[This transcript was generated automatically from audio using AI and hasn't been reviewed by a person -- it can contain mistakes, including plausible-sounding sentences that were never actually said. Treat it as a starting point, not a verbatim record.]

[0:07] Good morning, everyone. I think we've worked out some of the technical difficulties.
[0:12] I would like to call our meeting for the GCC Energy King II coal mine class II project 2012-0089 to order.
[0:25] For the record, please note that all three commissioners are present.
[0:30] Commissioner Lacholt, Commissioner Westendorf, and myself, Commissioner Blake.
[0:34] As preliminary matter, we request that you remove your hats and turn off your cell phones.
[0:43] We would also like to request that anyone wishing to speak on any matter on today's agenda please fill out one of the pink slips.
[0:52] They are available usually right back here by the sink and give those to Jeannie here to my right.
[1:02] If
[1:06] you would please stand and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance.
[1:11] And
[1:21] to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.
[1:40] You'll please bear with me for a minute. I have a few notes that I need to relay to everyone here.
[1:50] Oh, first I need a motion for the agenda.
[1:54] I move that we approve the agenda.
[1:55] All in favor?
[1:56] I. I. I. Thank you.
[2:01] This will be the format of the hearing. The Planning Department applicant
[2:05] and neighbors represented by council will each have one hour in which to present the
[2:11] project or their concerns with the project. At the conclusion of those three presentations
[2:18] if time allows the board may have questions, we will take one hour for a lunch break
[2:23] from noon to one o'clock. At one o'clock and at six o'clock tonight we will
[2:30] accept public testimony on the project. Public comment will be limited to three
[2:37] minutes per speaker. It is our intent to accept public testimony until everyone
[2:43] has been heard. At the conclusion of the public testimony the board will
[2:47] likely have questions for select parties or experts. At the conclusion
[2:53] of the public comment portion tonight I will close the public comment period. The parties will
[2:59] then be allowed to an opportunity for rebuttal. The county and the represented neighbors will
[3:05] have five minutes each because GCC bears the burden of demonstrating compliance with the code GCC
[3:13] will be allocated 10 minutes for rebuttal. Finally the board will deliberate and make a
[3:20] decision. Timekeeping. The clerk to the board will time each party or speaker so
[3:27] you will hear a beep. Go off at the conclusion of your time. Please conclude
[3:32] your remarks on or before the beeper. Rules of the House. Speak directly into
[3:38] the microphone. If the red light is not illuminated, you are not being
[3:42] recorded. Because there is a court reporter here today, please be sure
[3:48] that only one person at a time speaks and that you say yes or no as opposed to nodding
[3:55] your head.
[3:56] If you would like to speak, please complete the pink slip as I mentioned earlier.
[4:04] I will call three speakers at a time, so it will be kind of like being battered up and
[4:11] on deck so that we can hear more public comment in a more timely fashion.
[4:18] If your name is called, please move to the front of the room and speak at the podium.
[4:25] We value and respect every opinion and ask the audience to do the same by refraining from applause or outbursts or disruptions.
[4:36] I would now like to ask the county attorney to describe what is to form the record for purposes of this hearing.
[4:43] Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Cheryl Rogers, La Plata County Attorney.
[4:48] With respect to the formal record for this hearing, it will consist of the staff report
[4:54] and the 77 attachments that are listed on pages 47 through 49 of the staff report.
[5:01] We will also accept written public comment received through 4 p.m. today.
[5:07] There are a total of five PowerPoints.
[5:10] The first is from La Plata County, and that will be designated then as attachment in Exhibit 78.
[5:21] Attachment 79 will be GCC's PowerPoint. Exhibit 80 will be the PowerPoint by Cross Creek Ranch LLC.
[5:30] 81 is the PowerPoint with the logo of Goldman, Robbins, and Rogers representing Southwest
[5:40] Colorado advocates, and 82 will be a PowerPoint by Southwest Colorado advocates.
[5:50] Those are the formal documents for the record.
[5:53] Since Friday, I have received six additional documents.
[5:59] documents. I want to describe those and then ask the parties if they have any objections
[6:03] to the admission of those documents. The first three were submitted by GCC and all relate
[6:10] to water supply. One is the January 28, 2015 letter from Harris Water, engineering to
[6:17] Emily Becker of CDPHE regarding a request for information. Number two is the February
[6:24] 26 letter from the Colorado Department of Natural Resources, the Division of Water Resources to Jeff Craig, Attorney for GCC,
[6:32] regarding the GCC Energy LLC Substitute Water Supply Plan.
[6:37] And the third one is a document dated November 16, 2015, titled,
[6:42] GCC Energy Mine Water Supply Safe Yield Analysis, drafted by Harris Water Engineering.
[6:49] So, Mr. Smith, does the county consent or agree or have comments or concerns with the
[6:56] admission of those?
[6:57] This is Adam Smith, the Plotter County Attorney's Office.
[6:59] I'm a counsel for county staff in these proceedings.
[7:03] We have no objection.
[7:04] We would note that we fully support the three water documents being on the record.
[7:08] However, I'd like to briefly make a record on one issue relating to one of those
[7:13] water documents.
[7:13] We could certainly discuss these matters later, but for now I'd like to just make a
[7:18] record of an issue specifically speaking about the Harris Water Engineering letter dated
[7:25] January 28th directed to CDPHE.
[7:30] Paragraph 8 of that letter requests that GCC be allowed to only have one pumping unit
[7:35] instead of redundant systems, and they are proposing that if the pumping unit goes
[7:40] offline that they can simply haul potable water until the equipment is fixed.
[7:46] That would likely contradict with at least staff's proposed condition number six, which
[7:51] prohibits water hauling after September 30th, 2016.
[7:57] Other than that issue, at least with the three water documents, we support them going
[8:00] on the record.
[8:02] We have no objections to the other documents, but frankly, we don't see the relevance
[8:06] of all the documents to today's hearing.
[8:09] for Danielson and Robbins and the three water documents. Can you come to the
[8:14] mic please?
[8:18] Attorney representing Cross Creek Range. We haven't even read all of the documents
[8:23] that came in over the weekend. We our initial conclusion is they're very
[8:29] incomplete that to make a complete picture on these we would then have to
[8:34] come back and give counter documents, so we do object to the last minute receipt of these
[8:40] documents.
[8:41] Thank you.
[8:42] That's why.
[8:45] Mr. Chairman, County Attorney Carolyn White, Counsel for the Applicant.
[8:49] I would just note that these are documents that have already been in the record for a
[8:53] very long time, more than a year in some cases, and the only reason for us submitting
[8:57] them at this time was that they were not listed by staff as being attachments to
[9:02] the staff report and in the event that issues addressed in those documents were arose at
[9:08] the time of this hearing today, we wanted them to be handy and easily available.
[9:12] But as a practical matter, all of the documents which have been submitted to the county over
[9:15] the many years of this application process are technically part of the record.
[9:20] These documents are not new and counsel for the opponents certainly would have had the
[9:24] opportunity to review them in the record had they so chosen over the last several
[9:29] years.
[9:29] So we would urge you to accept them for today, but even if they aren't part of today's record
[9:35] They are still part of the record for the application
[9:41] Mr. Chair and what I would recommend is that the board discuss and decide on these three documents
[9:45] And then we can talk about the other three and Mr. Robbins have any comment
[9:53] Jeff Robbins for the record and I in agreement with Mr. Danielson's comments
[10:05] discussion
[10:07] I have a question as it relates to these documents
[10:09] Ms. White, you indicated that these were already part of the file, but that they hadn't been
[10:17] included with the staff report.
[10:18] Are they among the exhibits that were in the, you know, is there a currently labeled
[10:25] exhibit that there were 77 initial exhibits?
[10:31] Are you saying these were among those 77 original exhibits?
[10:37] No.
[10:38] They were not among the 77 exhibits and that was why we thought it appropriate to have them
[10:43] convenient for you.
[10:44] There are hundreds of documents which are not among the 77 exhibits because this application
[10:49] is voluminous and complex and has been going on for some time and staff understandably
[10:54] had to select those documents which they felt most relevant for your review to attach
[10:59] today or else the record would have been too long for you to review today.
[11:03] So, all we were doing was just bringing them forward from where they were in the record
[11:08] to have them handy and convenient for today's hearing.
[11:12] Mr. Chair, if I may.
[11:14] Yes.
[11:15] Adam Smith, County Attorney's Office.
[11:16] We would like to clarify that some of these documents were certainly in the planning file,
[11:20] but it is not our position that they were ever made part of the record, i.e. presented
[11:24] to the Board of County Commissioners for your review as part of hearing this land
[11:29] use application this morning.
[11:33] Discussion?
[11:33] Mr. Chair, I would like the GCC Attorney to state for the record the relevance of these
[11:41] materials to this hearing.
[11:45] Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Carolyn White again.
[11:49] Given our understanding that the opponents intended to raise some questions specifically
[11:53] related to water quality and availability to serve the project and that these documents
[11:59] contain some facts relevant to that point, we felt it appropriate to include them
[12:05] today so that we could refer to them in answering those questions if they arise.
[12:09] Thank you.
[12:12] So, Commissioner's one option that you have given Ms. White's response is to not necessarily
[12:20] add them to the record now, but wait and see if, in fact, the other parties do discuss
[12:26] these topics and then at that point in time Ms. White could indicate their relevance
[12:30] and then you could accept them.
[12:31] I
[12:35] may. I'm not inclined to accept these documents onto the record.
[12:42] What was contained and what
[12:45] would be contained in this record, those 77, I believe it was 77 exhibits, has been available
[12:51] for a long time to get these supplemental documents. Literally the day before the hearing,
[12:59] I think is not timely, and I think that the applicant had a lot of time to review those
[13:06] to figure out, have other important documents been included, the arguments raised by the
[13:12] opponents of the project, I think, have been clear for a number of years, and I think
[13:18] for purposes of rebuttal, which is kind of what Ms. Rogers was just talking about,
[13:24] they may be relevant at that time, but at this point, I think they were not timely
[13:28] filed and I would not support having them included in the record.
[13:33] Mr. Chair, question for the county attorney, how much time did the applicant have?
[13:38] The staff report for this hearing was released to the public the two weeks ago.
[13:46] So that is when we were very formal with the number of attachments.
[13:51] I think it's substantially similar to what was at the PC level, but what was the exact
[13:57] date, Daniel?
[14:03] If
[14:10] I may, it's the opponents have not had a reasonable period of time to review the documents
[14:15] just to fortify the justification for my position.
[14:24] Thank you.
[14:25] In reviewing these documents, which I had the opportunity to review, they all were older
[14:31] in time period.
[14:32] Therefore, I am inclined to accept them on the record today, but I guess I will entertain a motion and see where we go with it.
[14:47] Do I have a motion?
[14:49] I guess
[14:54] we don't have a motion to admit them.
[14:56] In which case they will not be admitted.
[14:59] Thank you.
[15:06] Okay, so Mr. Chair, the fourth letter is dated May 27th, 2016. It's from Gina Nance, GCC vice president, environment and energy to Daniel Murray, La Plata County senior planner regarding wild earth guardian citizens complaint submitted to the office of surface mining reclamation and enforcement dated May 19, 2016.
[15:30] I would like to note that the complaint filed by Wild Earth Guardian citizens is not part
[15:38] of the record, and so if you agree to add item 4, it will probably be necessary to also
[15:47] add that document, which I believe is about 80 pages or so with exhibits.
[15:55] So Mr. Smith, do you have a position on this one?
[15:57] The staff does not object. We question the relevance of the document though.
[16:02] Danielson and Robbins.
[16:05] Yes. I just say we don't think this is relevant and we therefore would suggest not putting it in the record
[16:13] because we have to put all this other material in the record.
[16:17] We aren't going to say anything about it during the hearing.
[16:21] Ms. White.
[16:23] Mr. Chairman, County Attorney Carolyn White again.
[16:25] And our reason for considering it necessary was our understanding that it was the intention
[16:30] of the Council for the Opponents to introduce that information, so if, in fact, they don't,
[16:35] then we would agree that it's not relevant and it's not necessary.
[16:38] If the Wild Earth Guardians complaint is referenced as part of the opposition to the
[16:43] application, then we would reserve and request the opportunity to reiterate our suggestion
[16:48] that this document ought to be included in the record.
[16:52] Mr. Chair, if we may hear from Council Robbins.
[16:56] He's deferring to Mr. Danielson. You'll let me know if you're not.
[16:59] I agree.
[17:00] And Mr. Chair, again for the record and for the listening public, can you state the subject matter of the Wild Earth Guardians?
[17:11] It relates to, it's a citizens complaint that relates to the Office of Surface Mining
[17:18] Reclamation and Enforcement, the federal process related to BLM lease with GCC.
[17:29] That's not overly elaborate, but.
[17:32] If I may follow up, Mr. Chair, does it in any way relate to the use of the County
[17:42] I'm trying to remember. It does reference La Plata County in a few sections. Adam, do
[17:51] you recall? Does the Wild Earth Citizens Complaint reference the County Road? Yes, it does.
[18:08] I believe it's appropriate to not accept this exhibit onto the record either, Wild Earth
[18:19] Guardians, if they have a complaint, can be here today and make public comment or otherwise
[18:24] submit public comment.
[18:26] And I've heard no parties saying they support introduction of it at this time, as long
[18:30] is there's an opportunity to bring it up as what I'm going to call rebuttal evidence
[18:37] again.
[18:37] Is that correct?
[18:38] Fair characterization, Ms. White?
[18:40] Yes.
[18:40] Okay.
[18:41] So that would be my view on this is not to admit this into the record at this time.
[18:47] Thank you.
[18:48] Mr. Chair, I would support Commissioner Wessendorff's suggestion.
[18:53] Thank you.
[18:54] Okay.
[18:54] Last round.
[18:55] There is a May 27, 2016 letter from Trent Peterson, Vice President, GCC Energy to Daniel Murray LaPlata County Senior Planner regarding GCC information on King I.
[19:09] Once that letter was distributed, I did receive a response for Mr. Danielson dated May 30, 2016, regarding GCC King I,
[19:20] and discussing Mr. Peterson's letter of May 27th on King I.
[19:26] If I may, if the Board allows the letter for Mr. Peterson
[19:31] to become part of the record, then the letter
[19:33] for Mr. Danielson should be admitted as well.
[19:36] So, Mr. Smith, do you have a position on these?
[19:38] I mean, staff does object to the inclusion
[19:40] of these documents because they specifically contradict
[19:43] a proposed finding that would be finding number seven,
[19:46] which notes that this Class D-Lanies permit
[19:49] for the King II coal mine specifically does not consider or include any land uses associated
[19:53] with King I coal mine. I believe both documents are in their entirety dealing with separate
[19:59] land use from county staff's position.
[20:02] Mr. Danielsons and Robbins.
[20:05] Yes. We've received Mr. Peterson's letter Friday evening after working hours. We don't
[20:11] object to it being part of the record as long as my reply of yesterday is also part
[20:16] of the record.
[20:17] That's why we agree with county staff that these are documents which are not relevant
[20:23] because it's for a separate land use, however, if that is an issue in the hearing today,
[20:27] which we understand that the opponents intend to make it, then we feel that both documents
[20:31] ought to be included.
[20:35] We've read the rebuttal issue yet again.
[20:38] That's how it looks to me.
[20:40] Thank you.
[20:41] We'll wait for that time, then.
[20:44] Thank you, Mr. Chair.
[20:45] I think we're done.
[21:05] Thank you, Mr. Danielson.
[21:07] I mean, sorry, thank you,
[21:14] please proceed.
[21:15] Thank you.
[21:16] Daniel Murray, County Planning Department.
[21:18] I'll introduce the county staff before I begin.
[21:22] Jim Davis is the Public Works Director.
[21:25] Damian Paduto is the Planning Department,
[21:28] Community Development Services Director.
[21:30] Adam Smith is County Assistant County Deputy County Attorney.
[21:36] I'll get underway.
[21:39] Do you mind switching the screens?
[21:44] Chairman Blake, very clearly outlined the format for today.
[21:48] I'll give you a quick overview of my presentation.
[21:51] I'll speak to background, our analysis, areas of concern,
[21:55] and as with most projects or all projects,
[21:57] I will provide a recommendation.
[21:59] Our discussion today or my presentation will be both big picture
[22:03] as well as very detailed at times.
[22:06] So we're going to be transitioning between those lines of thinking,
[22:10] and I'm going to be doing all the presenting for the county
[22:12] so you get to hear me for the next hour or so, but I am assured that during Q&A
[22:18] you will hear from all of staff at some point. Just to give us some context, King
[22:24] II is in the western portion of the county. Zooming in further, it is in an
[22:31] area west of State Highway 140. It's behind Hesperus Mountain, and I think one
[22:38] One of the values of this slide, which we can return to, is the network of county roads.
[22:43] You see county road north 120 and green.
[22:45] You see county road 120 south, which cuts roughly halfway in this image.
[22:51] And then county road 119, which travels all the way to county road 140 at the township
[22:59] of Klein.
[23:02] So this is an image of the King II site.
[23:05] It's in a drainage to Hey Gulch.
[23:08] It's roughly 26 acres, and there are 416 acres of below-ground mining activity.
[23:15] And I'm going to elaborate on the below-ground in just a moment, but this is the aerial of the site.
[23:23] So some brief history on this project.
[23:25] In 2006, the county determined that we did not have jurisdiction over the mine,
[23:29] given its location on state landboard land.
[23:33] In 2010, that determination was reversed, and GCC was notified of the need for a Class II land use permit.
[23:39] In 2012, GCC submitted their application, and that has been the subject of review to
[23:45] date.
[23:46] It's been referenced at previous meetings that there are roughly 43 technical studies
[23:51] that number presumably has only grown since the Planning Commission.
[23:55] These studies touch upon all aspects of the project.
[23:58] There have been six neighborhood meetings, there has been formation of various citizen
[24:01] groups, abundant public notice and engagement with landowners, and seven Planning Commission
[24:07] meetings since the fall of 2014, including one up until just a month ago.
[24:14] A pivotal moment in this process occurred at the March 3rd Planning Commission hearing,
[24:19] where the Planning Department's recommendation was for denial.
[24:23] This was based upon disagreement on several areas.
[24:27] One was the maximum number of trucks, at which time the phase road improvements would
[24:33] be completed.
[24:34] We can refer to that as the 80 versus 100.
[24:36] I think the conversation has now shifted to the 80 versus 55 but nevertheless the number
[24:41] of trucks was an outstanding item between the county and the applicant and that was
[24:46] the basis for our recommendation two months ago.
[24:49] Second was the absence of date specifics for road improvements.
[24:53] The applicant wanted the road improvements to be contingent upon actions of other agencies
[24:59] specifically the BLM.
[25:01] Our recommendation was for those phases to be date specific and we have achieved
[25:05] that outcome. There are other items that were outstanding at the time such as just word
[25:10] languages and terms of the RIA which have all been addressed.
[25:15] Ultimately, the Planning Commission provided direction to staff and GCC to go and resolve
[25:21] these issues. The parties were allotted two weeks for that discussion and to return
[25:26] to the Planning Commission on April 14th. We did successfully come to terms on the
[25:31] Road Improvement Agreement, the RIA. At the April 14th hearing, staff was able to report
[25:37] GCC's agreement to the 80 trucks, as well as those date-specific improvements. This
[25:43] does not altogether satisfy the public concerns which were heard in April and they will be
[25:47] heard again today.
[25:52] So the Board, you're very familiar with the Class 2 Land Use Permit. I'm going to
[25:56] take a moment and explain what the Road Improvement Agreement does, the RIA, and
[26:02] why we're utilizing that mechanism. GCC is an existing use and therefore it's necessary
[26:08] to bring GCC into compliance with the land use code through a series of phases. These
[26:15] phases require road improvements with corresponding truck limits. Unlike other proposals where
[26:21] the development is only on paper when we approve it or act on it, GCC exists today and
[26:27] And it is in operation today, and therefore the RIA is the planning tool to achieve compliance
[26:32] with the land use code.
[26:34] Although the RIA is a flexible tool when it comes to timing, we are upholding the standards
[26:39] of the land use code, specifically the road standards, those standards are being met.
[26:45] The only variation here, the only variable we have to work with is timing, because they
[26:50] are in fact in existing use.
[26:51] The timing in this case is not the norm.
[26:57] Existing with a typical project, I'm going to touch upon water sewer access and other
[27:01] elements on the left side of the screen.
[27:04] If going through my presentation on the right side, these are topics you would like to be
[27:09] addressed.
[27:09] We're happy to do so, but they are not slides specifically.
[27:12] Wastewater, parking, hydrogeology, subsidence, as well as the 12 cents maintenance fee
[27:18] of the RIA.
[27:19] But I'm happy to elaborate on those and any other items that you have.
[27:24] So I'm using this slide again to actually orient us.
[27:27] This is the red square surrounding the state land board land.
[27:32] It's the 26 acres. It's much bigger.
[27:35] But 26 acres is what GCC occupies.
[27:38] So keep that image in mind.
[27:40] And I've intentionally put a very busy slide up in front of you
[27:44] to demonstrate that this is an example of the different jurisdictions at play.
[27:51] In red, you see the Colorado Division of Reclamation and Mining Safety
[27:55] as it relates to King I on the southern portion of the road and on the northern portion of
[28:00] 120 we see this is that same red square, that's King II.
[28:07] In blue you see GCC's existing mining area and that is the Office of Service Mining and
[28:16] Reclamation and Enforcement is the blue outline and then green is the Bureau of Land Management
[28:22] area at which GCC is currently exploring a lease modification.
[28:27] What's not shown here up to the north would be the 24 locations at which GCC is also doing exploratory boring.
[28:34] They are drilling to analyze the composition of the ground in any available coal.
[28:42] If that exploration is successful, GCC will have to go through what's known as a lease by application,
[28:47] which is a whole new NEPA process.
[28:49] The purpose of this slide is to focus us in terms of what we are discussing and what we're not discussing.
[28:55] Although the county does have cooperating agency status with the BLM relative to their lease modification,
[29:01] the areas in green, that is not the subject of today's review.
[29:05] We are not here to talk about the EA or the NEVA process.
[29:08] We are focused almost entirely on the surface impacts as it relates to this mine and the road.
[29:14] areas where we have some overlapping review for below-ground have to do with groundwater and vibration.
[29:26] Moving on to proof of water, as with all projects.
[29:30] The demand has been estimated by GCC to be roughly 2.5 acre feet for domestic use, that's for employees.
[29:37] And dust suppression within the mine accounts for roughly 28 acre feet, so the total is 40 acre feet
[29:43] is what's been proposed as GCC's water demand.
[29:47] Their supply comes from three sources.
[29:49] First being La Plata River Diversion.
[29:52] That is not a water use that's being put to use by GCC.
[29:55] They do have that option, but it is a very junior right,
[29:58] and it's not our understanding that they're exercising.
[30:01] Groundwater wells are also part of their, were part of the proposal, however, they have not
[30:06] been constructed and therefore they have not been analyzed as part of their proof of water.
[30:10] Proof of water is coming from the Huntington ag land dry up. It is comprised of two different
[30:19] water rights. One is 11 acre feet in a 2007 water right and there's an additional 40
[30:27] acre feet in a 2015 Water Right case, which is pending Water Court.
[30:33] The total, 44 acres of ag land dry up and the Substitute Water Supply Plan, but GCC
[30:41] currently has secured to allow them to utilize these two water rights.
[30:46] Specifically the 44 acre feet is the subject of the Substitute Water Supply Plan just
[30:50] this last February was approved.
[30:53] So the total water supply is 51 acres and those are of acre feet and those are the only approved water sources for this use.
[31:02] Delivery and storage is via the Hague Gulch Ditch and the Huntington Lateral.
[31:08] GCC is currently constructing a new reservoir for roughly 40 acre feet of water.
[31:13] This is 3.5 acres of surface area, 10 to 15 feet deep.
[31:17] It's a gravity-fed system through a six-inch pipe from the Mesa down to King II.
[31:24] This is probably, as a good time as any, to speak to AG dry-up and concerns that may
[31:29] be associated with that.
[31:32] One document that we have is the Fort Lewis Mesa Planning Group speaks to concerns
[31:38] with AG dry-up, and in that sense I would offer the alternatives.
[31:44] If they're not going to do ag dry-up, it would either be water hauling, which is not an accepted
[31:49] long-term option for the land use code, or well water.
[31:53] Well water, GCC has chosen not to pursue because it was their understanding, I can't speak for GCC,
[32:00] but it was commented during the last year and a half that there was a lot of public concern
[32:06] with drawing down that much water from wells.
[32:09] So they elected not to go that route and is utilizing the irrigation water.
[32:16] This is leased water, so there is the potential that it could ultimately return back to ag irrigation use in the future.
[32:23] But currently, ECC is drawing upon that 51 acre feet as their proof of water.
[32:30] It will be a water decreed, water right through water court.
[32:37] Moving on to roads.
[32:39] This is an image that shows the current road.
[32:42] It's known to be a farm-to-market road.
[32:45] There is no mistaking that it is a substandard road for the 6.4-mile segment of County Road 120 North.
[32:52] As it exists today, it serves the general public as well as GCC.
[32:59] Given GCC's impacts, they are required to improve the road to county standards.
[33:03] In 2014, GCC traffic accounted for approximately 99 percent of the loading on the road by weight
[33:11] and about 67 percent of the volume of the road.
[33:15] To mitigate these impacts, GCC has interim measures in place which I'll elaborate on
[33:19] until they fulfill their responsibility to improve the road to county standards.
[33:25] This includes watering of the road to suppress dust as evident in this photo, as well as
[33:29] reduced speeds, shown on the right-hand side of the photo, background traffic 35, truck
[33:35] traffic 25.
[33:40] Road standard at which the road will be improved is typical for projects of
[33:45] this traffic count, and that includes two 12-foot travel lanes, so a 24-foot wide road
[33:52] paved three-foot shoulders on either side. They can be graveled. This image here shows
[33:57] paved shoulders. It would be a 60-foot right-of-way, and the horizontal and vertical
[34:02] alignment would meet county road standards. That is essentially the tightness of the turns
[34:06] and your ability to see down the road.
[34:11] We have a poster road. It's an example of a road built to county standard and also in
[34:16] challenging terrain.
[34:21] I'm making good time, so I might even slow down a little. We're
[34:25] going to spend the bulk of our conversation today. This is a table that we created.
[34:31] It is the road improvement agreement schedule and the truck limits. I'm going to go line
[34:35] by line. What I've done is taken that same schedule and we've tried to do some color
[34:41] coordination here and show what the proposed road improvement schedule looks like. Phase
[34:48] one would be temporary pavement adjacent to two residences on Counter Road 120. This
[34:53] is approximately one mile. It's shown in pink. It's just the line of pink.
[35:01] During
[35:02] this time, the truck limit would be 80 trucks, so that's 160 trips. For the most
[35:07] First part will refer to the number of trucks, but that number is technically double when
[35:10] the truck goes in and leaves.
[35:13] There are two key aspects to phase one.
[35:15] First is dust mitigation.
[35:17] Our focus is on controlling dust.
[35:20] Contrary to what's been stated, the county is not avoiding dust monitoring due to its
[35:24] complexities.
[35:26] The fact of the matter is it is a very complex matter, which is why there are
[35:29] dueling professional recommendations surrounding air quality modeling.
[35:33] But we believe in focusing on treating the dust, not monitoring the dust.
[35:39] Treatment includes paving the one-mile stretch to significantly reduce dust as the first road improvement.
[35:46] This is scheduled to occur in 2016, and it's been communicated to me that could occur as soon as June 1st.
[35:53] Another way of stating this is by the time that the modeling equipment is in place, the road will be paved.
[35:58] The specifications for the road paving include geotechnical boring and grading, application
[36:06] of a 3-inch hot mix pavement 24 feet wide in the existing road alignment.
[36:12] You'll be striped as well.
[36:15] For the remaining 3-mile portion, so from the pink line to King 2, the road will remain
[36:20] gravel.
[36:21] However, there are no residences on that portion of the road, and there will be
[36:25] continued application of water as well as magchloride as needed to manage dust.
[36:31] Visual monitoring and the application of water and items as magchloride is an accepted practice
[36:39] of CDPHE Air Quality Control Commission.
[36:43] This application of the temporary paving is entirely different than the application
[36:48] this past fall that was known as recycled asphalt.
[36:51] It did not perform as intended due to the time of year, possibly even due to the application.
[36:57] But this treatment is a three-inch layer of asphalt.
[37:02] It's my understanding that that can, there's being designed to last up to a three-year period,
[37:08] although that's not its intended lifetime.
[37:12] So it is a much higher standard than what was applied in the last fall.
[37:16] The second aspect of this first phase is the availability of buffering to two residences along the road.
[37:24] The Wave Engineering Report documents the ability for a 4 to 7 decibel reduction of noise after the introduction of a buffering wall.
[37:36] These buffering walls, the two of them, would be located on private property,
[37:40] and should a landowner wish to have that buffering wall constructed sooner, that is available to them,
[37:45] It can also be constructed to coincide with Phase 2, which I'll get to next.
[37:59] November 2017 is the conclusion of Phase 2.
[38:03] That is to permanently reconstruct the two-mile section here shown in blue.
[38:08] The temporary asphalt comes up and the road will be reconstructed to county standards.
[38:14] That is a two-mile stretch from the bottom of the hill all the way to King 1.
[38:20] This improves the road adjacent to three residences.
[38:22] the potential for better alignment of Roberts Ridge Road,
[38:26] which serves additional properties up on higher points,
[38:29] improved line of sight, and turning movements at constrained corners,
[38:33] such as Wiltsies Corner.
[38:35] Phase two also includes the widening down here.
[38:39] This is a small section of blue.
[38:41] This area is known as the Narrows.
[38:43] We've targeted these areas as areas that specifically need improvements
[38:48] at a high priority.
[38:49] Phase 3, also 2017, next year, includes the reconstruction of the 90-degree corner.
[38:58] This would be for improved alignment and turning movements.
[39:01] It's about a two-tenths of a mile section of road.
[39:04] So once phases 2 and 3 are completed to full county standards, these are not temporary or interim,
[39:11] with the completion of those improvements, 7 out of 8 constrained areas on this road
[39:16] will have been improved to county standards.
[39:18] At that time, the GCC would be allowed to increase up to 100 trucks per day.
[39:29] The question has been raised, why not limit any increase in trucks until all the improvements are made?
[39:37] And the RRA is a significant commitment for GCC.
[39:40] This schedule demonstrates compliance with the land use code.
[39:44] It's reasonable to allow an increase of trucks proportional to the road improvements.
[39:49] Furthermore, it's an incentive-based schedule.
[39:51] If GCC wants to achieve the higher number of trucks, the 120, they can expedite the schedule to do that.
[39:57] The question has also been raised, why is there a gap in 2018?
[40:02] Why not require all the improvements be done sooner, even as soon as 2020?
[40:07] Could it technically be done faster, possibly?
[40:10] However, the county believes this is a reasonable timeframe to bring an existing use into compliance.
[40:15] I'll also note, what is perceived to be a gap in 2018 is actually an accomplishment,
[40:22] because if you recall, there was significant impasse between the county and GCC.
[40:28] And what was offered by GCC was to move phase 3 up to 2017.
[40:33] That was originally parked in 2018.
[40:36] But in order to achieve this agreement, they offered to move that phase up.
[40:42] And as I state, that is a highly constrained corner and a high priority for improvement.
[40:51] Phase four, by the end of 2020, this includes full reconstruction, full depth reconstruction, as is known, for the first 2.3 miles.
[41:01] That's this area here, a shade of red, depending what's being done.
[41:08] This would be the full length of the road that is paved today minus the 90-degree corner,
[41:14] because that would have already been improved the year before, two years before.
[41:17] And the truck limit during this time would be 100 trucks.
[41:24] Final phase to be completed by 2022 results in the widening and regrading and paving
[41:28] of the last two miles shown in green.
[41:31] Upon completion, the mine can achieve an average of 120 trucks.
[41:34] That's 240 ADT.
[41:37] Truck limits are monthly averages.
[41:39] And with all stages, there's a 20% allowance to increase trucks to account for weather.
[41:44] So there will be higher days, there will be lower days.
[41:46] on average they have to equal either the 80, the 100, or the 120.
[41:51] It is also based on a six-day week, no hauling on Sundays.
[41:54] I'm
[41:58] going to move on, but I'm happy to return to this slide
[42:01] and any of these if you have questions about the phasing.
[42:05] So with respect to compatibility, there are six criteria in which we evaluate,
[42:10] four of which apply specifically to the importance of these date specifics
[42:13] for the road improvements.
[42:16] Traffic will not create a safety hazard, criterion A.
[42:18] The road is substandard with respect to width and surface and alignment.
[42:23] That's been explained even and shown visually with the slides.
[42:27] These road standards are very prescriptive.
[42:30] They are intended to achieve safety.
[42:32] This is also a compatibility criteria.
[42:35] With date-specific road improvements and corresponding truck limits,
[42:38] the project now satisfies not only the road standards,
[42:41] but our compatibility standard for safety.
[42:45] Criterion B.
[42:46] The development will not have a negative impact on neighbors.
[42:50] Similarly, having put forth known dates, this satisfies two areas.
[42:56] It goes back to the ability to mitigate dust in a very timely manner on the 3.9-mile section of gravel.
[43:05] As I mentioned, the best remedy for dust is to pave it.
[43:08] We now have certainty as to when those improvements will occur, including this summer and the subsequent phases.
[43:15] Secondly, noise.
[43:17] The paved road cuts down on noise.
[43:18] That's evident in the consultant reports.
[43:21] This is a primary quality of life issue
[43:22] and can occur on a timely and now predictable basis.
[43:27] There is a condition that road noise will not exceed
[43:29] 86 decibels as measured 50 feet from the edge of the road.
[43:33] And that is in reference to what we have been able
[43:37] to draw from state statutes as a noise level.
[43:43] criterion C and F, I'll speak to together and that's to protect views as well as privacy.
[43:50] The road improvement schedule that I just walked through does include the ability for noise
[43:55] and visual buffering to be introduced at two residences.
[43:59] This is a key component of compatibility and what's changed since March is that we now know
[44:04] the exact date at which those improvements will begin and they're going to be available
[44:10] up until and through phase five, so a landowner can elect to have that buffering wall introduced
[44:15] sooner or later.
[44:18] Criterion E, with respect to character of the neighborhood, mining has existed in Hague
[44:23] Gulch since 1941, clearly in established use and part of the area.
[44:29] At the same time, the current use is at a scale not seen before, and the objective
[44:33] of this land use permit is to mitigate those impacts.
[44:36] These mitigation measures are intended to achieve compatibility.
[44:40] These include the reduction of speed, as I've mentioned, for safety,
[44:44] that the trucks will operate Monday through Saturday.
[44:47] 80 percent of trucking will occur between daylight hours at 6 a.m. to 10 p.m.
[44:52] to allow a reprieve at nights, and there will be no hauling on Sundays.
[44:57] We now achieved an agreement
[44:58] Thank you very much for your time.
[45:00] Upon the schedule of road improvements and the mitigation measures which enable a determination of compatibility.
[45:08] One criterion I didn't get to was D, and that was protection of groundwater.
[45:14] This will be a requirement. It also is a requirement of CDRMS.
[45:18] And given this overlap between county and the state, the county is referring to state regulations
[45:24] and the monitoring of groundwater impacts through what's known as technical revision 26.
[45:29] That is a document that the state is currently reviewing and speaks to the water quality or groundwater monitoring plan.
[45:39] A summary of this monitoring plan includes four groundwater monitoring locations and there's three wells at each location.
[45:46] The well clusters consist of one well drilled in the menophee formation, above the coal seam, one well drilled into the coal seam, and one drilled below the coal seam.
[45:57] The monitoring will collect data for a full set of analytes, both upstream and downstream
[46:03] of the mine.
[46:05] To date, the hydrologic studies have concluded that there are no linkages between the mining
[46:10] activity and groundwater pollution.
[46:12] Nevertheless, monitoring will continue as regulated by CDRMS.
[46:17] Should the Board have additional concerns on groundwater monitoring or the hydrologic
[46:23] conditions, the consultants are here to speak to that matter in more detail,
[46:34] arguably the
[46:35] most debated portion of the project, and that is the truck limits on the road.
[46:42] So a couple of clarifications before I get into this.
[46:44] This is GCC's chosen route to use the Northern 120.
[46:48] Should GCC have or decide in the future to put forth an alternative road such as
[46:53] a haul road or even a loop route?
[46:55] But we would revisit these numbers, that would be a major amendment to the project, but we
[47:02] are basing our analysis based on what GCC has chosen as their route.
[47:06] Second, these are trucks, as I mentioned, and they are based on a monthly average with
[47:12] a 20% maximum.
[47:15] So I'm going to begin by looking at the 120, that's the upper limit once all road
[47:19] improvements are completed and work down to the 180.
[47:23] I'm going to lay out the factors that we use to arrive at these numbers.
[47:27] Why we support the 120.
[47:29] Here you see data points on the left.
[47:32] 2006, GCC was at 55 trucks.
[47:34] 2010, 59, and so on.
[47:36] That number increased up until 2014-15, around 94 trucks, average.
[47:44] GCC's proposal originally on the right side of your screen was for 156.
[47:48] So now we see our spectrum being framed out for us.
[47:51] Fortunately, the 156 is actually off the table.
[47:54] That is not GCC's proposal, although it was what we used to arrive at our conclusion,
[48:00] our recommendation.
[48:01] The next data point I'll introduce would be the 100.
[48:05] This is the number that's been recommended by the North 120 group as the long-term level.
[48:11] The Hay Gulch Citizen Advisory Panel, CAP, as it's known, recommends 144 as the long-term max.
[48:22] GCC's 2012 proposal, as we received it originally, was for 120.
[48:28] This was the original number, and this is the number that we remain at in terms of what is an appropriate long-term level of trucks.
[48:36] trucks. We remain consistent with that number throughout the entire process. The road, once
[48:45] improved, can accommodate this volume of trucks safely with respect to the road standards.
[48:50] To say that differently is, is the road, will it be engineered to accommodate the road?
[48:55] This number of trucks, and the answer is yes. The number keeps a balance of an industrial
[49:00] real use in a rural setting. Both uses have existed historically.
[49:05] Two last points with respect to the 120. This is allowed once all road improvements are
[49:10] in place, so that means issues of dust, the 90 degree corner, the narrow lines of sight
[49:15] have all been resolved. And the 120 must be considered in the context of all mitigation
[49:20] measures. I've touched upon them before, but I'll just recap. No hauling on Sundays,
[49:25] 20% daily limit, 8% of the trucks during 6 a.m. to 10 p.m.
[49:30] The noise limitation of 86 decibels.
[49:33] Speed limit of 25 and 35 on the respective surface of gravel and pavement.
[49:38] 10 mile an hour at residences where there is currently gravel.
[49:43] Engine mufflering on all vehicles.
[49:45] A direct dial phone number for unsafe driving.
[49:48] It's posted on the back of...
[49:50] All vehicle numbers are posted on the back to allow there to be easy reporting.
[49:54] There is continued dust suppression, and there are other improvements that will be made through
[50:01] the course of the phased road improvements, as I mentioned, no stopping along the roadway
[50:07] to ensure conflict between.
[50:14] Given the compatibility standards, this is what the planning staff determines to be
[50:18] an appropriate maximum level of trucks.
[50:21] So now, why is 80 so important?
[50:26] This is the lower number.
[50:28] This number is lower than both the 2015 and GCC's 2016 levels.
[50:33] So it does represent a scaling back of existing operations.
[50:37] Keep in mind, even as of March, early March, GCC was adamant that the number should be 100.
[50:44] The county did not agree and that was the basis of our denial of time.
[50:47] time. Holding at 80 until phases 1, 2, and 3 are complete, as I said, addresses 7 out
[50:54] of 8 constrained areas on the road. That is the 90-degree corner. That's pavement at
[50:58] 3 residences, Wilte's Barn, and the Narrows, 2 blind corners. All of this combined with
[51:05] mitigation measures I just mentioned. The county arrived at 80 trucks as a baseline
[51:13] from 2013. This is the point that we recommend the project return to until
[51:19] the phases one two and three are complete. This is derived at based upon the
[51:24] planning process itself. In 2014 the planning process changed significantly.
[51:31] This is evident by the level of public engagement which ensued.
[51:36] During the
[51:37] course of dialogue it was expressed that a year ago was tolerable. Therefore the
[51:42] The logical baseline is the period before 2014 to return to 2013 where there are approximately
[51:49] 80 trucks and use that as the baseline.
[51:53] Looking at this a different way, let's compare 80 to 55 as proposed by others.
[51:58] I would like to offer that 55 also correlates to a point in time.
[52:02] It's no different than our identification of a point in time.
[52:05] We've identified 80, which is 2013, based on what the record shows occurred in 2014.
[52:10] This is very clearly in 2014 a change in the planning process.
[52:16] It's arguably where the scales of compatibility tipped.
[52:20] The county recommends going back to the level before that change occurred.
[52:26] This has been a four year planning process.
[52:29] The past two years are quite different than the first two years.
[52:32] That distinction, that change that occurred in 2014 has informed our recommendation
[52:38] and that is why we recommend the baseline of 2013.
[52:45] The second component of the 80 is analysis of safety.
[52:49] The Public Works Director has concluded the road is safe at this level,
[52:52] but the mitigation measure is in place.
[52:55] This is a memo, attachment number 58 in your packet.
[52:59] The county and the public, via their consultant, are also evaluating the same data we are.
[53:05] We're looking at the same substandard road,
[53:07] analyzing the same accident data the result is two differing interpretations of
[53:12] that data. The same factual basis exists for 80 as it does 55. Once we've
[53:20] established the 120 and the 80, it's actually just a very logical middle point
[53:25] for the 100. There's actually not much more science to the 100 than that. It is
[53:30] the point in between the phases and it's a point at which GCC can increase
[53:36] trucks proportionate to road improvements.
[53:40] So keep in mind GCC does
[53:42] control the timing of these road improvements and if they want to advance
[53:45] a phase, they can achieve that through expediting road improvements. In
[53:50] conclusion, the road improvement agreement now includes GCC's agreement
[53:54] to these limits that correspond with phased road improvements. The project
[54:00] is considered to meet the standards for compatibility, not
[54:04] concluding.
[54:08] Getting
[54:08] Going close though.
[54:09] So what I'm going to do actually is wrap up the last two slides talking about areas of
[54:14] concern.
[54:15] These are areas I suspect that we're going to revisit during the course of this hearing.
[54:19] And the first one being final road design.
[54:22] What we have in the file in your packet is a conceptual level of plans.
[54:27] The county engineer has determined that the road is feasible and that is that it
[54:31] can be built.
[54:32] The county does not recommend waiting six months or more to develop preliminary plans
[54:38] or go out and secure a right of way for the entire 6.4 mile length of road.
[54:43] Our recommendation is due to the fact that the mine is existing, the county, the public
[54:48] and GCC are all better served if there is a land use permit in place in which we can
[54:53] regulate this use.
[54:54] That is what we are missing at this time.
[55:01] The second area
[55:09] of concern would be the use of condemnation for right-of-way.
[55:13] There are several points to make.
[55:15] First is that this is the last option.
[55:18] Once good faith negotiations are unsuccessful, then right-of-way condemnation comes into
[55:24] play.
[55:34] Second, the RIA captures compliance with the Uniform Act.
[55:38] It requires compliance with the Uniform Act.
[55:39] which is above and beyond the county's code.
[55:43] This will be substantial,
[55:44] there will be substantial discussions
[55:46] with the property owners
[55:47] and we are providing the highest level of support
[55:50] for property owners through the application
[55:52] of the Uniform Act.
[55:54] The Uniform Act ensures that due process rights
[55:58] are protected.
[55:59] Third, we, the county, planning, staff and public works
[56:04] do not take condemnation lightly.
[56:07] The county has only used condemnation
[56:08] once in the last 20 years, but when you have a project that must make road improvements
[56:13] in order to satisfy the code, you have to ensure there is a mechanism to achieve the
[56:18] necessary right-of-way.
[56:20] To put it differently, without the option for condemnation, there's no way to guarantee
[56:24] the road can be built to county standards, and therefore they would not be in compliance
[56:28] with their language.
[56:31] Moving on, the buffering design.
[56:33] As I mentioned, the engineering reports documents the merit of buffering along
[56:39] Along the road, this is available to landowners immediately.
[56:44] Provided there is a land use permit, GCC is prepared to work with landowners with their
[56:49] consent to introduce these buffering improvements.
[56:52] The design will be based upon professional engineering as well as landscape architect
[56:56] recommendations.
[56:57] We're not trying to shift the burden to the landowner in terms of what the final
[57:01] design should be.
[57:02] Determining the adequacy of mitigation measures is a key function of the planning department.
[57:07] And since the Planning Commission in April, we've actually introduced a new condition,
[57:13] number 22, that allows the county to retain a third party, so not GCC and not the county,
[57:21] but a third party to comment on the adequacy and efficacy of the buffering plan that would
[57:27] be at GCC's expense.
[57:32] Second, or fourth, I should say, looking at routing traffic to the south.
[57:38] This has been analyzed both in a short and long-term perspective.
[57:43] GCC is going to speak to the analysis of all the options of which the southern roads were analyzed.
[57:50] The county has also analyzed that option.
[57:52] And we've concluded that the southern route is not the preferred long-term or even short-term option.
[57:58] This is due to the density of affected residences.
[58:01] there are roughly 20 driveways along the northern route, 70 driveways along the
[58:07] southern route. If you were to choose a loop route now you're impacting 90
[58:11] driveways. There are also five intersections on the southern road. There
[58:16] are no intersections on County Road 120 north. There's an even steeper grade
[58:20] than the hill at which has already been granted of variance. And the
[58:25] southern route is a school bus route. Combined with fire department
[58:28] comments our recommendation and conclusion is that the southern route is
[58:33] not advantageous in the northern route is preferred. If there's consideration to
[58:39] do this in a short term we've also analyzed it and come to the same
[58:44] conclusion it's not desired for coal trucks but we have introduced a new
[58:49] condition since the Planning Commission that would require employees to be
[58:54] to the south during construction. So it does remove some of the traffic loading on the
[59:00] road during the construction phases. There is a certain fairness to sending
[59:05] trucks to the south that is acknowledged, but the concept of concentrating impacts is
[59:10] an established planning principle, one that's also embedded in our land use code international
[59:15] gas regulations. For example, when drilling, it is required to concentrate up to four
[59:22] wells per section, rather than disperse them and build different roads and disperse the
[59:27] impacts. The rationale being when you concentrate impacts, you can also have concentrated improvements.
