining) Fact Sheet. Of particular note are the items dated July 1, 1985, January 13, 1987, March 7, 1990 and August 25, 1993. Had the Board of County commissioners upheld the statute,ordinances and regulations by denying the permit for Orr Minor Subdivision, I and several of my neighbors in the area, would not be engaged in this battle. Camas would not be in a position to attempt defense of an undefendable position. The Board of County Commissioners is responsible for setting the precedent and pitting an aggregate concern against county residents committed to defending their way of life and economic stability. Additionally. had full disclosure of the 1990 W W Farm Pit permit been made by the seller or seller's agent prior to the time of purchase we area residents would have had the option to look for land elsewhere or build with full knowledge of the consequences. 2. Inconsistent Information: Several inconsistencies exist within the permit, permit amendment and DMG application documents. These inconsistencies not only create confusion, but lead one to question which document is factual and accurate. These inconsistencies are too numerous to delineate at this time but will be in future correspondence or other presentations. However, four are particularly noteworthy: Page 2 of 4 a. Exhibit D of the mining plan provides a fairly factual description of the surrounding land uses. However,there is no mention of the Orr Minor Subdivision, in spite of the fact we and five other residences plus a fish farm are most impacted by Camas' plan. The USR amendment indicates there is a "minor subdivision" located to the north. Again, this is an inaccurate/conflicting description of our residential area. The phraseology minimizes our predicament of being the meat between the two pieces of bread. b. The Construction Permit (Number 99WE0033F dated March 3, 1999) states that production of sand and gravel shall not exceed 4,396 tons per day or 176,000 tons per year. The DMG application states the anticipated production is approximately 500,000 tons per year and Exhibit G of the same application states"the anticipated amount of material that will be mined and washed each year is estimated at 400,000 tons." c. In a letter from Camas dated October 19, 1999 (copy attached), Ms. Davis states: We have been the recipient of numerous awards from distinctive organizations across the nation. Among the most notable of these awards are ... and three "Outstanding Reclamation"awards from the State of Colorado. However, according to the DMG, these awards were given to Cooley Gravel Co. in 1988 (Thornton South Operation—Adams County), 1990(Littleton Pit—Jefferson County)and 1995 (West Wall Morrison Quarry—Jefferson County). d. Exhibit E of the DMG application states The reclaimed mine area in Cell / will not be lined. Exhibit G of the same document states The reclamation plan will leave six lined lakes and one unlined lake that will by hydraulically connected to the alluvial aquifer. Research indicates the most common lining for these types of water storage lakes is bentonite. However, when Camas and TuttleApplegate representatives were questioned about the bentonite lining they specifically stated "we are not going to line the lakes with bentonite. Soils tests have shown that the backfill generated on site is sufficient" 3. Incomplete Supporting Documentation: Documents critical to the consideration of this application appear to be missing. These include, but are not necessarily limited to,the following: a. Flood hazard development permit/application b. Preble's Mouse and Ute Ladies'-Tressers studies c. Environmental impact studies 4. Flooding: When reviewing the reclamation map,the floodplain will be drastically altered by creation of narrow channels until the Pouder River reaches 71" Avenue. The creation of non-permeable lakes presents barriers to the natural flow of the groundwater through drainage tiles as well as barriers to the flow of surface water runoff. Even one of these effects of the reclamation plan is enough to spell disaster during spring run-off and times of heavy rain. Combine all three at one time and you create a situation that will potentially flood this entire area. The elevations from the 100-year flood plain are not sufficient to prevent water doing what comes naturally —taking the path of least resistance. This will create backing up of the Pouder River into several residences that are not within the 100-year floodplain. It will also create massive flooding east of 71 s' Avenue where the floodplain is left intact. The devastation to area residents, wildlife and agriculture will be staggering. Sadly, this devastation is unnecessary and preventable. 5. Incomplete Assessment of Groundwater and Floodplain Issues: As previously explained, flooding is a major concern along the Poudre River. The floodplain was designed by nature to allow for the annual overflow and to minimize damage. Historically, diking and other attempts at controlling rivers have been prone to failure, to negatively impact riverbottom wet meadows and to adversely affect upstream and downstream ecosystems. Camas, in their amendment application, states a flood hazard development permit [application] will be submitted. Given the magnitude of the plan's effects it would be unconscionable to consider the reclamation plan without first carefully scrutinizing this information. Further, the reclamation plan identifies only one drain tile when in actually there are four running through the proposed mining area. Camas and TuttleApplegate representatives professed to be completely unaware of the other three drain tiles. The companies failed to properly address the hydrology of the affected area. 6. Increased Truck. Traffic: The amendment application states that all trucks will exit the property onto 83'd Avenue and proceed north or south and that the primary haul route will be south to Highway 34(I0`h Street). Their exit will be in very close proximity to the existing Hall-Irwin exit site. All roads in this area are already burdened because they are two-lane roads. The addition of slow moving trucks is certain to create numerous problems. As previously stated, the Construction Permit allows extraction of 176,000 tons per year. This adds 26 haul trucks per day to the existing traffic burden. However, if Camas is allowed to extract 500,000 tons per year they will be adding 73 haul trucks per day. The impact this will have at the already dangerous intersections at U.S. 34 and 83'd Avenue(the primary haul route)and at O Street and 59t Avenue will be unacceptable. 7. Increased Noise Levels: The Air Pollution Emission Notice (APEN) allows for production 6 days per week, 9 hours per day for 44 weeks per year. The amendment application states they will run two shifts, Monday through Saturday, during daylight hours. The DMG application states mining will take from 13 to 20 years(although the APEN runs through 2029). Regulations allow for two five-year cessation periods. Area residents will be forced to live with the constant noise (during either daylight hours or for 9 hours per day for 6 days each week) from haul trucks, excavation equipment and production plants for the next 13 to 20 or 30 Page 3 of 4 years. I work out of my home and do not relish the thought of having the peace and quite I moved out here restored when I am 58 or possibly 75. There is no way to mitigate this negative effect even if the noise levels do comply with the Weld County Health Department requirements. 8. Normal Environmental Conditions: Residents of this area will readily testify to the effects of the wind and rain. The amendment application states that the protection of the health, safety and welfare of the inhabitants of the neighborhood are being considered by the applicant and that possible fugitive dust emissions from the site will be minimized by watering and revegetation activities. Wind has become a major force in this area. My roof shingles are rated to 125 miles per hour and I had to replace several this Spring. My neighbors have replaced their roof shingles three years in a row. Some days the wind is so bad that dust from the surrounding area makes it impossible to see across the road. Adding exposed dirt and dirt piles will merely compound an already frustrating situation. We have noted an increase in the number of windy days and an increase in the sustained force. Rain, although not as routine as wind, is a major consideration. When the lined lakes are in place— and during excavation--the majority of the normal runoff will be forced through the Orr Minor Subdivision. This too raises questions of flooding basements, yards and fields as well as the rearrangement of the topography. This issue is not addressed in the documents. 9. Routine Maintenance: The amendment and DMG applications do not adequately mitigate my concerns about controlling weeds or preventing the routine eyesore conditions of most excavation sites. Exhibit E states Weeds are not expected to pose a problem in revegetating the site and If a significant invasion of noxious weeds occurs, the area will be mowed periodically for control Any area resident can attest to the weed problem out here, as it is a constant battle. We utilize several methods of control during the year, including mowing, herbicides (pre-emergent and post-emergent), burning and pulling. Left unattended for even three weeks the weeds will take over; left unattended for three months and they are five feet tall and pose a serious fire danger_ Periodically mowing of weeds is not a"control" program and one does not wait until there is a"significant invasion." Further, the documents are completely silent about area-wide weed control during mining activity, only during reclamation. This too is unacceptable. 