2009-02-17_REVISION - M2001023 (12)

Home Browse Search

recent periodic inspection report from State DMG representative Russell Means, dated May 6, 2008, to evidence that the State is very satisfied with the operation of Pit #2 and its compliance with State regulations. The only concern raised by Mr. Means in his report related to the need to post a replacement bond, which has been subsequently addressed to the State's satisfaction. Both the private and public sectors in Rouft County have the need for quality, accessible gravel products. The County could require that gravel pits be located off the beaten path far from any residences, which unfortunately also means far from the projects, which are in need of gravel, and far from major highways. Long hauls of gravel are not only costly to consumers but increase traffic safety concerns to the public and offsite impacts along the haul route. The proposed expansion to Milner Camilletti Pit #2 is not only convenient to Highway 40 and consumers, but is on a site where gravel can be extracted and processed with minimal impact to the public or the environment. Routt County is fortunate to have such an ideal location for resource extraction and processing situated close by Highway 40, yet visibly screened from the Highway and the vast majority of area property owners. This pit location presents minimal visual impact when contrasted with the pits along Highway 9 just north of Silverthorne or just north of Breckenridge. The substantial land ownership of Camilletti and Sons surrounding the expansion area results in minimal impact to other property owners or to the public. The Applicants' creation of RCR 178, which provides direct access to Highway 40, further limited the impacts typically experienced on gravel pit haul routes. Our clients are currently working with wetlands consultant Kelly Colfer, who has performed mapping of the limited area (less than two acres) of wetlands in the expansion area. Enclosed is Mr. Colfer's letter report, which explains the status of onsite review of the expansion area by Nathan Green of the Army Corps, and of Mr. Colfer's wetlands mapping and anticipated plan of permitting and mitigation. The Applicants engaged hydrologist Paul Currier of Rifle to review and comment on floodplain issues. Mr. Currier has prepared a letter report (copy enclosed) to comment on hydrology/floodplain issues related to the proposed expansion area. In 2005, FEMA mapped the area of the Yampa which lies to the north of Pit #2 and the mapping shows that the existing pit and a portion of the proposed expansion area are located in the floodfringe area, but not in the Yampa floodway. Mr. Currier's attached report discusses the FEMA mapping performed in 2005 as it relates to this expansion proposal. The Applicants' fuel tanks are in the location shown on the Existing Conditions Map and the map attached to Currier's report. Although it was not believed in 2000 that the fuel tanks would be within the FEMA floodplain (if and when this area of the Yampa was mapped by FEMA), the Applicants located the fuel tanks at a grade above the pit and installed the tanks in an environmentally sensitive manner to protect against fuel spills by creating a concrete pad and a three foot high, walled containment (photo enclosed). This fuel tank