[59:35] Moving on, construction impacts. There will be impacts during construction. It is anticipated
[59:42] that there will be coal hauling as well as road construction occurring at the same time.
[59:47] This has to be managed. We're open to ideas on how to do that, such as routing
[59:53] employees to the south. There will be and there is a condition for the construction traffic control.
[1:00:00] All plans to be approved by the Public Works Director to ensure that the most is being done.
[1:00:05] Second to last item is discussion of King 1 and its disposal of rock from King 2. The question
[1:00:12] is, why are we not considering King 1? The land use code permits are specific to a location.
[1:00:20] It is very clear. King 1 is a separate land use permit regardless. This permitting process
[1:00:25] for KING-2 is not intended to address waste material on another piece of property.
[1:00:31] Doing so would be inconsistent with the land use code, and it is beyond our current scope.
[1:00:35] That said, we put forth a finding that clearly clarifies that KING-1 is not part of KING-2,
[1:00:42] this land use permit.
[1:00:43] There's also a proposed condition that requires GCC to report the nature of what
[1:00:49] is occurring at the KING-1 site, I'm sorry, yes, KING-1 site.
[1:00:55] The ability for a cease and desist order or establishment of a deadline to submit this forthcoming Class II land use permit for King I, it all exists.
[1:01:05] We do not need to condition that. That is a code enforcement action. We have all the ability to address that concern through a separate land use permit.
[1:01:14] The concerns about toxicity and water quality monitoring, we're not minimizing any of that, but we are recognizing that needs to be addressed in a different land use permit.
[1:01:23] with a corresponding public process.
[1:01:26] And lastly, the emergency response plan.
[1:01:29] I would actually offer to you that since the planning commission
[1:01:32] and since the publication of the staff report,
[1:01:34] we have a new condition, an additional condition, number 29,
[1:01:38] in which the parties, GCC, the county, and our EMS entities,
[1:01:44] as well as the public, convene a meeting
[1:01:46] to discuss the emergency response plan.
[1:01:49] This was one of the seven items that has been revised since the Planning Commission,
[1:01:56] however, not to the satisfaction of the public.
[1:01:58] And so we have introduced, if the Board so chooses,
[1:02:01] we can put forth a new mission that requires the parties to convene a meeting
[1:02:05] and continue to refine their emergency response plan.
[1:02:15] Now I will conclude.
[1:02:17] Compliance with the land use code is both quantitative and qualitative.
[1:02:21] On one hand, you have prescribed standards, for example, the road.
[1:02:26] XADT equals X standards, and this proposal meets those specifications.
[1:02:32] We also have qualitative standards in evaluating if a use is considered to be compatible.
[1:02:38] In this case, the main question is what is an appropriate number of trucks?
[1:02:43] This is not prescribed.
[1:02:44] If it were easy enough for an engineer to look at our code and say,
[1:02:47] this number of trucks, this is what you should do.
[1:02:51] That's not how it works.
[1:02:52] We know what standard to build the road.
[1:02:54] However, the planning process has vetted what we feel is the appropriate number of trucks.
[1:03:01] This process has unfolded over the last four years, inclusive of today.
[1:03:06] In March of this year, there was no agreement on the terms of the RRA due to differences
[1:03:11] on those truck limits and the absence of date-specific road improvements.
[1:03:15] At that time, the county was compelled to recommend denial.
[1:03:18] Now having achieved agreement on date-specific road improvements, the corresponding truck
[1:03:22] limits and the host of mitigation measures, the project has been determined to be compliant
[1:03:26] with the county code. That was the basis of the planning commission's recommendations
[1:03:31] for approval. And similarly, that was the basis of the planning commission's recommendation
[1:03:36] for approval. And similarly, we recommend the Board also approve the project based
[1:03:41] upon the findings and conditions in the staff report.
[1:03:45] That concludes my presentation.
[1:03:46] I
[1:03:50] have a
[1:03:53] question for you, Mr. Murray.
[1:03:55] With the staff like the, we've established the record, but we typically have a, you typically
[1:04:04] request that, have we adequately established a record for your findings and conditions?
[1:04:10] Do you feel the need to put the stuff before we bring materials on?
[1:04:14] Well, I believe we did that at the beginning, yes.
[1:04:17] I
[1:04:21] suspect a lot of these questions and
[1:04:30] I can scroll through any of these slides if it helps.
[1:04:35] Thank you, Ms. Murray.
[1:04:40] Questions for staff?
[1:04:48] I'll jump in there.
[1:04:51] I've got a lot of questions.
[1:04:54] Some are clarifications, some you've answered, but some of these will be pretty focused.
[1:05:03] But your staff report talks about GCC agreeing to monitor subsidence, though that's not required.
[1:05:12] Is that true?
[1:05:15] It's correct, Daniel Murray for the record.
[1:05:18] It's being addressed in two ways when it comes to monitoring.
[1:05:23] And that is through the groundwater levels, which was a recommendation of one of our consultants.
[1:05:29] so groundwater levels of the TR-26 I mentioned will be reported, and it will also be a compliance
[1:05:38] with the CDRMS regulations for surveyed monuments.
[1:05:44] What is included is essentially a blanket condition in which GCC needs to comply with
[1:05:50] CDRMS regulations at a greater distance to ensure that subsidence doesn't occur
[1:05:55] as a due to the result of the mining.
[1:05:59] And so the GCC is not required to do it under DRMS requirements,
[1:06:07] but for purposes of compatibility and mitigating impacts,
[1:06:11] that's with the 1,000 feet.
[1:06:14] The 1,000 feet was introduced by the Vista de Oro subdivision.
[1:06:18] CDRMS requires only a 300-foot distance,
[1:06:21] And GCC can speak to the subtleties of this.
[1:06:26] That's measured horizontally.
[1:06:29] When mining activity occurs below ground,
[1:06:32] ultimately, it often resulted at a 600-foot distance
[1:06:35] because it occurs diagonally.
[1:06:39] So 600 feet would have been one initial threshold.
[1:06:42] GCC has agreed to honor the same 6,000-foot recommendation
[1:06:46] of the Vista de Oro Group to apply CDRMS standards
[1:06:50] to that much higher of a setback distance.
[1:06:53] Okay, then I guess I'll ask the county attorney to help me make this record correct,
[1:07:01] but I want to make sure that it's clear that 1,000 feet is tied to compatibility
[1:07:07] and it's not voluntarily being done by GCC.
[1:07:11] I'm Smith, County Attorney's Office.
[1:07:13] That is correct because of compatibility concerns where basically piggybacking CDRMS regulations
[1:07:20] applying those regulations to dwelling units all the way out to 1,000 feet instead of CDRMS's lower standard.
[1:07:28] Thank you. I want to talk about noise a little bit.
[1:07:32] We certainly got different types of noise information in the reports and different recommended standards.
[1:07:40] It sounds like from the county's perspective, 86 decibels 50 feet from the road is the one we're operating off of.
[1:07:48] Is that correct?
[1:07:48] That is the condition in recommended condition.
[1:07:52] So from a compatibility standpoint, 86 decibels,
[1:07:55] my understanding is when you're not being injured by the sound,
[1:07:59] is that fair or is there a sound person I should hold off on this question with?
[1:08:05] It certainly is.
[1:08:06] And so what we go ahead.
[1:08:08] I'll go ahead and hit.
[1:08:09] I'll tell you what my concern is.
[1:08:12] If 86 decibels is the measure from when damage occurs,
[1:08:16] I don't think that's the right measure for someone's home.
[1:08:22] So there are other things, the HUD standard of 50 decibels,
[1:08:27] and there are things about average daytime averages
[1:08:30] and all these things that are way outside of my league.
[1:08:33] But just from my own observations and kind of looking at comparative scales
[1:08:41] of noise and so on, I can't imagine the 86 is the definition of compatible.
[1:08:48] So I'm interested down the line to hearing from people about that issue as what level of decibels is compatible for residential exposure.
[1:09:01] Similarly on the buffering plan, this is a more general question,
[1:09:06] but both the buffering and the dust and maybe other things had to do with modeling.
[1:09:12] And what happens if the modeling wasn't right?
[1:09:15] We put in place conditions that say, hey, if you do this type of buffering, you have complied.
[1:09:23] But in the end, it seemed to me, reading the different reports that buffering,
[1:09:27] There's some variation or some range of error, so to speak, in predicting what the buffering would do or what the dust mitigation, how it would occur.
[1:09:49] So what happens if we miss?
[1:09:51] And it turns out that, gosh, we thought this would work, but it didn't.
[1:09:56] Commissioner Damien Padudo, I just wanted to reference that, number one, the applicant's
[1:10:02] professional wave engineering, which performed a thorough analysis on this, will be communicating
[1:10:09] I'm presuming for the applicant, but the county also hired a professional to evaluate
[1:10:14] that study and those models.
[1:10:18] Amoni Martin was the county's professional whom we hired specialist and that report is
[1:10:26] also connected and they concurred with the wave engineering report analysis.
[1:10:31] And I hope, I know that doesn't directly answer all the details of your question, but it
[1:10:37] should address the modeling concern.
[1:10:40] Okay.
[1:11:07] All
[1:11:11] right, thank you,
[1:11:18] and has everything been done with respect to the there were some outstanding
[1:11:21] issues that GCC was required to do between the planning commission meeting and our meeting
[1:11:29] today have all of those been done?
[1:11:34] Mike is working.
[1:11:35] So there were seven conditions that the applicant needed to satisfy before the board today
[1:11:40] And yes, those items have been reviewed and determined to be compliant.
[1:11:45] Nevertheless, three items, which I'll explain, still carry over as conditions.
[1:11:51] For example, we introduced the third-party consultant option for the buffering wall.
[1:11:57] That was a new development from one of those prior to BOCCs.
[1:12:02] The emergency response plan, I mentioned there's a new condition there.
[1:12:07] So although we received information on the emergency response plan,
[1:12:10] it didn't satisfy entirely the public concerns, and so that one carried over.
[1:12:15] And then another example is San Juan Basin Health.
[1:12:19] They have provided an update as to the status of how they're improving their wastewater treatment,
[1:12:24] but there's also a condition that carries over that they need to continue to be in compliance with San Juan Basin Health Standards.
[1:12:31] Is there general condition that it might have been stuck in different places, but they be compliant with all their permits, whether it's DRMS or with BLM or other regulatory bodies?
[1:12:46] I'm Smith County Attorney's Office. No, there is not a condition that is requiring compliance with the hierarchy, the other layers of permits that the GCC is required to obtain.
[1:12:59] We are trusting those other agencies to enforce and determine
[1:13:03] when GCC may or may not be in compliance with their own permits.
[1:13:08] Okay. That might be a point of discussion later.
[1:13:12] There are other situations where we make a condition of compliance
[1:13:16] in our permit, one of compliance with other jurisdictions.
[1:13:19] We do it right now with San Juan Basin Health.
[1:13:22] As Daniel just said, we also require with respect to marijuana
[1:13:26] because we know that other agencies may not take action as quickly as we would like.
[1:13:33] So just a heads up that that's something that I've assumed we had in there
[1:13:39] and be prepared to address that coming back again.
[1:13:53] Are we going to hear from the Fort Lewis Mesa Fire District?
[1:13:59] or how's that going to – you indicated that there was not agreement on the emergency response plan,
[1:14:06] and I'm trying to figure out is there agreement between the fire districts and GCC
[1:14:10] and the county on the emergency response plan?
[1:14:15] There will be an opportunity for the fire department to speak during public comment.
[1:14:20] Okay.
[1:14:20] And that can be addressed.
[1:14:23] So my understanding is, yes, GCC consulted with, at the direction of the Planning Commission,
[1:14:30] DFRA, Port Lewis Fire, as well as the County Emergency Butch, essentially.
[1:14:38] And all of those parties were found to be, their concerns, satisfied.
[1:14:44] Nevertheless, the public did not feel that that revised document was satisfactory.
[1:14:48] So that is the nature of the additional condition to convene a meeting and include the public in the discussion to resolve the matter.
[1:15:01] From our perspective,
[1:15:04] one of the conditions is that GCC will have a website with traffic
[1:15:09] numbers, logs, et cetera on it. Are we anticipating actively monitoring that, or how is that anticipated
[1:15:16] being used?
[1:15:20] That breaks into two different categories. Speed and traffic will be posted on the website
[1:15:25] as required in the condition, and we will monitor to those as needed. Traffic, if we don't
[1:15:30] feel the need for additional counts, the county has all the ability to go and lay counters
[1:15:36] and count traffic. So we'll always have the option to do double checking of what they're
[1:15:41] posting with respect to counts. Water quality, as I mentioned, will be also posted on the
[1:15:47] website. So we will be monitoring with respect to those three topics. Dust is one that's
[1:15:53] not required to be formally monitored. As I mentioned, it's one that is best just
[1:15:58] mitigated from the onset through paving, but that is a condition that allows there to be
[1:16:07] some enforceability if dust is too high, and that's based off a visual test. It might
[1:16:12] seem low-tech, but sometimes those are the best solutions. The photographing and observation
[1:16:18] of dust higher than a wheel well constitutes violation of the condition, and it will be
[1:16:24] something that GCC would need to remedy in order to remain in compliance with the code
[1:16:29] and their land use permit. And the other one is noise. There's not currently a requirement
[1:16:34] for monitoring or posting results for noise. That could be something that we return to.
[1:16:39] It sounds like a topic of discussion once we've heard from all the parties.
[1:16:46] Okay. I have a couple of questions for Mr. Davis if I could. Jim, excuse me, Mr.
[1:16:52] There's going to be at least, I think, up by the Hunziger property under the proposed temporary paving.
[1:17:00] There will be some point where traffic will be moving from gravel onto pavement,
[1:17:08] and the track on of mud that creates dust and so on, will the pavement occur far enough west
[1:17:20] that track-on of mud won't be an issue for that particular residence?
[1:17:28] That's a reasonable question.
[1:17:29] I think for the most part the end of the pavement will be far enough to where it will mitigate most of that,
[1:17:34] but I mean it's inevitable that you do get from side driveways and on all of our paved roads
[1:17:40] you do on occasion get some tracking of dirt, mud on vehicle wheels from side roads.
[1:17:47] So, excuse me, to think you're going to eliminate 100% of the dust, paving any road is not realistic.
[1:17:54] But we will consider an adequate section beyond the home to ensure that the track on mud will be minimized.
[1:18:03] That is correct. I'll hope to minimize that to the extent possible.
[1:18:08] And how do we come up with 12 cents per ton on the maintenance fee?
[1:18:15] That was based on the current cost and the long-term cost of maintenance, future chip
[1:18:21] seals, future overlays.
[1:18:23] The road will initially be designed.
[1:18:25] The pavement life will be a 20-year life, but typically to maintain that, you come in
[1:18:31] and do interim maintenance on any paved road.
[1:18:34] So that was the basis for that fee.
[1:18:38] And my understanding is reading the road agreement is that there is an escalator
[1:18:44] built into that to address inflation type things.
[1:18:49] That is correct.
[1:18:52] All right.
[1:18:53] And then lastly, with respect to the right of way acquisition and actually the route of
[1:18:58] the road, do we have some conceptual plans of where the road will go?
[1:19:03] Is that correct?
[1:19:04] That is correct.
[1:19:05] And then, you know, I think I'll ask, is there going to be a road person testifying
[1:19:12] later?
[1:19:12] I'll save the other question for the road person.
[1:19:14] Thank you.
[1:19:15] I'm going to wrap it up.
[1:19:22] Mr. Chair, I have a few questions.
[1:19:25] Thank you, Mr. Murray, for your presentation.
[1:19:30] My question, we spent quite a bit of time talking about the number of trucks.
[1:19:35] I'd like to talk a bit about the timing of the truck traffic in the negotiations with GCC.
[1:19:45] Was there discussion about further limiting the hauling hours from 6 to 10?
[1:19:53] And is it currently 24 hours a day hauling?
[1:19:58] Yes, except for Sundays, Daniel Murray planning.
[1:20:01] There is a graphic that shows the breakdown of a day, so that will be presented if you'd like by the GCC.
[1:20:09] and the 6 to 10 was a recommendation that came from the citizen advisory panel,
[1:20:15] so that's where we incorporated that compatibility mitigation measure.
[1:20:20] Was there discussion about avoiding school bus hours in the morning or afternoon?
[1:20:31] Generally, and there is a school bus stop at North 120 and 140. It's not a bus route.
[1:20:40] And that specific item, I can't recollect if it came up.
[1:20:45] It could be something that when we look at the breakdown of how trucks typically run during the day,
[1:20:54] may naturally address the concern.
[1:20:58] But let's return to that if there's the need to adjust or create some specificity on avoiding school drop-off times.
[1:21:06] Thank you.
[1:21:10] Just going to look through my notes and list of questions.
[1:21:18] Regarding Commissioner
[1:21:20] Westendorf's line of questioning on subsidence, have there been any documented incidents of
[1:21:28] subsidence occurring in this area?
[1:21:32] I'd like to defer to GCC on that. I don't want to misspeak.
[1:21:35] Do we know if there is any, are there any coal mine operations under private service,
[1:21:45] presently?
[1:21:47] It's all BLM lease area.
[1:21:51] But again, let's defer to GCC on the specifics.
[1:21:53] Okay.
[1:21:58] There are tribal lands.
[1:21:59] Let's let GCC clarify the composition of coal.
[1:22:04] Thank you.
[1:22:09] Regarding your statement about condemnation necessary for building
[1:22:19] the road ultimately
[1:22:21] to county standards,
[1:22:26] can you give specific examples of what condemnation proceedings
[1:22:31] would be necessary?
[1:22:37] I believe Jim Davis, Director of Public Works, so that goes to the Uniform Act, which
[1:22:43] federal guidelines for the acquisition of public property or property for public projects.
[1:22:50] You know, above and beyond that, the county public works on any road project.
[1:22:55] We typically reach out to the adjacent property owners that are impacted with any construction
[1:22:59] project like this.
[1:23:01] So I guess to minimize the potential that we get into that position, we start early
[1:23:06] on in the process within reason to see what we can do to mitigate those impacts as
[1:23:11] it relates to the alignment of the road, the acquisition of the land, all of those issues.
[1:23:18] And then through the Uniform Act there is an initial value finding, potentially a dual
[1:23:25] appraisal process, and then negotiations from there.
[1:23:29] You can look at damages in some cases if that comes into the situation as well, but
[1:23:33] it's a fairly extensive process.
[1:23:35] And as pointed out, I've been with the county since 2001, and as long as I've
[1:23:39] been here, we've never had to use condemnation of an eminent domain. I think it might have
[1:23:43] been back in the late 90s on a project on the Florida road. But you know, I think a
[1:23:49] lot of it goes to the process and we do our best to the extent possible to work with
[1:23:53] the adjacent property owners.
[1:23:55] Okay. So for the record, we don't have specific examples today.
[1:24:00] Well, I would almost defer to the county attorney to Cheryl as to that one incident
[1:24:05] that was 20 years ago.
[1:24:07] Is that what you're looking for is one for this for this project?
[1:24:11] Examples of condemnation for this project
[1:24:15] Are you asking how many parcels or would potentially be
[1:24:20] Condemned okay for road improvements. I can't recall that number Jim. We have an estimate. Don't we it kind of that the alignment isn't
[1:24:33] Completely determined, but what's the estimate?
[1:24:39] If you use the number of driveways as an approximation, there's roughly 20 parcels along that corridor.
[1:24:50] That could potentially be condemned for the road.
[1:25:12] In addition to the private property owners when it comes to condemnation, there is also a ditch that may well be impacted and that some of the property involved with the expansion of the width of the road is also owned by the Ute Mountain Ute.
[1:25:30] And it is not owned in trust. It is a special type of ownership, which is,
[1:25:41] we would still, it's like a stewardship parcel.
[1:25:47] And our condemnation authority is likely limited when it comes to both the ditch company and the Ute Mountain Ute parcel.
[1:26:01] Okay, thank you.
[1:26:03] And...
[1:26:03] Chair, if I may.
[1:26:04] I'd like to chime in on this issue and note a couple of other items related to right away.
[1:26:12] First, my understanding is for this project, the county is not required to follow the Uniform Act.
[1:26:19] We are doing so to go above and beyond to protect the neighbor's interest.
[1:26:24] It is a process-driven requirement and ensuring that we're following the Uniform Act as I
[1:26:31] stated goes above and beyond and being respectful of the issues related to the road and the
[1:26:36] neighbor's property rights.
[1:26:38] Second, in terms of if we're able to state how many properties may or may not be condemned
[1:26:43] at this time, our intent is to avoid condemnation.
[1:26:48] At this point, we only have conceptual level drawings for the road, and that is specifically
[1:26:53] because of the right-of-way issues.
[1:26:55] This is an iterative process.
[1:26:58] If our intent is to avoid condomination to negotiate right-of-way to use every other
[1:27:02] mechanism other than condomination, then that certainly will have an impact on where
[1:27:06] the final road alignment may go.
[1:27:10] As stated, it's iterative.
[1:27:11] it's a bit of a feedback loop. Once we – once GCC with the county's final approval
[1:27:17] goes through the right-of-way acquisition process, if it is not feasible to obtain right-of-way
[1:27:23] on one side of the road, for example, and that would force condemnation, it certainly
[1:27:27] would be an opportunity to shift the road to avoid condemnation. So that's why we
[1:27:32] can say with certainty how many parcels are – will be condemned at this time.
[1:27:38] It's impossible to say.
[1:27:38] Thank you. And Mr. Chair, one final question. This is relating to enforcement and enforcing
[1:27:49] this permit. Can staff speak to how we will ensure that this permit is enforced and complied
[1:28:00] with?
[1:28:01] I'm Smith County Attorney's Office.
[1:28:04] Well, code enforcement is a complaint driven process
[1:28:08] And I actually like to circle back to the earlier question about county staff monitoring the website.
[1:28:15] Part of the reason, the primary reason for ensuring that that information is public is because code enforcement is complaint driven.
[1:28:24] So we certainly will be monitoring that website, but the reason it's being made public is because we anticipate very much that the public will be monitoring that website as well.
[1:28:33] So this Laney's permit, if approved, will be handled just as any other in that it's a complaint driven process
[1:28:40] and we will have the same tools that we have with any other Laney's permit if the conditions are not complied with.
[1:28:49] I would note that the conditions are numerous, as you can see, and they've been drafted in a very particular manner
[1:28:55] to try and provide clarity both for the applicant for the county and for engaged citizens to
[1:29:04] aid enforcement and hopefully to avoid enforcement actions going forward.
[1:29:09] So I think a significant feature that should be noted differing from a lot of other Laney's
[1:29:14] permits are the number and style of those conditions.
[1:29:18] Last, it is I think well known at this point between the applicant and the county
[1:29:23] that it is the county's intent if the terms and conditions of the Road Improvement Agreement
[1:29:29] and specifically are not complied with that the county could consider bringing a contract
[1:29:35] enforcement action.
[1:29:37] That is a unique feature that we rarely have with land use permits that violation
[1:29:42] of the key elements of the land use permit are also a violation of a contract.
[1:29:50] Thank you.
[1:29:51] No further questions.
[1:29:54] Thank you.
[1:29:57] Thank you, Mr. Murray. Can you speak to-
[1:30:00] The water monitoring wells, the number proposed general information about the water monitoring
[1:30:11] wells.
[1:30:14] I can. It's captured in TR26, but I also may allow GCC's consultant to speak to that report
[1:30:23] because they essentially put forth that plan to the state, and the state approves that plan.
[1:30:29] It's well beyond my expertise, so I'll just, if you're willing, to let me defer to their consultant.
[1:30:37] And if we still have questions, we can revisit the matter.
[1:30:41] I will ask them the question then. Thank you. That concludes my questions.
[1:30:48] Mr. Chair, if I could just for a minute go back to Commissioner Westendorf's questions about noise and just provide an explanation about the statutes.
[1:30:58] There are two separate statutes on noise, one would pertain to the site itself, and there
[1:31:04] are industrial and residential standards with that.
[1:31:07] And then there is a statute, which is CRS 2512106, which actually speaks to the amount
[1:31:17] of noise that vehicles can create on a road.
[1:31:21] And a subsequent statute allows the county to adopt a resolution limiting the decibels on the road.
[1:31:30] And what you see in your report are the decibels that are established by that section.
[1:31:38] If that helps you when you're listening to subsequent reports.
[1:31:43] And it's 86?
[1:31:44] It is.
[1:31:44] It depends on the year of the vehicle and the speed limit, but for a speed limit of 35 miles per hour or less, it's for vehicles before January 1, 1973, it's 88 decibels, and on or after January 1, 1973, it's 86.
[1:32:04] That applies to the vehicle itself. It doesn't apply to...
[1:32:10] The section applies to the total noise from a vehicle or a combination of vehicles on a road.
[1:32:19] If I may, this is Adam Smith County Attorney's Office.
[1:32:22] That statute is informing staff's recommendation the authority for the county to impose that
[1:32:29] limit is derived from compatibility.
[1:32:31] So the statute is providing us a data point to consider, but the authority to getting
[1:32:36] there is our compatibility in the Chapter 82 of the land use code.
[1:32:44] You don't have to accept the 86.
[1:32:50] Thank you.
[1:32:51] How
[1:32:54] much time does the county have left?
[1:32:56] Do we still have 18 minutes?
[1:32:58] The county actually had 18 minutes and one second left.
[1:33:01] Before questions started, would this be a time for Chief Anderson to report on the emergency response?
[1:33:10] Chief, would you have anything that you'd like to add in regards to that?
[1:33:21] If Chris Anderson for those Mesa Fire Protection District.
[1:33:25] I did consult with the mine at their request on their emergency response plan for an event
[1:33:32] on the road, made some recommendations, and they incorporated them in their plan.
[1:33:41] Thank you.
[1:33:47] You're efficient with your time.
[1:33:50] All right.
[1:33:51] We are past our 10-30 break time.
[1:33:55] Do we want to have a break at this point and, well, 10-35, oh, we're right at it.
[1:34:03] We're going to take it after GCC made their presentation
[1:34:05] about our technical difficulties.
[1:34:09] My question is, do we want to take a break before GCC?
[1:34:14] We will have a five-minute break.
[1:34:16] Thank you.
[1:34:19] Thank you.
[1:34:37] Thank
[1:43:18] you.
[1:43:23] Thank you for coming to order.
[1:43:25] We'd like to go ahead and continue on with our
[1:43:33] agenda.
[1:43:35] And it's a little out of whack right now,
[1:43:41] but presentation by GCC.
[1:43:50] Thank you.
[1:44:20] Testing them out.
[1:44:45] Thank you, Mr. Chairman and commissioners, members of county staff, members of the public.
[1:44:50] My name is Carolyn White.
[1:44:51] I'm land use counsel for the applicant.
[1:44:55] As we have numerous folks to present to you, if you don't mind, we'll stay seated
[1:44:59] here at this table.
[1:45:02] As
[1:45:05] you know, mining has been an integral part of the culture, economy, and lifeblood of La Plata County for decades.
[1:45:13] Since the 1940s, GCC and its predecessors have employed generations of families throughout the county.
[1:45:21] Here before you, we are here before you today seeking this Class II land use permit for the existing mine.
[1:45:27] While this permitting process is obviously taken longer than anyone wanted or would have
[1:45:32] desired or probably would have predicted when the initial application was filed, this extensive
[1:45:37] process occurred because of both GCC and the county's desire to get it right.
[1:45:43] And every time that a new issue or concern was raised, the additional time was taken
[1:45:47] to study, analyze, and understand that concern.
[1:45:51] And in response, either proposed mitigation measures, conditions of approval, or in
[1:45:55] cases, change the very activity in terms of what would actually be permitted if the pending
[1:46:01] permit application were approved.
[1:46:04] Additionally as has been referenced, there's always been this added layer of other state,
[1:46:09] federal, and local permitting that controls what happens in and at the mine.
[1:46:15] This process, you should know, has forced GCC to make some very difficult decisions
[1:46:20] about the very operation of the mine itself, how they conduct their business, what
[1:46:24] type of business to conduct and what their production levels will be and what their business
[1:46:28] will look like going forward.
[1:46:30] And you'll have a little more information about that as this presentation progresses.
[1:46:35] The application before you, as presented, with the conditions of approval, with the
[1:46:39] mitigations that are already taking place, with the mitigations that are proposed, and
[1:46:43] with the ongoing monitoring, is a successful compromise for a compatible operation.
[1:46:50] This will result in a $10 million brand-new county road, a long-term maintenance fee for
[1:46:57] the county's benefit for the continued upkeep of that road as long as the life of the mine
[1:47:01] is for the entire life of the mine, and both short and long-term reductions in truck
[1:47:07] numbers from what is there today and from what GCC would otherwise be allowed to
[1:47:12] do under its state and federal permits.
[1:47:15] While there are obviously still residents who have concerns, and I'm sure you'll
[1:47:18] have the opportunity to hear from them today what their concerns are, GCC has achieved
[1:47:24] significant consensus with the county staff recommendations and the larger community by
[1:47:29] making a variety of concessions and agreeing to a number of conditions of approval restricting
[1:47:33] the way that they operate this mine going forward.
[1:47:37] I'd like to now introduce the rest of the team who will be presenting to you today
[1:47:41] and other members of the team who are available for your questions even though
[1:47:44] they may not be part of our formal presentation.
[1:47:46] I
[1:47:51] have with me Gina Nance, Vice President of Energy and Environment, Trent Peterson,
[1:47:57] Vice President of GCC Energy, Wade Weymour, GCC Plant Superintendent.
[1:48:04] We also have all of our experts who provided reports to you here.
[1:48:07] That includes road engineering, traffic, water, air quality, noise, and vibration.
[1:48:12] Mike Olson, seated to my far right, PE of Road Runner Engineering, who addressed
[1:48:17] road design, cost, traffic impact assessment, and evaluated the alternative routes for the
[1:48:22] haul road. Steve Harris, P.E. of Harris Water Engineering,
[1:48:28] who's behind me, Landon Beck,
[1:48:31] resource hydrogeologic services who address the groundwater issues, Vanit Masaraja of
[1:48:36] Trinity Consultants addressing air quality, which includes specifically dust, Jeff Kulkowski
[1:48:42] with Wave Engineering who can answer your questions about noise and vibration, Rob
[1:48:47] Bob Johnston, with Johnston Land Company, he is the right-away agent that was hired by
[1:48:51] GCC to handle the right-away acquisition, and Joe Bowden, Ph.D., with CDS Environmental
[1:48:55] Services, LLC.
[1:48:57] All of these folks will be available to answer your questions at your convenience following
[1:49:01] our formal presentation.
[1:49:06] The brief summary of our how we're going to conduct our presentation today will have
[1:49:11] some generic information about the background of GCC in this particular operation.
[1:49:15] We will add to what staff has presented to you already regarding the Road Improvement
[1:49:19] agreement, which is a condition of approval of this application if it's approved, and
[1:49:24] which GCC has already executed so if it is approved, the board would simply sign it for
[1:49:29] it to become effective.
[1:49:31] We'll also address our concurrence with the staff report, which does recommend approval,
[1:49:36] finding that the proposal with mitigation and conditions is compliant, compatible,
[1:49:41] and consistent with the code and the long-range plans.
[1:49:44] And we will also go through all of the criteria in the code that you are required to
[1:49:49] consider in a Class II land use application and explain why it meets all of those criteria.
[1:49:56] To begin this, I'd like to introduce Trent Peterson to my right, who's going to give
[1:50:00] you the brief history of this process on the mind.
[1:50:15] Thank you.
[1:50:17] Trent Peterson, Vice President, I'd
[1:50:22] like to begin by thanking the planning staff for
[1:50:24] input and expertise as we've responded to inquiries and developed this application
[1:50:28] throughout this process, the application that's now presented for your consideration.
[1:50:34] I'd like to thank the county administration and county attorney,
[1:50:38] as we work diligently through the road improvement agreement over the last few months.
[1:50:44] And special thanks to the county's public works for maintaining the county roadways
[1:50:49] that are really the infrastructure that makes it possible and flexible.
[1:50:54] Finally, I want to thank and acknowledge the members of the community for their involvement
[1:50:59] and feedback through this process, and a number of people in the audience here I recognize
[1:51:05] have been engaged since the very beginning.
[1:51:09] A lot of tough conversations over the last few years, but as a result, we have reached
[1:51:14] a better conclusion, and in the true nature of compromise, this is something that hasn't
[1:51:20] satisfied all parties, but we were able to achieve a consensus with a broad spectrum of
[1:51:26] the community, answer a number of questions that have come up over the last few years.
[1:51:35] I want to thank you for taking the time to visit the mine a couple of weeks ago. I'm
[1:51:38] sorry I wasn't able to be there. I was on vacation, which had planned a long time
[1:51:42] before.
[1:51:46] You've seen this already, but just to point out where some of the things
[1:51:50] for members of the public that may not be familiar with it.
[1:51:53] Towards the left-hand side of the picture is a stockpile with a conveyor stacker.
[1:51:59] That's the conveyor that comes out of the mine.
[1:52:03] We're looking essentially due north from the county road.
[1:52:06] That conveyor extends approximately a mile into the mine.
[1:52:10] That stockpile there holds about 10,000 tons of coal and live storage
[1:52:15] up to about 20,000 if necessary.
[1:52:18] Off to the right side of the picture, crushing and screening operation where coal is sized
[1:52:28] for distribution to customers, and then behind that in the background is another stockpile
[1:52:34] of finished coal that would be for distribution.
[1:52:37] Approximately in the center of the photo are two truck bins where trucks are loaded
[1:52:42] live, as you may have seen during the typical loading time on a truck is about five minutes.
[1:52:52] Something that is worth pointing out here is that what you see in this picture is essentially
[1:52:57] what you will always see. The operations here that are visible are the operations
[1:53:04] that are on the surface. Essentially everything else is underground. This operation is no
[1:53:09] no mountain top removal, no steep slope mining, no disturbance of prime hay-gulch farmland,
[1:53:16] there are no blasting operations associated with this.
[1:53:20] Finally, it's a dry mine.
[1:53:23] The water table is below the coal seam.
[1:53:26] No water is encountered in the mining operation and something that makes this just about
[1:53:31] a perfect spot for a coal miner is there's no methane either.
[1:53:35] Right now we have about 120 employees.
[1:53:37] The
[1:53:48] coal is used almost strictly for cement production.
[1:53:51] We also serve the Durango and Silverton railroads and several other historic railroads around
[1:53:56] the western United States and an enduring use for home heating coal, serving about
[1:54:02] 1,500 households across the four corners.
[1:54:07] The coal from the King II mine is almost ideally suited for cement production.
[1:54:12] I won't go into the details of it, but over the years the cement industry has recognized
[1:54:20] the low ash content, low sulfur content, low chlorine and mercury content, and seen
[1:54:27] that this coal provides an almost perfect fuel for a cement plant.
[1:54:32] All cement plants use coal as a primary fuel source.
[1:54:36] This coal is not used to serve the electric power industry.
[1:54:45] And in spite of not having obtained a county land use permit yet, it's not as if the mine
[1:54:49] isn't regulated.
[1:54:51] The mine is regulated by a number of different state and federal agencies.
[1:54:57] And it looked proud of its compliance and safety record.
[1:55:00] Right now, as of today, the mine is operated for 592 days without an injury, and recently
[1:55:06] learned that we were again selected to receive a safety award from Rocky Mountain
[1:55:10] Coal Mining Institute.
[1:55:11] It's
[1:55:19] been asked many times by GCC that they didn't get a Class II land use permit before
[1:55:24] King II opened.
[1:55:26] I think it's been stated plenty of times that there was a determination that the county
[1:55:32] didn't have jurisdiction in 2007.
[1:55:34] So GCC obtained all the necessary state and federal permits to begin operations at that
[1:55:40] time subsequently when the county did determine jurisdiction, GCC did submit the application
[1:55:49] for a permit.
[1:55:55] The question also is why this application has taken so long, and lots of times I wake
[1:56:01] up in the morning and wonder the same thing myself.
[1:56:06] But this timeline here points out what some of the major milestones in here have been
[1:56:13] beginning in August 2010 when the county submitted a letter to GCC saying the
[1:56:20] company was out of compliance with its land use code. So over the next several
[1:56:25] months there was ongoing deliberation in the county of that statement in the
[1:56:29] context of its earlier determinations of no jurisdiction and then in 2011 a
[1:56:34] definitive determination that indeed the county did have jurisdiction which
[1:56:41] which is a determination that GCC had no disagreement with.
[1:56:46] The next several months, GCC started working on assembling the required documentation for
[1:56:56] this.
[1:56:59] And as we'll further illustrate, it's not a simple application.
[1:57:04] It took a lot of time to conduct the required studies, develop the background information,
[1:57:09] and assemble the package into what was at that time
[1:57:12] thought to be a complete application.
[1:57:15] After that, there were several neighborhood compatibility
[1:57:17] meetings held.
[1:57:19] And as a result of those meetings and the questions that
[1:57:22] came up, there were a number of additional studies that GCC
[1:57:26] conducted to address ground water, noise, and vibration.
[1:57:33] And as I mentioned earlier, a lot of this is not simple.
[1:57:37] Some of these are very complex studies.
[1:57:40] For example, the groundwater study was one that the scope was determined and vetted by a combination of GCC, La Plata County, Bureau of Land Management, Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety, and Office of Surface Mining and Reclamation.
[1:57:57] Really, a multi-agency cooperation to determine what kind of study needed to be done.
[1:58:02] And many of the studies that have been conducted have not been any kind of off-the-shelf studies.
[1:58:09] But in that one, for example, even after the scope of the study was determined, it wasn't
[1:58:14] one that could be completed in days or even weeks, and took literally months to finally
[1:58:21] conclude.
[1:58:24] December of 2014, December of 2014, we intended to go to a planning commission
[1:58:34] hearing with a recommendation for approval.
[1:58:37] Shortly before that time, there was a new great deal
[1:58:42] of public input, primarily around traffic at that point,
[1:58:46] and it was the county and GCC determined then
[1:58:49] to continue that hearing until we could hear
[1:58:54] more public input and further study the concerns
[1:58:57] that were being brought up.
[1:58:58] Now, spring and summer of 2015, we convened the Hague-Elge Citizens Advisory Panel.
[1:59:09] It was made up of three primary constituent groups, one residents along the north part
[1:59:15] of County Road 120, another from Visitor Laurel subdivision off to the west of the
[1:59:20] mine, and another from County Road 120, 116, and 119 south of the mine.
[1:59:26] By the middle of the summer, the Hague-Elge Citizens Advisory Panel had issued 21 recommendations.
[1:59:36] At this point, over half of those either will have been adopted by GCC or will be adopted.
[1:59:44] A number of others were outside of the scope of this application.
[1:59:49] July of last year, July 31st, GCC submitted supplemental information to the application
[1:59:56] and updated studies.
[1:59:57] At this point, studies that number
[2:00:00] 43 in total.
[2:00:04] And then September 2nd of 2015 got a Board of Adjustment approval for an increase
[2:00:10] from the standard 8.8% grade to 8.8% over a limited distance on the steep hill at approximately
[2:00:18] mile 2.2 on County Road 120. October 8th of 2015, there was a request for continuance for two
[2:00:29] reasons. One, provide additional information requested by the county and two, resolve the
[2:00:36] unexpected necessary change to the water plan.
[2:00:42] I think it's worth bringing up there that
[2:00:44] the change to the water plan resulted from changes in enforcement patterns and regulation
[2:00:50] from the Mind, Safety and Health Administration. When the first irrigation water was obtained
[2:00:59] in 2006, the estimated long-term usage for water at the mine was less than five
[2:01:08] gallons per every ton of coal mined. Changes in federal enforcement patterns
[2:01:13] have now put that number at closer to 11 gallons per ton mined, so nearly double
[2:01:18] the required water.
[2:01:24] March 2nd and 3rd at April 14th of 2016, additional Planning
[2:01:29] Commission hearings and finally a recommendation of approval by a four-to-one vote.
[2:01:35] The bottom line of that is that the community process has taken time.
[2:01:40] We've received feedback, a lot of questions, and engaged a number of experts to study the
[2:01:47] issues that have been brought up.
[2:01:49] And as I said before, over the course of this, engaged 43 separate studies to better
[2:01:55] answer those questions.
[2:01:57] A lot of tough conversations in the last few years, but ultimately we've reached a better
[2:02:02] result.
[2:02:03] I'd like to turn this back over to Carolyn.
[2:02:14] Thank you.
[2:02:15] Again, Carolyn White-Landy's counsel for the applicant.
[2:02:18] As has been discussed, it's worth noting that if this permit is approved, it will
[2:02:23] not allow GCC to engage in any new activity or operations, but rather only allow them
[2:02:29] to continue their existing activity and operations.
[2:02:32] In fact, it will also require them to reduce their existing activity and operations down
[2:02:38] to that AD truck level that was discussed earlier.
[2:02:41] And we'll talk in more detail in a moment about the varying truck levels.
[2:02:44] But that's an important factor, and it is the reason why a staff has noted that we're
[2:02:49] discussing a phased construction of road improvements rather than the typical requirement
[2:02:54] you might see for new undertaking in the county where the entirety of the road
[2:02:58] improvements are required to be conducted before the operation commences.
[2:03:02] If the permit is approved, GCC will be improving County Road 120 North.
[2:03:08] They will be constructing approximately $10 million worth of total road improvements
[2:03:12] for the benefit of the community and County Road 120 North, although not all of the
[2:03:16] improvements are physically on 120 North.
[2:03:19] Additionally, some of the most urgent and most important road improvements will
[2:03:23] be conducted first, very soon, in fact this summer, and we'll go into more detail
[2:03:27] on the phasing in a moment with Mike Wilson.
[2:03:30] This also includes the maintenance fee of $0.12 per ton with escalation, as has already
[2:03:34] been discussed.
[2:03:35] Noise buffer walls, if the neighbors choose to have those implemented, they can have
[2:03:40] that option throughout the entire life of the five-year phasing.
[2:03:44] There will also be short-term and long-term limits on truck numbers, as well as a host
[2:03:49] of other mitigation measures that have already been undertaken, despite the fact
[2:03:53] that no permit has yet been granted.
[2:03:55] GCC has undertaken those voluntarily on faith and in the hopes that eventually this permit
[2:04:00] will be granted and will be allowed to continue operations.
[2:04:04] As noted, this required some very difficult conversations and fundamental restructuring
[2:04:09] of the business conducted here at this mine.
[2:04:11] What I mean by that is GCC had to decide to produce less coal here than what they're
[2:04:19] otherwise allowed to do in order to meet those reduced truck numbers.
[2:04:22] and that requires an awful lot of internal evaluation at the highest levels of the corporate structure.
[2:04:28] Approval of this permit would allow this long-standing issue to be resolved
[2:04:31] and put both GCC and the neighbors in a better position than they are today.
[2:04:37] I'd like to briefly summarize the Road Improvement Agreement and some of the key provisions of it.
[2:04:41] I'll try not to be duplicative of what Mr. Murray presented earlier,
[2:04:45] but some of the points that we want to emphasize is that the most important thing
[2:04:50] is the initial reduction down to 80 trucks per day on average, and that will be in place,
[2:04:55] that will be the limit in place for phases one, two, and three, all of that construction.
[2:05:00] No additional trucks above the 80 with the 20 percent allowance and the average calculation
[2:05:05] that was mentioned can occur until the completion of phases one, two, and three.
[2:05:10] And the phases one, two, and three address the most urgent needs and those which
[2:05:14] have generated the most concerned comment and question from the neighbors.
[2:05:18] So at the conclusion of phase three, the entirety of County Road 120 North will be paved from
[2:05:26] the intersection with 140 all the way to the end of the blue line, which is approximately
[2:05:31] 500 yards past the last private residence on that road.
[2:05:35] So the question was asked earlier about the tracking, and there is a little bit of
[2:05:39] a distance allowed there.
[2:05:40] I'm told it's about 500 feet, but if we want to get precise, we can ask our traffic
[2:05:44] expert on that a little bit later.
[2:05:45] So, until all of those improvements are complete, no increase over the 80 trucks will be allowed.
[2:05:51] And the reason for that in our understanding and discussions with county staff and based
[2:05:56] on our experts analysis is that once those phases one, two, and three are complete,
[2:06:02] it is certain that the road will be able to safely and compatibly accommodate the
[2:06:09] next proposed increase in trucks from 80 to 100 trucks per day on average.
[2:06:14] The other point I want to mention and we can address this in more detail later as well
[2:06:18] is that when staff showed you that historic graph of the calculation of truck numbers,
[2:06:23] the average truck numbers, 55, 90, and so on increasing per day, those were based on
[2:06:28] seven-day averages.
[2:06:30] The numbers that are being committed to as part of the Road Improvement Agreement
[2:06:33] and this permit, if it's approved, are based on six-day averages due to GCC's
[2:06:38] agreement to cease falling on Sunday.
[2:06:40] That means it is not only reducing the total trucks, but distributing them over a shorter
[2:06:46] period of time which further reduces the total number of trucks that will be allowed to use
[2:06:50] this road.
[2:06:54] A couple other key points about the road improvement agreement that I'd like to mention
[2:06:58] that weren't previously highlighted.
[2:06:59] Questions were asked about how the county will enforce the requirement that GCC construct
[2:07:04] these improvements.
[2:07:05] The road improvement agreement contains a provision requiring that financial security
[2:07:09] be posted with the county in the amount of 120% of the estimated cost of the road improvements.
[2:07:15] That cost estimate has to be submitted by GCC and approved by county staff.
[2:07:20] And the county will have the ability to draw on those funds in the event that GCC fails
[2:07:24] to complete the road improvements within the specified time.
[2:07:27] So the county has that enforcement mechanism.
[2:07:30] The county also has the additional enforcement mechanism through the contract, through the
[2:07:34] road improvement agreement, in addition to the condition of approval, which was
[2:07:38] mentioned by Mr. Smith earlier. And as a land use attorney who specializes in this,
[2:07:44] I can tell you that it is exceedingly rare for any of my applicant clients to voluntarily
[2:07:48] agree to that additional enforcement mechanism by contract as well as through the county
[2:07:53] code enforcement powers. And so that is a unique feature of this and its additional
[2:07:58] belt and suspenders that the county has to enforce the provisions of the Road
[2:08:02] Improvement Agreement.