10. Revegetation and Maintenance: The DMG application identifies seeding mixtures and trees/shrubs not suitable to the area. Please refer to the attached Division of Wildlife letter(dated November 5, 1999)for more appropriate vegetation. The timing of seeding operations are not immediate and will allow the growth of weeds and other undesirable conditions. The DMG application states that trees and shrubs will be planted in clusters as part of the reclamation plan, but identification of such cannot be found on the reclamation map. In fact, all trees identified on the map are already here. No mention is made, other than for watering of trees and shrubs for the first "several years," of maintenance plans for reclaimed sites. We need written specifications for exact maintenance procedures during mining and after reclamation. 11. Impact on the Riparian Flora and Fauna: There is no way to mitigate the damage this mining operation will cause to the riparian area. The Division of Wildlife eloquently addresses these potential negative effects. Once the riparian area is rearranged or lost, the flora and fauna will simply disappear. Unlike we residents, they are free ranging will seek more suitable quarters during mining and after mining operations cease. The increase in noise, air and human pollution will ruin one of our greatest natural assets. Camas states, in Exhibit E, that the creation of ponds in this area will enhance the wildlife habitat presently found in the riparian riverbank area. Once again I urge the careful reading of the Division of Wildlife letter,as this simply is not true. 12. Impact on Property Values: Camas has asserted, verbally, that our property values will not be negatively impacted by their operations. One can only assume they mean in 40 or 50 years, when and if the reclamation is completed and maintained. However, since the lakes are actually' water storage, they do not lend themselves to pristine wildlife or recreational areas. The only future difference will be the cessation of actual mining activities. During mining, any homeowner who puts their house on the market will be forced to disclose these plans in their entirety. I have already checked with several realtors who have asserted it would be difficult to market my house, or any house in this area, and realize the same selling price as the price prior to even disclosure of the mining activities. Our houses are more than just homes; they are our financial futures, investments of economic importance and sources of pride. We are not alone in voicing this concern. Residents in other areas, such as Milliken, facing the same set of conditions have the same valid concerns. Research indicates homeowners in close proximity to any developing town or metropolitan area (such as Seattle, WA and Cary, IL)have been fighting for their economic stability as are we. 13. Insect Populations: Anyone who lives near a riparian area can attest to the varied and seasonal insect population. Mosquitoes are of particular import. In areas not around or adjacent to riparian areas, the mosquito population may be quite sporadic, depending upon environmental conditions, particularly temperature and moisture. Those of us living in this area,however, are faced with a constant, heavy mosquito pressure. Annoyance is not the sole concern; mosquitoes vector diseases. We take necessary measures to continually deal with the mosquitoes. The addition of seven water storage ponds that can be maintained at levels advantageous to the owner simply compound this problem. There are no assurances that the ponds will be circulated or kept at a particular Page 4 of 4 level. The potential breeding ground these ponds present is a major concern to those of us in the area. Once again, Camas is silent about this issue, failing to recognize it, its importance or offer any mitigating measures. 14. Unavailable Elected Representation: When first confronted with Camas' plans we contacted our elected County Commissioner, Glenn Vaad. At first Mr. Vaad told us, his constituents with legitimate concerns about the plans and the process, that we could not meet with him to discuss either our concerns or obtain information about the permitting process. We were then told that we could meet with him if Camas had not filed their amendment. Finally we were told verbally, and in a letter from County Attorney Bruce Barker(copy attached), that we could not meet with our elected commissioner unless it was in a public forum with Camas present. We were absolutely stunned to learn this was common practice on controversial issues. These 14 points merely highlight the most pressing and obvious objections to the Camas plan. Additional issues will be forthcoming as more time allows. With so many documents unavailable it is currently impossible to adequately address Camas' plans and render a recommendation. We ask that you delay the scheduled hearing until all necessary information is obtained and the proposed plans are completed. We have not been given adequate time to assess the compatibility of this operation with the surrounding land uses. Please call me at 353-0545 if you have any questions or require additional information. Regards, Kim Davis pc: George Baxter, District 1 County Commissioner Glenn Vaad, District 2 County Commissioner Barbara Kirkmeyer, District 3 County Commissioner Mike Geile,At-Large County Commissioner Dale Hall, At-Large County Commissioner Dave Owen, State Senator Chris Cobler, Editor,The Greeley Tribune Melanie Granberg,Gablehouse& Epel t WELD COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE PHONE: (970) 356-4000, EXT. 4391 FAX: (970) 352-0241 915 TENTH STREET ET wipe P.O. BOX 1948 GREELEY, COLORADO 80632 RECEIVED SEP 1 8 1999 COLORADO September 16, 1999 Kim Davis 30854 Rocky Road Greeley, CO 80631-9375 RE: USR for Gravel Mining in Section 32-6-66 Dear Ms. Davis: Weld County Commissioner Glenn Vaad has informed me that you desire to meet with the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County to express your concerns regarding a possible amendment to an existing Use by Special Review Permit("USR") by CAMAS of Colorado. The amendment to the USR would allow the company to mine gravel in the northeast quarter of Section 32., Township 6 North, Range 66 West of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. Commissioner Vaad asked me if it is possible for you to meet with the Board to discuss this subject. On August 3, 1999, I attended a meeting with Mr. Ed On, CAMAS representatives, and City of Greeley representatives to discuss Mr. On's and CAMAS' plans with respect to gravel mining and the location of the Poudre River Trail in Section 32-6-66. The CAMAS representatives told those present at the meeting that CAMAS intends to amend the existing USR for gravel mining in that section to include properties located in the northeast quarter. As of this date, the Weld County Department of Planning Services has not received an application for amendment of the USR. With the information that CAMAS intends to apply for the amendment, however, I must recommend to Commissioner Vaad and the other County Commissioners that any discussion regarding amendment to the USR must take place only at a public hearing. The reasons for this recommendation are twofold. First, fundamental fairness dictates that both the applicant and those persons in opposition to the application should be given the opportunity to present their testimony and other evidence at a time when all may be present. It is only fair to CAMAS that its representatives be present when you discuss an amendment to the USR with the Board of County Commissioners. Likewise, it is only fair to you that the Board hear comments from CAMAS only when you are present. Kim Davis, Letter September 16, 1999 Page 2. Second, although there is no significant case law regarding ex-parte communications with county commissioners regarding matters set for adjudicatory hearing, there are cases dealing with other adjudicatory bodies. Enclosed is a copy of a case entitled Wells v, Del Norte School District C-7, 753 P.2d 770 (Colo. App. 1987), which includes a good discussion about the necessity for avoiding ex-parte communications for quasi judicial proceedings. On the enclosed copy I have highlighted the language which is applicable. The same rules apply to the Board of County Commissioners when it is scheduled to hear an amendment to a USR even though the application has not yet been received. In this case, I have been informed of CAMAS' intent and, therefore, must treat the situation in a manner similar to those circumstances when an application has already been received. If you wish to discuss this matter further, I may be reachec2t (970) 356-4000, extension 4390. $i re , ce T. Barker eld County Attorney BTB/db:Let/Kimdavis Enclosure pc: Glenn Vaad Monica Daniels-Mika Lee Morrison CAMAS Colorado, Inc. An AGGREGATE INDUSTRIES Company Aggregates Division P O Box 5485 Denver Colorado 80217-5485 3605 South Teller Street Lakewood Colorado 80235 Telephone (303)985-1070 Facsimile (303)989-1655 October 19, 1999 Ms. Kim Davis CAMA 30856 Rocky Road COLORADO Greeley, CO 80631 Dear Ms. Davis: This is to advise you that CAMAS has filed for an amendment to our Use by