Laserfiche WebLink
excavation, grading, filling, and surfacing; removal of vegetation; timber harvesting; alteration <br />of water drainage courses; surface and subsurface mining operations; spraying and using <br />herbicides; using, handling, storing and transmitting toxic and hazardous substances; and using <br />handling, storing, and transmitti.-tg flammable or explosive materials, all of which activities pose <br />a potential or threat of injury to the Ciry's waterworks or pollution to the City's water supply <br />and require a Ciry of Rifle Watershed District Permit. <br />9. The Application filed by RFR is complete. <br />10. RFR has paid the application fee and has agreed to pay all fees required under the <br />Watershed District Ordinance and§ 10.05.010, et seq. of the Rifle Municipal Code ("RMC"). <br />11. Aduly-noticed Public Hearing was held before the Rifle City Council (the <br />"Council") on June 20, 2001. Notice of the public hearing was also sent by certified mail to the <br />Applicant as required by the RMC. <br />12. At the hearing, testimony was presented by City staff explaining the events that <br />led to the consideration by the Council of the impacts from the proposed mining operation, and <br />various exhibits were introduced into the record. Staff explained that RFR has worked closely <br />with the Ciry, the City's Consulting Engineer, and the state agencies that regulate the proposed <br />activities, and that the conditions imposed in this Permit are appropriate to mitigate the identified <br />impacts associated with the proposed mining operation. Staff then explained to the Council that <br />its jurisdiction on this matter extended 5 miles beyond the City's Colorado River intake point, <br />and that it's authority was limited to the protection of the City's water supply and quality. Staff <br />also explained various provisions within the draft Permit as well as the Agreement. <br />13. Testimony was also presented by Jeff Simonson, P.E., the City's Consulting <br />Engineer. Mr. Simonson detailed his expert credentials and testified that pursuant to his review <br />under Section 10.05.050(B) of the RMC, the proposed activities could pose a foreseeable and <br />significant risk of injury to the City's water works and pollution to the City's water supply. As <br />detailed in the Floodpiain Study and letter from Jeff Simonson dated June 15, 2001, which letter <br />is attached hereto as Exhibit C, the City's water intake structure is susceptible to isolation as a <br />result of stream channel movement after a flood event. The proposed activities accelerate and <br />increase this risk of isolation of the intake structure. Mr. Simonson also discussed how the <br />proposed activities pose a threat to the City's water quality with the risk of berm soil erosion in <br />a flood event as a result of the proposed activities. Mr. Simonson therefore recommended that <br />the City issue the Permit subject to the conditions set forth in the Agreement, which conditions <br />provide appropriate mitigation under the circumstances by assisting the City in fording an <br />alternative point of diversion and contributing to a structural solution to the water intake and <br />water pollution problem. In making his recommendation, Mr. Simonson presented his expert <br />opinion as to why the conditions of approval contributed to a solution to mitigate the increased <br />3 <br />1: VD01 \CluuvaVtlFLElR3\(219)\Douunena\ W alenthedPerwt.wpA <br />Augua 8. ]!qi <br />