[2:08:02] As
[2:08:07] a result of this analysis, discussion, conditions of approval, ongoing mitigation
[2:08:12] measures, and future planned mitigation measures, if the permit is approved, this application
[2:08:18] meets all of the required criteria in the county code for approval of a Class II land
[2:08:23] use permit.
[2:08:25] We'll go through each of these in a little bit greater detail.
[2:08:28] I'll bring the appropriate expert where we've planned that and we're also happy
[2:08:33] to bring them up later if we didn't address your questions in as much detail as you would
[2:08:36] like.
[2:08:40] The other point we'd like to make here is that when we're talking about compatibility,
[2:08:43] which as noted by staff is a qualitative standard, not a quantitative standard, there
[2:08:49] certainly can be differences of opinion about whether or not compatibility is achieved
[2:08:53] in any given circumstance.
[2:08:54] But what we're not trying to do here and what compatibility doesn't mean is to
[2:08:59] try to make this operation exactly the same as everything around it.
[2:09:03] That's not compatibility, that's uniformity.
[2:09:06] What we're talking about here is the process by which things which may be different
[2:09:10] can be nonetheless rendered compatible with each other,
[2:09:14] able to exist together without trouble or conflict by virtue of the various mitigation measures
[2:09:19] that will be undertaken in order to address any impacts that might be created by one of the activities.
[2:09:26] In order to understand what that might look like for the purposes of this application,
[2:09:31] We did, as was noted, engage all these different experts and conduct all these various studies.
[2:09:36] We have them sitting there in binders on the end of the table in case we need to refer to them.
[2:09:41] And this might be a good opportunity for me to mention that not all of those studies are in the 77 attachments to your packet,
[2:09:48] nor is every single document that is in the planning file that would, as a result, be way too voluminous
[2:09:54] for you to reasonably review in preparation for this hearing.
[2:09:57] If litigation were to commence, as I understand is being referenced by the opponents in their
[2:10:04] presentation later today, and there were to be a discussion with the court over what constitutes
[2:10:10] the record, that would be defined by color rule of civil procedure 106A4, and we can
[2:10:15] engage in a debate about that at the appropriate time, point being that all of these studies
[2:10:20] are part of the record, even though they may not have been attached to your packet
[2:10:24] it today is one of the 77, and if you'd like us to refer to them, we're happy to do so,
[2:10:29] and we have all the experts here to answer any questions about them.
[2:10:33] Finally, we'd like to note that after lengthy discussion and conversation, we are in alignment
[2:10:39] with county staff.
[2:10:40] We concur with the county staff report with their finding of a recommendation of approval
[2:10:45] of consistency and compatibility, and we're also in alignment with all of the conditions
[2:10:50] of approval that were recommended by county staff in the staff report, which I will
[2:10:55] also tell you in my experience with this many conditions of approval is not very common.
[2:11:00] So with that, I'd like to turn it over to our traffic expert to discuss the first criterion
[2:11:05] related to traffic.
[2:11:25] My name is Mike Olson, I'm with Road Hunter Engineering.
[2:11:30] My address is 1315 Main Avenue on Durango Suite 221.
[2:11:36] We've been working with GCC for a number of years now on addressing traffic issues.
[2:11:44] In this particular, for the presentation, I want to focus on this particular first slide
[2:11:50] here, which talks about the county's code requirement in Section 82-193-C2A.
[2:11:57] And that's really that traffic generated by development will not create safety hazards,
[2:12:02] to create traffic which is beyond the capacity of the affected roads or result in substantial
[2:12:07] increases over existing traffic volumes.
[2:12:11] The first thing I'd like to address is safety, and when I work, I work with policies and
[2:12:20] guidelines that are accepted by the engineering field along with raw data, and raw data is
[2:12:26] reflected here on this particular slide.
[2:12:29] This particular graph or these columns here give a detail by year on the average trucks, loaded trucks per day.
[2:12:42] And as you can see from 2011, you had 69 trucks.
[2:12:46] And the increase by year to 72, 2013 has 84.
[2:12:53] 2014 had average of 110 trucks, and this past year had an average of 93 trucks.
[2:13:00] What is of interest is the accidents on Canary Road 120 North.
[2:13:05] As you can, the corresponding levels go from three accidents involving the, or three
[2:13:11] accidents on 120 North, action involving GCC is zero.
[2:13:15] And they increase, and as they increase, GCC started putting in interim measures to address traffic impacts.
[2:13:26] 2014, we had 110 trucks per day. Accidents on 120 North, there were four. Accents involved in GCC were one.
[2:13:39] Most of the existing interim measures were in place now as reflected here in 2015.
[2:13:46] There are 93 trucks a day.
[2:13:49] Accents on 120 North, zero.
[2:13:52] Accents involving GCC, zero.
[2:13:55] That's a significant improvement there,
[2:13:58] and that actually reflects directly on the involvement that GCC has been with the trucking.
[2:14:05] Most of the information that I evaluated is combined in a report for traffic impact assessment
[2:14:13] dated November 18, 2015.
[2:14:18] With that, it identifies the improvements, it identifies impacts of the mine and the
[2:14:24] corresponding improvements.
[2:14:26] What GCC is committed to is approximately $10 million in road improvements.
[2:14:31] This includes the highway at one intersection, the state intersection 140 and counter at 120.
[2:14:40] It also reflects the agreed to reduction of haul truck loads to 80 trucks per day.
[2:14:47] And that's consistent based on the RIA.
[2:14:49] And that RIA was an agreement that was worked through between the county and GCC.
[2:14:57] And then it also includes the maintenance fee.
[2:15:00] We have 12 cents a time with escalation, correctly noted by Jim Davis as that reflects current maintenance
[2:15:07] levels. Also, it includes chip sealing of the asphalt and roadways. It does not, the separate
[2:15:16] 10 million actually addresses the actual roadway improvements.
[2:15:26] So, let me talk just briefly, the stark use of 120, that's, we've been on using the, it's been used for transporting coal in and out.
[2:15:37] And a pair of times it tried using the southern approach, which is 119, 116, up to 120 south, pass of mine, and then out on 120 north.
[2:15:49] Also been looked at as using just strictly 120, the north and south.
[2:15:54] Each, they've tried it twice, and each time based on internal policies and also discussions
[2:16:02] with local representatives of agencies such as Dranga Fire Rescue, is that they have concluded
[2:16:10] that using the southern approaches, they have multiple incidents, and that was part
[2:16:15] of the decision that was made to use 120 North solely.
[2:16:19] And
[2:16:27] I just want to make a note here on 120 South and 119, specifically going into the intersection
[2:16:34] of 120, excuse me, 119 and State Highway 140.
[2:16:40] If you use that particular intersection, it's at a skew and actually deposits into adjacent
[2:16:47] to the Fort Lewis Mesa School.
[2:16:52] That's one of the areas that was addressed and it was you try not to have a particular
[2:16:59] situation where you create a safety concern at a school district along with other places,
[2:17:03] but this was one of the reasons that was made to move trucks to the north that would
[2:17:09] eliminate some of the safety concerns that would exist at the school.
[2:17:16] So we looked at six different options.
[2:17:19] The option is being staying on 120 North.
[2:17:24] Second option was making a loop system where you'd use 120 South to 120 North.
[2:17:30] The second loop system was evaluated based on using 120 North, 116, 119 loop.
[2:17:38] The third, I mean the fourth option would be a dedicated haul route that would actually run across the state land board lands
[2:17:47] lands and then deposit approximately at the location of the King I site and then proceed
[2:17:54] on to a section of the County Road 120 North that's west of the existing residences.
[2:18:03] The fifth was putting in a dedicated hall route which matches the across the state
[2:18:08] land boards, cross private lands, and then it would actually be to a conveyor point
[2:18:13] which the conveyor would take the product and move it from the facility up to the top
[2:18:19] of the ridge, and then it would actually be brought onto coal trucks at that time that
[2:18:23] coal trucks would move out.
[2:18:25] And the last option would be using a conveyor from the mine site to approximate the intersection
[2:18:31] of Kenner Road 120, State Highway 140, and at that point it would actually be loaded
[2:18:40] onto trucks and distributed on public ways.
[2:18:49] Criteria that we focused on were population,
[2:18:54] road geometry, accident records and time.
[2:19:00] The cost was also played an role,
[2:19:03] but that was not the governing factor.
[2:19:06] It was these four factors that were evaluated as part of this.
[2:19:12] So population,
[2:19:18] this map is a great representation
[2:19:20] of where the population exists out in this 120 area.
[2:19:25] As you can see, there's a sort of a beige yellowish-tinged square,
[2:19:31] and that's the location of the mine itself.
[2:19:37] South of the mine, there's approximately three times as many residents
[2:19:41] as north and west of the mine.
[2:19:52] Look at the road geometry, and this is simplified,
[2:19:55] but with it it reflects we've identified places that with dots and those dot
[2:20:02] representations are intersections with county roads, corners in excess of 8%,
[2:20:09] 90 degree corners. The reason those particular points are noted is those are
[2:20:14] typically areas of that you have concerns with safety. On this with this
[2:20:22] Evaluation, as you can see, is the Rotary Geometry 120 North, simplified again, has seven dots.
[2:20:30] 120 South has 11 dots.
[2:20:34] 119, 116, 120 South has 11 dots.
[2:20:38] So in effect, with this Rotary Geometry Assessment, you have a safer road going to the north.
[2:20:45] We
[2:20:53] looked at accent records, identified some locations that needed to be addressed as part
[2:21:00] of any improvements.
[2:21:02] With that, through this summary criteria, I'm going to go back just a bit.
[2:21:10] The accent records show locations of high accent rates.
[2:21:16] On 120 North, that's two locations, 90-degree corner, and that's Wiltsies Barn.
[2:21:20] On 120 South, you've got two locations there that are 90-grid-quarters.
[2:21:26] And these are locations, I think, that as part of your tour of the site out there on the county road system
[2:21:33] that may have been identified with Jim Davis noting either excessive grade or 90-grid-quarters
[2:21:40] or places where you've got intersections with existing county roads.
[2:21:47] One thing I didn't mention was the permitting time.
[2:21:50] time. By having a dedicated haul route, you're looking at the environmental requirements,
[2:21:56] the archaeological requirements, the assessments on what in fact that – in establishing
[2:22:03] a roadway, and that that takes time. It takes a significant amount of time. And using
[2:22:09] a haul route across the State Land Board lands, though they agreed to allow us to
[2:22:15] evaluate just briefly as part of our option assessment, they are not supportive of it.
[2:22:22] So with that, you're looking just to get in place any type of haul route, and we've noted
[2:22:30] here greater than five years, that's probably right.
[2:22:34] And so that you're, we're looking to try to make an immediate impact, immediate improvements
[2:22:40] to address the King Tube trucking.
[2:22:46] So on this also, this particular slide,
[2:22:49] we've made a note here that as part of the Fort Lewis Mesa Fire District
[2:22:54] letter dated January 15, 2016,
[2:22:59] an alternate route of County Road 120 South, North Loop,
[2:23:03] and 121-16-1-19 Loop are less safe.
[2:23:07] That's due to lower visibility, more intersections, hills, greater populations, accidents, schools.
[2:23:13] Their assessment is consistent with my assessment that that is less desirable than using a 120
[2:23:21] North.
[2:23:23] So at this time, we just – so this is, again, the road improvement of the truck
[2:23:33] limits that Daniel provided to us and that does a great job on actor reflecting what
[2:23:41] in fact is going to happen based on the timing.
[2:23:45] One question was this interim paving that's extending the paving from the end of the
[2:23:52] existing paving which is approximately mile post 2.5 to approximately 5,000 feet close
[2:23:59] to a mile west.
[2:24:01] Where does that actually occur? Where does that stop? It's intended to stop west of
[2:24:08] the Huntsinger Park parcel. The reason for that is that there is a corner. In the
[2:24:13] corner, the existing alignment of the road, the wind runs from west to east
[2:24:21] and we want to capture, we want to pave beyond that corner so that you
[2:24:28] You don't generate dust as trucks go around that corner and actually proceeds down the
[2:24:34] gulch, and that's where existing dust problems occur.
[2:24:39] So by paving around the corner, that should address the dust that is airborne that actually
[2:24:48] is captured and proceeds each bound.
[2:24:54] The phasing has been addressed with the also, let me step back.
[2:25:02] So that's the interim paving.
[2:25:03] That's a three-inch mat.
[2:25:04] That's a, when I say mat, that's the inflictus of the asphalt.
[2:25:08] It's supposed to be 24-foot wide.
[2:25:10] It's intended to be widened in some places where they currently have some tight corners
[2:25:14] and also be tightened, widened so that it'll allow for some parking air at the hunting or parcel.
[2:25:21] We'll address drainage.
[2:25:24] There was a recommendation from LSC, it was a traffic site that put flashing signs there
[2:25:32] at the narrows and also at the Ulte Spahn as an interim measure.
[2:25:38] That is greed.
[2:25:39] So that's part of the interim measures of phase one is to put in flashing signs that
[2:25:44] that will allow for people traveling on 120
[2:25:48] that will note that if there's another vehicle
[2:25:51] within that section or road section,
[2:25:54] so because of site distances is not limited.
[2:25:57] And so at the Wiltsies Barn,
[2:25:59] I'm gonna use the term Wiltsies Barn
[2:26:00] because that's generally what it's discussed,
[2:26:03] but that area along with the narrows
[2:26:05] will be installing flashing warning signs
[2:26:07] for approaching vehicles.
[2:26:15] That time I'd like to turn it back over to Carolyn.
[2:26:17] The
[2:26:27] next portion of our presentation we'd like to briefly give you a high-level overview
[2:26:31] of each of the criteria and how the studies demonstrate that these criteria are met.
[2:26:35] Now necessarily there's a lot of detail and we're not going to be able to cover all of
[2:26:39] it within the time allotted.
[2:26:40] These slides are admittedly full of a lot of text and a little crowded.
[2:26:45] I'm going to give you just a quick summary and then we can come back to this and
[2:26:49] engage in as much detail as you'd care to during the question and answer period.
[2:26:53] The next criteria we're addressing is the one referenced by staff in their table,
[2:26:58] and that is that any one of the following will not disturb the neighbors,
[2:27:02] noise, odor, smoke, dust, vibration, et cetera.
[2:27:06] The ones that have been focused on the most in this criterion are noise, dust, and vibration,
[2:27:11] and that's where we'll spend the most time, obviously.
[2:27:14] The first four bullets on this slide all reference studies which relate to noise and vibration at the mine.
[2:27:22] So these are on the site of the mine, not along the roadway.
[2:27:26] And all of these studies concluded that there was no measurable noise or vibration exceeding
[2:27:32] appropriate standards at the mine itself.
[2:27:35] Really the majority of the conversation is focused on the roadway and that's where
[2:27:38] we'll focus our presentation today.
[2:27:40] But I would just note that the studies related to noise and vibration at the mine are
[2:27:45] attachment 12 in your packet.
[2:27:48] The other studies that were conducted and that are summarized on this slide
[2:27:51] addressed really the issue of truck traffic, the noise, dust, and vibration emanating from
[2:27:55] trucks traveling along County Road 120 North.
[2:28:00] In addition to the study performed by GCC's consultant way of engineering, the county then
[2:28:04] retained Dr. Aimee Martin to perform a third-party analysis of GCC's noise study.
[2:28:10] That analysis is an attachment 15 to the staff report.
[2:28:14] And although Dr. Martin did recommend certain additional measures and certain additional
[2:28:19] studies be conducted, they did not fundamentally disagree with certain of the conclusions in
[2:28:25] GCC's study, for example, the 86 DBA that was discussed earlier, being used as the appropriate
[2:28:30] standard to measure the noise emanating from truck traffic along County Road 120 North.
[2:28:36] Wave Engineering then performed a follow-up study in January 2016 to address the additional
[2:28:41] areas of study recommended by Dr. Emily Martin.
[2:28:44] That study is Attachment 13 to the staff report, and all of these studies concluded that the trucks along 120 North will meet the state standard of 86 DBA measure to 50 feet from the center line of the highway.
[2:28:58] So when we talk about the proposal that additional buffering be installed in certain locations to protect individual private residences, these are additional measures being recommended by the county and agreed to by GCC in order to further reduce
[2:29:13] reduce the noise experienced at those properties below the 86, which it already will meet even
[2:29:19] without the buffering.
[2:29:21] So I want to be real clear on that.
[2:29:22] The buffering is proposed to further reduce the noise experience below the standard,
[2:29:27] which is already met without the buffering measures.
[2:29:30] The modeling indicates that that would be somewhere, as was mentioned, in the neighborhood
[2:29:33] of four to nine DBA, depending on the situation.
[2:29:37] And the question was asked, Commissioner, about what would happen if actual situation
[2:29:42] on the ground turned not to be the case if the buffering were installed and it
[2:29:46] didn't further mitigate that obviously would be a situation where pursuant to
[2:29:50] your normal code enforcement you'd have the ability to that property owner would
[2:29:54] notify the county that the they were experiencing noise levels which they
[2:29:58] felt exceeded the standard the county
[2:30:00] They would probably send someone out to take a measurement, and if it did exceed the standard,
[2:30:03] then you could impress further
[2:30:07] through your normal code enforcement process.
[2:30:15] I'd like to move on to dust.
[2:30:19] All of the studies concluded that the dust that is generated both
[2:30:22] at the mine site and along County Road 120 North does not exceed the applicable standards.
[2:30:27] We understand that the neighbors have submitted a study which modeled that those standards
[2:30:33] would in fact be exceeded, our expert disagrees with some of the methodologies
[2:30:37] used by their expert and we can get into that detail if you would like, but one of
[2:30:42] the key and most important factors here is that the principal reason for dust to
[2:30:46] be experienced along County Road 120 North is of course the fact that that
[2:30:49] road is not paved at present and if this permit is approved the immediate
[2:30:53] obligation on GCC is to pave that stretch of road that was highlighted
[2:30:57] in blue on the prior slide and that paving will virtually eliminate the
[2:31:02] a dust situation in that stretch.
[2:31:05] And so, yes, it is true that the situation
[2:31:07] can be continued to be monitored,
[2:31:08] and if additional dust, which violates the standard,
[2:31:11] is noticed and demonstrated by the county
[2:31:14] that additional enforcement can be taken.
[2:31:16] But the reason that situation exists today
[2:31:19] is because the fact that this road is now paved.
[2:31:21] And GCC is already engaging in significant
[2:31:25] interim mitigation measures to address that.
[2:31:28] And they will continue to engage
[2:31:29] in those interim mitigation measures
[2:31:31] up to and through the date when the paving is complete, and those mitigation measures
[2:31:36] include watering up to four times a day when it's necessary based on weather conditions.
[2:31:41] Right now, that paving is scheduled to start in June if this permit is approved.
[2:31:50] I'd like to briefly also address the buffering options.
[2:31:53] It was suggested in one of the various studies that further noise reduction could
[2:31:58] be achieved by the installation of buffering, visual and noise buffering, along certain
[2:32:03] of the affected properties. GCC has agreed as a condition of approval to make that available.
[2:32:08] I want to be clear that this is solely at the election of the affected property owners.
[2:32:12] If they choose not to have buffers installed along their property, then no buffers will
[2:32:16] be installed. It is purely optional for them. If they elect to have the buffers
[2:32:21] installed, GCC will do so at their own expense. And the window during which they
[2:32:27] have to elect that is from the approval of the permit up through and concluding
[2:32:31] the completion of the very last phase of construction.
[2:32:34] In other words, they have the ability to change their mind later in the process if they would
[2:32:39] prefer not to have the buffering installed today, but want to wait and see whether the
[2:32:43] paving and the other measures suitably address their concerns or whether they would like
[2:32:48] to then add the buffering later on in the process.
[2:32:55] In addition, I'll just mention this new condition of approval that was added since the Planning
[2:32:59] Commission to which GCC has agreed, which is that if the county determines it's
[2:33:04] necessary and appropriate, it may retain an additional expert at GCC's expense to assist
[2:33:09] the county in evaluating the efficacy of the various buffering options being considered.
[2:33:15] Here's a sample of some of the potential types of buffering which are available, and these
[2:33:21] are attachment 61 in your staff report if you'd like to look at them in further detail.
[2:33:32] The last one on that list about none of the following shall affect the neighbors
[2:33:37] was hours of operation. This slide briefly summarizes the reductions in hours of operation
[2:33:42] that GCC has agreed to as conditions of approval. This affects principally the use of County
[2:33:49] Road 120 North and no truck traffic on Sundays and clustering of truck traffic, 80% of the
[2:33:55] truck traffic during daylight hours with only 20% distributed through the evening hours.
[2:34:01] And those are the proposed mitigations in order to ensure that the hours of operation
[2:34:05] of this facility will not disturb the neighbors.
[2:34:13] Next criterion addresses adverse and unsightly views.
[2:34:16] The mine operation itself, you saw a photograph of it earlier
[2:34:18] and you saw it in your site visit as well.
[2:34:21] It's located up a drainage.
[2:34:22] It's really not visible, certainly from any private residences
[2:34:26] and barely visible from County Road 120 North.
[2:34:29] We're really mostly, as with the rest of this application,
[2:34:32] talking about the truck traffic on County Road 120 North,
[2:34:35] not the mine operation itself.
[2:34:37] If the individual affected neighbors
[2:34:39] drivers who may have some visual impact from truck traffic so elect, they could have a
[2:34:44] buffering as an additional option to mitigate this impact.
[2:34:51] Another criterion is that the development will not cause pollution of ground or surface
[2:34:56] waters.
[2:34:59] As was noted by Mr. Peterson at the beginning of our presentation, unlike many coal mines,
[2:35:03] the water table in this case is below the coal seam and therefore no water is encountered
[2:35:08] in the process of mining.
[2:35:09] This greatly reduces the potential for there to be groundwater contamination, just in the first place, as a practical matter.
[2:35:16] But additionally, this slide summarizes many of these studies that were conducted, which also reached the same conclusion,
[2:35:23] namely that there is no negative impact on groundwater as a result of the mining operation.
[2:35:28] Further, as was explained by staff, as part of the other permit requirements,
[2:35:33] requirements, GCC will be engaging in ongoing groundwater monitoring through the drilling
[2:35:38] of a number of groundwater monitoring wells.
[2:35:42] And if you'd like to ask some more questions or have more detail about exactly how that
[2:35:47] ongoing groundwater monitoring will work, we have the appropriate person here to answer
[2:35:52] those questions.
[2:35:54] But the data that has been collected so far demonstrates that there is no negative
[2:35:59] of operation on groundwater quality today as a result of mine operations.
[2:36:04] And that report is Attachment 22 to the staff report.
[2:36:11] Next criterion is that the development will not adversely change the character of the neighborhood.
[2:36:18] This is something which obviously is a more qualitative type of standard for you to review,
[2:36:24] but it should be noted that resource extraction is inherently compatible with the rural character
[2:36:28] of the area insofar as it's been occurring in this location, depending on who you ask,
[2:36:33] at least as far back as 1941, if not 1939, it's been here for a very, very long time.
[2:36:40] It's been compatible with ranching since the late 1800s when both of these uses were
[2:36:46] existing compatibly together in this location and have been ever since then.
[2:36:51] If there is a recent change, it's really that this area has become slightly more
[2:36:55] residential with additional folks choosing to make this area their home as well as an
[2:37:00] area for ranching and mining and other similar resource extraction operations.
[2:37:08] Next criterion is privacy.
[2:37:10] This is a similar analysis to views and I won't repeat what we've already said other
[2:37:15] than to note that the mine operation itself has virtually no impact on the privacy of
[2:37:19] any individual property owners.
[2:37:21] It's not visible from their property.
[2:37:22] They can't see it.
[2:37:23] They can't hear it.
[2:37:24] And we've already talked about the mitigation measures that are proposed to address any concerns
[2:37:29] about privacy resulting from the use of County Road 120 North as the principal haul road
[2:37:34] for the truck traffic.
[2:37:38] In conclusion, we believe that we have demonstrated and the expert reports conclusively demonstrate
[2:37:43] that all of these criteria are met and that the application meets the requirements
[2:37:48] for a Class II land use permit.
[2:37:50] In addition, mitigation is an appropriate measure for furthering compatibility and for determining whether or not these criteria are met.
[2:37:59] And we'd like to spend some time highlighting some of the mitigation measures that have already been undertaken and are currently ongoing by GCC,
[2:38:07] as well as the additional mitigation that will be engaged in as conditions of approval if this permit is approved.
[2:38:13] And to do that, I will hand the microphone back over to Trent Peterson.
[2:38:16] Thank
[2:38:34] you.
[2:38:40] Over the last several years, and a number of them just in the last year or two, there
[2:38:45] have been a number of mitigation measures already completed at the response to the commuter.
[2:38:53] We've committed not to develop groundwater wells, as it was stated earlier, in response
[2:38:58] to a concern about potential groundwater depletion.
[2:39:02] Reduce truck speeds to 10 miles per hour in front of key residences on unpaved sections
[2:39:07] of the road to further meeting.
[2:39:19] That's a limitation which we intend to keep in place
[2:39:23] over the long term.
[2:39:25] Several years ago prohibited the use of Jake Breaks
[2:39:28] on County Road 120.
[2:39:31] Just over a year ago stopped all coal hauling on Sundays,
[2:39:34] and I think it's important to point out there that the average
[2:39:38] daily truck trips or truck loads that Daniel Murray presented
[2:39:42] earlier were based on seven-day hauling.
[2:39:44] So in terms of scale, the largest volume in 2014 is comparable to the 120 truck per day average that were contemplating in the long term.
[2:40:03] Adopted written policies on truck speed and use of the road, conduct speed monitoring and management, conduct in-person training,
[2:40:13] Required numbers on trucks for rapid identification.
[2:40:18] Installed a direct dial hotline for people to report concerns.
[2:40:22] Since it was installed, there have been 25 calls received,
[2:40:25] seven of those from residents, 18 from GCC employees,
[2:40:30] or from other truck drivers.
[2:40:32] All of those calls were followed up on.
[2:40:36] Installed trucks entering highway signs on County Road 140.
[2:40:41] 140, reduced posted speed limits, installed a fan silencing device on the ventilation fan
[2:40:49] at the mine.
[2:40:50] And I understand you were able to see that during the tour from the mezzanine on the
[2:40:53] east side of the main building, second floor,
[2:40:59] completed the extension of the big stick
[2:41:01] ditch culvert last year, widened the pavement at the 90 degree corner going in.
[2:41:09] This was on the first stop of your tour two weeks ago.
[2:41:11] the cars that the area where you parked would have actually been the truck
[2:41:17] lane for the incoming trucks.
[2:41:22] I agreed not to stage trucks at the 120-140
[2:41:25] intersection, expanded the holding area at the mine, adopted a section of County
[2:41:30] Road 120 and suspended trucking during snow events.
[2:41:35] We've been watering the road
[2:41:37] up to four times a day to suppress dust, trim foliage to improve site
[2:41:43] distance and several other mitigation measures here since 2015.
[2:41:55] Beginning now, this summer there will be new flashing warning signs installed, no increase
[2:42:03] in the 80 truck limit until the road is paved, and several ongoing mitigation measures.
[2:42:18] I want to emphasize that GCC is a responsible part of the community.
[2:42:23] It's our mission to operate at the highest levels of safety and integrity, provide jobs
[2:42:28] to employees and economic benefits to the county.
[2:42:31] As I mentioned earlier, we have an excellent safety record.
[2:42:35] We've worked cooperatively with the county and the neighbors and paid experts to analyze
[2:42:40] a number of areas of concern and put a number of mitigation measures in place already.
[2:42:45] In
[2:42:52] addition to approximately $390,000 in county taxes paid in 2014, about half of the
[2:43:01] $3.5 million in coal royalties has come back to the state of Colorado.
[2:43:06] The bulk of that goes to the public schools.
[2:43:08] A portion of it will go to the county.
[2:43:16] In addition, we spend about $20 million a year on transportation services locally
[2:43:21] and about a million dollars a year to pay the low plot of electric.
[2:43:26] We've focused on truck traffic so far and truck counts,
[2:43:29] but I think there's a really important nexus to point out here
[2:43:32] that we're not just talking about trucks, we're talking about jobs.
[2:43:36] And there's a pretty clear equivalency that one truck per day equals about three jobs.
[2:43:41] One employee, one truck driver, one indirect community jobs.
[2:43:47] That basic number of 80 trucks per day is what's required to pay for road improvements
[2:43:53] and continue to operate the mine.
[2:44:17] In conclusion, we would just like to note that this application does meet all of the
[2:44:23] county requirements for a Class II land use permit.
[2:44:25] If this application is approved, all of these bulleted items on this slide will
[2:44:31] occur, $10 million in new road improvements, ongoing maintenance fee, permanent cap on
[2:44:36] the truck numbers. We believe we have demonstrated that all of the criteria are met, and we ask
[2:44:41] for your favorable approval of the Class II land use permit. As a matter of just process,
[2:44:47] I would also like to request that if the Board of County Commissioners considers imposing
[2:44:52] additional conditions of approval beyond those which were addressed in the staff report,
[2:44:57] we request the opportunity to address them later at that time.
[2:45:00] Thank you for your time and attention today.
[2:45:09] Thank you. Thank you for your presentation.
[2:45:13] Commissioner's questions.
[2:45:24] Thank you.
[2:45:26] I have a couple of questions.
[2:45:29] One is related to some, there were a couple of things that were supposed to have happened by today,
[2:45:36] and I was doing a check in to see if they happened.
[2:45:39] One, I believe, had to do with design, designs being given to CDOT.
[2:45:45] and I think that's related to the 140 County Route 120 intersection.
[2:45:51] Can anybody talk about that?
[2:45:53] Commissioner, Mr. Chairman, if I may, what we'll do is I'll just try to field them
[2:45:57] and get the right person to answer your question.
[2:45:59] The short answer to that is yes.
[2:46:01] All of the things that were required to have happened by today have happened.
[2:46:05] Specifically, as to the CDOT permit question, I would like to ask Mr. Olson to answer that.
[2:46:12] Michael Olsen with Rotor Engineering.
[2:46:15] Now we're currently, they have not the final plans for review.
[2:46:20] We're working with CDOT right now.
[2:46:21] We're addressing environmental to make sure that there's some compliance.
[2:46:27] This is part of interim process.
[2:46:29] When they go through it, we're working through the month of June to make that happen.
[2:46:34] So we had tentatively set up a date of June 1st to have everything in there,
[2:46:39] but we are working with CDOT right now.
[2:46:41] And with the access permit, it has a termination date of July 4th, I think, and that was part
[2:46:52] of working with CDOT as they comply with everything that they were requesting.
[2:46:56] So it's not a black and white.
[2:46:58] When you're working with CDOT, it's not black and white.
[2:47:00] So you go through and you give them information, and they come back, and so we are on
[2:47:06] task for meeting the requirements of the access permit.
[2:47:11] Okay, thank you.
[2:47:16] I'll ask you, Mr. Olson, you might be the best person to answer.
[2:47:19] With respect to where the conceptual plans are for the roadway, road improvements, why
[2:47:29] it's going to require – we talked a little bit earlier about what a condemnation procedure
[2:47:36] would look like but I think from my perspective it's more it's really right
[2:47:42] of way acquisition is the first step and we would be looking at right of way
[2:47:47] acquisition because the road would be widened pretty much its entire length and
[2:47:53] in some places extra widened so to speak I think to accommodate curves and
[2:47:58] other concert considerations is that a fair statement what I just said being
[2:48:04] clarify what your currently the county is set up for a 60-foot right away and the
[2:48:12] way that the Canada Road 120 North is set up is that it's it's prescriptive
[2:48:18] use which means that there is not necessarily a document that says this
[2:48:24] is the right of way of the road but it is in effect is from fence line to
[2:48:29] line. And a significant portion of the existing road has 60 feet, and it's the
[2:48:38] intent that we would try to keep the alignment on the final alignment as
[2:48:42] close to the existing line as we can. There will be areas of which that the
[2:48:49] alignment will require, the design will require some acquisition of additional
[2:48:56] That being said, it's not intended that a full parcel, unless it's deemed that the parcel
[2:49:01] is no longer usable, but it's intended that slivers will be acquired.
[2:49:06] As with that, GCC for just being sort of simplified, GCC is going to pay the bill.
[2:49:14] The county is going to go ahead.
[2:49:16] Any type of right-of-way that's acquired or any type of documentation will be in effect
[2:49:20] for the county.
[2:49:21] It'll be a GCC will be in effect working as an agent for the county.
[2:49:25] So the intent being is when we finally get this done is that what currently have maybe
[2:49:30] 700 feet of right of way actually designated right of way out there for six half miles,
[2:49:35] it's intended that the county will have documentation that supports the right of
[2:49:40] way, whether it be permanent easement or an actual right of way fee deed for that
[2:49:47] full six and a half miles.
[2:49:48] Does that sort of answer your question there?
[2:49:52] Yeah, I mean, that's, I think you clarified the topic. What is, is there any room and you might not be the right person for this answer, but certainly at least two of the locations specific to the residences along the road that would be affected by this.
[2:50:14] The proximity of the road as it exists now to those residents certainly complicates things,
[2:50:23] aggravates, exacerbates negative impacts whether it's the dust or the noise.
[2:50:29] Based on what you've done, is there anything that makes you think that it would be possible
[2:50:36] to have the new alignment even 20 feet further away from those residences?
[2:50:42] This is Mike Olson again, and what I can say now that the alignment won't be any closer
[2:50:52] that currently exists.
[2:50:55] There is part of the next phase of analysis, specifically at the end of the asphalt, starting
[2:51:03] at the aggregate section of the roadway, is intended to evaluate an alternate alignment
[2:51:09] in that vicinity to improve the distance, the separation between the parcel owner along
[2:51:17] with improve the geometry or the alignment, vertical alignment of the road going up to
[2:51:22] Robert's Ridge.
[2:51:23] That will be part of the evaluation that's creating a set of preliminary plans.
[2:51:30] The other residents that's west of that location is difficult because you've got
[2:51:35] a total slope that's right there adjacent. So it's anticipated that the actual alignment
[2:51:42] will be no closer than it currently is, but to incorporate it's probably going to get
[2:51:50] into the hillside just a little bit there.
[2:51:53] And then with respect to the Roberts Ridge vertical alignment, I don't know what that
[2:51:57] means.
[2:51:58] I'm sorry. What it means is they have a steep driveway.
[2:52:02] I noticed.
[2:52:02] And they have very limited landing room when you come down the off the hill and so by evaluating
[2:52:12] an alternate where you move the alignment of the canyon road to the south that might
[2:52:18] provide additional landing zone for them to come down off the hill.
[2:52:23] Thank you.
[2:52:24] That was another aspect of my question you got to before I did.
[2:52:30] I think that's it for my questions for you.
[2:52:33] I did have a question for your sound person.
[2:52:36] And this is a technical question.
[2:52:38] I don't remember who the sound person was.
[2:52:40] Okay, you're going to have to come up to my closer.
[2:52:42] Rufkov-Kolsky, Wave Engineering, we'll bring him up.
[2:52:44] Thank you.
[2:52:53] You heard my question earlier about the appropriate standard
[2:52:56] for deciding compatibility.
[2:52:57] And I'd need clarification, the 86 decibels that are contemplated in this TAF report versus
[2:53:08] the 50 that is the HUD standard, is the 86 an instant sound measurement or is it the average?
[2:53:21] It appeared to me in reading the information that the HUD standard is an average over,
[2:53:25] I believe daylight or possibly over a period of hours and is the 86 also an
[2:53:33] average over a period of hours? Commissioner Chairman Jeff Kolkowski,
[2:53:40] Wave Engineering, 1100 West Littleton Boulevard number 420, Littleton, Colorado
[2:53:51] The 86 DBA standard that is in the state statute is essentially an instantaneous value that
[2:53:58] would be measured 50 feet from the center line of the road as the vehicle passes by.
[2:54:04] So it's a very short duration standard.
[2:54:08] You've alluded to some research where you had seen that that was roughly about the same as where you might get hearing damage or something.
[2:54:20] And that comes from OSHA, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, has regulations on occupational noise.
[2:54:30] And their threshold is 85 DBA or decibels.
[2:54:36] But that is an eight-hour time-weighted average.
[2:54:39] So that's the noise exposure of an employee over an eight-hour shift.
[2:54:44] And that is just the point at which they begin to look at mitigation
[2:54:48] or hearing conservation program or things like that.
[2:54:51] That's not necessarily where hearing damage automatically occurs.
[2:54:56] So the 86 DBA level is a very short-term level.
[2:55:00] So it's far from any kind of hearing damage threshold.
[2:55:03] And just to let you know, we measured during our study quite a few truck passbys along the road at distances of 50 feet from the center line.
[2:55:14] We did not measure any trucks that were over 80 DBA.
[2:55:19] So that is the state statute limit.
[2:55:25] The majority of the trucks are already well below that.
[2:55:45] Do you want my trusty mic?
[2:55:46] What
[2:55:50] speed were those trucks moving at approximately?
[2:55:54] Was it before the rule to slow down really a lot in front of those houses,
[2:56:01] or was it when they were maintaining regular speeds?
[2:56:04] We measured under a variety of conditions.
[2:56:07] So we measured along both the paved and the gravel portions of the road.
[2:56:11] We measured on the paved road where the trucks were going at the posted speed limit,
[2:56:21] which was already less than the limit for cars on the same road.
[2:56:26] So it was at the limits as they are now and as they would be going forward.
[2:56:31] On the gravel road, we measured both near homes where the trucks were under the voluntary limit,
[2:56:37] of GCC's voluntary limit of 10 miles an hour near the homes, but we also measured at other
[2:56:44] portions of the gravel road away from the homes where the truck limit was 25 miles an
[2:56:50] hour.
[2:56:51] So we measured under a variety of conditions.
[2:56:56] And did you measure any non-cold truck traffic?
[2:57:01] Yes.
[2:57:02] And what did you find with that?
[2:57:04] We found that many times the non-cold truck traffic, which might be an individual's passenger
[2:57:14] vehicle, it might be a pickup truck, a private pickup truck, or a commercial pickup truck
[2:57:20] or things, many times those sound levels are the same as or louder than the trucks
[2:57:26] just because they're going at much higher speeds.
[2:57:28] So on the 35 mile an hour, or on the paved road, you know, they might be going 45 or 50 miles an hour, whereas the trucks are maintaining the 30 or 35 miles an hour limit.
[2:57:41] Okay, thank you. I have one other question, I think, for this witness, but can you, I think it was, no, it wasn't you, it was the air quality person. You're okay.
[2:57:51] Okay.
[2:57:53] Do you guys have any questions for the term?
[2:57:56] Oh, just questions in general.
[2:57:58] Oh, okay.
[2:57:58] No, I didn't.
[2:57:59] I was going to let him.
[2:58:00] You don't need him anymore?
[2:58:03] Okay.
[2:58:04] And then you have an air quality person?
[2:58:07] Is that correct?
[2:58:07] Yes, let me ask him to come to the table.
[2:58:18] Thank you, Commissioner.
[2:58:19] My name is Vanit Masraha.
[2:58:23] Of course.
[2:58:23] Yeah, it's a V-I-N-W-E-T.
[2:58:26] And last name is M-A-S-U-R-A-H-A.
[2:58:30] And I help on the air quality side, and I live in Irvine, California, 3306, Crescent Way.
[2:58:40] Okay, thank you. You did the air quality monitoring, I think, report for GCC.
[2:58:47] And there was a different air quality outcome or evaluation.
[2:58:55] And I don't recall the name of the person who did that.
[2:58:57] Are you familiar with it? I think it was from November of 2015 perhaps.
[2:59:00] Do you familiar with kind of a review of your report and that came to different conclusions
[2:59:07] and could you talk about that?
[2:59:09] Yeah, I reviewed all three reports put together by the MMA which also studied the air quality
[2:59:18] and just to clarify it's not air quality monitoring, it's air quality modeling which
[2:59:24] which is used using EUS EPA, Stabilize Method,
[2:59:28] and both experts have used similar methods.
[2:59:32] It's just the inputs, which were a little bit different,
[2:59:36] and that led to, in my review,
[2:59:40] which I have identified on May 13th,
[2:59:43] why I believe their review simply overestimated
[2:59:46] a lot of PM10 emission,
[2:59:50] which are, I guess, modeled for 24-hour
[2:59:53] averaging period in my report as well as in their report too.
[3:00:01] You came to different conclusions. Can you explain why your conclusions were different from theirs?
[3:00:08] Yeah, definitely. I'm not sure if my May 13th report is part of your binder or not.
[3:00:16] It is, and I'll tell you the number in just a second.
[3:00:19] Okay, but I kind of actually answered the question there, but the big thing is in any of EPA method,
[3:00:28] There's one method which is kind of a method used by everybody.
[3:00:33] It's known as AP42.
[3:00:35] And AP42 uses many variables.
[3:00:38] One of the key variables there is the silt content.
[3:00:41] How much is the silt in the unpaved road
[3:00:45] which can get knocked around by the dust moving on the road.
[3:00:48] And higher the silt content,
[3:00:51] definitely the higher the PM10 emission would be.
[3:00:53] And it happens to be, as I identified in my May 13th report,
[3:00:58] the emissions are so high,
[3:00:59] if you just look at the quantification of what they have done,
[3:01:03] the other experts have done it.
[3:01:04] It comes out to be around 600 tons per year of PM10 emission.
[3:01:08] And I work with a lot of industrial facilities.
[3:01:11] I've done work with close to 20 years of building power plants,
[3:01:14] cement plant, coal mining, and all sort of mining.
[3:01:17] I've never seen a four-mile stretch
[3:01:20] of which is kind of not truly an unpaid road.
[3:01:23] It's actually a gravel road, a semi-gravel road
[3:01:27] which creates 500 tons of dust.
[3:01:30] If this would have been true,
[3:01:32] this would have been a very large source of PM penemission
[3:01:36] and CDPHE would have been very worried about all this.
[3:01:40] This would have been a major source.
[3:01:42] This mine is not a major source.
[3:01:44] This is a minor source and 600 tons of emission.
[3:01:47] If you just put that in contest,
[3:01:49] that would have required approximately 1 to 2 trucks you would have to haul every month.
[3:01:56] If you assume all that dust can be captured and then you put it in a truck,
[3:02:00] you would be hauling close to 2 trucks a month to haul that dust which has been overestimated by the other expert.
[3:02:07] And this road probably by this time would have not even existed if that those numbers are true.
[3:02:12] And remember, GCC also puts a lot of water here that water usually, you know, doubles the moisture content as I put in my report as well.
[3:02:22] If you put approximately, you know, they are putting around 0.3 gallon per square yard much of water there.
[3:02:31] If you apply that much water, that basically doubles the moisture content.
[3:02:35] double the moisture content that approximately equates to 75% to 80% control.
[3:02:41] And remember, if you paved the road, that's approximately 95% to 99% control.
[3:02:47] That's why I believe the other expert has overestimated the emission.
[3:02:52] And also I want to point out, for my work with Trinity Consultants, we actually developed
[3:02:58] a model for EPA back in 40 years back.
[3:03:00] So I'm very familiar with how EPA has developed the model as well as not only in Colorado.
[3:03:06] We work all around the country with all the different minds.
[3:03:09] As I said, simply based on my review of all the expert report put together by the MMA,
[3:03:15] it's a way, way overestimate all the PM10 emission and therefore the impacts.
[3:03:20] And the May 13th report that Mr. Masarov has written,
[3:03:28] That's exhibit number 69 in your packet is the May 13, 2016 supplemental expert report
[3:03:34] from Mr. Masaraha.
[3:03:36] And one more thing I'd like to point out, when I hear the dust and in a couple of last
[3:03:43] hearing I've seen people bringing the pictures of the dust, you know, knocked by the trucks.
[3:03:49] I just want to point out the PM10 standard, what EPA has established for PM10.
[3:03:54] and it's a 24-hour average standard.
[3:03:57] So you could see a dust right away,
[3:03:59] but that necessarily doesn't mean
[3:04:01] that it will cause the violation of the EPA standard.
[3:04:05] It has to be similar level of dust,
[3:04:07] has to exist for 24 hours in order for somebody
[3:04:10] to feel some sort of primary or secondary
[3:04:13] health-related impact.
[3:04:15] And there are reasons why EPA has established
[3:04:17] that 24-hour averaging period.
[3:04:19] And I kind of a little bit outline the history
[3:04:22] of why EPA has never changed the 24-hour averaging period.
[3:04:27] There are several pollutants for which EPA has established the shorter averaging period,
[3:04:32] such as one hour and three hour, but for PM10, after close to 60 years' worth of history
[3:04:38] and research, EPA still uses 24-hour averaging period for PM10.
[3:04:45] Thank you very much.
[3:04:47] Thank you.
[3:04:51] Mr. Chair, I do have a number of questions.
[3:04:53] I want to know for the record it is a little afternoon.
[3:04:57] I'm not sure if we want to take our break now and resume questions after the public comment
[3:05:01] period or how, what is the pleasure of the board?
[3:05:15] Okay.
[3:05:17] Okay.
[3:05:20] Thank you very much for your presentation.
[3:05:23] I don't believe we established for the record the address of GCC and where GCC is based
[3:05:30] and what GCC stands for.
[3:05:32] I'm going to ask Trent to do that as it relates to GCC.
[3:05:42] GCC is an acronym for Grupo Cementos de Chihuahua.
[3:05:47] Grupo Cementos de Chihuahua was founded in Chihuahua, Mexico in 1941.
[3:05:52] It first did business in the United States in 1994.
[3:05:56] Currently the U.S. Division covers a number of states,
[3:06:00] Central Rockies states as well as Midwestern states.
[3:06:03] States. The U.S. Division headquarters for GCC of America is at 600 South Cherry Street,
[3:06:14] Glendale, Colorado, 80246, I believe.
[3:06:19] Locally, GCC Energy was formed in 2004 when GCC bought
[3:06:28] the assets of the National King coal mine. GCC's local address is 6473 County Road 120
[3:06:38] Hesperus, Colorado, 81326.