Special Review Permit (USR 897) with Weld County for sand and gravel mining in the area bordered by 83r°Avenue, O Street, 71st Avenue and the Poudre River. We have also filed for a new permit with the State Division of Minerals and Geology (DMG). These filings incorporate additional property that was not included in the original permit process. The plans also include enhancements to the mining and reclamation originally proposed. The public can inspect the application documents at the Weld County Planning Office, however we extend this letter to our neighbors as an invitation to contact us if you would like an opportunity to review these documents, including maps, at our Greeley office. We feel it is vital that you have accurate information concerning our company and the mining and reclamation plans related to this proposal. We welcome you to contact us regarding any questions you may have. I would note that CAMAS meets or exceeds all local, regional and federal regulations applicable to our activity. We have been the recipient of numerous awards from distinctive organizations across the nation. Among the most notable of these awards are"Ethics and Business", presented by Colorado Corporate Responsibility, "Good Neighbor" and "Golden Eagle" environmental awards from National Stone Association, and three"Outstanding Reclamation" awards from the State of Colorado, Division of Minerals and Geology. We would be happy to provide you with a listing of other awards we have received. These awards bear out our commitment to environmental stewardship and to being a good neighbor in the community. Please feel free to call me at 353-2005 with any questions you may have. Very truly yours, ( ‘7 r6 Connie N. Davis Support Services Representative AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER F R A (Families for Responsible Aggregate Mining) FACT SHEET July 1, 1975: Deadline date, per Title 34, Section 1, Part 3 (Preservation of Commercial Mineral Deposits) Section 34-1- 304(4), for adoption of a master plan by each populous county (≥ 65,000 inhabitants) for the extraction of commercial mineral deposits. Section 34-1-305(3)states: Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit a board of county commissioners, a governing body of any city and county, city, or town, or any other governmental authority which has control over zoning from zoning or rezoning land to permit a certain use, if said use does not permit erection of permanent structures upon, or otherwise permanently preclude the extraction of commercial mineral deposits by an extractor from, land subject to said use. [Emphasis added] January 13, 1987: Original Weld County Ordinance 147-Comprehensive Plan. CM Policy 1 reiterates above. March 7, 1990: Board of County Commissioners approve a Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit to C$ M Minerals for gravel mining and concrete and asphalt batch plants in the site known as "W W Farm Pit." August 25, 1993: Board of County Commissioners approve Orr Minor Subdivision. 1994 - 1995: Construction and occupancy of homes in the Orr Minor Subdivision. ..larch 8, 1999: USR-897 map lists Camas Colorado, Inc. and Ed Orr/Susie Orr as property owners of permitted site previously known as "W W Farm Pit," now known as "Riverview Resource." July 13, 1999: Date of letter from Camas Colorado, Inc. stating their mining interest in property they own and their intention to amend the USR to incorporate additional property they have obtained (lease agreement with Ed Orr). August 3, 1999: Meeting between Bruce Barker, Weld County Attorney, Ed Orr, Camas representatives and City of Greeley representatives to discuss Mr. Orr's and Camas' plans with respect to gravel mining and the location of the Poudre River Trail. August 10, 1999: Meeting by Camas Colorado and TuttleApplegate with selected residents to present proposed mining and reclamation plans. September 9, 1999: Requested meeting with Commissioner Vaad to discuss concerns; received conditional approval provided Camas had not already submitted an amendment to the USR. September 10, 1999: Commissioner Vaad states a meeting is denied due to "quasi judicial process." September 16, 1999: Date of letter from Bruce Barker, Weld County Attorney, stating: "I must recommend to Commissioneer Vaad and the other County Commissioners that any discussion regarding amendment to the USR must take place only at a public hearing." October 11, 1999: Camas Colorado files USR permit amendment with the County and the Regular 112 Operations Permit Application with the State. =ember 7, 1999: County Planning Commission hearing December 10, 1999: Objection/support letters due to the DMG. 11/18/99 THU 14:30 FAX 907 376 5471 PRUDENTIAL VISTA R E Z002 Kim Ogle November 18, 1999 Weld County Dept. of Planning Greeley,CO Chris D. Elder 1365 E. Parks Hwy. Wasilla, AK 99654 907-376-2414 Dear Mr. Ogle, It has come to my attention that Camas desires to complete their mining permit process. Although I am no longer a Weld County resident, I did reside next to permit site from 1989-1997. 1. My observation has been that the Poudre has seasonally high water during the spring run off and that any restrictions downstream from my former home will back up onto this subject property(the current residence of Cragle, Sears, Wright and Miller). 2. Please refer to the development standards that were adopted by Weld County regarding C & M mining permit (now Camas) and Elder (now Wright). I un assuming that Camas has fulfilled it's obligation to Wright on mitigating damage to the water right which supplies water to Wright's Trout Farm. Please feel free to contact me anytime if I can be of any assistance. Sincerely, Chris . Elder November 19, 1999 .1/eft( County Planning Lep ''KOV 1 8 1999 Mr. Kim Ogle, Planner Weld County Department of Planning Services Q C r r p p 1555 North 17`h Avenue s® @ i! Fn Greeley, CO 80631 Dear Mr. Ogle: My name is Jonathan Cragle. My wife Paula, our four (almost five) children and I live at 13648 WCR 64 in close proximity to the aggregate mining plans proposed by Camas Colorado, Inc. I am not opposed to sharing my neighborhood with an aggregate mining operation or to the future presence of reclamation lakes. Recently, however, we have been reviewing the mining plans and have developed some serious concerns for the stability of our home and the use of our private property. We bought our homestead because of several specific family goals and only after significant research concerning the safety and feasibility of raising our family (according to those goals) right on the edge of a floodplain. Our home sits about 15 feet away from and slightly above the 100-year floodplain of the Poudre River. When we purchased our homestead two different inspectors (one representing the Veteran's Administration [VA]) agreed that the house was resting on a stable foundation. No flood insurance was required of us by either the VA or our mortgage company. Thus we bought what we thought was a safe haven for our children to learn and flourish in, in the Greeley countryside. The Poudre River used to ox-bow past our house on the southern side. However it has been cut off by a short dike and now consists of a small canal and three large drainage ponds (which drain past our house and into the Poudre). They service a fish farm, just west of us, and several underground drainage tiles coming from the north clear up to the #2 Ditch. At least three of our 4 acres are wooded and 2% to 3 acres lie on the 100 year floodplain. We have regularly enjoyed close quarters with a large variety of wildlife. This has already been an exceptional learning place for my children to experience and !earn to respect wildlife with which most children seldom ever have contact. We also pasture our livestock on our floodplain acreage with the exception of only a couple weeks during the spring runoff. We utilize dairy goats especially because our 2-year old cannot have cow's milk and because the established growth there makes ideal forage for goats. My eldest sons are developing small businesses with their first livestock, both depending on the use of our natural forage pasture to achieve an early and positive experience in agricultural investments. Let me note that I am not opposed, generally, to the responsible extraction and use of our aggregate resources. Indeed good businesses, large and small, ought to be encouraged in our area. However, it has come to my attention that the lay-out of Camas' lakes and dikes and their exclusion of a large underground drainage tile spell predictable destruction for my land use, my home's stability and my family's country heritage. Specifically: 1. The presence of two more large lakes (i.e. 1 & 2) and the consequential absence of food and shelter for wildlife currently inhabiting the river bottoms spoils an important aspect of my family's and our community's heritage. There is a delicate balance between the preservation of our wildlife and the responsible development of our river lands. I am concerned that the newly proposed lakes will not simply move the wildlife "over" but move much of it "out," especially the mule deer, owls, eagles, and small rodents (upon which the coyotes prey). Since coyotes are notorious experts at adjusting, it seems obvious to me they will most likely gravitate more aggressively to the closest remaining food sources; the closest of which will include my property with small livestock and small children. This last winter we were compelled to obtain a llama that has since successfully protected our livestock from preying coyotes. We already sense the necessity to withhold the freedom of our children in our wooded acres during the winter and the spring runoff. I am concerned that the healthy population of coyotes in our area will be magnified by these lakes to a serious nuisance level and that the rarer species of wildlife will disappear altogether. 