[3:06:41] Thank you very much. And I guess I'll follow on to that. Regarding the enforcement question
[3:06:48] and our concern about enforcement and the fact that GCC is based in Mexico, do the
[3:06:55] The local officials of the company have the authority to act on the company's behalf
[3:07:01] or is this a chain of command that would take some time because we'd have to get a
[3:07:06] response from Mexico to Denver to Hesperus?
[3:07:12] Local officials have the authority to act on GCC's behalf.
[3:07:16] Thank you very much.
[3:07:17] And the U.S. division is a U.S. company licensed to do business in the United States.
[3:07:22] Okay.
[3:07:23] Thank you.
[3:07:32] Regarding the truck drivers, are the truck drivers GCC employees or is the company a subcontractor to GCC?
[3:07:44] Is that a separate entity altogether?
[3:07:49] This is Trent Peterson.
[3:07:52] GCC does not employ any truck drivers of its own.
[3:07:55] All truck driving is contracted out either by us or by our customers.
[3:08:02] Okay. And because some of the truck traffic is one of our major issues with GCC, describe
[3:08:13] the nature of your contract and the ability for you to be able to enforce the provisions
[3:08:20] of this permit with your subcontractor.
[3:08:26] We're able to enforce the provisions of
[3:08:28] this permit by establishing local policies that govern the operation of trucks on our
[3:08:35] property or on the highways, similar to the way we would enforce policy on our own employees.
[3:08:44] And I would add to that that you can see that already occurring, because many of the existing
[3:08:49] mitigation measures involve the operation of the trucks, such as reduced speed limits
[3:08:54] and you know the 1-800 number and so on and all of those have been policies
[3:09:01] adopted by GCC with which the truck companies are required to comply and
[3:09:05] they have done so. Okay thank you. In the event that there's an accident on
[3:09:12] County Road 120 North and the road is closed for an accident or some other
[3:09:19] purpose, even construction, you stated that you hope to begin phase one as early as the
[3:09:27] first of June.
[3:09:30] Would you re-route traffic in that event or would you cease truck hauling until the road
[3:09:38] was reopened and would you have to seek an exception to the permit?
[3:09:43] There
[3:09:47] is currently a condition of approval that says that any routing of truck traffic
[3:09:52] on anything other than County Road 120 North would require the approval of County Public
[3:09:58] Works and essentially not going to happen.
[3:10:05] I think also a related partial answer to your question is you're really referencing
[3:10:10] the emergency response plan that was an additional condition of approval in between Planning
[3:10:16] Commission and border county commissioners and there is a draft emergency response plan.
[3:10:22] I was just trying to look it up to see where in your packet it is and I can tell you that
[3:10:25] in a minute.
[3:10:25] A draft plan has been prepared by GCC and with the recommendations of the various agencies
[3:10:31] incorporated into that.
[3:10:33] And as I understand it, there's now discussion of a further condition of approval that further
[3:10:38] meetings be held involving members of the public who have additional questions and
[3:10:41] concerns about that.
[3:10:42] But the response plan would dictate whether alternative routing is to be requested from the county,
[3:10:48] but Mr. Peterson's right that the county would still have to approve any alternative routing.
[3:10:53] Okay, thank you.
[3:10:57] Does GCC operate any other coal mine operations similar to the one in Hesperus?
[3:11:05] Oh, GCC does not operate any other coal mines.
[3:11:08] Okay.
[3:11:10] Given that, I'm not sure you're prepared to answer this next question,
[3:11:14] but are you aware of any other counties in Colorado, for example, that do have coal mine
[3:11:22] operations similar to yours? And are you aware of any other, you know, what are those counties
[3:11:31] charging per ton for hauling, et cetera? Are there best practices you've been able
[3:11:37] to borrow from other counties?
[3:11:39] I
[3:11:43] really can't speak to that level of detail.
[3:11:46] I do know that in the North Fork Valley around Payonia, there's been significant conversation
[3:11:51] between the coal operations and local jurisdictions about mine impacts.
[3:11:57] I don't know to what extent there are impact fees levied.
[3:12:03] Okay.
[3:12:04] Thank you.
[3:12:05] I do believe our county did have discussions with perhaps Rao County about its operations
[3:12:12] with Peabody.
[3:12:13] Okay.
[3:12:15] It's correct.
[3:12:16] Daniel Murray Plain Department.
[3:12:17] We did have a conference call with the Routt County and the Peabody Mine.
[3:12:22] Can you tell me what they charge per ton for impacts to the roads?
[3:12:29] I
[3:12:34] remember on the top of my head, in fact, they had their whole program entirely differently structured.
[3:12:41] For example, they issue a permit for the mine, they issue a permit for the road.
[3:12:45] So they approach it in a different way and they also have rail transport so that it's not necessarily a
[3:12:53] Identical comparison because we don't have that option. Okay. Do we have an amount per ton? Does any staff
[3:13:03] Remember what they charge per ton?
[3:13:06] Daniel's correct. We had those
[3:13:08] discussions
[3:13:10] Some time ago with Routt County, but I don't recall either and I'm looking around tables
[3:13:15] We'll see if anybody recalls the rate that they mentioned to us.
[3:13:22] Do you need the trust, do you mind?
[3:13:25] Commissioner Lachal, if you need staff to pursue that information, we can certainly do that.
[3:13:31] Okay. I think it would be helpful to have a comparison,
[3:13:34] just so we understand if we're in the ballpark with similar counties,
[3:13:39] similar operations, if we're charging too much, too little.
[3:13:43] Just for comparison. Commissioner, if I may, just to go back
[3:13:47] to your prior question, we've identified the emergency response plan as being item 5050
[3:13:52] in your packet.
[3:13:53] Thank you.
[3:13:59] Okay, Mr. Chair, I think that concludes the majority of my questions for the moment.
[3:14:03] Thank you.
[3:14:04] I am back to my monitoring wells question and would like to just ask a couple of questions
[3:14:12] on that.
[3:14:15] If you could identify yourself and your address, please.
[3:14:20] Yes, sir. Landon Beck, Resource Hydrogeologic Services,
[3:14:24] PO Box 2836, Durango, Colorado, 81301.
[3:14:29] Can you spell your first name?
[3:14:31] L-A-N-D-O-N.
[3:14:35] Thank you.
[3:14:37] Can you speak to the nature and the number of monitoring wells
[3:14:41] and the location generally?
[3:14:43] You don't have to pinpoint them, but maybe generally.
[3:14:47] Are we talking about the proposed wells that we're...
[3:14:52] Right. Okay. So currently proposed are for what we call clusters. That's just...
[3:15:00] As their monitor wells close together. Four clusters of three wells each, and each of those wells
[3:15:07] will be completed in a discrete interval to monitor both water levels and water quality
[3:15:13] if water is even present. The locations of those which were, you know, subject to TR-26
[3:15:22] on going technical revision with the state, GRMS.
[3:15:28] What we've done is we've placed one cluster to the north of the mine,
[3:15:32] which is considered UpGradient.
[3:15:34] That will provide baseline data.
[3:15:37] In other words, data that will be collected in order to show background.
[3:15:46] Natural conditions can't possibly be affected by any mining by GCC.
[3:15:52] And then what we do is we look at down gradient locations.
[3:15:57] So in this case there's two locations, cluster locations that are to the south of the project area.
[3:16:04] And then in addition to that, we have another location that is what we would call cross gradient.
[3:16:11] And that's just mostly due to the location of the Vista del Oro subdivision immediately
[3:16:20] to the west, southwest of the King Tumai.
[3:16:29] Are there any other monitoring plans for existing wells in the area?
[3:16:34] Sure.
[3:16:35] So currently, GCC monitors three existing groundwater wells, and those are in the
[3:16:46] in the Hacoalcholuvium, so just unconsolidated sediments.
[3:16:51] And the location, well I should say those three are part,
[3:16:55] those are considered compliance wells by DRMS.
[3:16:58] And those wells are sampled for water quality
[3:17:04] and also water level, depth to water measurements quarterly.
[3:17:11] And those records go back a substantial period of time.
[3:17:15] So, for example, with the King I mine, those records go back to 1982,
[3:17:21] and then the other two wells were brought online more for the King II operations ahead of the King II operations.
[3:17:32] Those wells, like I say, are monitored quarterly.
[3:17:36] We're actually in a phase now where we're monitoring the actual field parameters.
[3:17:41] So that is to say parameters such as pH, temperature, conductivity, et cetera, on a monthly basis.
[3:17:51] And then the laboratory sample collection is still on a quarterly basis.
[3:17:58] Thank you.
[3:17:59] And generally, what depth are those wells?
[3:18:02] Existing wells are because those are shallow alluvial wells.
[3:18:07] We're on the order of 20 to 30 feet.
[3:18:09] One of them is 65 feet, actually.
[3:18:12] But yes, so those are more on the shallow side.
[3:18:16] We would consider the proposed monitor well clusters.
[3:18:21] Now, those are bedrock wells, okay?
[3:18:23] So those are going to be on the order of, say, 300 feet.
[3:18:32] Mr. Chairman, Carolyn White again for the record.
[3:18:35] Yes.
[3:18:35] If I may, I would just note that your condition 17 proposed by staff is the one which requires
[3:18:41] that the data from these monitoring wells be posted on the website and made public on
[3:18:46] a going forward basis.
[3:18:48] Thank you.
[3:18:49] Thank you for your time.
[3:18:53] Any further questions?
[3:18:55] Commissioners?
[3:18:57] Council?
[3:18:59] With that, I guess we will adjourn for lunch and come back after lunch.
[3:19:08] We need one hour.
[3:19:10] One hour.
[3:19:11] And at that time, we'll hear from the
[3:19:17] neighbor's counsel.
[3:19:21] All right, we'll adjourn until 1.20.
[3:19:26] Thank you.
[3:19:28] That was fun.
[4:21:57] Testing. Thank you. We are going to call our meeting to order. Thank you for coming. And we
[4:22:06] would like to mention that because we are running late, public comment was due to start at 1.
[4:22:14] We will be hearing from the neighbors and legal counsel for the neighbors. If you would
[4:22:21] like to make public comment and you're on a very short timeline, we would welcome you
[4:22:26] to come and give public comment at this time, but we realize that it would be good to hear
[4:22:32] from the neighbors in their presentation. Is there anyone that needs to make public comment?
[4:22:40] No, you'll need to come up front. Have you filled out a –
[4:23:00] right up here at the podium,
[4:23:01] and have you filled out one of these pink slips? And what was your name, sir?
[4:23:05] John Wilson.
[4:23:06] Can you speak right into that mic and give your name and your address for the record?
[4:23:09] Yes, John Wilson, 898, Tucker Lane, Bayfield, Colorado, 81122.
[4:23:16] Thank you.
[4:23:17] You're welcome.
[4:23:20] Go ahead.
[4:23:21] You ready?
[4:23:22] You bet.
[4:23:22] Okay.
[4:23:23] I'm a retired officer at the United States Air Force, 28 years service,
[4:23:32] I slaughter to
[4:23:34] protect by oath this country from all aggressors, foreign and domestic. And that's
[4:23:46] what I feel like I'm doing today. Somebody wants to close down a perfectly
[4:23:53] good company that supports people up to 300, as I understand it, working
[4:24:00] 150 for the mine and 150 in supporting jobs, those people have families and to support
[4:24:12] the political agenda of the federal government, I find to be a crime in this case.
[4:24:19] That mine has got some of the best coal that there is.
[4:24:25] They have not been tagged for any pollution problems that I know of that the federal
[4:24:29] government has.
[4:24:30] i.e. they dropped all the stuff in the river. So they're far better off than this
[4:24:36] company is. These people, like I said behind me, I don't know a one of them other
[4:24:41] than I introduced myself to two back there. So my agenda is to support these
[4:24:46] people and their jobs and I strongly strongly recommend that you people
[4:24:53] who are here to support the people of this county do so. Thank you.
[4:25:00] Thank you, Mr. Wilson.
[4:25:08] Is there anyone else that needs to make
[4:25:21] Denise, Denise Baca?
[4:25:29] She must have had to leave.
[4:25:42] I will go ahead and just briefly read Denise's comment on her pink slip.
[4:25:46] it says, I will be presenting property value data along County Road 120 North, the effects
[4:25:52] of trucking on residents' house values. So I imagine she wanted to talk about that.
[4:26:01] For those of you who weren't here earlier, we do have, let's
[4:26:12] see, we do have some ground
[4:26:14] rules for speaking for the public during their public comment. If you'd like to speak,
[4:26:21] please complete a pink sheet and provide it to Jan or to Jeanne up here.
[4:26:28] And I will call off the names of three speakers at a time.
[4:26:32] If your name is called, please move to the front of the room and speak at the podium.
[4:26:37] We value and respect every opinion and ask that the audience to do the same by refraining
[4:26:44] from applause and outbursts.
[4:26:46] Each public speaker will be given three minutes for their public comment.
[4:26:52] Thank you.
[4:26:54] All right, now we can go ahead and switch gears again to hear the presentation by neighbors with legal counsel and board's initial questions.
[4:27:08] Thank
[4:27:20] you very much, members of the commission, Mr. Chair.
[4:27:24] here. Thank you all for allowing us to make this presentation. My name is Luke Danielson.
[4:27:32] I'm a lawyer in Gunnison, Colorado. I wanted to come down to the big city here to make
[4:27:38] this presentation. I represent Cross Creek Ranch and let me just tell you a little
[4:27:46] bit about my client. They're a landowner on County Road 120 North. It's owned by
[4:27:52] the Fouts family. The Fouts family have been active in this area since 1901, lived in the
[4:28:01] Four Corners area much longer than that. But I just wanted to say we are not here because
[4:28:08] we oppose mining. We're not here for anything other than to try to help balance the interests
[4:28:15] of the neighbors with the interests of the mining company, okay?
[4:28:20] I don't want ever, I spent my whole career trying to get us beyond the thing of,
[4:28:26] I like the mine, I don't like the mine.
[4:28:29] You know, things are much more complicated and nuanced than that,
[4:28:32] and I hope that's where we're going to go.
[4:28:35] I just wanted to,
[4:28:39] for some reason, none of these buttons seem to advance my,
[4:28:45] I guess I need to use this.
[4:28:47] Next, this is just my personal note, this is where I lived when I was a little boy.
[4:28:52] My parents taught at Fort Lewis while it was still out at the Fort before the Durango campus.
[4:28:59] And I wanted to do a little history of this.
[4:29:02] Where we were not so long ago, I'm sure some of you remember Violet Smith.
[4:29:08] I do, because I was a member of our State Mind Land Reclamation Board, and I remember
[4:29:12] Remember what our inspectors used to say when we told them they had to go out and inspect
[4:29:16] this mine?
[4:29:18] They weren't always happy about it, but basically we had a mom and pop operation out here.
[4:29:26] That's really what it was.
[4:29:27] In 2001 the Bureau of Land Management did an environmental assessment and they found
[4:29:34] that at that time, there's an estimated 18 to 28 coal trucks
[4:29:39] a day.
[4:29:40] That's what was going on out there at the time, right?
[4:29:46] And they anticipated that that would continue
[4:29:49] to be the production rate 300,000 tons a year.
[4:29:55] We now have the company having successfully
[4:29:58] made an application to the state.
[4:30:00] They raised their production rate to 1,300,000 times.
[4:30:04] So from this time to date, we've had a quadrupling of the production.
[4:30:09] It is no longer a mom-and-pop operation.
[4:30:13] And if we ever wanted to treat it like one,
[4:30:15] it's not time to do it anymore.
[4:30:18] Its impacts have grown dramatically.
[4:30:20] And it's operated by a major multinational company, OK?
[4:30:25] Grupo de Cementos de Chihuahua is a very successful
[4:30:29] cement manufacturer, a $14 billion company, it just bought this month a bunch of major
[4:30:38] assets mostly in the front range for $400 million.
[4:30:43] So this is not a company without assets and capacity.
[4:30:49] This operation has been in non-compliance with the land use code for years.
[4:30:55] Okay? Here is the August 5, 2010 letter from the county attorney that we've talked about before.
[4:31:03] This is a violation of the La Plata County land use code directing the company to get in compliance in August of 2010.
[4:31:14] Okay? Here we are almost six years later, and we're going to see what's been...
[4:31:21] Here is prior to the county's letter.
[4:31:24] If you'll see, these are production figures.
[4:31:27] Incidentally, if you're interested in these production
[4:31:31] figures, look at Carl Mount's Exhibit 35 or Attachment 35,
[4:31:42] which has all the data of that past production
[4:31:45] that he compiled.
[4:31:47] But you see that at no point did we ever
[4:31:50] get to 500,000 tons a year prior to the county letter.
[4:31:54] Here's what happened after.
[4:31:56] Here's the county letter.
[4:31:57] Suddenly we're up to 600, 800, 900, and an application
[4:32:03] to go to 1.3 million.
[4:32:06] So this is after being told that they're not
[4:32:09] in compliance with the county land use code.
[4:32:12] We see this dramatic ramping up of production,
[4:32:15] operation, during which period we never actually quite get a permit, right?
[4:32:23] Here's how that production translates to coal truck trips.
[4:32:28] As you see, there's a little bit of hatching there that represents these differences that
[4:32:33] Mr. Olsen talked about earlier between seven-day operation, six-day operation, or five-day
[4:32:40] operation.
[4:32:41] But what we're seeing here is, by our calculation,
[4:32:46] and all of our numbers are there in the record,
[4:32:49] in Mr. Mount's report,
[4:32:52] 46 coal trucks per day.
[4:32:55] That's actually double that number, 92,
[4:32:58] if you count the coming and the going.
[4:33:01] But what we see is growing coal truck traffic on that road
[4:33:07] up to where we could have reached 171 trucks, 342 trucks total a day.
[4:33:18] Okay?
[4:33:20] That's just part of the story, though, because what I'm trying to convey is that at approximately that same time,
[4:33:32] GCC, for reasons that have never really been made completely clear to us, adopted an internal
[4:33:38] policy.
[4:33:40] Prior to that time, the truck drivers had apparently been allowed to select their own routes.
[4:33:45] Some of them went on 119, some of them went on 120 South, some of them went on 120 North.
[4:33:51] But starting in 2011, all of them, 100% of them, were directed by the company onto
[4:33:57] 120 North.
[4:33:58] Okay, so it isn't just the total number of trucks ramping up,
[4:34:03] but now they're all concentrated on one road segment.
[4:34:07] Okay, so that's why we start seeing some of the concerns.
[4:34:12] This is not Violet Smith and her 18 trucks a day.
[4:34:16] Okay, what is this meant?
[4:34:18] This is from Mr. Olson's report.
[4:34:22] And this is, what is this meant for truck traffic?
[4:34:26] Well, we've gone from the 2001 level to a proposed level of 312 trips.
[4:34:36] And if you add the other trucks, the water trucks, the supply trucks, the equipment trucks bringing stuff up to the mine,
[4:34:44] and all the employee vehicles, we're talking about 660 trips a day, okay?
[4:34:51] 312 per day of these large heavy trucks.
[4:34:55] We're going to talk about these five subjects.
[4:34:59] Okay? And let me start into road safety.
[4:35:04] Just say this. There's all kind of talk about,
[4:35:08] oh, well there are all these different layers of regulation.
[4:35:11] This is an area where the county is clearly in the driver's seat.
[4:35:16] Okay? The county has the responsibility
[4:35:19] for regulating activity on county roads.
[4:35:23] It's not the Bureau of Land Management
[4:35:25] or some agency in Washington, D.C.
[4:35:27] This is the county's job, okay?
[4:35:32] And the code requires an analysis of safety
[4:35:38] as part of the application process.
[4:35:40] And we believe that the current levels of truck traffic
[4:35:44] on the current roadway just simply aren't safe.
[4:35:47] The public is exposed to unreasonable dangers.
[4:35:51] LSC transportation consultants is a highly regarded traffic engineering firm.
[4:35:58] It came out, did traffic counts, measured the curves, measured the width, did all kinds of analysis of the roadway.
[4:36:06] And this is their conclusion.
[4:36:08] At a level of 80 loaded cold trucks a day, we are not adequately ensuring a reasonable
[4:36:15] degree of public safety on the road.
[4:36:18] I've brought Jeff Hodgson, a traffic engineer with LSC here with me, and Jeff is going
[4:36:25] to explain his conclusions.
[4:36:27] Great.
[4:36:29] Thank you, Mr. Danielson.
[4:36:31] Again, Jeff Hodgson with LSC Transportation Consultants.
[4:36:35] 545 Eastpikes Peak, suite 210 Colorado Springs 80903.
[4:36:42] We're a Colorado-based traffic engineering and transportation planning sort of specialty firm.
[4:36:50] We have offices in Denver and Colorado Springs and Tahoe City, California.
[4:36:56] Speaking for myself, I have 23 years of experience in these fields,
[4:37:02] vehicles, conducting traffic impact assessment reports, traffic operations analysis, roadway
[4:37:10] geometry analysis.
[4:37:12] In addition to the reports we've submitted, I've read the reports and the staff recommendations.
[4:37:19] I've directed and supervised our personnel in the field, taking measurements and doing
[4:37:25] traffic counts and I've examined the route in detail myself on a couple of
[4:37:31] visits.
[4:37:34] Okay,
[4:37:38] there we go. If I look at the screen instead of my paper it'd be
[4:37:42] better off. Anyway, so when we prepared our reports in our evaluation we
[4:37:49] considered the factors that are shown on the slide specifically
[4:37:54] specifically calling attention to horizontal alignment and roadway widths and lane widths,
[4:38:00] as well as site distance, and the traffic volumes on the roadway, and the mix of vehicles.
[4:38:08] And it's important to note about the mix of vehicles, you know, when you talk about
[4:38:12] a local roadway and criteria, often you refer to a local roadway with a typical
[4:38:16] mix of resident, mostly residential traffic and perhaps some other uses as well.
[4:38:22] This road is highly dominated by large commercial truck traffic.
[4:38:27] It's a dominant mix of the vehicle.
[4:38:31] It's dominant in the vehicle mix on that roadway.
[4:38:33] So that's a certainly a very important consideration,
[4:38:36] just the sheer size and the number of the percentage.
[4:38:41] We looked at, and we of course looked at the crash history as well.
[4:38:45] So based on these factors, we evaluated it along with field observations and looking at county criteria first and foremost,
[4:38:58] but also looking at drawing on other criteria for some additional detail such as AASHTO, which is the roadway design handbook,
[4:39:08] work, geometric design, Institute of Transportation Engineers Resources, and other jurisdictions,
[4:39:16] other county criteria for roadways in Colorado.
[4:39:22] What we found is that when we did the analysis, we found a lot of, as has been mentioned
[4:39:29] before, the roadway is deficient.
[4:39:31] So we found a lot of deficiencies up and down County Road 120 North, and a lot of
[4:39:36] those deficiencies, kind of, they're combined deficiencies, such as a narrow width with
[4:39:43] a substandard curve and poor sight distance. And those factors kind of exasperate, you
[4:39:50] know, any one of the deficiencies alone. So our conclusion has been that the roadway
[4:39:59] is not adequate to run 80 loaded coal trucks a day and still have or ensure a reasonable
[4:40:06] degree of public safety and efficiency for the traveling public in its current condition
[4:40:12] or in a partially or phased condition.
[4:40:19] So basically, our judgment is until all the road improvements have been completed, the
[4:40:25] 55 trucks a day would be a reasonable upper limit of the trucks, of the coal transport
[4:40:32] trucks.
[4:40:33] And I made this recommendation with a little bit of reservation given the deficiencies we're seeing out there.
[4:40:43] However, it's a reasonable compromise towards that end to keep things operating.
[4:40:52] The 55 was basically, it's an adjusted number from the seven-day traffic to the six-day
[4:41:00] that represents the historical level at the time the county letter was sent to GCC.
[4:41:07] That 2010 letter at that point, that was the, it was like 46 or something like that.
[4:41:13] We adjusted it up to 55 to account for the six-state traffic.
[4:41:18] Also, that number is consistent with the Hay Gulch Citizens Advisory Panel recommendation.
[4:41:25] So that's the main basis for the 55.
[4:41:31] So when all road improvements are completed,
[4:41:35] the increased truck loading on 120 North could be accommodated.
[4:41:40] And traffic also needs to be limited during construction,
[4:41:43] and this 55 will help with that as well.
[4:41:49] So when we talk about limiting 55 trucks a day,
[4:41:55] loaded trucks on 120 north we still look at there's still the option of 120
[4:42:00] south and 119 and I'm talking about not 120 south all the way to highway 140 I'm
[4:42:07] talking about 120 south the 116 to 119 is what I'm referring to so none and
[4:42:15] none of the roads in this area are ideal to carry this volume and type of
[4:42:19] traffic.
[4:42:22] I mean, that's pretty well known. I've observed and completed some analysis
[4:42:26] of that southern route. And from what I can see, there doesn't appear to be any engineering
[4:42:33] basis for saying that trucks cannot use that route. And what I mean by that is, you know,
[4:42:40] there's been discussions of crashes and incidents and that sort of thing. And again, this
[4:42:45] The route is not ideal.
[4:42:48] However, I didn't see any evidence that would suggest
[4:42:51] that this route should be just tossed.
[4:42:53] I think it's worthy of looking at maybe doing some improvements
[4:42:57] because some improvements would likely be needed,
[4:42:59] some not significant improvements,
[4:43:01] but I think some minor improvements would be needed.
[4:43:05] And perhaps some of the techniques have been used on 120
[4:43:09] with some of the slowing, the changes of the speed limits
[4:43:12] could be applied on 120.
[4:43:14] Whereas before, maybe they didn't try some of those approaches when they said it failed before.
[4:43:22] So bottom line is one-way truck traffic where they arrive one way and depart another.
[4:43:28] Maybe the best solution to allow GCC to have more trucks yet still stay below that 55 trucks a day
[4:43:37] so they can expand and use the other route to get to allow more trucks
[4:43:42] by splitting the ins and the outs.
[4:43:48] So this is just a quick excerpt of what I was, I'm just going to briefly go over this.
[4:43:53] This is what I talk about sort of a couple of the deficiencies that we see.
[4:43:58] And this is, there's a couple of several locations along 120 North that you see this.
[4:44:02] The roadway is narrow in some cases 20 to 22 feet
[4:44:06] for the traveled way for the road vehicles,
[4:44:10] and it's on a substandard tight horizontal curve.
[4:44:14] The way trucks operate, they need to swing wide,
[4:44:18] and they need extra width to be able to make the corner
[4:44:21] without having the rear wheels go into the ditch,
[4:44:24] so they need to use up more of the roadway.
[4:44:27] So what you see here is that basically the opposite direction
[4:44:30] paths basically overlap.
[4:44:32] They conflict.
[4:44:33] So, you know, that's a problem, and that's why the road needs to be upgraded to the current standard.
[4:44:39] And part of my recommendation for the upgraded road is to, if there's places where they have curves that need to be still tight,
[4:44:51] widen those way out according to the Asheville standards so that those truck paths don't conflict.
[4:44:57] So that's all I have for now.
[4:44:59] Thank you.
[4:45:01] Thank you. Thank you.
[4:45:08] So, you know, this is the staff report.
[4:45:11] Everyone agrees that we're talking about a traffic volume that's beyond the capacity of the existing road,
[4:45:19] that it's not up to minimum county standards.
[4:45:23] And it would only be compatible on completion of all required improvements.
[4:45:30] You know, incidentally, I would just say that's one thing I think we all agree on, is if all
[4:45:35] these improvements are done, my clients don't have any problem with the 120 truck a day limit.
[4:45:42] But we want the improvements to be done before we reach that limit.
[4:45:47] How can the county get to this 80 trucks a day?
[4:45:51] Well, you heard this thing of, well, someone told us, someone whose name has never been
[4:45:56] divulged, told us in 2014 that things were okay in 2013.
[4:46:03] You know, we submitted to the Planning Commission, and they're in the file, and I'd like them
[4:46:10] to be part of the record, letters from a majority of the residents on 120 North saying,
[4:46:16] I never told anybody that it was okay in 2013, I never heard anyone say that it
[4:46:22] was OK in 2013.
[4:46:24] And I don't think it was OK in 2013.
[4:46:27] We put in an Open Records Act request to the county
[4:46:32] for any documents that would support or contain
[4:46:35] that statement.
[4:46:35] And last Friday, we told, we don't
[4:46:38] believe any such documents exist.
[4:46:41] So the basis is, somebody said supposedly in 2014
[4:46:47] that everything was OK in 2013.
[4:46:49] team. Who said that? Who knows? We haven't been able to find them. And we've been looking.
[4:46:56] The county has no engineering study that supports 80. Let me turn to air pollution before I
[4:47:04] go too far. I'm going to cut the short in light of Commissioner Westendorf's questions.
[4:47:12] But basically, we know about the PM10 standard, and what we know is, let me just get right to this.
[4:47:22] The standard's 150, and the modeling that's been done shows what?
[4:47:28] At the McHugh residents, it's double the standard.
[4:47:31] At the Hunziker residents, it's triple the standard.
[4:47:34] And I would be delighted if the commission wants to pursue this line of questioning
[4:47:40] of why is our study different from the applicant's study.
[4:47:44] But we do all agree, I think, that long-term exposure,
[4:47:48] like living for six years in a cloud of dust
[4:47:51] while we creak our way through the permitting process,
[4:47:57] is indeed deleterious to health.
[4:48:00] OK?
[4:48:03] It's interesting, it is a function of traffic levels.
[4:48:06] One of the studies that we've submitted to you, number 37,
[4:48:14] shows if you reduce this to 2010 traffic levels,
[4:48:17] you're within the standard.
[4:48:19] It's a function of the traffic level.
[4:48:23] So this study was done on a conservative basis.
[4:48:29] The authors, one of the most respected firms in Colorado
[4:48:32] say that the this underestimates impacts okay solid waste here's what the county
[4:48:41] land use code requires all developments are required to demonstrate
[4:48:45] adequate solid waste collection and solid waste disposal sites so here's what
[4:48:53] the staff report says well we take all the waste from King to and we move it
[4:48:59] over to King 1, and that's where it's disposed of.
[4:49:03] But the staff also says the Class 2 land use permit
[4:49:07] does not include this waste disposal site, right?
[4:49:13] It's our waste, but we're not going to include it.
[4:49:16] And the staff proposal is apparently
[4:49:19] that, yes, this does need a land use permit,
[4:49:21] but at some point in the future,
[4:49:24] the company needs to come and apply for one.
[4:49:27] Maybe we can do another permitting process just like this one.
[4:49:32] So just what we want to do.
[4:49:34] But the staff position apparently is let's put all that off.
[4:49:38] We will let the company just keep dumping theirs until this happens.
[4:49:43] And while there is a condition, condition number two that talks about this,
[4:49:49] there's no condition that says that this has to be done by any particular time.
[4:49:53] There's no deadline for doing anything.
[4:49:54] This is a picture of the waste disposal site.
[4:49:59] Here's the condition.
[4:50:01] Apparently, the proposal is this.
[4:50:04] After this hearing, but before the permit issues,
[4:50:08] the company's going to write a report and come in
[4:50:11] and give us the report, which, after any opportunity
[4:50:17] for public comment, that is going
[4:50:21] to deal with the question of what's happening with the wastes, okay?
[4:50:27] So here's the deal.
[4:50:31] The county is saying, well, let's rely on the state.
[4:50:35] But four years after GCC was found in violation by the state for disposing of things here,
[4:50:43] there's still no resolution of this application.
[4:50:47] Indeed, I can bring you news.
[4:50:51] Today was the deadline by which the state was supposed to receive everything needed and act on TR20.
[4:50:58] Oh, guess what? Today the state acted to extend the deadline again, apparently at the request of GCC.
[4:51:06] So we have no decision on what monitoring is going to be done,
[4:51:10] no decision on which parameters will be modeled,
[4:51:13] no decision on whether the activity meets standards
[4:51:16] and no effective deadline for any decision.
[4:51:21] And our point is, look at the bottom, all developments are required
[4:51:25] to demonstrate adequate solid waste collection and disposal.
[4:51:30] Okay? That's our concern.
[4:51:33] Water, ground and surface water.
[4:51:39] This is what our expert, Randy Fisher, says.
[4:51:44] says, the potential water quality impacts may result in possible human and should be
[4:51:49] taken into consideration by La Plata County.
[4:51:53] The county's position is let the state take care of this.
[4:51:59] I don't know how you comply with the county land use code based on the hope that at
[4:52:03] some future date the state will do something.
[4:52:07] At this point, I'm now told that the state has received some kind of advice from GCC
[4:52:15] that some of these locations for these well clusters are going to have to be changed
[4:52:21] because they're having trouble getting access to them.
[4:52:24] And so they're going to have to reanalyze this and start all over again.
[4:52:29] So we're talking about monitoring that can't even occur until the wells are installed.
[4:52:35] We are continuously postponing this process.
[4:52:41] How can the county find compatibility for water based on the possibility that the state may at some future point take action?
[4:52:50] Okay.
[4:52:52] GCC has not come into agreement with the state.
[4:52:56] Noise.
[4:52:58] I'm just going to make these points.
[4:53:01] Mr. Dr. Braslau's report is 73.
[4:53:09] First of all, the HUD noise guidelines used in the wave engineering report are designed
[4:53:14] for like downtown Chicago or some kind of serious urban area.
[4:53:20] They're not appropriate for evaluation of rural noise.
[4:53:26] And he says, analyzing the data, there's a severe noise impact at these three monitoring
[4:53:34] sites, which I think it should be M1 and M2 and M3, and that if this were a federally
[4:53:40] funded project, federal rules would require mitigation.
[4:53:45] So this is my last slide.
[4:53:49] And again, we're really what this is supposed to say if you look at the right-hand side
[4:53:54] is 55, but we haven't adjusted it to the appropriate number of days in a week.
[4:54:01] But if you look at this, what you'll see is there are three reasons why this is appropriate.
[4:54:08] Left-hand bar, that's the level we had in 2010 when the county sent the letter saying
[4:54:13] you're not in compliance.
[4:54:15] That's the letter that Mr. Hodson has recommended as being tolerable in the short-room term as a compromise while we wait.
[4:54:26] It also gets us to air quality compliance.
[4:54:31] And it's also recommendation number one of the Hague Gulch Citizen Advisory Panel.
[4:54:38] Recommendation number one was returned to the 2010 levels immediately.
[4:54:44] So that's my presentation. I look forward to any questions, particularly about the air pollution.
[4:54:52] But let me turn this over to my colleagues.
[4:55:21] Good afternoon. My name is Paula Mathias, and I have lived at 788 Cougar Way for 13 years.
[4:55:27] Thank you for the opportunity to share a few of my personal stories of life along CR 120 North since King Col. 2 began operating.
[4:55:33] As you witnessed on your May 18th site visit, traffic counts do not include delivery vehicles, water trucks, or employees.
[4:55:41] Therefore, daily traffic related to the mine has resulted in substantial increases over the existing traffic volumes.
[4:55:48] It exceeds 600 additional vehicles utilizing our narrow rural county road.
[4:55:54] I live on Cougar Mesa. It's a subdivision located directly above where the pavement ends.
[4:55:59] Our location, coupled with the topography along the top of the nearly 9 percent variance
[4:56:05] hill, means that each loaded coal truck climbing the hill 24 hours per day creates noise pollution.
[4:56:12] Noise that is beyond the Colorado noise statute of 86 decibels.
[4:56:16] Noise that interrupts our quality of sleep.
[4:56:19] Noise that is occurring even though this hill is paved.
[4:56:23] Noise that has never been monitored at the loudest point identified by residents.
[4:56:28] Our days of enjoying a cup of coffee on the patio,
[4:56:31] admiring our rural solitude, are long gone.
[4:56:34] During your visit, Noise Along Variance Hill was one of the highlights,
[4:56:38] but as you are aware, we did not exit our vehicles to experience the noise created by a coal truck.
[4:56:44] This is unfortunate, as I know you would have agreed that the decibels reached
[4:56:49] would not have qualified for La Plata County compatibility.
[4:56:52] Another compatibility issue that was not visible during your site visit due to our lovely rainy, muddy conditions was dust.
[4:57:00] We have endured dust for way too long. My asthma has definitely worsened over the past three years as I now take two medications.
[4:57:07] Currently, the amount of water added to the dirt section of CR120 to suppress dust creates track on onto the pavement,
[4:57:13] and the dust generated by the coal trucks easily extends beyond the height of their wheels and permeates the canyon.
[4:57:21] Our biggest concern living along CR 120 North is safety.
[4:57:26] We have repeatedly heard there have been very few reported accidents on 120 North, if any.
[4:57:32] This is incorrect.
[4:57:33] On Saturday, October 18, 2014, a coal truck driver suffered a fatal heart attack near
[4:57:39] mile 1.4 in route to the mine.
[4:57:42] During the winter, trucks create safety hazards on 120 North, particularly attempting
[4:57:46] to climb the variance hill.
[4:57:48] While these incidents are not reported, they occur often and put residents' lives in danger.
[4:57:55] Let me clarify that everyone seated here today behind me has lived on CR 120 North before
[4:58:01] GCC purchased King Cole 1.
[4:58:04] We were residents before GCC introduced the semi-truck, 288 daily.
[4:58:11] Each of us does not represent a job.
[4:58:14] We represent a family, a subdivision, a neighbor.
[4:58:17] However, while concessions have been reached with the county and other community members,
[4:58:22] our concerns largely have been ignored.
[4:58:26] Had a land use permit been granted in 2010, the truck levels would have been livable
[4:58:31] and compatible at 55.
[4:58:33] Truck numbers beyond the 2010 levels were not tolerable.
[4:58:37] We are asking you to retain the character of Hegelch, to preserve the quality of
[4:58:42] lives to ensure our safety and to enforce your compatibility standards.
[4:58:47] Demonstrate to us, your county residents, that our lives do matter as much if not more than
[4:58:53] an international company's profits.
[4:58:55] Grant GC a Class II permit with the truck limit on CR 120 North of 55 trucks which
[4:59:01] equals 110 per day.
[4:59:03] Thank you.
[4:59:09] I'm Julie McHugh.
[4:59:11] I live at 2541 County Road 120.
[4:59:14] My husband Frank and I have lived here for over 32 years.
[4:59:18] That's where we raised our three children.
[4:59:21] To begin, I cannot help but shake my head and wonder how a billion dollar multinational corporation has managed to divide a beautiful small rural community.
[4:59:31] I want to thank you all for coming out to our area to try to get a better sense of what we are living with.
[4:59:38] Unfortunately, on the day of the site visit, it rained all morning, hence no dust.
[4:59:43] Also, how ironic that for the 25 minutes you stood in our front yard, a total of three
[4:59:48] trucks passed, two coal trucks, and one speeding delivery truck.
[4:59:53] That indeed was nowhere even remotely closed to a true representation of our daily life
[4:59:59] dealing with that
[5:00:00] High volume of coal trucks, delivery trucks, and mine employees.
[5:00:03] Since 2010, when GCC was notified that they needed a class 2 permit, trucks rumbling past
[5:00:09] our house has tripled. This is just one aspect we struggle with. How can they continue to
[5:00:15] operate and run an outrageous number of trucks daily when they are in noncompliance to county
[5:00:20] codes? Also, I find it incredibly insulting to think that the experts hired by GCC have
[5:00:28] stated that the quality of air in front of our home and our neighbors is within normal
[5:00:34] ranges.
[5:00:35] Over the past six years, we have been forced into our house because the air was so thick
[5:00:39] with dust we couldn't breathe.
[5:00:41] Yes, over the past few months they've watered the road, but due to the high volume of trucks,
[5:00:47] it only lasts for a short period of time at best.
[5:00:49] Over the past three to four years, my family has experienced the damaging effects
[5:00:54] of road dust in our respiratory health.
[5:00:56] So how are we going to be compensated for that?
[5:00:59] We are the people who live and breathe on this road.
[5:01:02] GCC and the planning department seem to think that by installing the temporary paving or barrier walls,
[5:01:08] they will improve the experiences of the residents along the road, and nothing is farther from the truth.
[5:01:15] We have met with them, the planning department and GCC, to discuss our situation on numerous occasions.
[5:01:23] We told them that the idea of living behind a wall, living through construction,
[5:01:27] and living with the 200-plus coal trucks daily was not acceptable.
[5:01:32] The impacts to our property value in lives are putting us between a rock and a hard place,
[5:01:36] and quite frankly, one, we are really struggling with.
[5:01:39] To continue to live in a home that we peeled the logs and then built with our own hands
[5:01:44] under circumstances that are intolerable is heartbreaking.
[5:01:48] Our reality is that we can't sell our property for who in their right mind
[5:01:52] would want to live on a coal haul road with trucks rumbling by every five minutes.
[5:01:58] We asked GCC Point Blank to purchase our property, and they even admitted that they don't want
[5:02:03] it.
[5:02:04] So tell me, what are we to do?
[5:02:08] Until the road is improved, the whole way from intersection Highway 140 to the mine,
[5:02:12] GCC should only be allowed to run those 55 trucks.
[5:02:15] In the past, coal trucks used both the north and south routes to the mine.
[5:02:18] GCC Water Truck still uses 120 South. It seemed to work for everybody and no one group had to suffer the whole burden. That's equitable.
[5:02:28] In conclusion, as we have stated from the very beginning, we do not want to shut the mind down. We just want our quality of life back.
[5:02:36] I'm asking, as a resident of La Plata County, who has lived on County Road 120 since 1984,
[5:02:44] for you, our elected officials to help us. Send a message that you care for your residents
[5:02:51] and are looking out for our welfare and safety. Commerce is only one aspect of lives. We would
[5:02:57] like to think that our quality of life does indeed matter. You were voted into your position
[5:03:02] to represent your constituents, so please protect us.
[5:03:06] Approving a Class II permit that limits trucks to 55 on County Road 120 North until
[5:03:12] all road improvements are completed. Allowing GCC to use other routes and encourage GCC to
[5:03:19] operate that mine long-term, ensuring those employees' jobs for a longer period of time.
[5:03:27] Thank you.
[5:03:35] I am Karen Hunziker. I live at 3230 County Road 120. A late friend of mine, Eleanor Frazier,
[5:03:42] and our fathers and I purchased the old hump place at 3230 County Road 120 in 1989 and trialed
[5:03:51] back and forth from Shabrak, New Mexico to care for the farm in the ranch until 2005 when
[5:03:59] I moved to the ranch full time. During this time, you never viewed more than two or three
[5:04:04] trucks a day in Hey Gulch and in front of my house. You could run, walk your dogs,
[5:04:11] rides your horses up and down County Road 120 without the screaming, whining, pounding
[5:04:18] of these coal trucks. Most of the coal trucks at this time and until 2011-2012 were traveling
[5:04:26] southbound on CR 119 to 140 intersection by Fort Lewis Elementary School. The trucks
[5:04:35] Passed by Bruce Kowalski's house he did not like these trucks and he kept the
[5:04:41] trucks from going by his house and the route was changed. When the trucks
[5:04:48] slowly traveled 120 north the dust ball of the 1930s came back. Sometimes the
[5:04:54] dust is so bad I can't see. Trucks now are increasing and have tripled in
[5:05:01] volume passing by my house. Where is the permit? No permit. Wow. This now is very scary situation
[5:05:13] when I walk up my steps from my home to CR 120 and have a truck at my shoulders as I am
[5:05:22] getting in and out of my truck or car. I met with Mike Olson and Wade Widmore in January
[5:05:29] where I had told them I did not want a barrier in front of my property.
[5:05:34] I do not understand where the wall would go or
[5:05:38] a new road would fit between my house and the small portion of the road.
[5:05:45] Be real, truck limits 55 a day and let the mine stay open, they don't need to close.
[5:05:59] My name is Gary Grantham, I live at 1124 County Road 120 in Hesperus.
[5:06:05] I bought the property in 1996 and have lived there continuously since 1998.
[5:06:11] I have three issues I want to talk to you about.
[5:06:15] Equal protection under the law, mitigation, compatibility, and conditional approval.
[5:06:21] The current equal protection.
[5:06:22] La Plata County's current approach to this Class II land use permit application
[5:06:26] creates serious concerns about equal protection under the law for the residents
[5:06:30] and property owners along CR120 North as well as for GCC Energy.
[5:06:36] GCC Energy invested in a business in good faith reliance upon your assurance
[5:06:40] that they did not need a Class II land use permit,
[5:06:44] so we're all here because you need to put the genie back in the bottle.
[5:06:48] Throughout this process, a great deal of testimony has been heard
[5:06:52] about the benefits of GCC Energy's presence,
[5:06:55] and I dare say you're going to hear a good bit more.
[5:06:57] These benefits are real, and they accrue broadly across many economic sectors in this region.
[5:07:05] However, they come with significant costs, and the exit application imposes the majority of those costs
[5:07:12] on a small number of property owners and residents on CR 120 North.
[5:07:17] GCC's energy preference for CR 120 North is based solely on cost,
[5:07:23] And I would suggest to the commissioners that compromising the safety, health, quality of life, and property values for a select group of citizens in order to minimize project costs for a corporate applicant, and because it is politically expedient, does not constitute equal protection under the law.
[5:07:42] At the last planning commission hearing, the commissioners commented that, quote, CR 120 North is getting the short end of the stick, unquote.
[5:07:50] Why is that acceptable?
[5:07:53] Why should the health, safety, quality of life, and property values of one group of property owners trump those of another?
[5:08:01] We have been told by the Planning Department, the Fort Lewis Mesa Fire Protection District,
[5:08:07] GCC Energy's Road Consultant that it's better to focus all the negative impacts on the smallest group.
[5:08:13] Our neighbors on alternate routes tell us it's because there aren't many of us.
[5:08:17] We're older, and we don't have children.
[5:08:20] None of those arguments would be acceptable if the word black was substituted as the description.
[5:08:26] So, hashtag CR120 North Lives Matter.
[5:08:30] It's the county's duty to provide equally for the safety of all its residents.
[5:08:35] A six-fold increase in traffic results in an exponentially higher probability of an accident.
[5:08:41] When that increase is predominantly due to heavy trucks,
[5:08:43] and the probable severity of the accident has a multiplier of at least 20.
[5:08:48] There are no detailed plans to address the numerous limited visibility issues,
[5:08:52] driveways, stone outcroppings, which also increase the probability of an accident
[5:08:57] and its probable severity.
[5:08:58] In fact, as you've heard today, there are no detailed plans for the road, period.
[5:09:04] Emergency response times, EMS, fire police for any group should not be highly veritable.
[5:09:10] Routing all the whole traffic on CR 120 North makes it likely that a 20-minute response time could increase to 60-plus minutes,
[5:09:18] depending upon truck activity, time of day, and what kind of construction is going on.
[5:09:23] It's clearly a reduction in current service levels for the CR 120 North residents.
[5:09:28] These examples, and there are many others, reflect the view that it's permeated this entire process for the last three years,
[5:09:37] that the safety, health, quality of life, and property values of CR 120 North residents
[5:09:43] are expendable for the greater good of our neighbors, GCC Energy, and the county.
[5:09:49] And we just simply don't subscribe to that view.
[5:09:53] Now to move to no mitigation, no compatibility.
[5:09:57] Many of the mitigation measures proposed in this application simply substitute one
[5:10:01] and first impact for another.
[5:10:03] For example, five trucks and hoes to tail 20 minutes apart or five trucks four minutes apart, your choice.
[5:10:12] Bothered by the noise or the view, we'll put up an 8-foot wall and you can look at the back of that.
[5:10:17] An even more egregious example is the major mitigation proposed.
[5:10:21] A local 10-plus units paved highway with 12-foot lanes, 3-foot shoulders, and a 60-foot right-of-way.
[5:10:28] This highway, if completed, would be totally beyond comparison to any other county road in the area.
[5:10:35] In our view, such a local 10-plus units highway would, in and of itself, adversely and irrevocably
[5:10:43] alter the character of the Upper Hague-Altsch neighborhood.
[5:10:47] Nothing that even remotely mitigates the adverse impact of this 60-foot wide stab through the heart of our neighborhood
[5:10:54] has been offered by GCC or proposed by the Planning Department.
[5:10:59] Rather than making GCC Energy's industrial presence compatible with the neighborhood,
[5:11:05] what this highway would do is completely transform the neighborhood
[5:11:08] to make it compatible with GCC Energy.
[5:11:13] Now, to turn to conditional approval,
[5:11:15] we recognize that the concept of mitigation to achieve compatibility
[5:11:19] embodied in the La Plata County land use code
[5:11:21] road is highly subjective and largely a matter of perception.
[5:11:26] If you choose to accept the local 10-plus units highway as mitigation that achieves compatibility,
[5:11:32] we urge you to reject the proposed road improvement agreement.
[5:11:36] Limit the number of trucks to 2010 levels until the entire haul road is completed
[5:11:40] and cap the number of trucks on the completed haul road at 120.
[5:11:45] We would remind the commissioners that alternate routes exist and that limited
[5:11:50] temporary use of them as a condition of approval, would lessen the business impact on GCC energy,
[5:11:57] and facilitate timely completion of GCC's Hall Road.
[5:12:02] Mitigation delayed is mitigation denied.
[5:12:06] Thank you for your attention.
[5:12:37] Mr. President, while she's opening that up, I'll go ahead and introduce myself.
[5:12:40] My name is Jeff Robbins, 670 Second Avenue here in Durango, Colorado.
[5:12:44] I represent all of these folks.
[5:12:45] They're members of Southwest Colorado Advocates, which is a nonprofit.
[5:12:50] Its members are owners of property along County Road 120 and 120 North.
[5:12:57] So we wanted you to hear from them.
[5:13:00] They are the impact of folks involved in all this.
[5:13:04] I'm going to sum it up with a little bit of a presentation now.
[5:13:08] Now, they all, to a T, don't want this road in its improved state.
[5:13:18] As Mr. Grantham just said, that will change the neighborhood.
[5:13:22] It will turn it from the rural neighborhood that it is now to a different neighborhood because of the road.
[5:13:30] Now, having said that, though, they're all willing to allow it to happen
[5:13:33] and willing to allow all of the improvements to take place
[5:13:36] and willing to allow GCC to have the ultimate number of trucks that they
[5:13:41] desire, which is 120. Between now and then, though, they ask you to put a hard
[5:13:48] number on the number of trucks at 55. And here's how we get there. We
[5:13:55] submit that GCC is asking you to waive and not apply a current county design
[5:14:00] standards for the first five years of this project. This you cannot and should
[5:14:04] not do. You cannot ignore and fail to apply county code provisions applicable to this
[5:14:09] project, and you should not because it's fundamentally unfair. But having identified that as a problem,
[5:14:15] we will propose a solution.
[5:14:18] All right. So here are some of the standards. Development-generating traffic, which is
[5:14:24] above the current surface-level capacities of the roads, is prohibited unless improved
[5:14:28] to meet service level needs. GCC's proposed truck level is beyond what is allowable on
[5:14:42] County Road 120 right now. I think we've heard from pretty much everybody that there's agreement
[5:14:47] on that. Here are the road design standards. The project produces a large volume load of
[5:14:53] traffic that is beyond the capacity of the current road.
[5:14:58] This is the design standard.
[5:15:00] That is applicable. Jim Davis spoke to it. The applicant spoke to it. Our engineers spoke to it.
[5:15:06] There are five things that are needed, a surface width of 24 feet plus three shoulders,
[5:15:10] 60 feet of right-of-way. It must be paved and it must meet site distance and horizontal alignment.
[5:15:18] Everyone agrees the standard applies. Staff, GCC, Mr. Hodston.
[5:15:27] It's a shall, guys. It's not a may.
[5:15:29] New developments shall be required to construct improvements to existing roads on-site and off-site
[5:15:34] in accordance with their projected impact on these roads.
[5:15:39] This is a required standard. You can only approve this if the application meets all required standards
[5:15:45] and you determine it to be compatible, which we'll talk about.
[5:15:51] Compliance with the standard is required up front and phasing is not allowed.
[5:15:56] With regard to commercial projects in this community,
[5:16:00] oftentimes offsite improvements need to be engaged in.
[5:16:04] Those need to take place before the new development uses those roads.
[5:16:12] La Plata County Code does not allow the standard to be met via phasing the improvements.
[5:16:17] However, GCC is asking the applicant proposes to achieve these minimum requirements
[5:16:21] via an executed RIA capturing the improvements
[5:16:24] within a phased development schedule.
[5:16:28] We don't believe GCC can ask you to do that.
[5:16:33] Jim is put in a tough spot.
[5:16:35] He's gone on record saying that he's okay with this.
[5:16:39] We will allow them to continue to transport the coal
[5:16:41] prior to completing the reconstruction
[5:16:43] of the North 6.4 miles of County Road 120
[5:16:46] to current standards.
[5:16:49] County staff is in a tough spot too.
[5:16:51] And they admit this is not the typical approach.
[5:16:55] Projects compliant with the county code typically complete all public improvements prior to
[5:16:59] commencement of the permitted use.
[5:17:01] I would suggest that county projects are always required to construct necessary improvements
[5:17:05] before the commercial use starts up.
[5:17:10] Here's staff's justification in page 11 of the staff report.
[5:17:14] With this existing use and outstanding land use permit, additional tools are sometimes
[5:17:18] needed to bring the project into compliance.
[5:17:22] We are sympathetic to staff, as we mentioned.
[5:17:24] It's been put in a tough spot, but it cannot create additional tools out of thin air.
[5:17:29] The tools that are available to you are the ones contained in your land use code.
[5:17:34] GCC cannot simply suggest that the county waive application of this standard for the first
[5:17:39] five years and allow the coal mine to access over an admitted non-code compliant road
[5:17:44] during that time frame, nor can the county develop a non-code-based mitigation measures
[5:17:48] no matter how nice they may be and substitute them for the objective road design standards
[5:17:53] contained within the code.
[5:17:57] DCC proposes mitigation.
[5:17:59] Staff admits the compliance occurs once all the road
[5:18:02] improvements are accomplished.
[5:18:05] Here's why I suggest that you can't not apply Title 74,
[5:18:10] Chapter 91, upfront and require all the improvements.
[5:18:14] And it's because that is the code.
[5:18:16] And the intent of your road design section is to provide
[5:18:19] the design engineer with standards that will ensure
[5:18:21] the design and construction of roadways, which will
[5:18:24] incorporate high engineering qualities and provide the public a safe and durable roadway.
[5:18:31] You have standards in your book for a reason. You don't create standards by pulling mitigation
[5:18:36] tools out of the air for the first three or four years while the road is not compliant.
[5:18:42] We submit that if you waive application of 7491 at the outset and allow the applicant
[5:18:49] to use the county road before undertaking the required and necessary improvements,
[5:18:54] that this would likely be an arbitrary and capricious decision.
[5:18:57] And it would be a decision that certainly contradicts the black and white objective
[5:19:01] county road design standards.
[5:19:04] So where does that leave us?
[5:19:06] GCC is requesting you approve the application as is, with a phase set of road improvements.
[5:19:12] We are concerned for you to approve it that way.
[5:19:15] We were concerned that that would force us to ask a judge
[5:19:18] whether that action is indeed arbitrary or capricious
[5:19:20] and contrary to county road standards.
[5:19:22] I think we've made the case that it would be, that you've got to apply 7491 up front
[5:19:28] and that they can only use the road once it is in a completed application.
[5:19:37] So here's the no lawsuit option.
[5:19:39] And you've heard it from all the neighbors, you've heard it from Mr. Hoxton, phase it,
[5:19:43] but reduce the trucks to 55 in the interim.
[5:19:46] As you heard from Mr. Hoxton, the 55 number, he's not very comfortable with it.
[5:19:50] He would rather it be a number less than that.
[5:19:54] But in talking with him, he believes that you can get a reasonable compromise for interim truck numbers
[5:20:00] assuring a reasonable degree of safety at 5580Ts, or 110-roundship trucks.
[5:20:06] The neighbors have agreed. They're not happy with it either, but they've agreed to 55.
[5:20:11] This number also correlates with the 2010 truck levels.
[5:20:15] Therefore, it correlates with any grandfathered argument GCC may have to run trucks.
[5:20:19] The grandfathered argument is their argument that they were told earlier and they didn't
[5:20:23] need a permit.
[5:20:24] And then in 2010 they were told they needed a permit.
[5:20:27] So it's at that 2010 level, the number of trucks they're running there.
[5:20:30] That's the number of trucks that they could argue somehow or another that they could
[5:20:33] run without any permit.
[5:20:35] So the 55 works from a safety perspective.
[5:20:38] The neighbors are willing to choke it down and it correlates with the 2010 levels.
[5:20:43] It's also consistent with the Hay Gulch folks.
[5:20:47] If GCC needs to run more trucks, I would submit that's irrelevant.
[5:20:51] I would ask you to Google your land use code for the word economic, and you won't find
[5:20:56] it.
[5:20:56] It's not part of your land use code criteria.
[5:20:59] But if they need more trucks in the interim, between now and the time all the improvements
[5:21:03] are done, they can always run them south like they used to.
[5:21:06] And we heard from Mr. Hogston that that may take some work, but it is a viable
[5:21:10] alternative.
[5:21:13] Finally, under this option, GCC controls the pace of development.
[5:21:17] They could do all the improvements this year, and then they get 120 trucks.
[5:21:23] We suggest you remove phasing from the RA altogether.
[5:21:27] That it's 55, and then once all the improvements are done,
[5:21:30] it jumps to what they have asked for, which is 120.
[5:21:34] The only interim measure is the 5580T on 120 North.
[5:21:38] And again, that doesn't preclude them from running additional trucks south.
[5:21:42] So I've got for you revised findings and conditions, and I've got for you a revised road improvements agreement.
[5:21:52] Having identified a problem, we wanted to provide you with a solution.
[5:21:59] What the revised findings do in Redline is remove the phasing out of it, and it removes the 80 and the 100.
[5:22:05] It substitutes in 55. That's essentially the changes, and I've got copies for you, Carolyn, as well.
[5:22:11] So, for the reasons articulated by my clients and co-counselor, Mr. Danielson, we submit
[5:22:17] this project as not compatible, air, water, noise, dust, traffic.
[5:22:22] We submit they've not met their requirement to establish compatibility, but we understand
[5:22:28] that the county is looking hard for a win-win.
[5:22:31] We understand and we appreciate the amount of time and effort the county and GCC for
[5:22:36] that matter have put into this application.
[5:22:38] It has been a monumental task.
[5:22:40] But we think that you can only find a win-win if in the interim a safe number of trucks
[5:22:47] is traveling on that road before all the improvements are done.
[5:22:51] Therefore we request you amend the findings, conditions, and the RIA consistent with our
[5:22:56] revisions to allow at most 55 ADTs during the interim and prior to the code-required
[5:23:02] improvements to County Road 120 North.
[5:23:04] remove all other phasing and let the applicant control its own destiny to
[5:23:09] achieve the ultimate 120 ADTs that it desires after the improvements are
[5:23:13] completed.
[5:23:15] Thank you. Any of our clients or here, our expert is here if you have
[5:23:21] any questions for us.
[5:23:26] State Cynthia Robach Southwest Advocates 213 West 26th Street. We had one
[5:23:37] resident who didn't have time to speak and if it's okay with you he's going to
[5:23:42] get a pink slip and speak during the public. You have five minutes and twenty seconds.
[5:23:53] I'm Tom, Dr. Tom Williams, 1644 County Road 120 Hesperus and a landowner in County Road 120
[5:24:00] for 20 years and I oppose this class 2 permit. I'm a board certified fellowship
[5:24:05] trained otolaryngologist and I treat disease of the upper airway in
[5:24:09] perineasal sinuses.
[5:24:11] Astonishingly, GCC has increased their coal production by 300 percent since moving to their
[5:24:16] new location with no permit.
[5:24:18] With this higher production, truck traffic has correspondingly increased to a dangerous
[5:24:23] level as demonstrated by the January McFeel report.
[5:24:28] This report indicates that increased truck traffic on the unpaid portions of the road
[5:24:32] produces dust that exceeds the EPA air quality standards.
[5:24:36] As a physician, I personally have personal experience treating adverse effects of the toxic levels of road dust.
[5:24:44] The road dust has been shown to exacerbate asthma, sinus disease, and pulmonary disease.
[5:24:49] Of course, particles from the road dust will lodge in the upper airway system and will cause severe irritation.
[5:24:56] Effects are more pronounced in infants and the elderly and those with asthma are shown by our residents.
[5:25:04] These particles are also linked to respiratory cancers.
[5:25:08] We've been told by GCC that their mitigation will reduce dust to the level of truck tires that height.
[5:25:17] I personally have witnessed dust clouds and hay gulfs residents have video and picture evidence
[5:25:22] of dust plumes billowing above the trucks, coating surrounding trees and rooftops.
[5:25:26] Contrary to the conclusion of GCC's Trinity Consultants, at present level of truck traffic,
[5:25:32] the dust concentrations on CR 120 extend far past the roadway as demonstrated by the McFeel report.
[5:25:41] This is also demonstrated in the literature. A CSU paper shows that for every vehicle traveling
[5:25:48] on an unpaved road, one mile for one day per year, one ton of dust is deposited along the
[5:25:55] corridor extending 500 feet out from the median. That's for passenger cars, for
[5:26:03] coal trucks. At present levels, we calculated it to be 50,000 tons in six
[5:26:07] months. Also, dust from 120 is a particular concern due to the coal in
[5:26:12] the dust that drops from the trucks. This has not been studied, but coal
[5:26:16] dust contains heavy metals and is a carcinogen. The amount in our road
[5:26:20] dust is unknown. And since the PEM 2.5 is linked with premature mortality and cardiovascular
[5:26:26] disease and respiratory illness, this is a danger. The second health concern is noise
[5:26:32] pollution from the high volume of trucks.
[5:26:35] The high decibel episodic intermittent noise
[5:26:38] production is one of the worst forms of noise pollution and is related to cardiovascular
[5:26:43] disease, heart attacks, hypertension, and behavioral changes. These include fatigue,
[5:26:48] decrease working capacity and disturbed family relationships and high stress.
[5:26:55] The effects are worsened when sleep is disturbed, and this can cause irreversible
[5:27:00] medical complications, including decreased alertness that leads to accidents,
[5:27:05] injuries, and death. The medication, the mitigation effects or efforts by
[5:27:10] GCC to control the dust and noise are ineffectual due to the sheer volume
[5:27:15] of trucks. The McFeel report concluded that decreasing the truck numbers to 2010 levels
[5:27:22] of 55 per day significantly reduces dust production enough to mitigate the damaging effects. I
[5:27:29] agree with that conclusion, and I urge the commissioners to protect the health of the
[5:27:33] Plata County residents and return the GCC truck traffic to 2010 levels until the
[5:27:41] road is paved for its entire length. Thank you very much.
[5:27:44] Thank you.
[5:27:47] All
[5:27:53] right. Thank you for your testimony and questions from commissioners.
[5:28:06] Okay. I'll be happy to start this time around. Thank you very much for your presentation.
[5:28:13] A lot of thought went into all of your comments.
[5:28:17] I guess, Mr. Hudson, I'd like to start with some questions for you regarding your study.
[5:28:26] I guess to make it simple, why 55? Why not 60? Why not 65? 70? Can you explain your rationale?
[5:28:36] Sure. You know, when we looked at the 55, it's essentially the number, it's the adjusted number to six days a week.
[5:28:48] It's those 2010 levels at the time the letter was sent to GCC telling them they needed to get a permit.
[5:28:56] So essentially anything, the way I think of it, anything above that level, if you increase traffic generation or loading,
[5:29:05] is new traffic, it's new development traffic.
[5:29:09] So that's the way I see it, is anything above that level should be considered new traffic.
[5:29:16] And so that's the main point there.
[5:29:19] And again, the Hague Gulch Advisory Committee also recommended that.
[5:29:24] So some of the other reasons, you know, the 55,
[5:29:31] you know, it's mentioned,
[5:29:32] And if you have 80, it's basically every 5.8 minutes,
[5:29:38] I think, during peak times.
[5:29:40] It's essentially the truck volumes.
[5:29:44] There's a built-in 20% variation to that.
[5:29:48] So the 55 is actually the monthly average.
[5:29:51] And they're allowed to deviate up to 20% on any given day
[5:29:57] above that 55 number.
[5:30:00] So, for a good chunk of the days, in looking at their past truck data, there is quite a bit
[5:30:09] of variation there taking advantage of that. And that 20 percent, that 55, considers that,
[5:30:16] you know, that many a day they're going to have quite a bit more than that 55. And then
[5:30:21] some days they'll have less than that. But it's those days, and it's a significant
[5:30:26] number of days, when you have 20% over that, you've got that much more exposure to that
[5:30:35] much more volume of trucks on the roadway.
[5:30:37] So that's the other part of that.
[5:30:46] And then again, to consider the roadway standards, and this is common of a lot of counties,
[5:30:53] a local roadway talks about in terms of number of single-family dwelling units.
[5:30:58] It's equivalent to 380 T as equivalent to 30 single-family homes.
[5:31:05] And it's a general mix of traffic as it's mostly residential with maybe some businesses thrown in.
[5:31:11] But in this case, we're talking about a much greater, it's a commercial,
[5:31:18] it's dominated by large commercial trucks.
[5:31:21] It's not your typical local roadway.
[5:31:23] So that's that's another reason I looked at that as well. It was because it's not your typical
[5:31:28] local roadway traffic mix. So
[5:31:32] Thank you. And for the record you mentioned
[5:31:35] The company could split
[5:31:37] it's
[5:31:39] The route and take some of the trucks south that would be if it wanted an increase over the 55 on county road
[5:31:47] 120 north if it needed more trucks per day to meet its
[5:31:53] obligations, you could send that traffic south.
[5:31:55] Sure. The 55 is basically your trip loaded truck.
[5:32:00] That's your trip generation. That's what the mine generates in terms of traffic.
[5:32:04] You can choose to load it all onto 120 north
[5:32:08] and keep that 55 on that road and not do anything
[5:32:12] and not load it south. Or you could take a look at
[5:32:15] ways that you could, and as I said, 120 south
[5:32:20] and 119 aren't perfect either, but it's a way that I think with some relatively minor
[5:32:28] improvements and some splitting of the traffic, they could get more truck-trip generation and
[5:32:37] more coal production by splitting that up and taking advantage of that.
[5:32:42] Did you analyze in your report what exact improvements would need to be made to the
[5:32:48] road going to the south?
[5:32:50] Well, to start with, I looked at, in my letter of April 7th,
[5:32:55] I show a potential improvement down at Highway 140.
[5:33:01] I think part of the reason there was a problem before is that
[5:33:04] trucks couldn't make...
[5:33:06] Can I bring this up and show it to you?
[5:33:11] It's in the reported figure A7 in our...
[5:33:15] attachment, is it? Do you have an attachment number?
[5:33:19] It's figure A7. It's the last page of the letter.
[5:33:26] I've got 76 other letters.
[5:33:31] April...I don't have the...it's our April 7 supplemental letter.
[5:33:49] Anyway, it basically shows a radius improvement on the...
[5:33:57] It's basically on the southwest corner of County Road 119 and Highway 140.
[5:34:04] Attachment 72.
[5:34:06] Because of the skew of the intersection, I can understand why they couldn't, trucks without an improvement,
[5:34:13] like trying to use it as it exists today, you can't make the turn because the truck would swing into the oncoming traffic.
[5:34:20] So what they did was they, I believe that what they did was run it straight across and
[5:34:24] that's creating, created some problems with the school and the parent pickup.
[5:34:28] But if they would, if this radius were improved, and from what I could tell, there may be
[5:34:34] the right of way to do it.
[5:34:36] If you improve that radius, this truck can make that turn and enter that southbound lane without
[5:34:41] encroaching in the northbound lane.
[5:34:43] So that's just one possibility that they could look at for an improvement that could help.
[5:34:49] And there's some other radius improvements that they could do along 119 and that 120,
[5:34:56] 116 route that they could look into.
[5:34:59] And then again, applying some of those things that they've done on 120 North,
[5:35:03] the speeds to maybe make that a viable route.
[5:35:07] And again, it's only for a short period of time until they get the road finished on 120 North.
[5:35:13] So it's not there. It's not being used in perpetuity. It's just for a short period of time
[5:35:21] Thank you.
[5:35:24] Hi next question is for staff
[5:35:30] Right ask mr. As long as Mr. Hudson's up on the mr. Hudson continued this line of questioning for you
[5:35:38] Commissioner lackled asked a question that I had intended to ask but I have a follow-up and that is you talked about a
[5:35:45] truck exiting off of 119 onto Highway 140. What issues are related to that intersection
[5:35:52] for enter only, let's say? For enter only, it's probably more costly
[5:36:01] and higher because if you enter traffic that way, you're probably looking at a left turn
[5:36:08] improvement on the state highway, which is it can get pretty extensive at 65 miles an
[5:36:15] hour to do a left turn when you have to typically widen both sides, you have to widen on the
[5:36:20] north side. So the entering component is probably more extensive in terms of improvements.
[5:36:28] If you exit the trips that way and if they're exiting south, you probably don't have
[5:36:37] enough traffic from what I could tell to justify the need to build an acceleration lane. Now
[5:36:44] that's up to CDOT to make that determination. But looking at the numbers, it didn't look
[5:36:49] like it necessarily required an acceleration lane going south. So all that perhaps could
[5:36:56] be needed is the radius improvement so that the truck could make that turn.
[5:37:03] My understanding was that the loaded trucks were more post-higher risk than unloaded trucks.
[5:37:12] And so if that was the exit route, if it ran from the north end to the south end, those
[5:37:18] would be loaded trucks dealing with the five-county road intersections and more hills and so on
[5:37:24] that made that less desirable as an exit route for loaded trucks.
[5:37:31] That's something to consider, sure.
[5:37:34] But looking at that section to the south,
[5:37:39] it's much less sort of mountainous terrain
[5:37:41] than you have further onto County Road 120 North.
[5:37:46] The grades are more rolling.
[5:37:48] They're not as severe in terms of the grades.
[5:37:54] Thank you.
[5:38:01] I have no questions.
[5:38:02] Thank you.
[5:38:02] Can I ask one way there?
[5:38:04] Sure.
[5:38:07] When you say that improvements can be done to 120 South or minor improvements, do you
[5:38:12] also have an opinion as to how many trucks could go that route safely or vehicles just
[5:38:19] in general, given the improvements that you have contemplated?
[5:38:26] Yeah.
[5:38:27] I wouldn't probably – I mean, I think you could probably do half the trucks, the
[5:38:33] exiting vehicles that perhaps want to go to the South, to New Mexico, which is
[5:38:38] probably three-quarters of them. I mean, I would want to take a look at a little more
[5:38:43] detail before I make a determination as to the number. But I think it's worthy of...
[5:38:50] Between 25 to 30, is that what you're saying?
[5:38:56] That's 55 times three-quarters of that. But I would, you know, I'd want to look at in
[5:39:04] more detail before I make an assessment, you know, put a definite number and put my name
[5:39:09] on it and all that. But one of my points is I think it's worth looking at that route as
[5:39:14] an option to give an opportunity for more trucks than just using 120 North and doing the 55.
[5:39:24] Thank
[5:39:27] you.
[5:39:30] Mr. Davis, a question.
[5:39:33] Mr. Danielson stated that the, I believe it was Mr. Danielson, stated that the county
[5:39:39] has no study supporting the 80 truck trips per day.
[5:39:43] Would you agree with that statement?
[5:39:46] The county does not typically prepare, excuse me, the county does not typically prepare
[5:39:51] a traffic study for development that's typically done by the developers consultant.
[5:39:55] In this case here, GCC had Mike Olsen with Roadrunner Engineering provided traffic study.
[5:40:01] We evaluate that.
[5:40:02] We comment on that.
[5:40:04] That's typically how we approach most development proposals.
[5:40:09] So other than our local knowledge and our review of that report, we did not complete
[5:40:14] a traffic impact study independently from the one that GCC did.
[5:40:21] Thank you.
[5:40:22] And then a question from Mrs. White.
[5:40:24] I believe I heard earlier that the company, if paving adequately mitigates the dust and
[5:40:38] noise impacts that you do not plan to install the barriers that you have in your report?
[5:40:45] Mr. Chairman, Commissioner, again, Caroline White for the record on behalf of the applicant.
[5:40:52] No, that is not the case.
[5:40:54] The condition of approval for the buffers is available regardless.
[5:41:00] What I said was that our study, the modeling predicts that whether the barriers are installed
[5:41:06] or not, the noise levels will be below the state limits.
[5:41:11] If the private entities along the road elect to have the barriers installed, that will
[5:41:16] further reduce the noise limits, but it's not that if the company paves it that they're
[5:41:20] not available.
[5:41:21] They're both conditions of approval.
[5:41:24] Thank you.
[5:41:25] And then one final line of questioning for Mr. Danielson regarding air quality.
[5:41:37] You mentioned in closing that you wished that you hoped that the commissioners would ask
[5:41:45] you some questions, more questions regarding air quality.
[5:41:48] Can you discuss?
[5:41:51] I can definitely address the question of why our study is different from their study.
[5:41:57] Okay. Thank you. I would appreciate that.
[5:41:59] Our expert has already done that in What's Attachment 52.
[5:42:03] Look, none of the differences between the two studies amount to a hill of beans except for two.
[5:42:11] Okay. I mean, there's a long discussion of something that in the end would mean a difference of 0.04%.
[5:42:18] I'm leaving that out. There are two issues, right?
[5:42:22] One issue is we know that if you put mag chloride and water on a dirt road, there's less dust, right?
[5:42:31] And our expert says, based on a bunch of studies that he cites, that that reduces the dust by 50%.
[5:42:43] Their expert says it reduces dust by 84 percent.
[5:42:50] Okay, so if you assume 84 percent dust controlled by the water in magchloride as opposed to 50 percent, you get a lot of reduction.
[5:42:59] I will say that the Trinity expert, Mr. Masuda,
[5:43:07] He says that he cites a reference for the 84% figure,
[5:43:14] but the reference refers to control by a product called soil cement,
[5:43:18] which is a bonding kind of synthetic material that creates kind of a surface on there.
[5:43:25] And mag chloride is certainly a much less effective, but that's where he gets the 84%.
[5:43:31] And that's why we disagree.
[5:43:33] We don't think soil cement and mag chloride are equivalent.
[5:43:36] The second issue is, he referenced this, what percentage of the material in the road is silt?
[5:43:45] I will say, if you look at our report, we tried to hire Dave Trautner to go out and actually take a sample to tell us,
[5:43:52] but the road was frozen and we couldn't do it.
[5:43:56] So our expert says 8.4% is silt, fine particles.
[5:44:03] Mr. Masura says that it's 1.5%.
[5:44:08] Here's where we got the 8.4%.
[5:44:11] It's when GCC submitted their permit application
[5:44:17] to the State Air Quality Control Commission
[5:44:19] for the road that's on their site
[5:44:21] that goes from their plant out to the 120.
[5:44:25] What figure did they use in there for the silt content?
[5:44:29] 8.4%.
[5:44:30] Okay, so we use their own figure, and now they're telling us they need to reduce their own figure by 80%.
[5:44:40] And so that's where the two differences are.
[5:44:45] Thank you.
[5:44:49] Any questions for now, Mr. Chair?
[5:44:51] Thank you.
[5:44:53] Questions?
[5:44:53] I
[5:44:56] would just ask for clarification that everybody
[5:45:00] No one's opposed to batching. Is that true? Okay, that's what I understood, but I wanted to get something formal from you guys.
[5:45:13] And I think that's it for me. Thanks.
[5:45:18] I don't have any questions at this time.
[5:45:23] Mr. Chairman, I don't have anything of the neighbors, but could I ask a question to staff regarding something that came up during the presentation by the neighbors?
[5:45:32] Yes.
[5:45:32] And that is Ms. Mathias made reference to the noise caused by the steep grade on that hill,
[5:45:45] or the variance was issued, and I was wondering, is it true?
[5:45:48] Have we looked at the sound impacts of that grade?
[5:45:54] I know it was raised a long time ago, so it's not a new issue.
[5:46:03] My understanding of the wave engineering report, and I certainly think there's an opportunity
[5:46:07] for that gentleman to speak to the report, but the hill itself was not monitored precisely
[5:46:16] because there were no residences along the hill.
[5:46:18] So the residences are where the data was collected.
[5:46:21] The hill has been modeled, and there are those results in the latest report.
[5:46:28] So there is that factor that it was not a specific data collection point.
[5:46:34] And also, there was mixed determinations as to whether or not there's value in putting buffering along the hill.
[5:46:42] It could, yes, potentially knock down noise, but it could also redirect noise.
[5:46:46] And it's also a concern as to where would that improvement go.
[5:46:50] Typically, you make those improvements outside the right-of-way.
[5:46:53] So it just created more questions and answers, and that's why there was not a formal recommendation for there to be buffering on the portion of the help.
[5:47:08] Thank you.
[5:47:12] Any further questions?
[5:47:17] Any further comment? Mr. Danielson?
[5:47:19] I had Old Morning hanging on the line waiting for his turn, our expert Dr. Carl Mount, who's going to make a brief statement.
[5:47:30] He's not available this afternoon, so he just sent me his statement, and if I could just distribute this for the record.
[5:47:41] Can you speak into the microphone?
[5:47:43] Thank you.
[5:47:44] Yes, Mr. Mount was on the phone or on the streaming all morning and was ready to call
[5:47:50] in on the phone, and he was available all morning, but he just can't do it this afternoon.
[5:47:55] So he wrote a one-page statement, and I'd just like to submit it.
[5:48:00] Thank you.
[5:48:01] Why do you have any objections?
[5:48:04] We do not have an objection.
[5:48:06] Mr. Smith.
[5:48:08] Sorry, what was the question?
[5:48:09] Any objections to the admission of this statement?
[5:48:15] It would be a testimony.
[5:48:16] Objection.
[5:48:18] Mr. Chair, could Mr. Danielson just
[5:48:21] summarize the nature of this statement
[5:48:24] for our listening public and those in the audience
[5:48:27] that aren't going to see our copy?
[5:48:29] It relates to the waste pile at the King Cull one site
[5:48:35] and the monitoring program for that waste pile.
[5:48:38] OK.
[5:48:39] Thank you.
[5:48:40] I suspect GCC has a rebuttal to make in that event.
[5:48:45] Yeah, I'd like to retract my statement that we have no objection.
[5:48:48] I would say rather that this falls into the same category as all the evidence introduced today related to the KING-1 pile.
[5:48:54] We believe that staff's finding that it's not related to this application is correct.
[5:49:00] Should the Commission find otherwise and you wish to address that issue,
[5:49:02] then we agree that this and our information as well ought to be included in the record.
[5:49:06] But if you agree with that conclusion, then we would suggest that none of that information should be included in the record.
[5:49:14] Discussion?
[5:49:15] Sure.
[5:49:16] Yes.
[5:49:17] My staff's position is the same, although we prefer the option where none of that is included in the record.
[5:49:22] Can you speak up?
[5:49:24] Yes, I'm sorry. This is Adam Smith with the County Attorney's Office.
[5:49:27] We agree with GCC's counsel's assessment of the situation, although we would prefer that none of this information be included in the record.
[5:49:36] it's irrelevant to the land use that is being considered today.
[5:49:43] So with respect to the discussion, I think it's appropriate for this to sit to the side,
[5:49:48] but I don't believe we've made a determination as to the role of how the King I waste,
[5:49:56] I'm not even going to call it King I, how I'm going to call it the solid waste disposal
[5:50:00] as it relates to this land use is handled.
[5:50:03] So for now, probably set it aside, but have it at the ready.
[5:50:17] Mr. Chair, if I may, this is Adam Smith with the County Attorney's Office.
[5:50:22] First, I just wanted to note for the record that we, county staff has not received the documents that Mr. Robbins handed out,
[5:50:30] and we would like an opportunity to review those.
[5:50:34] I believe all the copies were handed up there. If there was a way to get one, that would be helpful.
[5:50:39] And also, although it was not necessarily contemplated, I believe at the end of staff's original presentation,
[5:50:45] It was noted that we had 18 minutes and one second remaining on the clock.
[5:50:49] If possible, I would like five minutes of that time to respond to an issue that was raised.
[5:51:00] Before we get off on that, we need to decide what we're going to do with that last exhibit.
[5:51:04] So is it on the side or is it in?
[5:51:06] Set it aside.
[5:51:08] We're talking about Mr. Blunt's testimony.
[5:51:14] It's on the side.
[5:51:17] Well, my question is how it relates to truck trips and this permit.
[5:51:21] And whether, I mean,
[5:51:27] does our council believe it's related or not?
[5:51:30] I think she needs a minute to review it.
[5:51:53] It appears as if it deals entirely with the waste issue.
[5:51:59] Which is outside of this argument.
[5:52:02] Yes.
[5:52:02] Okay. I would support it being on the side.
[5:52:05] We will place that document on the side for now.
[5:52:13] Adam, could you restate your request for time?
[5:52:19] Yes, I believe we had 18 minutes left over at the end of our presentation, although it was not necessarily contemplated that we reserved any of that time.
[5:52:28] With the Chair's discretion, we would certainly like to use about five minutes of that to clarify an issue that was raised.
[5:52:36] Discussion?
[5:52:37] I don't know. Who's keeping time? Were there 18 minutes left?
[5:52:47] minutes. The other question that Mr. Smith raised was the proposed amendments to the RIA
[5:52:56] and the conditions which I think we can put those on the site for right now too. We'll
[5:53:02] see where the discussion leads us. Right, we will grant you five minutes.
[5:53:09] Thank you. And this relates back to the question that was asked to Jim Davis earlier. But it's
[5:53:14] important for county staff for us to, I think, clarify which aspects of the code are informing
[5:53:20] different parts of the recommendation. So that's the initial comment. It was noted by the
[5:53:28] neighbors, I will refer to them just for ease of reference, that county staff's proffered
[5:53:34] option, the 80 trucks at the initial phases doesn't meet the code, specifically 74.91.
[5:53:42] And those 74.91 would be referencing our road standards.
[5:53:48] I would offer that based on their argument, the way they're analyzing our code, their
[5:53:54] offered solution, the 55 trucks equally doesn't meet the code, 74.91.
[5:54:00] Instead, county staff's position is that both options technically meet the code.
[5:54:05] The only variables county staff has ever negotiated with GCC is the timing of when the road will
[5:54:12] come into compliance, not if the road will come into compliance, not what the code standards
[5:54:16] are when it comes into compliance.
[5:54:19] Because the only variable we've ever negotiated is the timing, both options, 80 and 55,
[5:54:26] meet Chapter 74-91 based on our analysis.
[5:54:30] Thereby, one informs AD verses 55 is not 74-91.
[5:54:35] It's compatibility.
[5:54:37] And I would note that the neighbors on traffic engineer
[5:54:39] rely on compatibility metrics, measures, to justify the 55.
[5:54:45] That's an important distinction
[5:54:46] because it is not being driven by 74-91.
[5:54:50] It's being driven by the compatibility standards
[5:54:52] which dictates the number of trucks of that first phase.
[5:54:54] Thank
[5:54:59] you. Questions for staff?
[5:55:03] I don't have any questions for staff.
[5:55:08] No questions.
[5:55:09] Thank you.
[5:55:10] Thank you.
[5:55:11] Mr. Chairman, I do have – it's kind of like the – I'd like to have input again.
[5:55:18] We didn't hear from the Chief Fort Lewis Mesa fire district before, but he – he
[5:55:25] spoke only about his recommendations as it related to the emergency response plan.
[5:55:29] But, since the issue of the loop route came up, my understanding was that he does have
[5:55:36] an opinion as it relates to the appropriateness of a loop route, and Mr. Anderson, are you
[5:55:41] available to comment on that?
[5:55:43] May he come forward, Mr. Chairman?
[5:55:46] Yes, please.
[5:55:50] Chris Anderson, Fire Chief Forlows, Mesa Fire Protection District.
[5:55:54] I did submit agency comments that they're included in your packet about concerns about
[5:56:00] the southern routes and that there seemed to be more traffic challenges on those southern
[5:56:06] routes in the northern route.
[5:56:08] And I can answer any questions concerning that, if you'd like.
[5:56:13] Yes.
[5:56:14] I remember, I believe, that you specifically referred to access in the event of an emergency.
[5:56:21] They're being a challenge or a problem if both routes were closed due to accidents.
[5:56:30] I don't know if you could just elaborate on what that was.
[5:56:33] Yeah, I don't think I was the one who brought up that,
[5:56:35] but it has been discussed throughout the interaction between GCC and the community
[5:56:43] about if there was using a loop route that if we had an accident on one area that it may
[5:56:51] cause inaccessibility issues, but specifically I really don't see it as a major concern.
[5:57:02] Okay, thank you.
[5:57:03] Anything further?
[5:57:07] I have no questions, Commissioner.
[5:57:10] Thank you.
[5:57:11] We
[5:57:20] are running, well let's see, it's about 3 o'clock, we're scheduled for a break at 3, but we do have public comment.
[5:57:30] Do you, commissioners, rather keep going?
[5:57:34] Okay, we will move into public comment.
[5:57:41] I have public comment for William Thomas Williamson.
[5:57:47] So you, thank you.
[5:57:55] Yeah, I have her card. Did you fill out a pink slip?
[5:58:14] We'll probably have to take your comment after these. We received these.
[5:58:20] So we'll move to – do you have a deadline or do you have –
[5:58:34] we read her comment.
[5:58:35] And we
[5:58:59] will probably go ahead and go in the order that we have, the pink slips.
[5:59:05] Matt Watson.
[5:59:14] Donna Nazario.
[5:59:17] Matt, come up.
[5:59:19] Randy Linscott.
[5:59:22] And Ann Marquardt.
[5:59:27] Hi.
[5:59:27] Good afternoon.
[5:59:28] My name is Matt Watson.
[5:59:29] I live at 156 Timber Drive, Durango, Colorado.
[5:59:32] That's a Durango West One Subdivision.
[5:59:35] I am the Human Resources Coordinator for GCC Energy and have been with the company for
[5:59:40] five years this December.
[5:59:42] Before I talk a little bit about GCC, I'd like to share my personal story and how it
[5:59:47] has impacted La Plata County.
[5:59:49] I worked in the building material and industry for nearly 20 years and was there when the
[5:59:53] housing bubble burst in Phoenix, so I know firsthand how employees and families are
[5:59:58] affected with business flows and companies.
[6:00:00] These are forced to close their doors.
[6:00:02] Personally, I lost just about everything and ended up moving to Durango.
[6:00:05] Worked temporarily for my brother's construction company.
[6:00:09] I was fortunate to get the job with GCC.
[6:00:12] It's a great company.
[6:00:13] I think probably 100 people applied for this position.
[6:00:16] I rented rooms for a couple of years to share around Durango.
[6:00:19] Saved up money, sold my house in Phoenix.
[6:00:22] Bought a small lot in Durango, West 1.
[6:00:24] Hired a contractor, had a house built.
[6:00:27] Now my 19-year-old daughter lives with me.
[6:00:29] She goes to Southwest Community College.
[6:00:32] She works part-time at Bed Bath and Beyond.
[6:00:35] So you can see just on my own what an impact a good job can have on the local economy.
[6:00:41] Just a little bit on GCC and its employees.
[6:00:44] I have a degree in business.
[6:00:45] I've been working for several large reputable companies in my career.
[6:00:48] I can tell you, without a doubt, GCC is the best company I've had the opportunity to work for.
[6:00:53] The company truly cares about their employees, the environment,
[6:00:56] and the communities in which we operate.
[6:01:00] As of today, we have 115 employees working at the mine.
[6:01:04] In addition to that, approximately 200 truckers
[6:01:07] and countless other vendors, business suppliers
[6:01:09] that support our operation.
[6:01:11] A factor in the families of those involved in the mine,
[6:01:14] and I'm sure in excess of 1,000 people would be affected
[6:01:17] should our ability to operate be compromised.
[6:01:21] Our average rate of pay for our salaried and hourly employees
[6:01:24] combined is $31.69 an hour. In addition to that, our employees have a competitive full
[6:01:29] benefit package. These are all really good jobs that are vital to our economy. I know
[6:01:36] all our guys personally and through benefit enrollment and questions from spouses, I know
[6:01:39] a lot of their family members and have met their kids. We have a great group of hard-working
[6:01:45] men and women who work for GCC and support the surrounding communities. We even had
[6:01:51] example where we, the degree to what we care about the neighbors and safety, we
[6:01:55] had two employees that we actually had to terminate because they they were
[6:01:59] speeding on the road. We warned them they didn't heed the warnings. We
[6:02:02] actually terminated their employment just for that. They were good employees
[6:02:05] other than that. So personally and I'm very proud to work for GCC as I know
[6:02:10] all my co-workers are as well. I hope La Plata County is proud as well to have
[6:02:14] a world-class company like GCC and its community. Thank you for your time
[6:02:18] consideration. Thank you. Randy? Randy Linscott?
[6:02:29] Randy Linscott lives on
[6:02:32] County Road 120, 22 years. I am located where both the 90 turns are on South 120
[6:02:40] intersection. In the wintertime many cars go off and go off the turn on slick
[6:02:49] pavement and go into ditch and knock down fences. This year, I myself was aware of two
[6:02:56] such occurrences on the front of my house, but I'm sure there were probably more.
[6:03:10] Anne Marklart,
[6:03:14] Anne,
[6:03:19] hers says, parallels with this case and others, negligent county
[6:03:25] planning decisions.
[6:03:28] John Lee, if you could come up. Dan Huntington, you're on deck, and
[6:03:36] Derek Schneider as well. John?
[6:03:40] Hi, John Lee, 11442 County Road 120, Pespers, Colorado, owner, operator, Silver River Ranch.
[6:03:49] I make my living there, raise my children there.
[6:03:53] I have a working area of that County Road 120 that fronts for about a half mile.
[6:04:01] And the traffic item, it's very compelling to hear all of this this morning and into
[6:04:07] this afternoon.
[6:04:08] And I don't understand the ideas of sending it somewhere else.
[6:04:13] And that's going to solve the problem.
[6:04:15] So as it keeps being made note of, run it a loop, run it further, run it somewhere else,
[6:04:21] let's increase exposure.
[6:04:23] If the statements are true about silt, noise, health, that it's affecting somebody's way of life,
[6:04:31] property value, safety, and traffic,
[6:04:36] then we should just spread that around to everyone
[6:04:38] and affect even more roads and more ways of life that haven't had to deal with that in the past,
[6:04:44] that didn't buy anywhere near that location.
[6:04:49] Twenty years ago, when I went to look to purchase,
[6:04:53] I looked on 120 North in the Cougar area and didn't buy,
[6:04:58] in part because of traffic and mines and things like that
[6:05:01] and other opportunities.
[6:05:03] But now to say, well, we need to share this pain
[6:05:08] with other people because the pain has gotten too great
[6:05:12] and then cite all of these problems and say what we'd like to do is pass these
[6:05:16] problems on to other people, I think is very misplaced. Thank you. Thank you.
[6:05:24] Dan?
[6:05:35] Dan Huntington, 7080 County Road 120, quarter mile, 5,000 feet south of the
[6:05:43] entrance to King II.
[6:05:48] I have no problems with the mine being that close. I very
[6:05:53] very rarely hear any truck traffic except in the early morning when the air is still.
[6:06:00] But anyway, fourth generation resident, my grandparents, bought and put together 2,500
[6:06:09] acres there.
[6:06:11] We did have up to 4,000 acres and when the government raised the interest rates, they
[6:06:20] went to 24%. We had to get rid of some of our property to maintain our home
[6:06:27] places and I guess it's our fault that these people are here complaining about
[6:06:32] the truck traffic because that was all our property at one time.
[6:06:38] But anyway they
[6:06:40] talked about changing the character. They moved in here, changed the
[6:06:44] character of hey goats. There wasn't a residence up there besides McHugh's
[6:06:50] down there in the bottom and a couple of residents up on the north end.
[6:06:58] Another thing I just want to comment on the length of time that it's taken to do to get
[6:07:05] this process going.
[6:07:07] Every time they get something agreed upon, something else comes up.
[6:07:14] It's just been a snowball.
[6:07:15] well. And I appreciate coming to a conclusion.
[6:07:22] Truck traffic to the south. Truck traffic
[6:07:25] to the south was never willy-nilly. The only time they run that traffic to the south was
[6:07:32] in inclement weather or somebody lived down on the south end. Accidents on the south
[6:07:40] end. There's been numerous, numerous trucks, rollovers on the 93 corners. There's one
[6:07:49] corner down by 117. There's been five cars off of that corner this winter, off in
[6:07:56] the ditch.