2. Lakes 1 and 2 create and then compound a critical question of flooding from the Poudre River. I understand that these lakes are to have reclaimed banks at "ground level," and 6' of extra storage space each. However, CAMAS' land occupies a wide range of elevations and I have seen no professional, authoritative evidence of what elevation their "ground level" equals. If those banks are equal or slightly higher than the end of the ox-bow than they will create a backwater condition in the ox-bow that endangers all of my private property. Although our home currently resides clearly above the 100-year floodplain, a displacement of the 100-year floodplain of just a very few feet by those lakes will flood and erode our land excessively and even flood our home. Camas' informed my wife that their plans were constructed by civil engineers. As of today, I have not seen their floodplain development permit. I understand from several private engineers I have spoken with that the impact of mining developments can only be authoritatively discerned by an engineer specializing in hydrolic matters. Camas representatives could not assure us that their engineers are specifically qualified hydrolic engineers. May I also note that even during the exceptional flooding in April 1999 the floodplain proved adequate, my house sustained no damage and my stock was not denied forage for more than 2% weeks. 3. Camas does not make any provision in their plans to incorporate the tiled groundwater draining agricultural fields north of my neighborhood. This drainage tile services our entire neighborhood clear down to my homestead. It discharges itself perpetually downstream from my home out of a 6-inch pipe and it is especially active during any significant storm run-off. Camas' plans to replace their field and section of that drain with lined lake #2 will force the groundwater released immediately north of it to travel around their lake and through the agricultural plots and residences around them. My residence sits not only closest to the river but also closest to the groundwater as well. I cannot but assume the water table around my home, particularly, will rise and submit my foundation to water damage particularly during storm run-off. My house was built in 1929 and remains a secure testament to the ingenuity of the agricultural community here to access, utilize and manage their water and land resources. If this groundwater is simply ignored, it will at least render my basement and septic system useless, if not destroy my foundation. 4. I also have grievous concerns about the alteration of the general water table around my acreage and residence. The development of four lined lakes west of us erase a rather large area presently occupied by ground water. The water table under my basement (about 5 feet below ground level) rises up to my basement once or twice a year during high storm run-off. This ground water does not presently flood my basement. However, if the ground water west of me is denied compensation there for space, I am convinced a good share of it will gravitate ("downstream") east and southeast past my home. In fact Camas told my wife that that is in fact where they expect it to go. If Camas develops lined lake #2 dislocating ground water to the east of me, this will most likely not only further add to the water table under my house, but in essence trap excess water there, perpetually, and permanently flooding my basement and septic system. 5. If you permit lakes 1 and 2, I am concerned that they will compound the displacement of the 100-year flood plain on our property due to the position and development of their lakes 3 and 4. Lakes 3 and 4 have dikes planned that will narrow the 100-year flood plain upstream from the Poudre's old ox-bow leading through my homestead. A cursory review of a legal flood-plain map clearly shows the need to compensate for that alteration of the floodplain. The only compensation I have seen is possible space in lakes 3 & 4 with "ground level" banks and a water level planned for 6' below that. As aforementioned, Camas' land spans a large area of varied elevations. If those banks are equal to or slightly higher than the ox-bow dike located just downstream there will be considerable backwaters forced immediately into the ox-bow. This would be compounded by slightly elevated banks around lakes 1 and 2 located at the end of the ox-bow. It would take less than a five- foot difference in the elevation of Camas' "ground level" banks to completely destroy my home and less than 2 feet to cripple my land use. Thus, I am compelled to procure my own extremely expensive engineering documentation of their floodplain and ground water impact to prevent damages to my private property. Although that appears absurd, it is becoming necessary unless you, the planners, will hold them responsible for complete and accurate professional research. Camas promises to "remedy" any damages their development causes to their neighbors. "Remedies," even compensations do not replace our home, or the history it holds, or the learning and lifestyle our homestead now provides for my family. 6. I have noticed that although Camas may be required to keep the water level in their lakes at 6' below the reclaimed bank (as stipulated on their map), a future owner could raise that level according to their discretion. If the lakes on the floodplain are maintained so as to offer no extra storage space for displaced floodwater, then this development plan for the floodplain would positively displace the 100-year floodplain between their lakes where my house and acreage sit as the obvious least path of resistance. It is little comfort to us that we can expect just compensation for damages after our homestead has been destroyed, when it could be preserved by proper and responsible mining. Obviously, there is an exceptionally large amount of water located in my neighborhood. If Camas' plans before you are developed, unaltered, it takes little speculation to realize that there will be ground waters, drainage tile water and seasonal Poudre flood waters all vying for passage and place on and around my private property. Any one of them alone could ruin my land use and my residence. Combined, they certainly pose a dangerous, critical displacement of water. I understand that there are laws that are intended to protect my private property and my family in this case: 1) that one neighbor cannot change the quality or quantity of the water flowing onto their neighbor's property; 2) that no entity can displace the 100-year floodplain; and 3) that there must be agreement with all persons holding water rights in order to augment its use. The hydrolic engineers I have contacted assured me that in the latter case my neighbors and I have an implied historical precedence right to keep the tiled groundwater contained in its drainage tile as it passes toward the river: that indiscriminately disturbing that draining is indeed an augmentation of its containment depended on by my neighbors and I. Camas' plans however show the very probable displacement of the flood plain right beside my residence and the alteration of the quantity of water traveling through or trapped under my house as well as in the ground between their lakes, i.e., my neighborhood. In light of the lack of critical and detailed impact research I ask you to withhold permission from Camas to mine their eastern property until they create a plan that assures a responsible stewardship of all our natural resources, our land use, our private properties, our water and our heritage. In conclusion, I wish to share my heart. I am a strong and faithful advocate of local business and as well as ethical, responsible big business. I have no personal vendetta with Camas Colorado, Inc. However, direct contact with Camas has brought absolutely no resolution to my concerns. I do however hope to obtain an accurate copy of their floodplain development permit and procure a second professional opinion before your December 7`h hearing. Since my county commissioner refused to meet with my community members, and my state representative holds mineral rights to this land, and since the County Attorney has already met with Camas, Greeley city officials and Mr. Orr concerning this operation, I cannot help but conclude that my concerns in this matter might easily be overlooked by my elected representatives after your recommendation has been delivered. So I ask that you strenuously look into my concerns and require Camas to give an accurate, detailed account of the impact of their mining plans before they cause irreparable damage; before my neighbors and I are left to the unwelcome task of later proving the unlawful management of our local resources and willful disregard for our citizens' due rights. Sincerely, cf(14 athan Cragle cc: Dave Owen, State; Dale Hall, County Commissioner at Large; Mike Geile, County Commissioner; Glenn Vaad, Country Commissioner; Barbara Kirkmeyer, Country Commissioner November 19, 1999 p`Jn', Mr. Kim Ogle, Planner yeti iuc u }� Weld County Department of Planning Services 1,O, 1555 North 17th