[6:08:00] And I want to state that I'm not represented by the Southwest
[6:08:03] West Advocates. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner.
[6:08:07] Thank you.
[6:08:09] Derek Schneider.
[6:08:12] Derek Schneider.
[6:08:15] Derek Schneider says, I live on County 120 North and run that road every day.
[6:08:21] The change to our community since 2010 when King 2 ramped up has been tremendous.
[6:08:27] The road is devoid of human traffic.
[6:08:30] when trucks were running at 50 plus a day, we hardly noticed.
[6:08:37] Please constrain traffic to that level during the construction period.
[6:08:45] Donna,
[6:08:48] your number, 10.
[6:08:51] Jack Luellen, you're up on deck.
[6:08:57] Thank you for letting me speak.
[6:08:59] I'm Donna Nazario.
[6:09:00] I live at 689 Cougar Way, Hespers.
[6:09:03] And I'm going to speak on a couple of things.
[6:09:06] Mainly I'm going to speak for Denise Baca, who is a real estate agent for Your Castle
[6:09:11] Realty and has compiled in request of the neighbors, she compiled a report for everyone
[6:09:19] talking about real estate sales and how it compares to the sale of real estate in our
[6:09:25] area that is impacted by the mind.
[6:09:28] So on the first page, and I'm going to run through this as quick as I can.
[6:09:31] Bear with me.
[6:09:32] It's a lot of information.
[6:09:33] And just to give you the heads-up, public comment is limited to three minutes, so.
[6:09:37] Okay. Right now, the average price, sales price of a property is between 384 and 415.
[6:09:44] This is for residential rule, okay?
[6:09:47] And this is all dates from January 2015.
[6:09:53] Right now, days on the market is 164, between 150 and 164.
[6:09:57] It's getting a little faster now.
[6:09:59] The property sales are moving faster.
[6:10:03] And so moving along, since I don't have much time, we're going to jump right into the fact that since January 2015, active listings you'll see are five right now.
[6:10:15] Only two have sold in the last year and a half out in this area.
[6:10:19] We're talking 120, and we'll go through the subdivisions.
[6:10:24] You will see down further there's a lot of expired properties that did not sell.
[6:10:28] And there's a lot of withdrawn properties.
[6:10:33] You know, one of the things that Denise said, she was showing property out there,
[6:10:39] and several people comment on, well, we really don't even look at that area
[6:10:44] because of what we've seen in the newspaper and the articles about the impact in that area.
[6:10:49] So I'm speaking as a homeowner also, but the bottom line is,
[6:10:54] Some of us, our lifetime investment is in our homes,
[6:11:01] and our homes are dramatically dropped.
[6:11:04] I recently sold my home on Cougar Mesa.
[6:11:09] If you skip to the letter, you'll see the reports here
[6:11:14] on the sales price, and I'm a little stressed
[6:11:17] because I'm not having enough time.
[6:11:20] Welles Fargo, I went through the process of selling because I could not sell.
[6:11:26] So I went into foreclosure.
[6:11:30] And Welles Fargo did a study also on my home.
[6:11:32] The value was at 410.
[6:11:34] They needed to net 383 for this to sell.
[6:11:37] I only got 268 for my house.
[6:11:39] It's a big loss for me.
[6:11:41] And I know it's the same thing for a lot of folks out in that area.
[6:11:44] It's a big big deal and this issue has fallen through the cracks and it really needs to be addressed because it is
[6:11:51] impacting more than just noise health
[6:11:55] beauty wildlife and that you will actually see my closing dock in there because this I really want to get clear that this is a
[6:12:02] Real deal this really happened and you'll see all the other properties in that area that have sitting on the market for years
[6:12:09] Way longer than the allotted time of 150 days
[6:12:14] So it's a big deal. It's a big deal to us as neighbors, and it's something that's fallen through the cracks that I think should be on the top of the list.
[6:12:23] Thank you, Scott.
[6:12:23] Ms. Nazario, if I may ask you a couple of questions.
[6:12:28] First of all, I appreciate all of the material that has been put together.
[6:12:33] Can you just talk a little bit more about,
[6:12:38] did the realtor actually, without having to
[6:12:44] go through every page here, actually go through and compare housing prices in Durango versus
[6:12:52] housing prices in Heigolch?
[6:12:54] Absolutely.
[6:12:55] Absolutely.
[6:12:55] And, you know, when we saw large property increases within the city limits of Durango
[6:13:02] two years ago, when the assessor did the last assessment, did we see similar increases in
[6:13:09] hate culture?
[6:13:10] Did it decline?
[6:13:11] And why is there more of an analysis there?
[6:13:15] Excuse me.
[6:13:16] Yes, it absolutely declined.
[6:13:18] As you will see in some of these, you know, some of these numbers here, and I apologize
[6:13:25] because the numbers that you are going to have a hard time reading the prices on,
[6:13:30] those are the numbers in red, and yours are in black and white, and I apologize for that.
[6:13:34] But that shows that these properties sold for negative.
[6:13:37] They sold for less than what their value was.
[6:13:40] And most of these properties, that is the case.
[6:13:44] We mainly targeted Hidden Ridge, Cougar Mesa, and Vista de Ora, and all those
[6:13:54] properties are either expired. There's only two that have sold, I believe, and
[6:13:58] they sold below market value. And so, you know, it's really showing a trend that
[6:14:04] everything out in that area is not selling, and it's sitting on the
[6:14:08] market for, you know, over three years, some of them. It's just, you know,
[6:14:11] it's really, you know, too bad of this scenario.
[6:14:15] And so, yes, to answer your question,
[6:14:18] when everything else is going up in value, you know,
[6:14:21] in our area, it's going dramatically down.
[6:14:24] And so, you know, it's a real problem.
[6:14:27] And I think it's, you know, a main impact is
[6:14:30] because people do see, and it's in the newspaper a lot,
[6:14:33] and people are getting educated now
[6:14:35] what's really going on.
[6:14:36] And, you know, citizens or residents are taking notice,
[6:14:40] ones that want to move out in the country. They're seeing that, you know, yeah, let's
[6:14:44] look at property out in the rural but not in that area. So, you know, it hurts when you
[6:14:48] want to, it really hurt me, you know, when I had to drop over $100,000 to get my house
[6:14:54] sold.
[6:14:56] Mr. Chair, if I may, as the assessor stated.
[6:15:00] Specifically, why he has seen a decline in value from Paygold's, you know, I think, from other
[6:15:08] areas in the county.
[6:15:09] I don't know if the assessor wants to take a stand on, you know, it's GCC and it's what's
[6:15:15] going on, but, you know, it makes you wonder when you do the numbers, and these are all,
[6:15:21] these year-to-date comparisons are all real. They're from the assessor's office, and
[6:15:27] and they're compiled by the Wells Group, actually,
[6:15:29] and they do this every year, so.
[6:15:31] Excuse me, I don't think what we're looking at
[6:15:33] came from the Assessor's Office.
[6:15:34] It came from the Real Estate Association.
[6:15:38] Well, I know, but that's how they pull the numbers.
[6:15:41] They, well, they're based,
[6:15:43] they're actually not based on the Assessor's Office.
[6:15:45] They're based on what Real Estate Brokers report.
[6:15:48] So, the Assessor, based on this information,
[6:15:52] I'm relying on my experience as a Real Estate Broker.
[6:15:54] Yeah, you know.
[6:15:55] Because this is, I don't see anything in here except the things that say property taxes
[6:16:00] and so on that reflects the, anything prepared by the assessor's office.
[6:16:05] Okay.
[6:16:06] I guess what I meant was is the solds do come up in public record.
[6:16:10] So, you know, that's really where it's pulled off is from the solds and the amounts that they actually close for.
[6:16:17] Thank you.
[6:16:18] Thank you very much.
[6:16:18] Thank you, Donna.
[6:16:19] Thanks for your time.
[6:16:20] Jack Llewellyn, Roger, you're on deck.
[6:16:28] Jack Llewellyn, 479 Waysman Road, Durango, Colorado, 81303.
[6:16:34] I'm the Executive Director of the Chamber of Commerce, and we have 825 members.
[6:16:39] We talked about earlier, we heard about quality of life and economic development terms.
[6:16:43] A lot of times they talk about the quality of jobs.
[6:16:46] Because without jobs, you don't have the community and the community cannot thrive.
[6:16:50] There are 120 jobs that we've heard about from GCC Energy,
[6:16:55] all of which have about a $90,000 annual income with benefits.
[6:17:02] They're higher than the average here in La Plata County.
[6:17:05] I've also heard that it hasn't been talked about.
[6:17:07] There's 1,500 families all over the region that heat their homes from GCC coal
[6:17:12] that they get from the coal mine.
[6:17:13] There's nothing in the code to protect these families.
[6:17:18] Conditions that are being proposed today
[6:17:19] They could possibly, I say possibly shut down the mine, it's about the economics.
[6:17:24] We've heard this since 2010, the process has been taking place demonstrating due diligence
[6:17:29] to me.
[6:17:30] Staff has worked diligently with the neighbors, GCC Energy themselves and others.
[6:17:36] There are four different stages of change, denial, resistance, exploration and commitment.
[6:17:43] I recommend you commit to the recommendation to approve this.
[6:17:46] Business indeed predictability in order to continue to operate.
[6:17:51] This approval will hold GCC accountable to their commitments
[6:17:54] and allow them to properly prepare for their own future
[6:17:57] and the future of their employees.
[6:17:59] Thank you.
[6:18:00] Thank you.
[6:18:04] Roger.
[6:18:09] Missioners, good afternoon.
[6:18:10] I'm Roger Zonaratis.
[6:18:11] I'm the director of the Economic Development Alliance.
[6:18:13] I live at 420 Window Lake Trail, Durango, Colorado.
[6:18:16] Just wanted to make a couple of comments today.
[6:18:18] first of all I want to thank the staff and GCC for all the time they've put
[6:18:23] into this project. I've heard from both of them because I try to work a middle
[6:18:26] man ground in my job and I know there's been times it's been really frustrating
[6:18:29] for both sides. I've heard from both of them about that and I know there's been
[6:18:32] times when it's been really good for both sides and I've heard from them when
[6:18:35] that's happened as well. So this has been a very hard process for
[6:18:39] everybody involved and the fact that we've gotten to an agreement like we
[6:18:41] have is a testimony to both sides commitment to our community. So thank you
[6:18:46] all for your efforts and what you've done.
[6:18:48] I also want to thank GCC for investing in La Plata County.
[6:18:53] Since they bought that mine, they've put tens of millions of dollars into our community.
[6:18:56] They've hired over 50 or 60 different people just at the mine alone, plus the contracting
[6:19:00] work they've done here.
[6:19:02] That is a significant investment, and that is not something we have any entitlement
[6:19:05] to as a local area.
[6:19:07] That is something that comes about from a company's profits, a company's desires
[6:19:10] and strategies, and a community's willingness to accept that investment from a company.
[6:19:16] So thank you all for what you've done for our community as well.
[6:19:19] I'm a data geek, and there's something I want to get on the public record, which is regarding GCC's financials.
[6:19:25] GCC is a company here in the United States that's owned by a Mexican company.
[6:19:30] That's been pointed out repeatedly in testimony in the paper and elsewhere that they are a Mexican company.
[6:19:35] Mexican companies report their earnings and their valuation in pesos, not in dollars.
[6:19:41] And it's called the Peso, not the dollar.
[6:19:42] So we don't have a $15 billion valued company here.
[6:19:46] We have a $15 billion Peso company.
[6:19:49] We don't have a billion dollars of profits.
[6:19:50] We have a billion pesos of profits.
[6:19:53] At the conversion rate, it's the U.S. dollar.
[6:19:56] That's about $800 million of valuation.
[6:19:59] That is one-half the size of mercury when it was bought two years ago by Vancev.
[6:20:03] And by the way, Mercury had a neighbor that said,
[6:20:06] we want you to be here, we just don't want the traffic.
[6:20:09] So we had the same situation with Mercury two,
[6:20:11] even three years ago when they were trying to expand as well.
[6:20:14] But why does that matter?
[6:20:16] Even though economics is not addressed in the code,
[6:20:18] it is fundamental.
[6:20:20] And we can all say we don't want the mine to close
[6:20:22] because none of us do.
[6:20:23] But you can impose conditions that make it impossible
[6:20:25] for the mine or any other business to operate.
[6:20:28] And one thing I haven't heard is,
[6:20:30] what are those conditions in which the mine can operate
[6:20:32] and what are the conditions that they cannot.
[6:20:34] And the simple fact is if they can't operate with 55 trucks a day, the mine closes.
[6:20:40] 120 people lose their jobs, 1,500 people lose their heating,
[6:20:44] and $400,000 of taxes go out the window.
[6:20:47] We shouldn't be trying to race to the bottom to figure out where that threshold is,
[6:20:50] but there is a threshold at which point a business will no longer operate.
[6:20:54] And that is important when you're considering whether to grant a permit or not
[6:20:56] as to whether you're going to have a business or not to grant a permit too.
[6:21:00] So, thank you.
[6:21:01] Thank you.
[6:21:05] Guy Steece.
[6:21:18] My name is Guy Steece.
[6:21:19] I live on County Road 120 South.
[6:21:25] And I really want to thank
[6:21:27] the Bodd County Planning Staff
[6:21:29] for all the work they have done on this.
[6:21:31] They've worked real hard.
[6:21:33] I was on the original
[6:21:36] Hague-Alts Citizens Committee.
[6:21:38] So I have had to deal with this
[6:21:40] for quite a while.
[6:21:42] and GCC worked hard to alleviate a lot of the problems that the north side was
[6:21:51] coming up with.
[6:21:54] I do represent a lot of the people on the south end of the road
[6:22:00] there and some of the things that I want to bring up there's three times as
[6:22:07] many people there. There's five county road intersections that, if they go south, a lot
[6:22:15] of those county intersections are blind, really hard to see on. And there's almost twice as
[6:22:22] many driveways, whether you go 119 or 120. Many of those houses are really close to
[6:22:31] the – either one of those roads, so there would be a lot more people that would be
[6:22:36] complain about the noise because they're right on the road.
[6:22:42] And both 119 and 120 South are a bus route for schools.
[6:22:48] So that is a big thing to think about.
[6:22:53] And during one of the Hague-Alt citizens' meetings, we had both the county and CDOT
[6:23:02] come and talk to us.
[6:23:03] At that time, CDOT said there would only be one intersection that was fixed.
[6:23:10] So that kind of makes it where there wouldn't be two intersections that they couldn't afford it.
[6:23:19] Thank you.
[6:23:21] Thank you.
[6:23:23] Is there anyone else that would wish to make public comment today?
[6:23:30] Six o'clock this evening we will have another public comment.
[6:23:34] If you'd like to wait until then you're more than welcome or you can do it today.
[6:23:44] My name is Connor McHugh, 2541 County Road 120.
[6:23:50] So first I'd like to thank you guys and staff of GCC for being here.
[6:23:57] I also want them to thank them for disrupting our community and disturbing another lovely day
[6:24:03] because I'm sure we would have nothing else to do.
[6:24:05] But it's pretty amazing how they've managed to worm their selves into success through the layers and layers of legal BS that this whole process has entailed.
[6:24:16] They want to be commended for apparently offering up all these millions of dollars to improve the road for them to solely operate on.
[6:24:25] And it kind of seems like it would be if they would buy a big building because of the renovations they have to do to be able to basically run their business.
[6:24:33] So the fact that they're doing their job is kind of a slap to the face for all the ways it's going to improve our lives, so to speak.
[6:24:45] So that's kind of another thing that I'd like to commend them on is just how they're able to run on an outdated permit.
[6:24:52] I know if I was trying to grow copious amounts of marijuana and I started a little bit before I started the paperwork and got the proper permits in,
[6:25:01] I would probably be in jail.
[6:25:03] I wouldn't be able to say,
[6:25:05] well, I didn't understand the questions,
[6:25:06] or I'm sorry, I didn't turn my paperwork in time.
[6:25:10] I wouldn't be able to drag my feet on this.
[6:25:13] So I guess I just basically want to commend them
[6:25:17] for showing a young student how to operate businesses
[6:25:21] and how to succeed.
[6:25:23] And it's a really interesting eye-opening experience
[6:25:26] and I would like to thank them again.
[6:25:27] So, I'm off you guys. Have a good day. Thank you.
[6:25:32] Can you fill out a pink slip for Jeannie over there?
[6:25:36] Thanks.
[6:25:40] Come on up.
[6:25:51] Good afternoon. I haven't prepared a speech. I didn't come with a high-priced lawyer.
[6:25:58] My name is Mike Crawford. I live at up on County Road 121, which I've lived there.
[6:26:04] My entire life, fourth generation rancher for over 125 years on that piece of property.
[6:26:11] The mine has mined under our property before.
[6:26:15] We did not own the royalties so we didn't receive a penny out of it.
[6:26:21] We've allowed them access to core drill, subsidence cracks, different things.
[6:26:28] They have been great to work with, absolutely great.
[6:26:32] After living in this community my entire life, my family, my entire life, my great-grandfather
[6:26:37] is Hal Higaltz got his name, was named after.
[6:26:44] I don't know, I hate to see people come in here, move in here, be here two years, bring
[6:26:50] in a high-priced lawyer, gather up a handful of people and start changing our way of life.
[6:26:55] I am greatly in support of the mine, what they've done for our community, and the amount of people that have lived and worked with the mine, ranchers and miners throughout the last hundred years.
[6:27:09] I support GCC Energy.
[6:27:13] Thank you.
[6:27:18] Anyone else wish to make public comment at this time?
[6:27:30] Sure.
[6:27:33] I'm William T. Williams. I live on County Road 120, 1644, County Road 120.
[6:27:39] There's been a lot of discussion about the population density along the routes.
[6:27:44] Somebody that's been, or a population segment that has been clearly ignored are the residents
[6:27:50] along Highway 140.
[6:27:52] Now, I understand that the county has no direct authority over the route on a Colorado
[6:27:59] highway.
[6:28:00] However, those are La Plata County residents, and those are trucks running through La
[6:28:05] Plata County.
[6:28:06] On that road, there are six major intersections, and there are over 35 residences that are
[6:28:13] in close connection to Highway 140.
[6:28:17] So in addition to the number of intersections along County Road 120 North, it really is
[6:28:25] incumbent upon the commissioners to consider those residents that live on Highway 140.
[6:28:32] They are directly impacted on the number of increased trucks up to 288 extra trucks running
[6:28:42] up and down that highway.
[6:28:43] So I would hope that you would take those residents into consideration on your deliberations.
[6:28:49] Thank you.
[6:28:49] Thank you.
[6:28:53] Anyone else wish to make public comment?
[6:29:00] Seeing none, we will close our public comment portion of the meeting and for the afternoon.
[6:29:10] until this evening at six o'clock and have a board question and answer session.
[6:29:22] Cheryl, do you want to, do you have anything?
[6:29:25] I don't. I just, before we break, if that's where we're headed,
[6:29:29] I'm going to update a list of the documents that are part of the record
[6:29:34] and those that are still to be determined, I assume,
[6:29:39] that all of the handout submitted by the public you want to be part of the record
[6:29:44] is we would typically do that. So I will add that to the list and provide a copy to everyone
[6:29:49] so we're all talking up the same page tonight.
[6:29:53] I believe we've also been receiving some e-mail comments while we've been-
[6:30:00] And I'll appear today. And so that ends at 4 p.m. So if anybody is listening right now,
[6:30:07] you have approximately 30 minutes to get your written comments emailed into the county to
[6:30:14] be considered for deliberation. And we are not going to read all of that
[6:30:18] into the record, but I provided to everyone the link that you can check in order to review
[6:30:23] all the public comments that are received.
[6:30:27] For the record, Mr. Chair, can we at least
[6:30:29] State the number of comments we've received online today.
[6:30:35] I
[6:30:38] think it was.
[6:30:40] You know, I can click on now and see what the updated number is.
[6:30:44] Wait a second.
[6:31:37] Five word test and then it says there's 28 responses.
[6:31:41] So I think there's actually perhaps 23.
[6:31:45] Thank you.
[6:31:50] Yes.
[6:31:52] 28.
[6:31:52] 28.
[6:31:53] Does that include the five test?
[6:31:56] Okay. So 23. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. So, Mr. Chairman, for clarification, our agenda
[6:32:06] indicates that right now we had anticipated, I think, kind of the follow-up questions by
[6:32:14] the board, and then rebuttal comments, I think, by the parties and so on. Do we still want
[6:32:21] to do that now or do we want to wait until all the public comment is concluded before
[6:32:25] we hear from the parties in terms of concluding statements?
[6:32:32] It would be rebuttal at the end of the public comment.
[6:32:36] One, I think the parties probably would appreciate the break in order to perhaps form their
[6:32:41] thoughts, but when we get public comment tonight there may be things that they would
[6:32:46] like to address.
[6:32:48] I think it makes sense to just let them be able to respond to everything that we've heard
[6:32:52] rather than try to have them respond in the middle.
[6:32:57] But if there are outstanding questions, I think I would certainly be supportive of finishing
[6:33:03] up our questions.
[6:33:08] So Commissioner, you would support asking questions now.
[6:33:12] Is that what you're saying, asking questions now?
[6:33:15] We can.
[6:33:15] We've got the time is kind of what I was thinking. Sure. I'm in favor of that.
[6:33:31] I have a question who wants to go first
[6:33:41] Somebody has one at the ready go for it. Okay, I think I'll start with a few outstanding questions for the applicant
[6:33:52] is
[6:33:52] I believe the Hauntington reservoir was supposed to construction was supposed to be completed today did that happen the
[6:34:02] The reservoir was not to be complete today, it was supposed to be underway today.
[6:34:06] Water hauling is scheduled to stop by September 30th.
[6:34:10] The reservoir is under construction.
[6:34:13] We do expect to have it wrapped up before the end of this month, and water hauling has
[6:34:18] stopped.
[6:34:22] Are you getting new water if you're not hauling?
[6:34:24] We're getting it from irrigation rights.
[6:34:26] Oh, we're taking it straight from the ditch.
[6:34:28] Right.
[6:34:28] Okay, gotcha.
[6:34:29] Thanks.
[6:34:34] You know, I
[6:34:41] didn't do that actually,
[6:34:51] that's okay with me.
[6:34:52] I just didn't want us to get all together.
[6:34:57] These may not be in order or organized for GCC.
[6:35:00] They just have your name next to them.
[6:35:02] So, Mr. Olson, are you still here?
[6:35:04] There are some questions raised in some of the reports
[6:35:07] that you had underestimated the actual costs of construction
[6:35:11] or the improvements rather for the County Road 120 North improvements.
[6:35:19] Are you confident in those numbers or where do we stand with respect to their accuracy?
[6:35:27] As Mike Olsen wrote in our engineering,
[6:35:30] I am confident for this stage of analysis that those numbers are generally in the magnitude-wise are good.
[6:35:37] I utilize CDOT averages for their in assessing road construction costs and so based on what
[6:35:49] we anticipate doing on each picture part of the process of the improvement program those
[6:35:55] costs are reflective of based on CDOT averages.
[6:36:03] Thank you.
[6:36:03] And with respect, I believe one of the exhibits is diagrams of conceptual plans for the improvements
[6:36:15] to County Route 120 North.
[6:36:16] Is that correct?
[6:36:17] That's correct.
[6:36:18] Can we take a look at them?
[6:36:20] I have a question.
[6:36:21] I did not bring that with me.
[6:36:23] Okay.
[6:36:23] I'm sure someone else in the room has them.
[6:36:26] I'll probably tell you if you...
[6:36:28] It's a picture and it wasn't clear to me what segments necessarily were represented in the
[6:36:37] photographs.
[6:36:39] It actually has to do with that 90 degree turn, I believe, for first one.
[6:36:45] Does that conceptual plan, right now the curve goes to the north of a residence, does your
[6:36:54] plan anticipate the road being rerouted, realigned to go to the south of that
[6:36:59] residence, putting it in what would look like a really weird place?
[6:37:05] That particular what you're talking about is mile post point three and that is the
[6:37:09] first nine degree corner on counter at 120. There's our constrained areas right
[6:37:16] there because they used to be the old highway and there so all the the
[6:37:20] the transmission lines, both local service and transmission going along the existing
[6:37:25] counter route.
[6:37:28] Thank you.
[6:37:29] And we're looking at which exhibit?
[6:37:30] This is Attachment 5 in your packet.
[6:37:34] But with the...
[6:37:35] And I'm not sure which sheet, but I'm going to let Mr. Olson tell you which sheet it is.
[6:37:43] Sheet 7.
[6:37:50] Mr. Chair, we could pull it up on the screen for you real fast as well.
[6:37:53] That'd be great.
[6:37:54] Thank you.
[6:37:56] Mr. Chairman, if I may, while we're looking for that, I would also just note for the record
[6:38:03] relative to the question about cost, that under the Road Improvement Agreement there
[6:38:07] is no cap on the dollar amount that GCC is required to expend, they're just required
[6:38:11] to construct the improvements.
[6:38:13] So the risk of increased cost is on GCC.
[6:39:31] We can address it later, but I just wanted to request a copy of the Realty Report.
[6:39:34] That's the only document we don't have.
[6:39:36] Thank you.
[6:39:39] Mr. Westerhoef, is this the particular looking at the-
[6:39:44] That is it.
[6:39:45] Okay.
[6:39:46] First, if you look in the upper right hand, you'll see a north arrow.
[6:39:52] That gives you relative direction on what's going on right there.
[6:39:57] This is a conceptual plan.
[6:39:59] There are, in the existing alignment, there's power poles on both sides of the roadway.
[6:40:06] And in fact, actually, at the 90-degree corner, they used to run 90 degrees and go directly
[6:40:13] east across a bridge that's since been abandoned.
[6:40:20] So that's probably why the geometry of that particular 90-degree corner.
[6:40:26] This is a conceptual plan, and the next stages go into discussion right away.
[6:40:31] The issues that we have there is we can't get an acceptable curve in the existing alignment
[6:40:40] because it's constrained.
[6:40:42] The options being as you go ahead and align as something like shown or you align it where
[6:40:47] that you take out quite a bit of the or redirect the existing power lines.
[6:40:54] This is one option.
[6:40:55] This is what we'll do additional assessment of.
[6:40:59] And that's in regards to looking at both what makes the most sense, and that includes Rataway,
[6:41:05] and that includes direct conversations with that particular property owner.
[6:41:10] And just so you know, just this particular instance, that's probably acquiring the full parcel.
[6:41:18] This case here is, I would say, the exception to the amount of Rataway that's currently,
[6:41:26] or how the road is aligned within the existing alignment.
[6:41:35] And I guess if this were my house, and I saw this,
[6:41:40] I would be a little bit upset right now.
[6:41:42] So I'm wondering, did you talk to these people?
[6:41:44] Do they know, or if they look at this,
[6:41:47] are they going to just kind of freak out
[6:41:49] and to what extent is there any place to consider?
[6:41:54] This is a conceptual.
[6:41:55] So you first go out and say, what actually is doable?
[6:41:57] Then you go out as part of the preliminary plan phase, you should go and say this is what you have.
[6:42:02] And here, if it's to a point that doesn't make any sense and the property owner is not supportive, then you try something else.
[6:42:10] But you got to start someplace.
[6:42:12] Okay, so this is an alternative.
[6:42:15] It may not be the ultimate alternative.
[6:42:17] Correct.
[6:42:18] Okay.
[6:42:19] And then, now since we're looking at this thing, I don't know.
[6:42:25] So would it be helpful to, I guess what I'd just really like to know is we've heard from,
[6:42:31] we've got a property owner, Ms. Hunziger, who has concerns about what, if I say it wrong,
[6:42:39] stop me, but my belief is you have concerns about the way the realignment may, I heard
[6:42:44] her say she had concerns about the way the realignment might affect her property.
[6:42:47] What voice will she have in the consideration of a realignment near her?
[6:42:58] She will definitely have a voice.
[6:43:00] But with that, as of right now, there is no plan to move the center line,
[6:43:06] and that's typically how you set up a road design project.
[6:43:10] You establish a center line, and where the assumed center line is,
[6:43:14] there's no, at this point is to, we intend to push the center line, it moves it all towards
[6:43:20] the north, which I mean away from Ms. Hansenger's house.
[6:43:25] There is an issue because she is right on the road.
[6:43:29] Her pipe fence is right on the road.
[6:43:32] And with that, there's parking that's currently being supported that is right on the road.
[6:43:38] And so we have to address any type of clear zone issues and make sure the drainage
[6:43:43] works, and all those quotas go into the final road design, but Ms. Unxinger would be a part
[6:43:50] of that.
[6:43:53] Thank you.
[6:44:01] Also, there's, and I don't know who to address this to, but there was a, I believe one of
[6:44:05] the, there's been comment raised that there might have been an underreporting of accidents,
[6:44:11] And I had a similar concern as I was reading through the documents because I don't know
[6:44:19] where the accident reports came from, whether they were things that were reported to the
[6:44:25] sheriff's office or the highway patrol.
[6:44:27] Those are things that went through central dispatch.
[6:44:29] If those were things that were reported to GCC, we've heard a couple of different anecdotal
[6:44:34] comments here about people in ditches that didn't get reported.
[6:44:38] a truck sideways in the road that aren't considered accidents so they don't get recounted.
[6:44:46] And even in GCC's accounting, I can't remember what document it was, but there was one that
[6:44:52] record that I think it was in the maybe emergency procedures and how accidents will be handled
[6:44:58] is different than truck.
[6:45:00] Truck's stuck in a ditch, and truck stuck in a ditch may not be actually an accident for
[6:45:06] one definition, but it certainly sounds to be a traffic problem. And I'm just wondering
[6:45:13] how, you know, was that collection of data still relevant to you? Was it, was, would
[6:45:19] under-reporting change your analyses of the adequacy or changes that need to be made
[6:45:24] to the road?
[6:45:25] So, my analysis is based on recorded data, and it's typically the way it's done is it's
[6:45:33] car or state patrol holds main database, and through the accident reporting that I have
[6:45:41] reflected that representative in my reports are based on the data supplied by the county.
[6:45:50] Now, that being said, that's only recorded data that does not include a particular incident
[6:45:58] where both people say, hey, you shouldn't have done that and gotten Chudd's face and
[6:46:03] walked away.
[6:46:04] So there are times where you have incidents that are recorded that do occur.
[6:46:10] And whether it being from some truck that's been too wide on a road or somebody who's
[6:46:19] travel too fast or whatever, but there may be particular instances that, and in it from
[6:46:25] residents who live there, they stated so, that there are, there are accidents that are
[6:46:30] not recorded, or there are incidents that are not recorded.
[6:46:34] And the way that the Colorado State Patrol looks at it is that you have three types.
[6:46:38] You have a property damage only, you have injury, or you have fatality.
[6:46:44] And so that's how they record their accidents.
[6:46:47] Just case in point, in 120 South, in the last few years there were two fatalities.
[6:46:54] And that happened to be one with the motorcycle that hit an animal.
[6:46:59] Another one was my person didn't negotiate a 90 degree curve and it was excessive speed.
[6:47:07] Those things, you know, those are in the actual records.
[6:47:10] But going back to question, does everything get reported?
[6:47:14] it? No. And they get handled by the residents there on site and they don't get reported
[6:47:24] to the accident. The car or state patrol doesn't come and file a report on it.
[6:47:29] And so how does that affect your analysis of the report?
[6:47:33] If there's an injury, I mean you're going to get that. If there's a property damage
[6:47:37] you're going to get that because that's the only way you can make a claim. And so
[6:47:41] So I would say that, for the most part, it's accurately reflective on the operations of
[6:47:46] the road.
[6:47:48] But I would say that – I mean, that's the only thing I can go by right there.
[6:47:53] Mr. Chairman.
[6:47:54] Yes.
[6:47:55] If I could add one thing, Carolyn White again for the record.
[6:47:58] While it may be true that individual private drivers on that road might have the option
[6:48:02] to elect whether or not they wish to report an incident, the truck drivers under contract
[6:48:07] to GCC do not have that option.
[6:48:09] It is GCC's policy that any incident, whether it's a single car, a truck in a ditch or under
[6:48:16] their policy, all of them need to be reported.
[6:48:19] So we, I would say, could infer from that a relatively high degree of confidence in
[6:48:24] the data as it relates to GCC vehicles.
[6:48:27] It may be true that other accidents are under-reported.
[6:48:32] Thank you.
[6:48:33] And I think your right-of-way agent is here, he spoke at the Planning Commission meeting.
[6:48:43] Correct, would you like to ask some questions of the right-of-way agent?
[6:49:01] My name is Rob Johnston, I'm with Johnston Land Company, address at 1315 Main Avenue,
[6:49:08] Suite 222, Durango, Colorado.
[6:49:12] Thank you, Mr. Johnston.
[6:49:13] Johnston?
[6:49:14] Yes.
[6:49:15] Thank you.
[6:49:15] You heard my right-of-way question to Mr. Olson, and do you have anything to add to that or clarify?
[6:49:28] Could you?
[6:49:28] Sure, I could try it again.
[6:49:30] Thank you.
[6:49:30] So my concern, first, my first concern was just as it related to this property that's on the screen now,
[6:49:38] and it sounds like for Mr. Olson, if this doesn't work out, then other options would be considered.
[6:49:45] My other one had the question had to do with Ms. Hunziker and implications for her of some kind of
[6:49:52] realignment and what would be the involvement of property owners in that process.
[6:49:56] As the right-of-way agent, I assume you'd be involved there.
[6:50:02] Yes. First of all, the guidelines and process and procedures would be following the Uniform Act.
[6:50:09] And in general, what that does is it provides that property owner with the policies and procedures
[6:50:16] that are going to be followed for that potential right-of-way acquisition.
[6:50:23] And what's set up as the right-of-way agent to deliver information about the project
[6:50:29] to the landowner and have integrated negotiations with that landowner and having that landowner
[6:50:35] be able to provide comment or concerns.
[6:50:39] And the two parties would enter into problem senses, identifying problems, and trying to
[6:50:48] come up with some problem resolutions.
[6:50:51] So when I look at this first picture here at the 90-degree corner, there could be
[6:50:58] a couple of different options.
[6:51:00] And until something is presented and discussions are started between the right-of-way agent
[6:51:08] and the landowner, that's just the first step.
[6:51:13] But the landowner is encouraged to participate and provide comment back about their concerns
[6:51:19] or issues.
[6:51:21] And then we work to try to resolve those through problem-senses and reach some voluntary
[6:51:26] consent.
[6:51:28] Thank you.
[6:51:30] Mr. Johnson, just a quick question. Have you done land acquisition in this area before?
[6:51:38] I've worked in the land and ride-away business here in La Plata County for 26 years, primarily in the oil and gas industry,
[6:51:46] but also for public utility companies with both pipelines, compressors, compressor stations, and transmission lines.
[6:51:56] In this area?
[6:51:57] 26 years in La Plata County.
[6:51:59] Sorry, sorry, in the Heygaltch area.
[6:52:02] Oh.
[6:52:04] My only involvement, actually, in the Heygaltch area
[6:52:07] was acquiring a lease in favor of GCC
[6:52:10] from the Ute Mountain Utes.
[6:52:13] Thank you,
[6:52:20] Commissioner.
[6:52:22] Just asking general questions or just for GCC?
[6:52:25] I don't need to redo it.
[6:52:26] Either one.
[6:52:27] OK.
[6:52:30] All right, I'll pick some for GCC.
[6:52:32] I'm not sure.
[6:52:33] I don't think I need to anymore, but who knows.
[6:52:40] On the tour that the commissioners were able to take with staff and members of GCC personnel,
[6:52:51] we noticed that a large pullout outside of the – to the north of the mine on County
[6:52:59] Road 120. And we had an answered question about what the trucks were doing, whether they were
[6:53:07] actually covering their loads, when they pulled out into the pullout, or exactly was it more
[6:53:15] of a safety check?
[6:53:24] Mr. Peterson is probably the most knowledgeable, but he wasn't on the tour. So just to make
[6:53:28] absolutely sure we're referring to the exact right place that you're referencing,
[6:53:32] I just would like to see if there's another GCC person who's better suited to answer that question.
[6:53:37] He's coming up right now.
[6:53:39] And there would be the person I was thinking of.
[6:53:43] Working.
[6:53:44] My name is Wade Weymour.
[6:53:47] I reside at 918 East Oak Drive, Bayfield, Colorado.
[6:53:51] I've worked with GCC for 22 years.
[6:53:54] When we were on the tour of the area that you were talking about, it's considered what we call the truckers,
[6:53:58] called the U-Currals. It's state ground. It's an extra wide spot right next to
[6:54:05] some loading chutes, and that's where they were pulling off out of the
[6:54:10] lane of traffic on County Road 120.
[6:54:14] This turnout actually isn't near a loading
[6:54:17] chute. This is... Loading chute is a cattle. It's a cattle chute. Oh, for the...
[6:54:30] Are they performing when they pull off?
[6:54:32] They're required by GCC policy to be tarped or untarped at that location because there's no residence in between there and the mine site.
[6:54:41] If they need to pull off prior to getting to the mine site.
[6:54:46] And when they're leaving the mine site, what activity are they pursuing?
[6:54:50] Same. If they do not tarp on the mine site, they will tarp there out of the lane of traffic.
[6:54:55] Okay. Okay. Is there a representative of the trucking company present in the audience today?
[6:55:07] We did not call or invite them as our witnesses, but I suspect you might have a good representative in the audience if you ask that question generally.
[6:55:15] Okay. I just, I had a question as to the number of hours that truckers are on the job per day.
[6:55:26] And I have noticed the majority of the trucks that I've witnessed and certainly on the tour have New Mexico plates.
[6:55:34] I'm wondering, did the majority of the folks driving trucks reside in New Mexico?
[6:55:39] go and based on number of hours a day, are they picking up one load and going south to
[6:55:46] Gallup and staying or coming back a number of times a day?
[6:55:50] Mr. Wymore might be able to answer that question.
[6:55:52] Mr. Wymore again, I cannot answer on the hours that they run.
[6:55:57] Now there is trucks that run down, and you might see the same truck in one day,
[6:56:01] but they have different drivers during the shift.
[6:56:04] They may run down.
[6:56:04] If they're going to the Gallup location, they'll run down to Gallup,
[6:56:07] return back to their yard in Kirtland area and a different jock you'll get in the cab
[6:56:12] and take over.
[6:56:14] So Kirtland is one of their, is there main?
[6:56:17] There's a couple of different trucking companies.
[6:56:19] One of the facilities is in Kirtland, the other truck, the other trucking companies,
[6:56:22] other facilities in Farmington.
[6:56:24] Okay.
[6:56:30] Commissioner, you might ask that question again after 6 p.m. when the folks that
[6:56:34] are working during the day come for the second round of public comment.
[6:56:37] Okay.
[6:56:38] I think we'll have some more witnesses available at that time.
[6:56:41] Okay. Great. Thanks. We may have somebody right now wanting to answer that question.
[6:56:53] Hi, I'm Brandon Wendell. I own Well on Wheels Water Hauling here in La Plata County.
[6:56:58] Truckers by national DOT requirements are not allowed to drive anything more than 11 hours a day.
[6:57:05] They are allowed to be on shift for 14 hours, but only behind the wheel for 11.
[6:57:09] They have to document all of their in and out time out of the seat
[6:57:13] and document what they're doing when they're not driving.
[6:57:16] So I thought that might help answer that question.
[6:57:20] Thank you.
[6:57:20] You're welcome.
[6:57:32] Okay.
[6:57:33] I
[6:57:36] guess other
[6:57:45] questions for GCC.
[6:57:53] I guess as a follow-up to the council for the neighbors and
[6:58:04] Cross Creek, the request, repeated request for 55 trucks, a limit on 55 trucks per day
[6:58:14] going north.
[6:58:16] Have you analyzed a split of 55 trucks going north, 25 using the southern route?
[6:58:23] And I was noting one of the comments earlier from a member of the public stating when
[6:58:29] the traffic was at 50 trucks per day it was hardly noticeable when you were a
[6:58:34] resident near the road anyway just wanted to put that out there on the
[6:58:40] record but have you analyzed that split?
[6:58:47] So I really hear that as maybe two
[6:58:50] questions one is the question of could GCC reduce operations to 55 trucks
[6:58:54] period the second is has GCC analyzed 55 trucks on County Road 120 North plus
[6:59:00] 25 trucks or some other number on County Road 125, 125 was the neighbors question my question is
[6:59:07] have you analyzed 50 truck 55 trucks going north and 25 going plus 25 going south okay well we'll
[6:59:14] address that question now then okay thank you
[6:59:20] we've more closely analyzed 120 south its entirety
[6:59:25] and for a number of reasons which Mike Olsen stated earlier it's it's not a favorite route
[6:59:31] because of the number of constraints that are built into the road, the number of
[6:59:35] 90-degree corners, the number of county road intersections, and the nature of the
[6:59:40] State Highway intersections at any traffic volume. I will further comment that
[6:59:47] there were times in years past that 120 South was used as an alternate route
[6:59:52] sometimes during snow events.
[6:59:57] It was any time that
[7:00:00] How it was used, it was found to be problematic. In 1996, GCC opened its own truck, GCC's predecessor,
[7:00:09] National King Cole, opened its own trucking company and ran its own trucks until 2004, I believe.
[7:00:17] I was in charge of that trucking company for a while. At the beginning of that point, there was the occasional practice of running trucks to the south.
[7:00:26] It became problematic enough with the number of trucks stuck in the ditch and spilled loads that we absolutely abandoned the practice of driving to the south.
[7:00:39] After we sold the trucking company in 2004, there was again a short time when trucks were occasionally routed to the south for one convenience or another,
[7:00:49] but finally then it was abandoned because of the problematic nature of the route.
[7:00:53] If I may ask staff, Mr. Murray, would you mind finding this slide of the roads, the various routes, the 120 going north, 120 going south?
[7:01:07] I heard Mr. Dodson say during his testimony that he was not recommending the full southern route, but using a combination of 119, 116.
[7:01:18] I would just like to see the visual on that.
[7:01:36] Yeah, Ms. Murray, could you show the route that the commissioners were driven on going to the south
[7:01:43] versus the route that Mr. Dodson is recommending or recommended?
[7:01:49] Thank you, Mayor of the Planning Department. The green line shows North 120, the red square is the mine.
[7:01:55] then we traveled south to this intersection right here we went left and
[7:02:03] traveled up this hill and right around here the road becomes paved so then you
[7:02:09] may remember that oh right yes portion of it and it actually goes up and down
[7:02:14] probably with these drainages so then there's a hard right right where the
[7:02:20] ditches, these two 90 degrees, and then we popped out here at 140. We traveled
[7:02:25] south down to Klein where the school is, the school is actually down here, and then
[7:02:32] hung this right and went back in on 119 and traveled around.
[7:02:40] Okay, thank you.
[7:03:04] I
[7:03:04] guess perhaps one last question for the applicants.
[7:03:14] If you were to begin, if
[7:03:16] If you were to do all four phases as one phase, how long do you believe it would take you?
[7:03:28] And is it even feasible in the amount of time there is between now and winter?
[7:03:40] Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Carolyn White again, I'd like to give you an overview answer and
[7:03:45] then ask Mr. Peterson or Mr. Olson to answer in more detail.
[7:03:49] But I want to highlight for the commission that some of the obstacles here, this is not
[7:03:54] a question of GCC being unwilling to spend money faster or to engage in activities faster.
[7:04:02] This is a question of certain steps which have to occur sequentially and the amount
[7:04:06] of time required to complete each of those steps.
[7:04:08] So as to the specific amount of time that you could get it done and if you compressed
[7:04:12] it, I'll let Mr. Olson opine on that if he has an opinion.
[7:04:16] But the point I'm making is that we are at a phase of conceptual design, subsequent to approval of this permit.
[7:04:24] If it is approved, we will engage in preliminary design with the approval and coordination with county staff.
[7:04:30] When preliminary design is finalized, then they will engage in the right-of-way analysis that's already been discussed extensively.
[7:04:37] And that will include a process of identifying what right away is needed to complete the
[7:04:42] roadway as it has been designed as well as alternatives where it appears that it may be
[7:04:47] problematic to acquire that right away, right, like the corner we were just looking at.
[7:04:51] And all of these things cannot occur concurrently.
[7:04:56] So the parts that can be done quickly are already proposed to be done as soon as
[7:05:02] possible, namely in 2016.
[7:05:04] And those are also the parts that have the most urgent need, like the immediate paving
[7:05:08] in front of the residents of the portion that's unpaved.
[7:05:11] But significant portions of this can't be really engaged in until certain other portions
[7:05:16] are completed.
[7:05:17] And that's really the constraint that's driving some of the proposal for phasing.
[7:05:22] There has also been concern expressed by the residents about how the construction
[7:05:26] will be staged, and that's an issue that we'll work very closely with county staff.
[7:05:32] But if all of the work were to be expedited and completed all at once, there would be significant impacts
[7:05:38] likely on both the mine and the resident's ability to use the road in the interim.
[7:05:42] Phasing it allows it to continue to be used by all parties.
[7:05:46] So that's the sort of big picture overview answer, but I'll let Mr. Peterson or Mr. Olson
[7:05:50] add any more detail that they think is appropriate.
[7:05:59] Michael Olsen wrote an engineering there from the conceptual into the preliminary is a significant
[7:06:06] amount of work and the scheduling allows time to complete that work and that's it just doesn't
[7:06:12] happen overnight and there was and a lot of that doesn't address the right-of-way requirements
[7:06:19] and if there is any modification to the alignment and so that allows a little bit of time
[7:06:25] for that. Doesn't allow a lot. And so this is an aggressive schedule, but you don't want
[7:06:32] to also, you want to put together a schedule that's fairly realistic. I think there may
[7:06:39] be some opportunities to move some tasks forward, but that really depends on right away and
[7:06:46] if consensus and agreement can be reached. So this is a realistic schedule and there's
[7:06:53] There's no, there's not intended to show any type of delay.
[7:06:58] Thank you.
[7:06:59] Mr. Chair, I actually do have another question for staff.
[7:07:02] Yes.
[7:07:02] Put staff on the hook over here.
[7:07:06] We received a recommendation from Mr. Robbins of changes to the Road Improvements Agreement
[7:07:15] and changes to findings and conditions.
[7:07:21] I know you probably haven't.
[7:07:22] I'm not sure if you've had a chance to review these in detail, but do you believe it might
[7:07:28] be possible to give the commissioners your opinion of these as it relates to the staff
[7:07:36] findings and conclusions after the public comment period this evening?
[7:07:43] At this point, we have certainly not reviewed those proposed amendments extensively.
[7:07:54] We very quickly reviewed them.
[7:07:58] We can certainly try and be prepared to speak more articulately to those amendments this
[7:08:04] evening.
[7:08:05] However, most of the amendments are being proposed or being driven by the idea of
[7:08:10] 55 trucks going north, which then would be some fairly significant changes to the project
[7:08:18] as it's been presented by the applicant.
[7:08:21] So we will try and be more prepared this evening, but I'm not sure it's possible at all to
[7:08:27] do a complete analysis of the implications of change of that magnitude.
[7:08:32] Thank you.
[7:08:34] Certainly by tomorrow afternoon, right?
[7:08:41] I'm speaking for my colleagues on this point, but a complete analysis of, I mean, if there's
[7:08:47] a limit from 80 to 55, if staff is of the opinion that 80 trucks can go on North County
[7:08:53] Road 120, then I don't think the issue is 55 trucks can go on North County Road 120.
[7:08:58] If the issue is trying to divert that excess traffic a different direction, I don't think
[7:09:03] that is something that we will be prepared to speak to tomorrow afternoon.
[7:09:06] That would require an analysis both on public works perspective with regard to the road conditions and an analysis from planning regarding compatibility.
[7:09:20] Thank you.
[7:09:27] I think I only have a couple of questions for Mr. Robbins.
[7:09:32] On the road, you had mentioned that the road will change the neighborhood.
[7:09:39] If the road is changed, it would change the neighborhood.
[7:09:42] Can you speak to that a little bit more?
[7:09:49] This is Jeff Robbins for the record.
[7:09:52] And I was paraphrasing, I think, the testimony in particular from Gary Grantham,
[7:09:57] who spoke and is one of the neighbors.
[7:10:00] His point being is that it's a farm-to-market road now.
[7:10:04] In discussions I've had with the neighbors in getting prepared for this hearing, and I'll
[7:10:09] let them pipe up if I'm saying this wrong, they don't want a new paved road.
[7:10:15] They like the road as it is right now.
[7:10:18] But they are cognizant of the fact that everyone in the room is struggling with having to
[7:10:24] figure out a way to get a win-win-win here.
[7:10:26] And if GCC needs 120 ADTs at the end of the day, they'll bite the bullet and take
[7:10:33] the road. But Mr. Grantham's point was that will fundamentally change the neighborhood
[7:10:39] in that we now will have a road similar to La Posta Road next to the Purple Cliffs. I
[7:10:45] think that's the one that we looked at. And I recall La Posta Road before and after
[7:10:50] the improvements and it's a pretty different road. And a road of that magnitude could
[7:10:58] could likely support additional development down that way.
[7:11:03] I mean, if you just sort of think logically
[7:11:04] through what that could open up,
[7:11:06] and I think that was Mr. Grantham's point,
[7:11:09] and I think the other point from the neighbors is
[7:11:10] they like their small farm-to-market road
[7:11:14] that's there now, but they're trying to come
[7:11:16] to some solution-based orientation for you.
[7:11:20] So I think that was the point.
[7:11:22] Thank you.
[7:11:31] I think that's all the questions I had
[7:11:34] appreciate you following up on that.
[7:11:42] Any other questions?
[7:11:45] I do, but I don't want to, I mean, I don't know, I do have questions, but for staff, but I don't know if you want to start at 12 minutes after 4 or not.
[7:11:56] Yes, Mr. Huntington.
[7:12:12] Mr. Huntington, can you wait a minute, if you're going to, first of all, we need to decide if you're allowed to talk again since we closed public testimony.
[7:12:19] If you are, you'll need to come up to the mic.
[7:12:21] So if you wait just a second.
[7:12:24] If you open it up, then you have to open it up to whoever else wants to comment,
[7:12:30] or he can wait till tonight.
[7:12:38] If Mr. Huntington is going to talk about where there have been accidents on the south route,
[7:12:42] I think I have what I need to know already as it relates to that.
[7:12:47] I think I do as well, but you would be more than welcome to comment again this evening
[7:12:52] if you can make it back to that meeting.
[7:12:59] Should I ask questions or just hold off till later?
[7:13:02] Are these questions you want on the record, or is this a staff question?
[7:13:08] These are staff questions I would have to ask on the record.
[7:13:11] I would be in favor of continuing.
[7:13:15] Okay.
[7:13:16] I had specific questions as it relates to the staff report,
[7:13:19] so please have that handy, Mr. Morari.
[7:13:24] Page 47, item number 26, it talks about if truck traffic increases, there would be a need for a new permit.
[7:13:36] And I'm wondering what's the definition of how do we know if truck traffic is increasing?
[7:13:42] What's the trigger for that?
[7:13:48] So, Daniel Murray, I'll take the first crack at this and add a may add on to it.
[7:13:51] We're talking about condition number 26.
[7:13:53] And this was just an absolute explicit reference that any increase in trucks warrants a major amendment.
[7:14:01] That was a recommendation from the CAP, citizen advisory panel.
[7:14:05] There are 14 instances where these conditions are directly traceable to be at the CAP or North 120 neighbors.
[7:14:12] So that is one where we are just reiterating a recommendation from the public that it be very clear these truck numbers are absolute
[7:14:21] and that an increase of one warrants a major amendment.
[7:14:25] So that's to say, if the full improvements were implemented
[7:14:29] and the 120 trucks per day were the number,
[7:14:33] if it went to 121, well, we'll take the average.
[7:14:38] But if the average became 121,
[7:14:40] that that would be a major amendment.
[7:14:45] Correct. That's the intent of the condition.
[7:14:48] So, would GCC understand?
[7:14:53] Mr. Chairman, Commissioner, yes, that is GCC's understanding, and I would additionally
[7:14:57] know that the way you will know what the truck number is.
[7:15:00] For hours that GCC is required to do actual reporting and to provide that information not
[7:15:05] only to the county but to the public through the website that I mentioned previously.
[7:15:11] So
[7:15:11] it's whether GCC affirmatively wanted to request the opportunity to add additional trucks or
[7:15:17] whether it became evident through actual reporting data that they had increased the number of
[7:15:21] trucks whether inadvertently or not that a major amendment would be required.
[7:15:26] Okay, thank you.
[7:15:29] I'd like to spend some time looking at the road improvement agreement.
[7:15:32] That is a crux of what we're looking at today, and that will require me to get into this.
[7:15:39] Before we move off that issue, I think the example that Mr. Murray offered was an increase to the 120 max,
[7:15:46] but I believe it would be any increase to the truck numbers as referenced in condition 15A.
[7:15:51] That is the chart that dictates all the different truck numbers for the different phases.
[7:15:54] And if it would make the condition more clear, we can certainly add a reference to the truck
[7:16:02] numbers as shown on the chart in condition 15A.
[7:16:07] I just want to make sure everybody was on the same page, and it sounds like everyone
[7:16:14] is as far as that condition is concerned.
[7:16:16] So with respect to the Road Improvement Agreement, first,
[7:16:31] under 1.4, it talks about grants, and I just wanted to get a recognition from GCC that we absolutely believe that our grant opportunities for projects that would apply to this will be going down.
[7:16:46] Now, every indicator is that the state of Colorado has less and less money to even from
[7:16:53] energy impact grants due to a recent Supreme Court decision that we are now in a hiatus
[7:16:59] for the next two rounds of even getting money of any kind.
[7:17:03] So I want GCC to understand when we had the first conversation, when the first discussed
[7:17:10] possible energy impact monies, we're not in the same world anymore.
[7:17:15] Mr. Chairman, Commissioner, the comment is certainly acknowledged. We are actively involved
[7:17:20] in those discussions with the Joint Budget Committee and well aware of the Supreme Court
[7:17:23] decision that you're referencing and hope to work closely with the county to do our
[7:17:28] best to maximize La Plata County's opportunity to get whatever money is available.
[7:17:34] All right, thanks.
[7:17:38] I kind of hesitate to get into this conversation, but we've got
[7:17:41] to get into it sometime. And that is, I think, high on all of the people in this room, at
[7:17:48] least in the front-row's mind, as well as in my own mind, is how do we enforce compliance?
[7:17:54] There have been times when we understood that there would be actions taken on GCC's part
[7:18:01] that would improve situations that either didn't happen in the timeframe that we hoped
[7:18:04] they would, or they were the temporary road that decayed very quickly, all that kind
[7:18:08] of stuff. So this is, you know, I think for staff, more than anybody, but how are we safe?
[7:18:16] How do we know that if, you know, end of June 2016 turns out to middle of August 2016,
[7:18:26] how, where is enforceability in this and how are we protected? So, care to take that
[7:18:34] one, Ms. Rogers?
[7:18:35] Yes, as previously discussed, we have the standard code enforcement process, but I think
[7:18:44] as the Board is aware from some of our other instances, it is somewhat of a blunt sword,
[7:18:51] not quite as responsive time-wise as we would like.
[7:18:59] So, we do have this contract, and we did pay particular attention to the enforcement provisions
[7:19:08] that are in the document.
[7:19:10] So after we have gone through it, there is an opportunity where we would give GCC notice
[7:19:18] and, you know, they have opportunities to cure, but we believe that contractually it
[7:19:28] is an effective mechanism, however, even that takes time.
[7:19:34] One of the things that is available on occasion for counties as well is to try to seek injunctive
[7:19:44] relief and that process allows a county or neighbors or others to try to get the activity
[7:19:54] to actually cease until the applicant can come into compliance.
[7:20:00] We have not gone so far as to include that sort of language in the RIA.
[7:20:08] It is something that would otherwise have to be demonstrated in court.
[7:20:13] There are a number of elements that would have to be demonstrated by the county in order
[7:20:18] for injunctive relief to be given, and I can cover those if the board would like, but short
[7:20:27] of the use of that or not using that single tool, we do believe we have brought everything
[7:20:33] else to the table that we can from a legal perspective.
[7:20:41] Mr. Chair, along that line of questioning, when I asked an enforcement question earlier
[7:20:49] today, Council for GCC stated that they also are committing to put up a financial assurance.
[7:20:57] Can you describe that?
[7:20:59] Yeah, the financial assurance will relate to each phase of the improvement.
[7:21:03] So, if they begin to undertake improvements, we would have 120% security.
[7:21:12] At that point, we would have to get the surety, the company that actually provided the bond to perform.
[7:21:21] I've done that before. It's another task that's not that easy to accomplish.
[7:21:27] However, while it provides the county some protection to whatever phase we happen to be in,
[7:21:32] It's not an overarching sort of process.
[7:21:38] You know, if it happens in phase five, that'll be much simpler because we have the bond and then everything will be complete.
[7:21:44] If it happens in phase one, all we have is the money to complete phase one and we have problems with respect to the future phases.
[7:21:56] Thank you.
[7:21:59] Mr. Chairman, if you'd care to hear the answer from GCC in terms of our interpretation of
[7:22:04] your question of what enforcement mechanisms the county have, I'd be glad to provide that
[7:22:09] as well at this time.
[7:22:12] Thank you.
[7:22:15] As noted before, there's the two alternative legal mechanisms, and that is either enforcement
[7:22:20] under the contract, which is the section that the county attorney was just referencing,
[7:22:24] and then there's also your code enforcement mechanism.
[7:22:26] And under the contract you have two mechanisms of enforcement, one is by calling on the performance
[7:22:31] bond, which is by phases, but you also have the opportunity to proceed with a breach of
[7:22:37] contract or other type of action.
[7:22:39] And I would turn your attention to section 6.2, which is all the remedies available
[7:22:43] to the county, which does include injunctive relief.
[7:22:46] As the county attorney noted, you still have to prove the elements of injunctive relief
[7:22:49] to a court in order to get that.
[7:22:51] But my point, I think, is that this draft of the RIA, and I'm referencing the one that's in your packet,
[7:22:58] not the alternative red-line draft proposed by the opponents this afternoon,
[7:23:01] which we have not yet had a chance to review and which we have not approved and not executed.
[7:23:06] But the draft that's in your packet is one that GCC agreed to and signed,
[7:23:10] and all of the language in the remedies section is the complete and original language proposed by the county.
[7:23:16] What I mean by that is although we discussed at different times and attempted to negotiate
[7:23:23] provisions which would reduce the impact of that and weaken the ability of the county
[7:23:27] to enforce that agreement, none of those discussions made it into the final version
[7:23:32] and the final version is the strongest possible original language that GCC has in fact agreed
[7:23:38] to.
[7:23:39] So I would say you have really three or four alternative legal mechanisms, code
[7:23:44] enforcement under the contract, which includes the Alternatives and Junctive Relief breach
[7:23:49] of contract, as well as the 120 percent bond requirement.
[7:23:52] In addition, I would add that there's an additional level of enforcement, and that
[7:23:58] is GCC's commitment as it relates to this issue, and I recognize that there are obviously
[7:24:03] some in the room who question that commitment.
[7:24:05] But what I would note is that all of the conversations that have occurred to date
[7:24:08] about things that the county would request that GCC undertake have occurred in the absence
[7:24:14] of GCC having any assurances that it would receive a permit and be able to continue its
[7:24:19] operations. If this permit is granted, it is granted with conditions and it very well
[7:24:24] understands that in order to continue operation it will need to comply with those conditions.
[7:24:29] So I wanted to take the opportunity to emphasize that issue for you because it was very
[7:24:35] difficult for both the county and GCC to have conversations about what mitigation measures
[7:24:39] it might undertake in the absence of any certainty about whether or not a permit would actually
[7:24:44] be granted.
[7:24:49] Thank you for that.
[7:24:50] Thank you for that explanation or clarification and commitment I believe was your words.
[7:25:00] Just is there any concern or requirement as it relates to the condition of the temporary
[7:25:09] pavement that's proposed under the RIA. We had a less than favorable experience with a
[7:25:19] temporary solution over the winter and just want to know what assurances do we have that
[7:25:24] will have a better experience this way this time.
[7:25:29] We have all the confidence that it will be done correctly. It will be permitted by
[7:25:33] the county. A geotech report will be required. It's a professional application of hot
[7:25:38] in that asphalt. It was a crude attempt at trying to mitigate the dust, the application
[7:25:43] of the recycled asphalt pavement known as RAP. That was basically a loose mix. They tried
[7:25:50] to put that down possibly with some binder, but they got caught late in the season. I
[7:25:54] think it was mid to late November. It was a cold wet weather was coming in, so it didn't
[7:25:59] take it all. That would have been a lot less of a permanent solution than what's
[7:26:04] being proposed at this time.
[7:26:06] In the lifespan of this temporary pavement is expected to be three years?
[7:26:10] That's what I heard today.
[7:26:12] At a minimum it would be three years.
[7:26:13] You can base the design of that pavement based on the anticipated axle loading.
[7:26:18] So based on the vehicles that the pavement will have to support over the life of the pavement,
[7:26:24] you can design that pass fault for whatever duration within reason.
[7:26:30] On a new road typically that's 20 years, but three years would be acceptable.
[7:26:34] And I think we have a fairly good base out there.
[7:26:36] There's a fair amount of gravel that's been driven on by heavy trucks for a number of years now.
[7:26:42] So I would expect we should have a high level of success with this interim asphalt mat.
[7:26:51] And then on the road improvement schedule, which I seem not to be able to put my hands on,
[7:26:58] Is that section of the road to be finished by 2019?
[7:27:08] There's three years, I'm just trying to figure out,
[7:27:10] is three years long enough for what's anticipated?
[7:27:12] Actually, I believe the road is anticipated to be completed in 2017, if I'm not mistaken.
[7:27:18] So it basically would be recycled the following year.
[7:27:23] Okay, thanks.
[7:27:25] And
[7:27:34] then,
[7:27:36] yeah, that's it for me on the road improvement agreement.
[7:27:40] Thank you.
[7:28:01] Commissioner, any further questions?
[7:28:05] A request of Mr. Robbins for this evening's rebuttal.
[7:28:10] If you could be prepared to discuss how your findings
[7:28:16] and conditions vary from the counties,
[7:28:19] as well as the road improvements agreement,
[7:28:22] My initial look through this doesn't seem like you had too many changes to the road improvements agreement.
[7:28:29] Yes, we'll do that.
[7:28:30] Thank you.
[7:28:35] I'm wondering if we need some time outside of rebuttal to talk about that.
[7:28:39] I can see it taking each party wanting to make some comments on it.
[7:28:44] Maybe we could just give 10 minutes each.
[7:28:47] I don't know.
[7:28:48] It's up to you guys.
[7:28:50] That'd be fine.
[7:28:52] That would be in this evening's.
[7:28:54] Yeah, maybe after public comment before rebuttal
[7:29:02] If I'm understanding where you guys might be headed right now
[7:29:06] I'd like some direction before we go into a break from you in terms of what conditions we should be working on
[7:29:12] for example, you've heard us offer a
[7:29:15] 29th condition regarding an emergency response plan if that's agreeable. We'll come back with that
[7:29:21] I've also heard discussion around noise levels, and I'm looking for direction if that's something
[7:29:27] we should come back with.
[7:29:29] Compliance with other agencies, that was another one.
[7:29:33] Those are the three that stick out in my mind.
[7:29:36] If there's others, that's what I'm asking.
[7:29:41] Mr. Chair, if I may, the request I made earlier, Mr. Smith responded that probably not adequate
[7:29:49] but to have some discussion of the suggestion of splitting the 80 trucks per day, 25 going south, 55 going north.
[7:30:00] That's a really short time period, but that is a specific request that we've heard today
[7:30:06] repeatedly.
[7:30:08] That's an additional issue that the commissioners would like to see further study on. There's
[7:30:15] a mechanism in the code for requesting that that study occur. It's something that should
[7:30:21] be directed at the applicant, and then staff would, of course, review any additional study
[7:30:25] that came in, but absent more work on what 25 trucks looks like going south, I'm not
[7:30:33] sure staff is in a position to opine on the appropriateness of that either from compliance
[7:30:38] in Chapter 74, compatibility.
[7:30:40] I mean, we certainly don't want to rush into any determinations.
[7:30:43] An additional 25 trucks going south on a road that has not been analyzed from that perspective
[7:30:47] would be, well, it would be difficult to come up with that in a couple of hours
[7:30:52] time.
[7:30:54] Understood.
[7:31:00] So then I guess I would, Mr. Chair, I would direct that question to GCC, as Mr. Smith
[7:31:06] suggested, and any analysis or to Cross Creek, I'm sorry, is it Cross Creek Ranch, of any
[7:31:18] analysis, additional analysis that you can provide tonight?
[7:31:29] There's a couple of things, including particularly the condition that Daniel mentioned, that
[7:31:34] I brought up earlier related to compliance with other permits issued by other agencies.
[7:31:43] I think that's a great idea, but I'm concerned by the difficulty that in our playing a
[7:31:50] role in enforcing that may be.
[7:31:52] and I would like an opportunity to seek legal counsel from our own attorney in
[7:31:58] executive session before kind of I don't know I think when I enough legal issues
[7:32:06] have come up that there's a number I'd like to get a legal counsel on an
[7:32:11] executive session and I don't know if you guys have the same sentiment and if
[7:32:17] If you do, I kind of feel like that's the kind of conversation that should happen after
[7:32:25] we've heard all of the evidence as opposed to in the middle of, kind of I feel like we're
[7:32:30] still in the middle and I'd rather do the legal counsel after we've heard everything.
[7:32:35] But what's your thoughts?
[7:32:38] Well, Mr. Chair, I would, if I'm hearing you correctly, you're saying to get legal
[7:32:45] Council on the federal and state permits that have been issued and how it relates to the
[7:32:52] county process?
[7:32:54] No, it's, that I don't think is legal advice. It really has to do with the legal implications
[7:33:02] of us taking on, basically, if there were a violation of, say, a permit with the
[7:33:10] state, it would be in the states choosing not to act, then we would have to take
[7:33:14] actions to determine is that a violation and how does that affect the permit?
[7:33:18] And that sounds like there could be challenges with our, you know, that just sounds like
[7:33:26] there could be challenges with it.
[7:33:28] I think it's theoretically a good idea and practice it could be a poor idea and I'd
[7:33:31] like to get legal advice on that particular matter going forward.
[7:33:37] And I wouldn't mind the opportunity to talk with you as well about the Road Improvement
[7:33:42] I haven't looked at the modifications, but given the nature of some of your questions,
[7:33:49] I think it would be beneficial to discuss that as well.
[7:33:57] So, do you guys think having a meeting with our council would be a good idea?
[7:34:04] Do we get a nap first?
[7:34:08] And your recommendation is either following tonight's meeting or...
[7:34:17] Yeah, that's my that
[7:34:18] that is what I was saying is not doing it right now because we're in midstream
[7:34:25] you know I think we just have to take a hard look at calendars and when
[7:34:28] can when it's realistic to have it
[7:34:31] we have a board discussion time scheduled tomorrow I don't know is
[7:34:34] there anything on that that couldn't be
[7:34:37] reprioritized Joe?
[7:34:39] I'm aware of that agenda for tomorrow morning I think you
[7:34:42] would be able to forego that if necessary we also have identified a time in
[7:34:47] in the afternoon that you could also continue the meeting to as well.
[7:34:52] Yeah, I thought we had from 12.30 to 3.
[7:34:55] We tend to only have that blocked out in case the board needs it, but we could also meet in the morning, if necessary.
[7:35:02] We have a special business meeting at 8.15, and otherwise, as long scheduled, I will be gone from 9 to 10 tomorrow.
[7:35:13] Okay, so I guess in it all in all my preference is to do it at 10 o'clock or
[7:35:22] 10 15 whenever you would get back and scratch the BDT if we get the board
[7:35:27] discussion time. This is our highest priority and I don't want to just
[7:35:32] change it because you know we've got other regular business going on.
[7:35:41] Okay,
[7:35:41] then each party's rebuttal would be occurring tomorrow?
[7:35:46] Or do you wanna hear the rebuttal tonight?
[7:35:49] You
[7:35:52] guys think?
[7:35:55] Probably tonight because then we would have it
[7:35:59] for our executive session tomorrow.
[7:36:02] And it sounds like our earliest available time
[7:36:04] is gonna be 10, 15.
[7:36:08] And what I'm envisioning is 10, 15
[7:36:14] for the executive session.
[7:36:16] And then any,
[7:36:21] I guess, the public deliberation part or whatever in the afternoon as scheduled.
[7:36:29] Is that all right with you, Brad?
[7:36:30] Yes.
[7:36:31] And then tonight, before we close the hearing, we'll move to go into executive session at 10 a.m.
[7:36:39] I think we have to.
[7:36:40] 10, 15?
[7:36:41] Yes.
[7:36:41] Okay.
[7:36:44] Do we need a motion on that?
[7:36:47] Not right now.
[7:36:48] Not right now.
[7:36:48] Do it tonight, yeah.
[7:36:49] We'll do that later.
[7:36:54] Any further questions?
[7:37:01] Seeing none.
[7:37:03] Can you continue our meeting until 6 o'clock this evening?
[7:37:12] Yes.
[7:37:13] We have an expert with us here.
[7:37:16] Can you speak into the microphone?
[7:37:17] Oh, I'm so sorry.
[7:37:20] Danielson for Cross Creek Ranch.
[7:37:22] I'm just wondering, is there a chance the board would want to talk to or question Mr. Hudson at all tomorrow?
[7:37:28] or should we let him go back to Colorado Springs?
[7:37:33] That's the question.
[7:37:35] Can he make himself available by telephone if he has a question?
[7:37:38] As long as we're asking that question, we have several experts here as well.
[7:37:41] It does sound like you are heading towards planning on using the time you've set aside tomorrow
[7:37:46] and not completing the hearing tonight.
[7:37:49] So could you give us a ruling on that so we can make travel arrangements?
[7:37:57] I guess I think you can expect to be here tomorrow afternoon.
[7:38:04] Honestly, I'm not personally anticipating additional questions in terms of testimony,
[7:38:11] but I don't want to say that's out of the question either because stuff comes up.
[7:38:17] I think I did inform you guys of the possibility of a continuation until tomorrow about a week ago.
[7:38:23] Sure.
[7:38:24] Sure.
[7:38:25] We're looking for the best guidance we could get.
[7:38:31] So you suggested if he was available by phone, that to you guys.
[7:38:35] It sounds like that might be a task that works for me.
[7:38:38] Well, yeah, I don't know and maybe we can make the call this evening after they've finished
[7:38:43] their statements because I kind of feel like, I mean at some point you have to close evidence.
[7:38:48] and my sense is that we would close evidence tonight
[7:38:53] and tomorrow would be deliberation,
[7:38:57] which wouldn't require additional information.
[7:39:06] I guess we'll know more after our meeting tonight
[7:39:11] on the final verdict of whether you can go back to Colorado Springs or not.
[7:39:17] But it sounds more likely than not.
[7:39:20] Related to that point, if I may,
[7:39:22] I would just note that rebuttal by definition is the last thing at the conclusion of all
[7:39:27] public testimony.
[7:39:28] So if there would be additional public testimony, I would anticipate we would request that we
[7:39:33] delay our rebuttal opportunity until all public testimony is concluded.
[7:39:37] Experts and public.
[7:39:43] Thank you.
[7:39:45] That's, that'll be fine.
[7:39:48] All right.
[7:39:49] We will again continue our meeting until 6 p.m. this evening.
[7:39:54] Thank you.
[9:04:58] Testing. Good evening.
[9:05:04] Do you have us turned up?
[9:05:07] Thank you.
[9:05:12] Good
[9:05:15] evening.
[9:05:34] Thank you.
[9:05:35] Thank you for coming. We're going to reconvene our meeting and take public comment again this evening.
[9:05:42] If you work here earlier and you would like to make public comment, please pick up a pink slip from Jan.
[9:05:53] And sometimes they're over by the sink in the back.
[9:05:56] You can also fill out a public or a pink slip for public comment.
[9:06:01] We will be limiting public comment to three minutes, so please take the opportunity.
[9:06:11] Do we have any public comment slips available now, Jim?
[9:06:18] What
[9:06:33] I'll do is I'll try to look ahead a little bit on who is coming up and then who
[9:06:41] will be followed so we can kind of get three people ready all at once.
[9:06:47] First
[9:06:52] public comment this evening will be Brandon Waddell.
[9:06:56] Waddell on deck will be Dave Peters and then Kayla Patterson I
[9:07:10] am Brandon Waddell
[9:07:11] I live at 9588 County Road 141 Pestpress 81326 and the owner of Wellow and
[9:07:17] Wheels water hauling here in the county. I deliver water on 90% of the county
[9:07:23] roads here in La Plata County. I can assure you that I'm a great monitor of
[9:07:28] the conditions of our county roads with the new truck speed limits in place on
[9:07:33] counter 120. I believe it's as safe or safer than most county roads in the
[9:07:40] Plata County despite the tight turns or narrow lanes. Nonetheless, I'd like to see
[9:07:45] GCC do what they're gonna do. I think it's the right idea. I feel that the
[9:07:49] especially dangerous roads in this county are the ones that are straight
[9:07:52] and wide because people just motor down them with no regard to speed
[9:07:58] Why hasn't the county laid mag chloride this year on County Road 120 is a question that I have.
[9:08:04] When
[9:08:08] Road and Bridge worked, County Road 120 was mag chloride and we used water as well to mitigate the 15 to 50% of leftover dust.
[9:08:15] I can guarantee it was much closer to non-existent when both resources were used.
[9:08:19] I asked if the county commissioners put in place a more aggressive mag chloride schedule on County Road 120 until GCC completes the road construction.
[9:08:29] Using Canard Road 120 South, in my opinion, is a viable route.
[9:08:34] I travel it weekly, multiple times a week.
[9:08:36] You're around with 18-wheeler, like the 30-ton coal hauler trucks.
[9:08:41] I think if you're an aware professional courteous and law-abiding driver,
[9:08:46] then there's nothing wrong with that road or intersections exiting out on South Canard Road 120.
[9:08:51] The exit of 120 onto the highway has a long distance of sight line,
[9:08:55] and I think can be used.
[9:08:57] Remember, this is only a temporary solution if used as an option.
[9:09:03] I think this is one box to check off in this win-win-win situation of allowing GCC,
[9:09:07] their 80 truck minimum, to sustain a profitable business margin while they continue to pay their taxes,
[9:09:12] their 12 cents per ton addition, plus doing a 10 million road improvement.
[9:09:17] I support the permit and encourage you all to find a way to make this work for everyone involved.
[9:09:21] I can't stress enough the value of the word everyone. Thank you
[9:09:27] Thank you
[9:09:29] Next is Dave Peters
[9:09:38] My name is Dave Peters. I live in Durango. I'm retired and previously was an executive for a major energy company
[9:09:46] My background is in engineering litigation and government affairs
[9:09:51] I'm here in support of issuing the permit if I were a commissioner
[9:09:55] I'd be looking for the following, have the regulatory requirements been met?
[9:10:01] The Planning Department recommends approval, so yes.
[9:10:04] Will the permit add financial burden to the county?
[9:10:08] GCC is generously funding road construction and maintenance far beyond what's reasonable.
[9:10:15] Conversely, permit denial will cost the county tens of millions of dollars a year in lost revenue.
[9:10:21] Will citizens be adversely affected?
[9:10:24] The majority of people strongly support retaining jobs in the county and ensuring economic growth.
[9:10:32] People living near the mine are impacted, but through many meetings with them and GCC,
[9:10:38] the majority are satisfied with this current plan.
[9:10:43] Is there an environmental impact?
[9:10:45] Trucks create dust in the past and will continue to do so.
[9:10:49] However, there are dust mitigation measures in the permit.
[9:10:53] The impact is definitely not overly significant.
[9:10:57] I've done significant permitting in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming.
[9:11:02] La Plata County's permit process is by far the most restrictive cumbersome and lengthy I have seen.
[9:11:09] One other major measure that there is a problem is the fact that there are more by now more than 1,300 pages of documents with this permit.
[9:11:19] the initial EIA for the Keystone Pipeline was just over 3,000 pages.
[9:11:25] The Planning Department needs help to refine the system, and it will take an independent party to help.
[9:11:31] There are resources available at the state level.
[9:11:35] If this permit is not approved, there will be several things that will be uncertain,
[9:11:41] but here are a few things that are certain.
[9:11:46] Commissioners who vote against the permit will not be in office much longer.
[9:11:50] The citizens will see to that.
[9:11:52] There will be a request to have the State Attorney General's office investigate the commissioners in the Planning Department.
[9:11:59] There are several irregularities and clear conflicts of interest.
[9:12:04] A group of citizens will file lawsuits against the county and individual commissioners.
[9:12:09] I would just love to sit in on the depositions.
[9:12:12] So do the right thing and approve the permit. We really don't want a big fight. Thank you for your time.
[9:12:24] Kayla Patterson and then Wade Wymore and Milo Gonzalez after that.
[9:12:33] Kayla Patterson, 43 bookside trail, Bayfield, Colorado, 81122.
[9:12:39] First I would like to thank the county staff, planning commission, GCC and everybody else who had a part in putting this together.
[9:12:46] showing that local government and private industries can be effective in working together to resolve concerns and issues while still maintaining the core of our planning codes.
[9:12:56] I would also like to point out that it has only been mentioned a few times that 1,500 families heat their home with coal from GCC King II.
[9:13:04] As a kid, I was dependent on coal from King Coal I to heat my family's home.
[9:13:09] This is important to me and our community because coal is an effective, affordable and
[9:13:15] maintainable way to provide heat during our long winter months.
[9:13:18] I would like to reiterate there should be a simple decision based on the strong work
[9:13:23] done by GCC and the county staff who have recommended approval to the requested land
[9:13:28] use permit.
[9:13:30] It is apparent that the approval of the Class 2 permit will benefit the neighbors,
[9:13:34] the county and GCC because it also gives everyone involved an opportunity to make sure that the
[9:13:41] mitigations that have been mentioned multiple times need to happen and that the concerns will
[9:13:48] be dealt with. If I was your county commissioner I would feel confident in approving the
[9:13:53] class two land use permit. To not approve this permit is a vote of no confidence in
[9:14:00] the county planning commission and the county planning department and that the mitigations
[9:14:04] of GCC is more than willing to comply with. The commissioner should vote to accept the
[9:14:10] county recommendations to vote to approve the class two land use permit and let the
[9:14:14] work on the road begin. Thank you.
[9:14:18] Thank you.
[9:14:24] My name is Wade Weymour, 918 East Oak Drive, Bayfield, Colorado. I want to state up
[9:14:31] This is my personal opinions, not the views of GCC while I'm speaking up here in front.
[9:14:37] One comment I want to make, and every time I hear it from the opposition on foreign company comments,
[9:14:43] it's a stick in my side. I'm sure if we were to take a poll of hands right now,
[9:14:48] there's a bunch of people here who drove Subaru's and Toyota's to this outfit,
[9:14:52] foreign companies employing U.S. citizens on this soil, just as GCC is doing.
[9:14:59] Thank you very much for joining us.
[9:15:00] As for the character of the county, I'm a history buff. And if I'm not mistaken, Durango
[9:15:08] come about in 1880 via a coal-trained company supporting the mines in Silverton. And I feel
[9:15:17] that my job is not to change the character of the county, but to sustain and retain the
[9:15:22] character of the county. As for comments on property values, I don't know about
[9:15:29] in the town, inside the city limits of Durango. I purchased a home seven years ago. Estimated
[9:15:36] value of a little over three. I can guarantee you right now I can't sell it for maybe $290
[9:15:42] because of gas and oil and industry leaving the county. And I don't think it's going
[9:15:47] to benefit the property values if we cut out another industry. Personally, like I
[9:15:59] north of 160 where the speed limits are 45 and 55 with rumble strips. I can
[9:16:07] listen to those trucks. I do have a little sound barrier. I have a little hill
[9:16:11] between me and that road and the only difference is it's not a gravel road. So
[9:16:17] if GCC is giving the opportunity and this passes, put the asphalt in, these
[9:16:22] trucks are going to maintain the speed limit of 10. Thank you. You can
[9:16:27] already I mean you hit a school zone and you're doing 15 you know how slow that
[9:16:30] is these trucks are doing slower than the school zone that's about it I
[9:16:37] appreciate your time I can guarantee you county staff is not paid enough thank
[9:16:44] you Milo and then Chris Dorn camp and then Allen Allen Crawford Milo
[9:16:57] Gonzales
[9:16:57] us 505 Hickory Ridge Bayfield, Colorado.
[9:17:03] My name is Miles Gonzalez. I work for GCC and
[9:17:05] I can speak to my experience from other minds. I can tell you how lucky we are to have the
[9:17:09] company of this caliber here. One that cares for its employees, the community, the neighbors
[9:17:13] and its stakeholders. But first I would thank you for being here today. I would thank the
[9:17:17] county staff for all their hard work. I thank the planning commission and I thank
[9:17:21] GCC for an enormous amount of concessions they are agreeing to in order to earn
[9:17:26] the recommended approval of permits from those previously mentioned.
[9:17:30] I live here.
[9:17:31] I live here with my wife and children.
[9:17:32] Many of the hardworking people I work with also live here with their families.
[9:17:37] That road is better today than when I first started working thanks to the mine's efforts.
[9:17:41] Your staff has worked hard and so has the mine.
[9:17:43] I think they both have done a good job of putting together a plan that tries to
[9:17:46] make a challenging situation as best as possible.
[9:17:49] You have a recommendation to approve this permit from your plan of staff and from
[9:17:53] the planning commission and now with my testimony as a family man trying to
[9:17:57] provide for his family and speaking for a hundred other minors who couldn't be
[9:18:01] here not because they're working or they just don't feel comfortable speaking.
[9:18:05] We also would recommend that you approve the Class 2 permit. Thanks.
[9:18:11] Thank
[9:18:11] you. Chris?
[9:18:43] Hello my name is Chris Doran Camp. I live at 22343 County Road D.
[9:18:47] Point 6 in Cortez, Colorado. I was born and raised in Colorado. I'm the
[9:18:52] undergone my superintendent, King Tew, I mean,
[9:18:55] so here in support of GCC Energy and their application
[9:18:59] for a class two permit.
[9:19:02] Excuse me.
[9:19:03] Obviously the noise and dust are two
[9:19:05] of the major sticking points.
[9:19:07] I'd like to again point out that the best solution
[9:19:09] is to move forward with the Road and Permanent Agreement
[9:19:12] and pave in front of the two most impacted neighbors.
[9:19:16] There's been mention of GCC safety program.
[9:19:19] One of the core philosophies of this program
[9:19:21] is behavioral safety. This by nature extends to all the facets of our life
[9:19:26] including our travels in and out of the canyon. Another point to bring up is that
[9:19:32] employed at the mine are 19 first responders, one EMT and one ex-paramedic.
[9:19:39] All of our foremen's have a mandatory 10 hours first day train and all of our
[9:19:43] employees undergo weekly safety training. We even recently responded to a
[9:19:49] car wreck on County Road 120 that did not involve the mine.
[9:19:54] We were the first on scene.
[9:19:59] In short, if you're going to have traffic go by,
[9:20:01] we are probably the ones that you want.
[9:20:03] There are roughly 100 more people
[9:20:05] that would be happy to say the same thing if necessary.
[9:20:07] Thank you all.
[9:20:10] Thank you.
[9:20:14] Alan Crawford and then Alan Harper is on deck.
[9:20:23] My name's Alan Crawford.
[9:20:25] I live at 1081 County Road 121.
[9:20:28] in Hesperus. I have been a permanent resident all my life.
[9:20:34] Hagoche has always had coal mines
[9:20:36] in it. It was a coal mining country, and if people moved in here what not wanting coal
[9:20:45] mines, I don't see why they came to this area. And with GCC Energy being the last coal
[9:20:51] mine in the area, it's important coal for the local people and several residents
[9:20:56] to heater houses and stuff, supply coal for the train for Al Harper. I think that
[9:21:05] if you shut this mine down you're putting several hundred people out of
[9:21:08] work in an area that has no other means of support and I don't know why it
[9:21:16] would be beneficial to this county or any part of it to shut this mine down.
[9:21:27] I
[9:21:27] I have a small construction company.
[9:21:29] GCC has gave me quite a bit of work, helped me out quite a bit.
[9:21:34] And for that, I'm appreciative.
[9:21:36] And I believe that GCC Energy has been over backwards
[9:21:39] to do more than their fair share to try to keep and maintain
[9:21:42] the roads and help the public up there.
[9:21:46] That's about all I've got to say.
[9:21:47] Thank you.
[9:21:49] Thank you.
[9:21:54] Alan Harper.
[9:21:57] And then Travis Bolliger.
[9:22:03] I'm Al Harper.
[9:22:03] I'm the owner of the railroad, I live at 265 County Road 204.
[9:22:09] As everybody knows, I'm the railroad guy.
[9:22:14] I think we all should have bought stock and energy drinks with all the vetting that's
[9:22:19] been going on for the last two months on this issue.
[9:22:22] I couldn't be prouder of how government works, how the staff has worked, the negotiations,
[9:22:27] the give-and-take.
[9:22:28] It has really been important.
[9:22:32] Our company has 240 full and part-time employees.
[9:22:37] I've given these facts before.
[9:22:40] If we didn't have the coal here, we'd have to go out of state.
[9:22:43] It's estimated to be cost between $300,000 and $500,000 for us to do that.
[9:22:48] The only way we could do that is raise tickets.
[9:22:51] If we raise the price of tickets, it's estimated it could cost us as much as 10% ridership
[9:22:56] because we're already the most expensive tourist railroad due to the fact of the nature of our lines through the wilderness.
[9:23:04] 10% ridership would cost this community about $17 million of economic impact.
[9:23:11] So it's critical that we have this coal. It's a good coal, low sulfur coal, local source.
[9:23:17] So from the railroad's perspective, it's very important.
[9:23:20] From a community and perspective, there's another 300 jobs from what I hear from testimony
[9:23:26] that would be directly impacted, plus many more indirectly.
[9:23:31] Hard to believe it's my 19th season with Railroad.
[9:23:35] I don't know where the time go. I was just a young kid when I bought it.
[9:23:39] But one thing I found out about Durango is we're all family.
[9:23:44] This is a community of family. We're all dependent on each other.
[9:23:47] In fact, I really look at those communities. We're all railroaders.
[9:23:51] We're all realtors. We're all lawyers. We're all farmers and ranchers.
[9:23:55] And we're all miners. It's important when it affects one, it affects us all.
[9:24:01] And it's so critical that we keep this mind going and operating
[9:24:07] and that we do what we can for those people who are negatively affected.
[9:24:13] And I think the county has made that effort.
[9:24:15] So I appreciate the effort, I appreciate the staff, the negotiation, and the railroad is 100% in support of keeping this mine operating.
[9:24:25] Thank you.
[9:24:25] Thank you.
[9:24:26] Thank you.
[9:24:28] Travis Oligar?
[9:24:31] And then, and then Junie Chambers?
[9:24:37] Travis Oligar, 620 Sandridge Court, Hesperus, Colorado.
[9:24:43] My house is the closest house to the mine.
[9:24:47] I have been to more of these meetings than I can even remember, but as I've watched things develop,
[9:24:57] it reminds me of when my neighbors went to GCC with complaints and problems.
[9:25:05] They had trucks that would, as they back up, the horns would go off, and you could hear those at night.
[9:25:11] and we went to them and we said can you please do something about this they
[9:25:17] changed to a light system instead of horns and the problem went away they
[9:25:22] had a big exhaust fan that that was in the dead of the night when things were
[9:25:29] really quiet and it's quiet out there you could hear the exhaust fan so we
[9:25:34] went to them and we asked them about it and I don't know what it cost them
[9:25:39] But they put a muffler on it and the problem went away and as I watched these meetings and the give
[9:25:46] the give and the take
[9:25:49] You know that it reminds me of those meetings that we had in our homes where
[9:25:55] They were more than happy to go along and I believe that they have met every
[9:26:03] everything that has been put in front of them by staff.
[9:26:08] I think staff has done a good job, and I'm here in support of the mine.
[9:26:13] Thank you.
[9:26:16] Thank you.
[9:26:17] Jenny Chambers.
[9:26:24] Okay.
[9:26:25] Jenny Chambers, 49 Ohford Drive, Durango, Colorado.
[9:26:29] I gave a long testimony back the last time we did this.
[9:26:32] And my big support of the GCC is all the tourism industry that's going to be affected.
[9:26:41] It's not just the railroad.
[9:26:42] It's the restaurants.
[9:26:44] It's the galleries.
[9:26:44] It's the hotels.
[9:26:45] I was the marketing director for a local hotel downtown for five years,
[9:26:49] and I can tell you right now that all of our business came from the railroad.
[9:26:53] So when you're thinking about if you are not going to vote for this mine,
[9:26:56] think about all these kids, these high school kids, these college kids,
[9:26:59] all of these people that work in tourism.
[9:27:01] I mean, it is so much more than just the mine and the train.
[9:27:04] There's thousands and thousands of people that are going to be affected very seriously
[9:27:08] and their families.
[9:27:10] And housing prices are already so high here.
[9:27:12] To put more people out of work, where do you think they're going to live?
[9:27:15] We're going to have more panhandlers than homeless people on the street.
[9:27:18] And I mean that.
[9:27:20] And another thing, I just came from the grocery store before this hearing, and I can't
[9:27:25] tell you how many people inside City Market that work there that use coal to keep
[9:27:29] their house warm.
[9:27:29] and they're very concerned so there you know there you go there's another
[9:27:33] industry city market the grocery stores so in my personal opinion if you do not
[9:27:40] vote in favor of this permit then you might as well hang assigned at every
[9:27:44] entrance to La Plata County every road that says La Plata County is closed for
[9:27:48] business and this will hit nationwide and international news and it will
[9:27:53] affect this entire Southwest region of Colorado thank you
[9:27:57] Thank you.
[9:27:58] Thank you.
[9:28:01] Do we have any other public comment?
[9:28:07] Thank you.
[9:28:08] Come on up.
[9:28:17] This is the commission.
[9:28:18] My name is Tim Gallagher.
[9:28:19] I live at 500 Sand Ridge Court.
[9:28:21] A couple years ago, I drew the short straw at our POA meeting,
[9:28:25] and they elected me the president.
[9:28:28] With the mission to find out what's going on with this mind,
[9:28:31] get involved, see how it affects the property owners out there.
[9:28:34] I was asked to serve on the citizen's advisory panel.
[9:28:37] as a matter of duty to the citizens and the people I represent, I got on that committee.
[9:28:45] Shortly thereafter, I was asked to be the chairman of that.
[9:28:48] And I was given the responsibility to bring reasonable recommendations to the county.
[9:28:53] In that process, our mission was to gather as much information as we possibly could
[9:28:58] about every single aspect of this, including subsidence, vibration, noise, traffic,
[9:29:04] and all the other issues.
[9:29:05] With the resources we had, we feel we did an excellent job of bringing forth reasonable
[9:29:11] recommendations to the county.
[9:29:14] It was never our intention to get involved with the details of the negotiations on exactly
[9:29:20] how many trucks per day or the decibel level or any of those sorts of things, even the
[9:29:26] specific route.
[9:29:27] We left those details of negotiations to county staff and GCC.
[9:29:32] And as I sat back and watched that go on, I was very impressed with, like was mentioned
[9:29:37] earlier, the give and take on both sides to get to a reasonable point that both sides
[9:29:43] could agree and we bring this forward.
[9:29:47] Then, after we brought all this out, we took it to the citizens of the area for their
[9:29:51] final comments.
[9:29:52] Is this what you want in our recommendations?
[9:29:56] Yes.
[9:29:56] And those were the recommendations that were presented to you.
[9:30:00] Respectfully request that you not disregard those recommendations.
[9:30:05] It is, however, a little disconcerting to several of us that our newest neighbor has brought a big legal team in to try to change the will of the people.
[9:30:17] And with a veiled threat of litigation, if they don't get their way, I submit to you that there will be greater challenges.
[9:30:25] If the will of the people, the majority of the people in Hegelch is disregarded, yes, ma'am.
[9:30:31] If the will of the people is disregarded, and then the recommendations from staff and the Planning Commission are not accepted.
[9:30:41] So respectfully request that you accept the recommendations of the County staff, the County Planning Commission, approve this Class II land use permit so we can all get back to work.
[9:30:52] Thank you very much.