Avenue Greeley, CO 80631 j Dear Mr. Ogle: ,. My name is Jonathan Cragle. My wife Paula, our four (almost five) children and I live at 13648 WCR 64 in close proximity to the aggregate mining plans proposed by Camas Colorado, Inc. I am not opposed to sharing my neighborhood with an aggregate mining operation or to the future presence of reclamation lakes. Recently, however, we have been reviewing the mining plans and have developed some serious concerns for the stability of our home and the use of our private property. We bought our homestead because of several specific family goals and only after significant research concerning the safety and feasibility of raising our family (according to those goals) right on the edge of a floodplain. Our home sits about 15 feet away from and slightly above the 100-year floodplain of the Poudre River. When we purchased our homestead two different inspectors (one representing the Veteran's Administration [VA]) agreed that the house was resting on a stable foundation. No flood insurance was required of us by either the VA or our mortgage company. Thus we bought what we thought was a safe haven for our children to learn and flourish in, in the Greeley countryside. The Poudre River used to ox-bow past our house on the southern side. However it has been cut off by a short dike and now consists of a small canal and three large drainage ponds (which drain past our house and into the Poudre). They service a fish farm, just west of us, and several underground drainage tiles coming from the north clear up to the #2 Ditch. At least three of our 4 acres are wooded and 21/z to 3 acres lie on the 100 year floodplain. We have regularly enjoyed close quarters with a large variety of wildlife. This has already been an exceptional learning-place for my children to experience and learn to respect wildlife with which most children seldom ever have contact. We also pasture our livestock on our floodplain acreage with the exception of only a couple weeks during the spring runoff. We utilize dairy goats especially because our 2-year old cannot have cow's milk and because the established growth there makes ideal forage for goats. My eldest sons are developing small businesses with their first livestock, both depending on the use of our natural forage pasture to achieve an early and positive experience in agricultural investments. Let me note that I am not opposed, generally, to the responsible extraction and use of our aggregate resources. Indeed good businesses, large and small, ought to be encouraged in our area. However, it has come to my attention that the lay-out of Camas' lakes and dikes and their exclusion of a large underground drainage tile spell predictable destruction for my land use, my home's stability and my family's country heritage. Specifically: 1. The presence of two more large lakes (i.e. 1 & 2) and the consequential absence of food and shelter for wildlife currently inhabiting the river bottoms spoils an important aspect of my family's and our community's heritage. There is a delicate balance between the preservation of our wildlife and the responsible development of our river lands. I am concerned that the newly proposed lakes will not simply move the wildlife "over" but move much of it "out," especially the mule deer, owls, eagles, and small rodents (upon which the coyotes prey). Since coyotes are notorious experts at adjusting, it seems obvious to me they will most likely gravitate more aggressively to the closest remaining food sources; the closest of which will include my property with small livestock and small children. This last winter we were compelled to obtain a llama that has since successfully protected our livestock from preying coyotes. We already sense the necessity to withhold the freedom of our children in our wooded acres during the winter and the spring runoff. I am concerned that the healthy population of coyotes in our area will be magnified by these lakes to a serious nuisance level and that the rarer species of wildlife will disappear altogether. 2. Lakes 1 and 2 create and then compound a critical question of flooding from the Poudre River. I understand that these lakes are to have reclaimed banks at "ground level," and 6' of extra storage space each. However, CAMAS' land occupies a wide range of elevations and I have seen no professional, authoritative evidence of what elevation their "ground level" equals. If those banks are equal or slightly higher than the end of the ox-bow than they will create a backwater condition in the ox-bow that endangers all of my private property. Although our home currently resides clearly above the 100-year floodplain, a displacement of the 100-year floodplain of just a very few feet by those lakes will flood and erode our land excessively and even flood our home. Camas' informed my wife that their plans were constructed by civil engineers. As of today, I have not seen their floodplain development permit. I understand from several private engineers I have spoken with that the impact of mining developments can only be authoritatively discerned by an engineer specializing in hydrolic matters. Camas representatives could not assure us that their engineers are specifically qualified hydrolic engineers. May I also note that even during the exceptional flooding in April 1999 the floodplain proved adequate, my house sustained no damage and my stock was not denied forage for more than 2%weeks. 3. Camas does not make any provision in their plans to incorporate the tiled groundwater draining agricultural fields north of my neighborhood. This drainage tile services our entire neighborhood clear down to my homestead. It discharges itself perpetually downstream from my home out of a 6-inch pipe and it is especially active during any significant storm run-off. Camas' plans to replace their field and section of that drain with lined lake #2 will force the groundwater released immediately north of it to travel around their lake and through the agricultural plots and residences around them. My residence sits not only closest to the river but also closest to the groundwater as well. I cannot but assume the water table around my home, particularly, will rise and submit my foundation to water damage particularly during storm run-off. My house was built in 1929 and remains a secure testament to the ingenuity of the agricultural community here to access, utilize and manage their water and land resources. If this groundwater is simply ignored, it will at least render my basement and septic system useless, if not destroy my foundation. 4. I also have grievous concerns about the alteration of the general water table around my acreage and residence. The development of four lined lakes west of us erase a rather large area presently occupied by ground water. The water table under my basement (about 5 feet below ground level) rises up to my basement once or twice a year during high storm run-off. This ground water does not presently flood my basement. However, if the ground water west of me is denied compensation there for space, I am convinced a good share of it will gravitate ("downstream") east and southeast past my home. In fact Camas told my wife that that is in fact where they expect it to go. If Camas develops lined lake #2 dislocating ground water to the east of me, this will most likely not only further add to the water table under my house, but in essence trap excess water there, perpetually, and permanently flooding my basement and septic system. 5. If you permit lakes 1 and 2, I am concerned that they will compound the displacement of the 100-year flood plain on our property due to the position and development of their lakes 3 and 4. Lakes 3 and 4 have dikes planned that will narrow the 100-year flood plain upstream from the Poudre's old ox-bow leading through my homestead. A cursory review of a legal flood-plain map clearly shows the need to compensate for that alteration of the floodplain. The only compensation I have seen is possible space in lakes 3 & 4 with "ground level" banks and a water level planned for 6' below that. As aforementioned, Camas' land spans a large area of varied elevations. If those banks are equal to or slightly higher than the ox-bow dike located just downstream there will be considerable backwaters forced immediately into the ox-bow. This would be compounded by slightly elevated banks around lakes 1 and 2 located at the end of the ox-bow. It would take less than a five- foot difference in the elevation of Camas' "ground level" banks to completely destroy my home and less than 2 feet to cripple my land use. Thus, I am compelled to procure my own extremely expensive engineering documentation of their floodplain and ground water impact to prevent damages to my private property. Although that appears absurd, it is becoming necessary unless you, the planners, will hold them responsible for complete and accurate professional research. Camas promises to "remedy" any damages their development causes to their neighbors. "Remedies," even compensations do not replace our home, or the history it holds, or the learning and lifestyle our homestead now provides for my family. 6. I have noticed that although Camas may be required to keep the water level in their lakes at 6' below the reclaimed bank (as stipulated on their map), a future owner could raise that level according to their discretion. If the lakes on the floodplain are maintained so as to offer no extra storage space for displaced floodwater, then this development plan for the floodplain would positively displace the 100-year floodplain between their lakes where my house and acreage sit as the obvious least path of resistance. It is little comfort to us that we can expect just compensation for damages after our homestead has been destroyed, when it could be preserved by proper and responsible mining. Obviously, there is an exceptionally large amount of water located in my neighborhood. If Camas' plans before you are developed, unaltered, it takes little speculation to realize that there will be ground waters, drainage tile water and seasonal Poudre flood waters all vying for passage and place on and around my private property. Any one of them alone could ruin my land use and my residence. Combined, they certainly pose a dangerous, critical displacement of water. I understand that there are laws that are intended to protect my private property and my family in this case: 1) that one neighbor cannot change the quality or quantity of the water flowing onto their neighbor's property; 2) that no entity can displace the 100-year floodplain; and 3) that there must be agreement with all persons holding water rights in order to augment its use. The hydrolic engineers I have contacted assured me that in the latter case my neighbors and I have an implied historical precedence right to keep the tiled groundwater contained in its drainage tile as it passes toward the river: that indiscriminately disturbing that draining is indeed an augmentation of its containment depended on by my neighbors and I. Camas' plans however show the very probable displacement of the flood plain right beside my residence and the alteration of the quantity of water traveling through or trapped under my house as well as in the ground between their lakes, i.e., my neighborhood. In light of the lack of critical and detailed impact research I ask you to withhold permission from Camas to mine their eastern property until they create a plan that assures a responsible stewardship of all our natural resources, our land use, our private properties, our water and our heritage. In conclusion, I wish to share my heart. I am a strong and faithful advocate of local business and as well as ethical, responsible big business. I have no personal vendetta with Camas Colorado, Inc. However, direct contact with Camas has brought absolutely no resolution to my concerns. I do however hope to obtain an accurate copy of their floodplain development permit and procure a second professional opinion before your December 7th hearing. Since my county commissioner refused to meet with my community members, and my state representative holds mineral rights to this land, and since the County Attorney has already met with Camas, Greeley city officials and Mr. Orr concerning this operation, I cannot help but conclude that my concerns in this matter might easily be overlooked by my elected representatives after your recommendation has been delivered. So I ask that you strenuously look into my concerns and require Camas to give an accurate, detailed account of the impact of their mining plans before they cause irreparable damage; before my neighbors and I are left to the unwelcome task of later proving the unlawful management of our local resources and willful disregard for our citizens' due rights. Sincerely, Jonathan Cragle cc: Dave Owen, State; Dale Hall, County Commissioner at Large; Mike Geile, County Commissioner; Glenn Vaad, Country Commissioner; Barbara Kirkmeyer, Country Commissioner CHUCK REHMER 520 N. 71st Avenue • Greeley, CO 80634 • 970-539-4313 November 21, 1999 Kim Ogle Weld County Department of Planning Services 1555 N. 17th Avenue ►12.d County Planning Dept. Greeley, CO 80631 RE: AmUSR-897 (Camas Colorado, Inc. N0V 24 1999 ► rr / ED Dear Sir, I am hereby expressing objection to the above referenced application for"special rights". In spite of my requests to Ms. Connie Davis the applicant has not demonstrated adequate reclamation history or intentions, or mitigation of environmental and financial impact to the neighboring properties and riparian wildlife areas. We live immediately South of the proposed industrial pit mine on a ridge above 71st avenue. We purchased our property to enjoy the natural Poudre River basin. The Poudre River Trail is an approved use for this area. The Orr Minor Subdivision is a long approved use for this area. Poudre River Ranch subdivision is an approved use for this area(which includes significant public open space a stone throw from the proposed pits). How can any of these approved projects possibly benefit from having an industrial pit mine for a neighbor for the next 13-20 years? I am also a Realtor representing a builder at Poudre River Ranch. What type of disclosure should I be giving potential purchasers: that an industrial pit mine will be moving in as their good neighbor across the river? The simple purpose of planning and zoning is to protect the property rights and investments of existing property owners. This project is simply had planning. Because Camas alleges they already have ap- proval for part of the project, I believe it would be in the public interest to reexamine the original approval process given the nature of approved projects in the immediate vicinity. Finally, it has come to my attention that Ms. Shani Eastin, a former Weld County planning department employee, is now representing Camas as a consultant with Tuttle Applegate Engineering. Since she apparently has no engineering degree,one can only assume she is brokering her influence.This is highly irregular and the entire application should be denied on this basis alone. Please do not allow Minor Orr Subdivision to become Rocky Road Peninsula. Please keep me in- formed of any additional developments. L 4 Cam—, -2-Ass Chuck Rehiner� Poudre River Ridge resident xc: county commissioners greeley tribune, senator owens GABLEHOUSE & EPEL, LLC Attorneys and Counselors at Law MELANIE I.GRANBERG,ESQ. 1050 SEVENTEENTH STREET (303)572-0050 SUITE 1730 (800)818-0050 DENVER COLORADO 80265 FAX(303)572-3037 mfganbaB(4)8881880n8e-eP8I.8orn November 22, 1999 Weld County Dept. of Planning Services Attention: Kim Ogle 1555 N. 17'"Ave. Greeley, CO 80631 Re: Public Inspection of File for Case Number AmUSR-897 Dear Mr. Ogle: As you know, we represent the Families for Responsible Aggregate Mining ("FRAM") in matters concerning CAMAS Colorado, Inc.'s application number AmUSR-897. It has come to our attention that our client has had some difficulty in accessing and viewing the file for this case. For this reason, we make the following request. It is our understanding that this file is open to public inspection and that, to date, there have been no limitations on the times at which the file may be viewed. If such constraints on viewing exist, please notify us immediately so that we can make appropriate arrangements to access the file during those times. Additionally, we would also like to request that the file in its entirety be provided when available for viewing. It is difficult to properly evaluate the file if parts of it are missing and cannot be provided upon request. We have noticed that certain documents that have been submitted, particularly from the referral agencies, have not been added to the file though the deadline for submission has long since passed. We would appreciate your cooperation in keeping the file available and up-to-date so that we may properly evaluate the proposed operations. If you have questions regarding this request, please call me at (303)572-0050. Sincerely, r e;d County Planning Dept. Melanie J. Granberg for Gablehouse& Epel, LLC N0V 24 1999 cc: Bruce Barker - County Attorney P F C r i '/ E D Client November 22, 1999 To: Mr. Kim Ogle From: Wilbert and Ruth Firestien Dear Mr. Ogle, After attending the ":Public Meeting" of the "Families for Responsible Aggregate Mining" we feel we need to write to you to voice our opinion in favor of the mining operation that is planned for the area of east of 83'd avenue and south of O street. We sold part of our farm to Hall-Irwin Construction about 3 years ago. We can't think of any unfavorable circumstances as a result of that mining operation and cement plant. They are good neighbors. We would like to address several items—increased truck traffic--this traffic will not affect the people doing all the complaining. It will affect us but we just "tune" it out. We live on the corner of 83rd ave. and 0 st. and we see increased traffic every day. The impact on wild life is temporary if at all. There are ducks and geese on the gravel pit lake that we can view from our house. There arc also deer around as before..and whai. ever animals that live around the river. Dust is another concern—we have not experienced any problems with dust. They keep it watered down as they work. We feel this is the best use of this land. We would rather be neighbors to a gravel pit than to have a bunch of houses in this area. It seems when some city people move to the country they have no respect for our properties- they ride their horses or four wheelers or motor bikes all over our properties. We run them out and they come back an hour later. Gravel pits don't do that! We vote in favor of a gravel pit. Sincerely. - -- 5)edaiW Aa. —�/ eariee Wilbert and Ruth Firestien 30953 WCR 27 Greeley, Colorado 80631 vu d County Pt�nnlng GePt. N0V 24 7999 Pr pi p/ b Wood Products Manufacturing ft Recycling, Inc. TOUR COMPLETE PALLET COMPANY ra county Planning Den. DEC 01 1999 RECEIVED November 29, 1999 To Whom It May Concern: This letter is in support of F.R.A.M. We are in complete agreement with their objections to Camas, Colorado, Inc. obtaining any more property until their obligations are fulfilled on the first phase of their existing USR permit fin aggregate mining. If you need anything further, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, I and Kyne 517 N. 7 st Ave. Or—Icr r CO ti(1F...1 970-353-5311 • 920 EAST COLLINS • EATON, COLORADO 80615 • PHONE (970) 353-5311 • FAX (970) 454-3323 /,( 9 Ci' i / it:A L 72[ tL,Li, a 132(A i 'Le z"" t "4." ) 5 `f7 p-/r. 1 ./ tl l un. t( Q1 CC . ,YC1 3 ' Re: Camas Colorado, Inc. Dear y )/v .ti Ccs lc 1 would like to address the Camas Colorado Inc. amendment of their existing USB permit. While I am not against this project, or the development, sale, or mining of the property involved. It is my understanding that they do have a existing permit that was granted about 10 years ago. How long would it take for this area to be mined out? I would first like to see the way the land that is already permitted for aggregate mining will be developed, or reclaimed. Will this be a series of lakes that will totally isolate the housing development already established? �I(7 c )1 d � 1\« z ( '(A „ ice ,- 442 N. Brisbane Ave. a county planning Ue', '. Greeley, Co. 80634 ;'.C 01 1999 November 29, 1999 Reference: #M-99-t198 (Cunas CO Inc.) -•d County Planning Dept. Mr. Kim Ogle,Planner r1 Weld County Department of Planning Services i :r C 02 1999 1555 North 17i1' Avenue q� Greeley,CO 80631 FCFIVE t! D Re: AniUSR-897 (Camas Colorado, Inc.) Dear Sir: My great-grandfather was an original Union Colonist,arriving in the Greeley area in 1870. Our farm,having been owned and operated by our family for 1211 years,is registered as a"Colorado Centennial Farm" Our farm includes the forty acres lying west of 71°' Avenue and south of ( Street. Camas Colorado Inc. intends to mine gravel adjacent to the west and south boundaries. At this time Camas has not addressed the underground drain tiles that transport water continuously through my acreage. These.drain tiles have been in existence for many years. Some of the tiles are probably over 100 years old. These drain tiles perform the function of draining excess water from,not only my farm,but also other farms to the north. Without these drain tiles,excess water would reduce or eliminate farm production. In the past,one of the drain tiles was accidentally cut and plugged. Water backed up approximately 8011 feet to the northwest where it flowed out of the ground. 'Ibis water flowed to the bottom of the farm where it formed a lake. Farming was impossible until the drain line was repaired. Camas must be held responsible for any future damage to crops and farmland they cause. These drain tiles also return water to the river,where it is used downstream. These users include both human and wildlife. If this water is blocked,what impact will there be on the water rights of those users? Gravel pits can be unsightly,noisy,dusty,weedy,and a source of high traffic congestion. Camas's plans do not call for completion for another 20 years. This is a long time to deal with such problems. Neighboring land and homes could be devalued if these problems are not dealt with properly. Will Camas accept responsibility for any such devaluation? Damage to local roads due to heavy truck traffic can also beamajor problem. I low will these roads be maintained{ Prior to any mining permits,a"Hood Plan I Lizard Development Study" should be conducted by a hydrologist to determine what future impact gravel mining will have on the area. Almost every spring the river floods due to heavy snowmelt or a large rainstorm. During flooding,the river expands out of its hanks. The planned gravel mines will be covered with floodwater. I low does Camas plan to contain the floodwater? Will they attempt to contain the water within its banks? What effect will this have on the ecosystem? A Flood plan should be in place before mining begins. Impact studies should be performed to determine effects on ground water and wildlife. Neutral professionals should perform these studies. We realize there's a need for gravel, but we love the land and don't want to see the area impacted negatively. These area few of my many concerns about the proposed Camas project. I'd appreciate your consideration in addressing these concerns or any other possible "problem spots" that might be brought to your attention. Sincerely,YYvri0 / - fk`2yyl Richard Goetzel 13.1X9 AVCR Lb ORE F.I.I:y. CO 811631 f" 1\ Karl B. Gills 12269 WCR 64 r/: Greeley, Colorado 80631-9343 rt 'd county prann1,IgC :P. . Nov. 26, 1999 • 6 199Q Mr. Ken Ogle, Planner Weld County Department of Planning Services ^ 'F 4: V n 1555 N. 17th Ave. Greeley, Colorado 80631 Dear Sir: I am writing to comment on project USR-897, request by Camas, Colorado to amend the gravel mining operation originally granted in 1990. I am not an adjacent property owner, but do have several concerns about the project that I wish the department and Commissioners to consider as this application is acted on. I begin by expressing general concern that is shared by the residents of Rocky Road that have letters on file with the application. Issues of noise, dust and the impact of changes in water flow and water table should be considered in light of the residential use of the land immediately east of the original application. It is one thing to build next to a previously approved project, but quite another to have the county approve an expansion after the residences are developed. There seems to be concern about impact on the wild life in the area, but little in the way of actual study of potential impact. I am concerned that this gravel mining operation, coupled with the current operation on the west side of 83n°Ave. (Bestway Concrete and the Hall-Irwin mine)will have a permanent impact. The area in question may have been the refuge that wild life sought following the increase of operations to the west. If all of the previously approved and currently requested area is commercialized, there may be nowhere in the area for wild life to retreat to for 15 to 20 years and then return as hypothesized. This concern is addressed in several exhibits, but no call is made for an environmental impact analysis of this topic. I feel a more detailed analysis of the potential needs to be conducted prior to any permit expansion. I am also very concerned about the traffic impact on 83'd Ave. This concern exists even if the current permit is exercised. Since 1990, the character of 83rd Ave. has changed significantly. Traffic rates have increased and will continue to increase. The applicant notes that most traffic will head south toward Business 34 (10th St.). No mention is made as to considerations for remedy of congestion an increase in slow acceleration vehicles moving in any direction at this intersection. No mention of planning for the increase of large, heavy vehicles turning north on 83'd Ave. from 10th St. is made. This also creates increased risk of accidents and congestion on I0`h St. which should be four lanes now. Two issues of concern are at the entrance on 83rd Ave. It is noted that acceleration and deceleration lanes will be created. If these are to be modeled after the lanes exiting from the current gravel operation and concrete plant on the west, it will be totally inadequate. The distance south is restricted by the two-lane bridge over the Poudre River which does not allow for sufficient distance for heavy trucks to gain a speed sufficient to not impede traffic flow for some distance, often until the truck reaches 4th Street to the south. Trucks from the new operation will not have any acceleration lanes to the south exacerbating an already bad situation. The same concern exists for trucks turning north on 83s from the proposed gravel operation. If an acceleration lane is established to the north, I have concern over the visibility of vehicles entering 83'd Ave. in either direction from the"T" intersection with"O" St. It seems to me an effective acceleration lane would have to go at least as long as to reach the intersection. A large truck in the acceleration lane may block the view of a driver turning in either direction on to 83rd Ave. creating a traffic safety hazard. 83s Ave. is becoming and, as I understand it, is designed to become a primary route for traffic from west Greeley and Windsor to DIA and surrounding areas. This is going to occur rapidly after the Two Rivers Parkway south from U.S. 34 by-pass is completed. With the rapid growth of Windsor and surrounding areas in that part of the county, traffic will increase on 83s. This must be taken into account when reviewing the issue of the 83s Ave. entrances to both current and proposed gravel operations from "O" St. all of the way through the 10th St. and 83`d Ave. intersections. Left turn lanes, longer and sufficient acceleration lanes, and traffic control must be part of the planning and requirements for any approval of operations. I believe these concerns exist and are unaddressed even with the currently approved gravel mining operation. An amendment to the original application affords the opportunity to address these issues. I recommend and request a full traffic analysis followed by requirements of the operator and county to implement the means to address issues prior to granting any approvals to modify the current permit In reviewing the file, I find that many of these concerns have been raised by others in positions of expertise. I add my voice to the concerns raised specifically by Mr. Donald Carroll, Engineering Administrator for Weld County dated November 9, 1999 regarding traffic concerns; the letter from the City of Greeley Planning Commission summary dated Nov. 9, 1999 and the letter from the City of Greeley Planning Staff review dated October 27, 1999 addressing several pertinent issues; from the City of Greeley in its letter dated November 15, 1999 and the Department of Wildlife in a letter dated November 5, 1999 regarding wild life issues. Sincerely, Karl B. Gills K i ✓� 541 BrisbaneAve. p,d�Ronald J. Spurlinc_ t� Ptarar,r ),, id Greeley, CO 80634 C 970-356-6012 r 6 1999 December 3, 1999 ,q-C p t VICIN To Whom It May Concern: re: Camas Colorado, Inc. application for USR permit amendment Until November 10, 1999, 1 was unaware that we might be having a very large aggregate mining operation within a half mile of our home located in Boomerang Run. We attended the FRAM(Families for Responsible Aggregate Mining)meeting on November 17 and also the Camas meeting on December 2. Needless to say I am surprised that our governing bodies that control land use, have created such a poor situation. The area around and within this proposed mining operation has drastically changed over the past six years. This area is now comprised of some very nice residential developments as well as our new high school. Now all of a sudden we are going to be associated with a new neighbor that is solely interested in the marketability of the aggregate that they can extract from the land. It is most likely going to be a negative impact on property values for all those families that thought they were buying in a nice country setting. There will be noise, increased traffic,dirt, and unpleasant views for many homeowners. I have also been very unimpressed with the amount of research that Camus has put into this project concerning the effect on the water levels,both ground and surface. I strongly recommend that those who have any control over this project strongly look at the impact that it will be making on our land, not mention the wildlife in the area. Sincerely, Ronald J. Spurlin CHUCK REHMER 520 N. 71st Avenue • Greeley, CO 80634 . 970-539-43]3 - . December 1, 1999 Kim Ogle Weld County Department of Planning Services 1555 N. 17th Avenue Greeley, CO 80631 RE:AmUSR-897 (Camas Colorado, Inc.) Dear Sir, I am writing in response to Mr. Gary Tuttle's telephone request that I clarify my position in my Novem- ber 21 letter (quoted below) regarding his firm and Ms. Shani Eastin, a forme:Weld County Planning Department employee. "Finally, it has come to my attention that Ms. Shani Eastin, a former Weld County planning department employee, is now representing Camas as a consultant with Tuttle Applegate Engineering. Since she apparently has no engineering degree,one can only assume she is brokering her influence.This is highly irregular and the entire application should be denied on this basis alone." I have no evidence that Ms. Eastin or Tuttle Applegate Engineering is breaking any laws and that my personal perception re-stated above is based on the simple appearance of impropriety when an ex- employee coordinates a complex application submittal through her former planning department. Is it not possible that her personal contacts and knowledge of internal procedures could create an undue advantage for the applicant? To the best of my knowledge Tuttle Applegate Engineering is a highly reputable firm and I wish them no ill will or bad publicity. Sincerely, Chuck Rehmer Poudre River Ridge resident xc: county commissioners ley tribune, senator owens p\a�(\\t`gt- \aa�Y 15 Nc)99 • GABLEHOUSE & EPEL, LLC Attorneys and Counselors at Law MELANIE 1.GRANRERG,ESQ. 1050 SEVENTEENTH STREET (303)572-0050 SUITE 1730 (800)818-0050 DENVER,COLORADO 8O265 FAX(303)572-3037 mgranberg@lgablehouse-epel corn January 6, 2000 Weld County Dept. of Planning Services Attention: Kim Ogle 1555 N. 17h Ave. Greeley, CO 80631 Re: AmUSR-897 - Upcoming Planning Commission Hearing Dear Mr. Ogle: We represent the Families for Responsible Aggregate Mining("FRAM") in matters concerning CAMAS Colorado, Inc.'s application number AmUSR-897. As you may, or may not know, there have been significant developments in the last few weeks that impact your consideration of the pending application. Enclosed is a copy of the Division of Minerals and Geology's ("DMG") Technical Adequacy Review of New 112 Reclamation Permit Application, Permit No. #M-99-098, Riverview Resources. CAMAS must obtain this permit before it may begin mining activities as proposed under AmUSR-897. As you will see, there are a number of substantial issues still unresolved, particularly regarding hydrologic issues. CAMAS has requested an extension from DMG to allow sufficient time in which to complete their application and, as far as we know, this extension has been granted, leaving the final decision date on or about Feb. 14, 2000. Section 24.1 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance states that a use by special review (`USR") is one which has been identified as being"more intense or hav[ing] a potentially greater impact than the Uses Allowed by Right in a particular zone district." Weld County has identified uses such as those proposed by CAMAS as needing special attention to ensure compatibility with surrounding land uses. As such, we ask that you postpone consideration of AmUSR-897 until such time as the additional information called for in the DMG Technical Adequacy Review ha;been submitted. According to Section 21.5.1.2 of the Zoning Ordinance, the Planning Commission must evaluate a proposal for its compatibility with surrounding land uses. As the application stands today, there: can be no determination of compatibility because critical information about the impact of the operations is unknown. Zoning Ordinance Section 24.1.3 requires CAMAS to comply with the 1d county PlanningD4D l,aN 11 2000 C4 RE,CEIV E® Kim Ogle January 6, 2000 Page 2 County procedures and regulations when seeking approval of a USR. CAMAS has not met its burden of showing that the standards and conditions of the Zoning Ordinance have been met. For example, they have not identified what the impact on the air quality will be from increasing production from 176,000 to 500,000 tons and the corresponding operations of the asphalt plant. Additionally, they have not made a showing that the impacts of their operations are compatible with the surrounding hydrology and their own request for an extension from the DMG is proof of that. Without the information called for by the DMG, the application is simply incomplete and there can be no determination of compatibility. The Zoning Ordinance intent to protect the health, safety, convenience, and general welfare of the citizens of Weld County cannot be met unless there exists full information concerning proposed uses. In light of these issues, we ask that you delay the Planning Commission hearing on AmUSR-897 until such time as the application is complete and the information called for by the DMG has been submitted. Sincerely, Melanie J. Granberg -� for Gablehouse & Epel, LLC Enclosure: DMG Technical Adequacy Review, Permit No. M-99-098 cc: Weld County Planning Commission Bruce Barker, Esq. Kim Davis MJG/mg F . R . A . M . (Families for Responsible Aggregate Mining) 30856 Rocky Road • Greeley, CO 80631-9375 (970) 353-0545 • (970) 353-0611 • (970) 353-0613 (fax) • regwestco@aol.com (e-mail) January 6, 2000 Weld gOtifity Planning Dept, Mr. Kim Ogle, Planner Weld County Department of Planning Services JAN I)6 2000 1555 North 17th Avenue Greeley, CO 80631 RE C IE I V E D Dear Mr. Ogle: SUBJECT: AmUSR-897, Camas Colorado, Inc. I hope you had a great Holiday Season and that your New Year, Century and Millennium are progressing well. Last month I received the attached letter from the Colorado Division of Minerals and Geology (DMG) concerning Camas' proposed mining/reclamation plans. I thought this letter would be useful information to you, the county planning commissioners and the county commissioners. The letter identifies over 15 major areas of concern to the DMG and to those of us affected by the proposed mining/reclamation plans. Of particular interest are the following issues that must be addressed prior to consideration of permit approval: • The requirement for Camas to submit a thorough floodplain impact analysis for the affected land and surrounding area. • The requirement for Camas to verify the location of all existing drainage tiles that occur within the proposed affected land boundary as well as within 200 feet of the affected land. • The requirement for Camas to demonstrate how compliance with Rule 6.4.19 (compensation agreements, detailed engineering geotechnical stability analyses or 200-foot setbacks) will be achieved for each of the identified drainage tiles. • The requirement for Camas to address environmental/ecological issues such as the proposed plans' impact on the riparian corridor, wildlife habitat and the floodplain. • The requirement for Games to demonstrate the proposed plans' impacts to surface and groundwater during mining and reclamation. Considering the numerous deficiencies and concerns delineated by the DMG, in addition to those previously identified by Weld County residents, it seems impossible for the County to adequately assess and permit Camas' plans at this time. Regards, Kim Davis, FRAM Chairperson Attachment Hello