[9:30:55] Thank you.
[9:30:56] Excuse me.
[9:30:58] Could I ask Mr. Gallagher a question?
[9:31:00] Yes.
[9:31:01] Just, there's some ambiguity in your statement.
[9:31:04] Our newest big neighbor or something like that.
[9:31:08] Are you referring to GCC or?
[9:31:10] No, ma'am.
[9:31:10] Okay.
[9:31:11] No, ma'am.
[9:31:11] Thank you.
[9:31:12] Yes, ma'am.
[9:31:15] Charles Page.
[9:31:24] Page 171, Glen Lane, Durango, Colorado, 813.
[9:31:31] Excuse me.
[9:31:41] You're not the first.
[9:31:46] Usually, I'm too loud.
[9:31:53] Pasting one, two, three.
[9:31:57] Charles Page, 171, Glenn Lane,
[9:32:00] Durango, Colorado, 8131.
[9:32:04] I use the matte black, so usually it's 302.
[9:32:08] One thing that I wanted to bring up that I haven't heard yet
[9:32:13] was one of the arguments
[9:32:16] about the mine that has been brought up before is that a lot of the drivers and a lot of
[9:32:28] the workers at the mine do not live in La Plata County.
[9:32:31] They live in New Mexico.
[9:32:34] up. But as far as I'm concerned, they are our neighbors too. And the whole region here
[9:32:45] is important. And we need to support this mine, to support Farmington, Shiprock, Hesperus,
[9:32:57] the whole region. And I think that's important not to forget. Thank you.
[9:33:04] Thank you.
[9:33:07] Is there anyone else that would wish to make public comment this evening?
[9:33:12] Yes.
[9:33:14] You can speak and then fill it out afterwards.
[9:33:19] Kathleen Adams, 603 East 9th Street,
[9:33:23] here in Durango.
[9:33:25] I don't think there's anything I can say that you haven't already heard as far as the details,
[9:33:30] the decisions, the who's asking for what.
[9:33:38] I have been involved with this as a friend of the McCuse and the Matthias family.
[9:33:45] And the whole thing was theoretical to me until I went out and sat on the McCuse porch for about an hour
[9:33:53] and became speechless about the effect of the well-being for these families that I've
[9:34:02] visited based on the amount of traffic and the noncompliance that I've heard about.
[9:34:09] I have not been able to keep up with the details of the day.
[9:34:16] And my understanding is that no one is asking that the mind be shut down,
[9:34:20] but I feel like the compliance issue is extremely important
[9:34:25] and that's followed to the T.
[9:34:29] I understand that's been a problem over the last few years
[9:34:32] and I don't think that shutting the mind down
[9:34:35] is what anybody is asking for.
[9:34:37] I believe that's right.
[9:34:39] So compliance is enormous
[9:34:41] and empathy also enormous.
[9:34:47] Thank you.
[9:34:48] Thank you.
[9:34:49] Thank you.
[9:35:04] Huck Morris, 3402 Monterey Circle, Farmington, New Mexico.
[9:35:10] I'm here in support of the permit for GCC Energy.
[9:35:16] I am the terminal manager for U.S. Transport, one of the trucking companies that haul coal
[9:35:24] out of King Cove, too.
[9:35:28] GCC and the trucking companies have made every effort to abide by the rules that have been
[9:35:37] laid down on County Road 120.
[9:35:43] U.S. transport has made an effort to update our fleet, bring in newer and newer trucks,
[9:35:50] quieter trucks, quieter trailers, and where that is an ongoing thing that we're doing
[9:36:01] right now.
[9:36:05] GCC is in contact with the trucking companies on a daily basis, making sure that our drivers
[9:36:12] are doing what they're supposed to, making sure our trucks are doing right.
[9:36:16] The trailers are okay.
[9:36:18] If there's a problem, they will call us and we take care of it.
[9:36:21] We want to abide by everything that GCC wants and the county.
[9:36:28] U.S. transport employees 58 drivers in farm-farmutin.
[9:36:34] Not all of them do coal, but I would say 80% of them haul coal out.
[9:36:41] And then we have 13 support staff in farmutin in the office, the shop.
[9:36:46] If
[9:36:50] GCC doesn't receive this permit and we have to cut back on everything we're
[9:36:56] going to start laying people off that not only affects the drivers but also their
[9:37:03] families the economy and farming to the economy and in Durango especially
[9:37:16] with
[9:37:16] the with the oil and gas the way it is unemployment is so high in this area if
[9:37:23] If we have to lay people off, I don't know what we're going to do.
[9:37:27] So I would recommend to the commissioners, please approve this permit.
[9:37:32] Thank you.
[9:37:34] Mr. Morris, I have a couple of questions, Mr. Chair, if I may.
[9:37:37] Yes.
[9:37:38] Yes.
[9:37:39] I did ask a question earlier about the truck drivers and how many hours a day they're
[9:37:44] on shift.
[9:37:45] And if you could fill us in on some of the details.
[9:37:48] The drivers are allowed to work 14 hours.
[9:37:51] Drive 11 hours and 3 hours on duty.
[9:37:54] That is, the on-duty status is considered loading and unloading.
[9:38:00] So once they're, and all of our trucks have electronic logs,
[9:38:05] plus they have cameras in the trucks.
[9:38:09] One facing out, one facing the driver,
[9:38:13] so that we can try to change their behavior.
[9:38:17] If there's something wrong, then we can pull them in and say,
[9:38:20] They look at this video, this is what you did, did wrong.
[9:38:24] You need to watch that.
[9:38:27] Speeding, using your phone, anything like that.
[9:38:33] Thanks.
[9:38:33] That's very helpful.
[9:38:35] You also mentioned quieter trucks and quieter trailers.
[9:38:39] Can you give some examples of those?
[9:38:41] We've purchased, just this last year,
[9:38:45] we've purchased close to 30 brand new trucks.
[9:38:49] I don't know if you've seen them when you were up there on County Road 120.
[9:38:52] They're the silver trucks, yeah, they're very nice.
[9:38:59] And we are updating our fleet again this coming year.
[9:39:04] We have some 2013s that we're going to get rid of and purchase new ones also.
[9:39:11] And the trailers, we just purchased 10 brand new trailers just to get rid of the older
[9:39:15] trailers.
[9:39:16] The ones that are about to go out the door.
[9:39:23] They bounce two months.
[9:39:25] Yeah.
[9:39:27] Thank you.
[9:39:29] Thank you.
[9:39:35] Anyone else?
[9:39:37] Anyone else like to make a public comment?
[9:39:51] We thought we'd be here all night.
[9:39:52] Last call.
[9:39:57] Mr. Chair, for the record, part of our break, I mentioned that there were two
[9:40:04] 23 comments received on the county's website and our public affairs officer
[9:40:11] has looked at that I believe that one is duplicative and so there are actually
[9:40:15] 22 comments that will be made part of the record and again it can be viewed
[9:40:20] online if people desire otherwise they will be printed out and made part of the
[9:40:26] Thank you.
[9:40:36] Is there any further business that we need to take care of at this time?
[9:40:47] Guys, don't be mad at me.
[9:40:51] During our break, I had more questions.
[9:40:54] But I really think the thing is we only get one bite at this apple,
[9:40:59] and I want to make sure that we don't make guesses at information or that kind of thing.
[9:41:06] And during dinner, I was able to kind of look back
[9:41:10] on my notes throughout the day and realize
[9:41:12] there were a few things that were hanging
[9:41:14] that I hadn't been able to wrap up.
[9:41:20] So early on, one of the first things we talked about
[9:41:23] was the appropriate sound level.
[9:41:28] And trying to figure that out, I'd
[9:41:30] expressed concerns that that 86 decibel criterion seemed a little uncontrolled. Then I found
[9:41:42] out from the GCC sound guy that that's an instantaneous measure of sound. And one of
[9:41:51] the things that I think is important in the impacts isn't about the instantaneous sound,
[9:41:55] but some kind of measure of continuity of sound. And in the reports that we read
[9:42:00] it talked about background noise in rural settings and the HUD standard is 55 at night
[9:42:10] and 50 during the day or something like that, but it seemed like the HUD standard was something
[9:42:14] that whether someone wants to believe that's an appropriate standard for a rural area
[9:42:21] versus an urban area, I'm certainly willing to hear that, but it at least seems to
[9:42:26] measure the sound, try to capture the overall sound as opposed to instantaneous sound.
[9:42:33] And so that being said, I think first of all, I don't know if staff ever considered, first
[9:42:41] I'll ask that, did you ever consider anything other than the 86?
[9:42:44] And I understand that's a state rule for a maximum sound emitted, say, by a vehicle.
[9:42:49] but what about from the perspective of trying to capture not just a measure of instantaneous noise,
[9:42:58] but a measure of overall sound that traffic makes?
[9:43:03] Maria with the Planning Department. So you're entirely correct.
[9:43:08] We've drawn upon state statute as a reference point to inform our compatibility standards.
[9:43:13] As I mentioned earlier, these are more qualitative regulations that we work with.
[9:43:17] So we look for data where we can find it, and state statute does indicate 86 is the
[9:43:23] maximum emission, noise level emission, from a vehicle.
[9:43:27] So that's where we've arrived at our number.
[9:43:29] I think it's entirely within the board's discretion if you would like to entertain
[9:43:35] a different number.
[9:43:36] And that could be based on an average.
[9:43:37] That is the day-night average that the GCC's wave engineering did model.
[9:43:44] I believe that threshold was closer to 65.
[9:43:47] And that would be a question that I would actually would like to hear from Wave Engineering
[9:43:52] as to what would be an appropriate number if this is something that the Board chooses
[9:43:56] to possibly complement the 86.
[9:43:59] I don't think we need to get rid of that level of number.
[9:44:02] It could be a different number if you want to refine that acute noise generation.
[9:44:08] but also I would be curious to know what would be an appropriate average noise level.
[9:44:20] So, Damien, are you going to say something?
[9:44:21] Yeah, I just want to add one thing.
[9:44:23] Daniel's correct, and the applicant's professional that deals with this
[9:44:28] would probably be able to inform the board more clearly,
[9:44:31] but at least my limited understanding is that the 86 is quite strict
[9:44:36] because it is a moment in time and you're collecting the sound directly from the source
[9:44:42] of the truck versus over a span of time where it's being averaged out.
[9:44:47] So if your concern is both, you might include both an average and that exact point source,
[9:44:54] but that's something that I agree with Daniel.
[9:44:56] that we should probably hear more from the sound specialist.
[9:45:02] Okay. I've forgotten what the Wave person's name is, but...
[9:45:09] Would you like me to ask Mr. Kolkowski to come to the microphone?
[9:45:12] Yes. If you could, please prepare to answer those questions. Thank you.
[9:45:27] Jeff Kolkowski, Wave Engineering. Would you like me to just address those general comments, or do you have a specific question?
[9:45:33] I think what Daniel summarized is kind of what's in my mind as well because 85 constantly might not violate that, but it could be annoying.
[9:45:48] I know we're not talking about 85 decibels with respect to the trucks, but I still would like to have a little bit better understanding of how we might measure
[9:45:58] kind of accumulative impact of sound as opposed to just measuring discrete instances?
[9:46:07] Yes, the nice thing about the state statute level of 86 DBA for a single pass by 50 feet
[9:46:14] is that it's easy to enforce.
[9:46:16] Someone can go out with a relatively simple sound meter,
[9:46:19] measure 50 feet from the center line of the road,
[9:46:22] and measure how a lot of truck going by is, and do that for multiple trucks.
[9:46:26] But you're right, that's just a single truck going by.
[9:46:30] It doesn't give you any idea of the effect of multiple trucks going by over the course of 24 hours.
[9:46:36] And that's why we used the 24-hour average, the day-night average sound level,
[9:46:42] to assess the impact on the residents along the road.
[9:46:46] And that day-night average, which is used by HUD to assess impact on residents,
[9:46:52] is exactly that of 24-hour average, the average of 24 one-hour measurements with a penalty if you will, applied to noise at night.
[9:47:02] So they actually weight the nighttime noise heavier, recognizing that people generally sleep at night,
[9:47:10] and so it will actually raise that. Any noise made at night tends to raise that average even higher.
[9:47:17] So that's why we use that. And the HUD does not just use that for urban environments.
[9:47:22] they use it, they have active programs in suburban and rural areas as well.
[9:47:27] But that particular number, that day night average level, 65 is somewhat of a threshold
[9:47:34] where they say below 65 is normally acceptable for residential projects and 65 to 75 falls
[9:47:46] into a normally unacceptable range that is where mitigation can be considered to kind
[9:47:53] of bring it into an acceptable range.
[9:47:57] So it doesn't mean automatically disqualified, it just means mitigation is usually considered
[9:48:01] for that.
[9:48:02] The difficulty with using that day night average level as an enforcement mechanism
[9:48:08] is it's much more difficult to measure.
[9:48:10] or someone can't go out and stand by the road.
[9:48:14] Well, they could go out and stand by the road for 24 hours,
[9:48:17] but you need to have, if you're going to leave
[9:48:19] a sound meter there for 24 hours,
[9:48:23] you need to have the knowledge that a tractor
[9:48:27] didn't park near the meter for an hour or something else.
[9:48:31] A dog wasn't parking next to the meter for an hour.
[9:48:33] And there are ways to do that.
[9:48:35] You can have someone witness the meter
[9:48:37] or you can, we have more sophisticated equipment
[9:48:39] that can record loud levels and we can tell if it was a dog barking, things like that.
[9:48:44] But the point is it's much more difficult to enforce that kind of thing.
[9:48:50] And then you have to back through, say your goal is 65 and you measure 66,
[9:48:56] well what caused it to be 66?
[9:48:57] You might have to go back and analyze each hour and see what really caused that.
[9:49:03] Mr. Chair.
[9:49:04] Yes.
[9:49:05] Question for the witness.
[9:49:08] Can you describe the mitigation factors, mitigation measures that you could employ to get to 65?
[9:49:18] Yes, I can. A number of the mitigation measures are already in place.
[9:49:24] The things that influence that day-night average are the number of vehicles, the speed limits,
[9:49:31] whether the road is paved or not. I said the number of vehicles.
[9:49:36] And then you can start to look at other things such as barriers, walls to block the sound,
[9:49:45] things like that.
[9:49:48] Road conditions?
[9:49:50] Road conditions such as?
[9:49:52] Well, would that be a mitigation measure?
[9:49:55] Proving the road to pave it versus gravel?
[9:49:58] Yes.
[9:49:58] Yes,
[9:50:02] and I would just add that while we realize the 86 DBA level is a truck passed by, the
[9:50:12] other things that affect the cumulative impact on the residents are once you have the sound
[9:50:21] of the truck passing by, how many trucks pass by, so we have limits on those already.
[9:50:28] How fast are the trucks going?
[9:50:30] We have limits on those.
[9:50:32] So the other factors can be controlled and monitored as well.
[9:50:35] So if you can control all the easily monitored things,
[9:50:40] then you are essentially pushing towards control
[9:50:43] and the overall average that you're interested in.
[9:50:50] Do you have a general idea of what the average
[9:50:55] might be on this
[9:50:58] if it were to be averaged?
[9:51:00] Well,
[9:51:04] our study shows we've predicted those averages at many locations along the road for
[9:51:11] many different scenarios of number of trucks and all that, the 80, 100, and 120 trucks.
[9:51:16] So it varies depending on the distance of the home from the road and the number of
[9:51:25] trucks scenario that we're in, things like that.
[9:51:28] So that's a hard question to answer.
[9:51:30] If you have a specific location, I can look into the report for that.
[9:51:35] Thank you.
[9:51:41] I don't know if it would be worthwhile to have Mr.
[9:51:48] Kolkowski.
[9:51:49] Kolkowski?
[9:51:50] Yes.
[9:51:50] Have Mr. Kolkowski, you did collect that or model that data, right?
[9:51:55] For a number of the sites along the road?
[9:51:58] Yes, we modeled it at virtually every home along the road.
[9:52:03] I think it would be worth taking a look at that again. I read it, but I wasn't really...
[9:52:10] This is not my training, my non-background in this, so what exhibit was that or what attachment was it?
[9:52:17] Working on it.
[9:52:17] I'm just looking that up right now. I always want you to come second.
[9:52:22] The...
[9:52:23] Carolyn Weidegen for the record.
[9:52:24] There are a total, I believe, of four different noise study documents in your packet.
[9:52:31] The original wave engineering study, a backup, the Aimee Martin study provided by the county
[9:52:38] is number 12.
[9:52:40] The wave engineering study dated January 4th, 2016 is number 13.
[9:52:44] There's another Aimee Martin, which is number 15, and I think there's one other wave engineering
[9:52:50] as well, which I'm still looking for.
[9:53:01] If I may, Mr. Chair, I'd just note that the study we submitted is item 73.
[9:53:06] Thank you.
[9:53:09] And the final wave engineering is 68.
[9:53:12] So all in your noise studies are 12, 13, 15, 73, and 68.
[9:53:20] Very fourth report?
[9:53:23] Yes.
[9:53:25] So what I would ask then is that we just cut to the chase.
[9:53:32] And from your studies, your wave studies, can you just direct us to which report you think would be
[9:53:37] the most succinct in explaining noise impacts to the existing residences that you looked at,
[9:53:47] and how it might pertain to this average idea.
[9:53:51] The January 4th report was our main report, and we walked through, and that was...
[9:53:58] Which one?
[9:53:59] January 4th is number 13.
[9:54:03] Number 13.
[9:54:05] So that is really the comprehensive report that explains the methodology, explains the 24 hours.
[9:54:12] The average, and at the end, has a number of these, a number of the graphic representations of the model,
[9:54:21] which it has noted on there that the numbers you see on all those pictures are 24-hour average numbers.
[9:54:31] We were asked after the Planning Commission approval to do a supplemental report to address
[9:54:43] specifically the truck numbers and the road improvements that were in the RIA.
[9:54:52] So that's what we didn't change anything, but we added to that to make sure that our
[9:54:58] Our predictions were consistent with those truck counts and road improvements.
[9:55:03] So perhaps if I walk through one of those, and the figures on this supplemental report,
[9:55:11] which were the number 68,
[9:55:17] let's look at
[9:55:26] figure two.
[9:55:31] So this is attachment 68.
[9:55:35] Figure two.
[9:55:36] That's correct.
[9:55:37] The date on the report is May 13th.
[9:55:40] Right.
[9:55:41] Okay.
[9:55:41] And so attachment, figure two is in the back.
[9:55:45] It is a, it's an aerial photo.
[9:56:01] Where would we find the number, where would we find the designation as figure two?
[9:56:07] It is in the lower left corner.
[9:56:09] It is packet page 1490.
[9:56:14] All right, great.
[9:56:14] Thank you.
[9:56:15] So,
[9:56:23] commissioners, the ribbon that our software assigns cuts off the figure, but it's, this
[9:56:31] is confusing.
[9:56:32] Yeah, it's packet page 1490 if you see that on your printed set.
[9:56:38] It is the second of the exhibits scenario five in RIA and parentheses, east 80 trucks
[9:56:47] phase one road improvements.
[9:56:56] You have two ways to display the data on here.
[9:56:59] One are these color contours,
[9:57:03] and the second is if you see these kind of markers with the
[9:57:09] boxes next to them with the numbers, that's what we call a receiver point.
[9:57:13] So that's where the noise was modeled.
[9:57:15] And so, if you, this is the eastern half of the road, the county road 120 north to the far left,
[9:57:27] you'll see a box with McHugh and the number 63.1.
[9:57:31] So that's saying that at that residence, and these points, the individual points were put closest,
[9:57:39] near the closest structure on that particular property.
[9:57:43] Some properties have more than one structure, but if there's a single home, it's at the
[9:57:48] home.
[9:57:49] If there are multiple structures, it's at the closest one to the road.
[9:57:52] So for this particular scenario, their 24 hours is the 63, and as you follow the road
[9:57:59] along, you'll see the numbers.
[9:58:01] Some of them, the houses are further away.
[9:58:03] The numbers might be in the high 40s.
[9:58:05] Many of them are in the 50s.
[9:58:07] All of the numbers that are at a house are in this 80-trucks scenario or below 65.
[9:58:21] If you were to go look at the additional figures, you'll see that everything is below 65
[9:58:28] and that's true of the west side as well.
[9:58:34] The only thing that gets above 65,
[9:58:41] I'll just double check this before I speak.
[9:58:43] If
[9:58:50] you go to, if you were to continue and look at 100 tucks, there's one home at the 90-degree turn.
[9:58:56] In fact, it's the home that we looked at earlier with the 90-degree turn going through it.
[9:59:02] Because that home is fairly close to the road.
[9:59:06] For 100 trucks, that gets up to right at 65.
[9:59:09] For 120 trucks, it goes just over 65 to 65
[9:59:17] .9.
[9:59:17] So
[9:59:21] that is without, that is with the mitigation such as speed limits and paving the road or not,
[9:59:26] but that is not with any barriers built or anything like that.
[9:59:30] That was going to be my question, thank you.
[9:59:32] We looked at that separately and showed the additional mitigation that that would provide.
[9:59:43] So then you're, the next page, 1491 Scenario 5 with a 12-foot barrier wall,
[9:59:50] How did you determine these numbers, 54.1, 54.6?
[10:00:01] Okay, so those, if you look in that figure, we just, we picked a couple of the closest residences
[10:00:07] we were asked to look at for the barrier walls, and showed that. So this is what the 80 trucks,
[10:00:16] and if you see that red line kind of running east-west along the road, you see that heavy
[10:00:23] red line. That's where a barrier might go. This is by far from any kind of final design.
[10:00:30] We placed a 12-foot high wall, we left a space for the driveway,
[10:00:36] and we showed the reduction that a barrier might provide.
[10:00:41] So in this particular case, we had the two kind of marker points on there.
[10:00:46] One is 54.1, one is 51.6.
[10:00:51] If we looked back at the earlier figures, you could see that those were higher.
[10:00:55] and you also see those contours kind of move closer to the road.
[10:01:03] So it's basically showing that everywhere behind that barrier wall, the sound level drops.
[10:01:10] As you get further away, the barrier isn't as effective.
[10:01:15] So that's why there was some discussion earlier about the barrier not being effective on the hill.
[10:01:20] It's because the homes are already back on top of the hill and are already getting some benefit of the shielding of the hill.
[10:01:27] The barrier doesn't do much more for them.
[10:01:32] It's not because the barrier doesn't block sound.
[10:01:34] It blocks sound behind the barrier, but it just doesn't do the further way you get, the less effective it is.
[10:01:39] So it helps more for the homes that are closer where it's most needed, which is good.
[10:01:46] But if these were to go forward, someone decided they wanted this barrier.
[10:01:52] We would go through a more extensive design process to decide exactly where an opening for a drive might be,
[10:02:00] how far it would extend on each end, how high it would be, those kind of things.
[10:02:17] That thoroughly answers that question I had. Thank you very much. Appreciate it.
[10:02:32] Mr. Chairman, if I could ask another question?
[10:02:35] Yes.
[10:02:36] This would be of staff.
[10:02:37] and this is not mentioned in anything in terms of conditions and so on but my
[10:02:44] question is if the permit is approved what ongoing costs and time will be
[10:02:52] required of La Plata County staff. I noticed somewhere in GCC proposed that
[10:02:59] La Plata County staff would facilitate meetings between the residents
[10:03:02] regarding mitigation that I don't know whether that was something staff envisioned as well
[10:03:09] but I guess what I don't want to unrealistically expect is that if we were to issue a permit
[10:03:19] under conditions and what ongoing work will you have as staff as it relates to this permit
[10:03:25] whether it being monitoring or facilitation, as is mentioned.
[10:03:40] Commissioner, I believe what you're asking is relative to the creation of the barriers for buffering.
[10:03:49] Staff would be involved with meetings and the outcome of the applicant's interactions with the neighbor.
[10:03:59] We also would be involved with determining if and when there would be a necessity for
[10:04:08] hiring an additional professional, depending on how many scenarios there are that could
[10:04:15] lead to several days per scenario of time working with the applicant and the neighbor
[10:04:24] and possibly the professional.
[10:04:30] any other I mean I wasn't meaning just on that particular issue I mean why
[10:04:36] there's there's some conditions that won't be fulfilled right away all of
[10:04:42] the conditions yeah I mean with respect to the big picture I've been seeing you
[10:04:46] guys put you know many many hours into this project over the last couple of
[10:04:52] years should I expect to feed that in the future yeah I think so I think that
[10:04:57] that there's going to be significant staff time involved with resolving the conditions
[10:05:04] and fulfilling the conditions and working with the applicant, working with neighbors
[10:05:09] in some scenario. Definitely, it involves more than just planning staff. It involves
[10:05:18] public work staff, and it'll involve attorney time.
[10:05:25] It's going to involve a significant number of staff parties
[10:05:28] and looking through the fulfillment of these conditions.
[10:05:33] There's no doubt about it.
[10:05:35] I can't come up with a number off the top of my head for you.
[10:05:39] I wish I could, but it's not over when you think it's over.
[10:05:49] I would also like to address your question, and I think in many ways, once the board does
[10:05:56] eventually approve the land use permit, in some ways the journey has just begun because
[10:06:02] there certainly is monitoring, there certainly is our involvement as it relates to reviewing
[10:06:08] right-of-way acquisition, as it relates to conceptual design, final design, and so
[10:06:15] So our staff will continue to be involved long-term, not only in the monitoring of the
[10:06:21] conditions of approval, but as well as the future phases that have to be done to the
[10:06:29] road to honor those conditions of approval.
[10:06:38] One other question that I have,
[10:06:44] I'd like to get feedback on the – we talked about
[10:06:48] as early, the ag dry up, and the concern that we have specifically in the western part of
[10:06:58] the county plan, but I guess my question is what good does it do to have prevention of
[10:07:06] ag dry up as a priority if we just project by project approve ag dry up?
[10:07:24] Address a couple of other, I guess, competing issues that we certainly dealt with with this case.
[10:07:31] As I'm sure the commissioners are aware, a water right in Colorado is a property right.
[10:07:37] The state constitution allows an individual to change their water right, which is often a prerequisite to act dry up.
[10:07:46] Oftentimes, entities or individuals who have water rights, especially agricultural water rights,
[10:07:51] find it more profitable to to sell or lease those water rights to industrial
[10:07:57] or municipal uses. It's a fairly common thing throughout the state. In terms of
[10:08:02] why we have the goal to begin with, I'll certainly need to rely on some of my
[10:08:07] colleagues, but I would like to articulate that the planning documents
[10:08:12] that we have are guidance for the Board of County Commissioners. As I'm sure
[10:08:19] Here you know you do not adopt the COMP plan or the district plan, so they are not part
[10:08:23] of our regulatory documents that formally regulate land use permits.
[10:08:29] They have more applicability for the planning commission, which does adopt those plans.
[10:08:35] I'm going to turn to my colleagues if they want to say more on why we have the aspirational
[10:08:42] statement about preventing attic dry up in the first place.
[10:08:45] One thing I can add that we've discussed in the past with the Board, if you were interested
[10:08:51] in making the ag dry-up prohibition more regulatory, there are counties who are doing
[10:08:58] that through 1041 powers.
[10:09:01] And that's really how it would translate for us, I think.
[10:09:05] The problem's often associated with agricultural dry-up with the impacts of doing it on a
[10:09:10] large-scale basis.
[10:09:13] And for all the reasons I stated, it's a difficult thing to her prohibit on its face, even when
[10:09:18] those communities that are using 1041, it's about trying to address the sometimes unintended,
[10:09:24] sometimes known impacts of doing such agricultural drive.
[10:09:31] Okay, thanks.
[10:09:33] Great, thank you.
[10:09:36] Mr. Davis, you're not getting away.
[10:09:39] The construction, this proposal says that there will be construction on County Road 120 for presumably a fairly large number of months over the next few years with the truck traffic in addition to regular traffic.
[10:09:59] How is that going to be managed effectively?
[10:10:04] Well, I would say it'd be managed like most of our other county road projects.
[10:10:09] County Road 240 I think was under construction the better part of the 90s.
[10:10:12] We spent a fair amount of time over the past decade on 234.
[10:10:17] And County Road 213, La Posta Road, most of your construction projects are typically constructed under what we call live traffic.
[10:10:24] You don't just have the luxury in most cases of just shutting a road down while you reconstruct.
[10:10:30] You know, in some cases where you may have a short section of road and you have alternate options.
[10:10:34] That's an ideal situation, but usually not a luxury we have.
[10:10:39] So we have the manual on uniform traffic control devices that pretty much governs and dictates traffic control, how that's handled.
[10:10:46] We typically work with the applicant anytime they are required to make road improvements.
[10:10:53] They have to submit a traffic control plan.
[10:10:55] We review it.
[10:10:56] We take a look at it.
[10:10:57] And we work with them to make adjustments as need be if there are variations or unanticipated
[10:11:03] complications.
[10:11:05] I've heard school buses.
[10:11:07] I don't think that's so much a consideration here, but we typically worked with developers
[10:11:11] to try and minimize the impacts and the inconvenience to the traveling public during
[10:11:17] the AM and PM peak hours if that's an issue as well.
[10:11:21] But, you know, all I can say is we'll work with them as we do any other project and most
[10:11:27] of our own county road projects.
[10:11:29] This is an issue we deal with as well.
[10:11:33] Thank you.
[10:11:37] Another question for Mr. Davis, if you want to take a break in your multiple pages.
[10:11:45] The question was raised earlier, Mr. Davis, about why has the county not applied May
[10:11:52] Core ID this year?
[10:11:53] Can you verify if that is the case, and if so, why not?
[10:11:58] Quite honestly, I don't know offhand.
[10:12:00] I can suspect our guys, our road and bridge priests, are aware.
[10:12:04] This is ongoing.
[10:12:05] We have mentioned to them over the fact
[10:12:07] that if this permit gets approved,
[10:12:09] there'll be a mile of section out there that would be paved.
[10:12:12] So my thought is that they may be holding back
[10:12:15] pending the outcome of this permit.
[10:12:17] It might be wasted dollars if they did go apply the MAG
[10:12:20] and GCC is out there reconstructing a mile of Grapple Road in a couple of weeks, so we
[10:12:27] could be in a holding pattern.
[10:12:30] Thank you.
[10:12:44] As far as I know, I've got to quit asking questions at some point, but my big ones have
[10:12:50] been answered.
[10:12:50] Thanks.
[10:12:51] Thank you, Laura.
[10:12:52] So we're going to move to Rebato, and then should we explain the process?
[10:12:57] Well, my suggestion on process would be to formally close all public comment.
[10:13:02] that we can have the executive session tomorrow morning,
[10:13:07] but to allow each party no more than 10 minutes
[10:13:11] to talk about Mr. Robin's changes
[10:13:15] to the road improvement agreement
[10:13:17] and the conditions of approval
[10:13:19] and then do re-battle after that tomorrow.
[10:13:23] That's my suggestion.
[10:13:25] I just think there's some things
[10:13:26] that might come out of the debate
[10:13:29] about the suggested amendments
[10:13:32] that Mr. Robbins advanced that you might want to allow the parties to cover that in their rebuttal if necessary.
[10:13:41] Mr. Jariff, I may. Commissioner Lacal asked staff to analyze truck traffic going south
[10:13:48] and to come back this evening and be prepared with an answer.
[10:13:51] We spent most of our dinner hour working through those iterations.
[10:13:54] We can certainly speak to that now if it's helpful.
[10:13:59] Well, for starters, we tried to constrain the problem, and we analyzed specifically can
[10:14:07] 25 trucks go on the southern route while North County Road 120 is being addressed, while
[10:14:14] road improvements are being addressed through the phase project plan that you've heard
[10:14:19] a lot about.
[10:14:19] And for reasons I'll explain in a minute, staff is compelled to note that that option
[10:14:26] would likely not comply with the code, and thereby we can't support it.
[10:14:29] We can't recommend it at this time.
[10:14:31] Let me go through our analysis with that.
[10:14:35] One truck to the south would trigger all the same improvements pursuant to 7491,
[10:14:41] as you have heard a lot about on the North County Road 120 option.
[10:14:45] In fact, one truck going to the north triggers all of those improvements.
[10:14:48] As you've heard us talk about and now numerous times, we have never waived those standards.
[10:14:53] We have never deviated from those standards.
[10:14:55] We're doing everything we can to ensure compliance with those standards when it comes to those rodents.
[10:15:00] The one tool, the one point we've been able to work with is the timing of those improvements
[10:15:06] and that has worked itself out in the road improvement agreement in particular.
[10:15:11] But as stated, all those same improvements, all those same requirements would be triggered
[10:15:16] if one truck of those 25 went to the south.
[10:15:20] So differing from what we are currently dealing with on the North County Road 120 option,
[10:15:24] if even one truck went to the south even for a short period of time, the five-year
[10:15:29] period when County Road 120 would be improved, it would require the same level of improvements
[10:15:33] and we are without the same tools that we've been relying on to analyze the North County
[10:15:37] Road 120 option.
[10:15:39] I believe it's highly unlikely that the applicant would agree to the same level of improvements
[10:15:45] for South County Road 120, especially if the ultimate intent is for all of the trucks
[10:15:52] to go on North County Road 120.
[10:15:54] It's unrealistic that they would improve the road and it's certainly a question
[10:15:58] that you can ask them, but it's unrealistic that they will improve the road for an interim
[10:16:01] period of time.
[10:16:03] Analyzing if this became a permanent solution and not an interim solution would quite literally
[10:16:09] be a new application.
[10:16:10] It's a pretty fundamental change from what was proposed to County to begin with.
[10:16:16] So that's kind of the legal code analysis.
[10:16:17] I think there's some deeper levels of issues that my colleagues are going to speak
[10:16:21] to as well.
[10:16:21] Like
[10:16:29] it is in short, the southern route taking County Road 120 south to 116 to 119 to the
[10:16:35] State Highway involves a longer stretch.
[10:16:38] It hasn't been fully evaluated, as Adam just stated, but it's a little over nine miles.
[10:16:43] There's five County Road intersections in addition to the State Highway intersection
[10:16:47] and I think some of those issues were noted earlier today as it relates to the trucks
[10:16:53] entering and leaving the highway at that county road.
[10:16:57] So those are a number of issues that would really have to be fully vetted and looked into
[10:17:02] which staff has not done at this time because that wasn't the proposal.
[10:17:12] I'll add to this one of those technical items that Jim's talking about on Southern Route
[10:17:18] is a very steep slope.
[10:17:20] As you know, the applicant in September went through the variance process through
[10:17:24] the Board of Adjustments and received an eight-tenths of a percent variance of one percent
[10:17:32] variance to the minimum requirement for slope.
[10:17:35] On the other side, at least on one of the routes out, there's much steeper hills, steeper
[10:17:41] slope would demand either redesign or a different variance and then further processing.
[10:17:50] Similar to what Adam said though, particularly our public process and compatibility analysis
[10:17:59] yielded all our conditions of approval and the RIA that you have before you specifically
[10:18:04] in order to achieve compliance with our code and compatibility.
[10:18:09] And so it would be an entirely new project for analysis and that would take some significant
[10:18:19] second time plus a revised application. Finally, I do want to point out that parochial planning
[10:18:29] principle and growth management is to concentrate impacts and to concentrate improvements, infrastructure
[10:18:36] improvements, reducing at large costs to the county perpetually for spreading all of that
[10:18:43] infrastructure improvement out and having to maintain it, as well as concentrating the
[10:18:50] impact to secure the least impacted area possible.
[10:18:54] And that's just a general planning principle, and we relied on that when we looked at the
[10:18:58] applicant's proposal, and that's incorporated with our presentation.
[10:19:02] I think Daniel did a very good job with concisely putting that forward with his presentation,
[10:19:07] but I just wanted to expand on that as well.
[10:19:11] There's a final comment bringing it back to the proposed changes to the RIA and the findings
[10:19:16] and conditions.
[10:19:17] To the extent that any of those changes are aimed at a two-stage process, 55 trucks,
[10:19:23] all the improvements occur, and then the applicant would be allowed to go to 120.
[10:19:28] Those are certainly something that the county staff will review and be prepared to speak
[10:19:32] more about tomorrow.
[10:19:33] But to the extent that it is that proposal or that idea is predicated on diverting
[10:19:38] 25 trucks to the south. We can look more closely at it but our overarching comment is that staff
[10:19:45] doesn't support that approach because it doesn't appear to meet the code and it would likely
[10:19:49] require a new application.
[10:19:54] Thank you for doing that homework over dinner. And for those
[10:19:59] who weren't present earlier, the question was or I guess the proposal was raised
[10:20:07] by one of the neighbors of perhaps splitting the traffic, allowing 55 trucks to the north,
[10:20:16] and perhaps allowing if the applicant's desire is for up to 80 trucks a day, sending 25 to the south
[10:20:26] to minimize impact to folks going north.
[10:20:31] So, thank
[10:20:40] you.
[10:20:41] I failed to publicly close the public meeting.
[10:20:49] I don't know what is it.
[10:20:53] They're haunted today.
[10:20:57] This time I'll publicly close the public comment portion of our meeting
[10:21:03] and ask if there is any further discussion from commissioners.
[10:21:09] Commissioner?
[10:21:13] I have no other questions.
[10:21:16] Liberation we're going to do tomorrow, I believe, and I'm still unclear, is your intent, Mr.
[10:21:21] Chairman, to hear from the parties tonight or regarding Mr. Robbins' proposal?
[10:21:29] Or has there already been some kind of stipulation that we'll have responses in the morning
[10:21:36] as far as closings, and I don't know what, I just need to clear it up.
[10:21:42] Are we going to do closings tonight or wait till tomorrow morning?
[10:21:45] I believe that we're going to do closings tomorrow.
[10:21:48] That's what I would suggest.
[10:21:51] And I agree with that.
[10:21:56] So our plan is to have an executive session set for 10.15 a.m. tomorrow morning and shortly thereafter, which I'm not sure of the time yet.
[10:22:11] 1230 so what I would suggest at this stage is that actually two separate
[10:22:16] motions one would be to go into an executive session at 1015 tomorrow and
[10:22:22] I can read the form of the motion for you on that and then the final motion of
[10:22:26] the evening would be to continue this hearing until 1230 tomorrow and for the
[10:22:32] public's benefit can you explain why the Commission desires to go into
[10:22:36] Executive Session, I have a statutory I'm required to and I'm about to announce that if I'm going to be okay.
[10:22:43] One other thing we talked about a little bit earlier is I do think we need to at some point say, okay, no more testimony.
[10:22:52] Is that tonight? Because everything tomorrow is going to be legal, right?
[10:22:58] Great.
[10:22:59] Well, with respect to Mr. Robbins' proposal, are you guys expecting to have testimony
[10:23:07] for – or yes, ma'am?
[10:23:10] Mr. Chairman, Carolyn White, my understanding was that we were to have two 10-minute closing
[10:23:18] comment periods, the first focused solely on the proposed RIA red lines and conditions
[10:23:22] of approval red lines proposed by Mr. Robbins, the second of which would be the final
[10:23:28] final rebuttal, and I also understood you to say that both the opponent-neighbors collectively
[10:23:33] as a group would have that opportunity, as would staff, as would the applicant, and so
[10:23:38] I think that's three times ten times two total that you've offered to all of us for closing
[10:23:47] remarks.
[10:23:47] That's my understanding of it.
[10:23:48] Is that consistent with other council's understanding of it?
[10:23:55] So what it will be is-
[10:23:57] As long as we go last.
[10:23:59] Each party will have 10 minutes to address Mr. Robbins' proposed amendments.
[10:24:04] GCC, well, then the neighbors will have 5 minutes for closing and rebuttal.
[10:24:12] The planning will have 5 minutes for closing and rebuttal, and then you will have 10.
[10:24:18] That is agreeable and understood by GCC.
[10:24:22] For a final, final.
[10:24:23] No.
[10:24:23] And the parties don't expect to need testimony tomorrow with respect to Mr. Robbins' redline?
[10:24:31] We intend to deliver argument, not testimony.
[10:24:36] County staff is the same.
[10:24:39] We will do five minutes of closing.
[10:24:41] I'm not sure we have much testimony regarding the proposed redlines.
[10:24:45] We're the same.
[10:24:46] Okay.
[10:24:46] Then I would move that we close evidence if you guys are done looking and we have received
[10:24:56] the public comments that were written, but I don't believe they're related to the evidence
[10:25:02] that we're taking now.
[10:25:04] Can I ask if you're ready to do that, if you are also ready to talk about the exhibits
[10:25:09] that will form the record?
[10:25:11] Before we do that, I just want to make a change for the board that I keep in mind
[10:25:15] And tomorrow we have a joint governing body meeting with the city of Durango in this room
[10:25:21] scheduled for four o'clock, so just reminding the board that we do have a hard stop at that
[10:25:28] time.
[10:25:28] So
[10:25:31] what I'm handing out to the board is a list of the documents that are based on
[10:25:37] the board's express sentiment so far, part of the record.
[10:25:41] It's with the 77 attachments to the staff report, then there are seven additional
[10:25:46] documents.
[10:25:46] The documents over which we are still waiting for determination, there's nine of them listed, and I think that's it. I don't know. I don't think you want me to read it.
[10:26:01] The one through six we discussed in detail this morning. Number seven is the written statement of Carl Mount produced by Cross Creek Ranch.
[10:26:12] eight or Mr. Robbins red lines and to the RIA and nine are the revised
[10:26:18] conditions of approval those we might have to hold out on.
[10:26:25] And just one edit to
[10:26:29] the title of this hearing dated 531.
[10:26:35] We
[10:26:40] talked about some we kind of put some
[10:26:47] things to the side this morning. And as far as I know, none of them became relevant. So
[10:26:54] I would, and we had no motions from anybody to bring them back in because they were kind
[10:26:59] of off to the side unless they were relevant. So my position is that we not actually even
[10:27:07] the number seven that came in from Mr. Mount, we made a similar determination. I believe
[10:27:11] that was related to waste rock and that so I still I guess my thought is that
[10:27:20] 1 through 7 still don't still aren't relevant to our consideration and would
[10:27:26] not be appropriate as exhibits as
[10:27:34] to as to the issue of waste disposal I think
[10:27:39] it is something that this Commission has to take on because I think your
[10:27:43] county land use code requires it. As to Mr. Mount I guess all I'd say is I saw
[10:27:50] all kinds of people today disappear and when they were gone they left behind a
[10:27:56] note we read it in and nobody said well that one's relevant that one's not
[10:28:01] relevant. Mr. Mount was here all morning with us ready to talk on the
[10:28:08] phone but because our we were postponed to this afternoon is the only
[10:28:13] reason it's in writing. If he had testified in person, I don't think you would have stricken
[10:28:17] him down. So I think he's in a little different category because the board has been very open
[10:28:23] to hearing from people who weren't able to be here and taking things on pink sheets that
[10:28:29] people wrote down. Is it correct that he's your consultant, though? He's not a member
[10:28:34] of the public and neighbor? He's not a member, but you know, I suppose he has a constitutional
[10:28:39] right to address this board and we have a constitutional right to bring him here.
[10:28:45] That's my point. I've made my point and I don't want to take any more of your time unless you have a question.
[10:28:50] There were things in the file already related to Mr. Mount.
[10:28:55] I recall seeing his name and reading it and so on.
[10:29:02] Like other experts have testified here, he wanted to testify but he couldn't testify by phone because we didn't get our turn this morning.
[10:29:12] You guys think I would support admitting it, since he was prepared to testify?
[10:29:19] I'm fine, admitting it, I think that it doesn't relate, but.
[10:29:27] If it is allowed, I think then you're going to also have to allow items 5 and 6 as those
[10:29:41] all also relate to king one was
[10:29:46] the issue king one or is the issue rock if
[10:29:49] solid waste removal from king two same issue mr. chairman if we could be heard
[10:29:57] on this issue we do object to allowing that
[10:30:00] We weren't aware, actually, that telephonic testimony was permitted and Mr.
[10:30:04] Mount was not present in person. He was going to be available by telephone.
[10:30:08] You know, we heard this before from the opponents group that if they had known
[10:30:12] this would have been an issue, they would have brought their experts here.
[10:30:15] They said that at the planning commission. This is an issue that not only they
[10:30:18] knew about, but they planned to raise. And that's why we were forced to bring
[10:30:22] our experts and produce our responses on this topic so we could be prepared
[10:30:25] to address it. So we would object to it being included, but if you decide to include it,
[10:30:31] we certainly feel that all of the other documents we propose to include on that subject ought
[10:30:35] to also be included for the same reason.
[10:30:38] If I may, Mr. Chair, just for the record, we've got a fistful of emails from the staff
[10:30:44] telling us that having telephone testimony is just fine and that we could plan on
[10:30:49] doing it. So this is not the case.
[10:30:51] If you want to get an argument over whether it's telephone, he's allowed to do that.
[10:30:57] It's just the relevancy of the topic of the king one mine waste and whether the board
[10:31:03] wants.
[10:31:05] I don't know that you've heard other testimony on it, so what you would really have is just
[10:31:09] the written testimony.
[10:31:12] And again, it relates which condition is it, Adam?
[10:31:20] So
[10:31:23] I guess what I would encourage the board to do is look at condition 2 and decide whether
[10:31:30] you feel like you need any testimony in order to support that or if you wish to amend it
[10:31:38] because you disagree with the condition.
[10:31:40] I can clarify, condition 2 just requires GCC to provide a report and accounting, if
[10:31:46] will of the waste rock that is exiting King II coal mine.
[10:31:54] More important, I think, to this would be finding number seven, which specifically notes
[10:31:59] and is as proposed by staff that this land use permit doesn't contemplate or include
[10:32:04] King I coal mine.
[10:32:05] It has nothing to do with county staff not believing that what is transpiring at
[10:32:10] King I coal mine is not important.
[10:32:11] We do. We intend to deal with that situation likely as soon as the hearing on King II coal
[10:32:18] mines commence. But we have for quite some time, years, even, analyzed that as a separate
[10:32:24] and distinct land use.
[10:32:28] But it is an activity that is utilizing County Road 120.
[10:32:38] It is material taken from King
[10:32:42] to coal mine to disposal locations?
[10:32:46] Is material taken from King II coal mine and being disposed of at King I coal mine in the
[10:32:52] same way that many commercial uses in La Plata County have commercial trash service where
[10:32:59] somebody comes and picks up their trash and then takes it to another location.
[10:33:03] We do not consider or permit where that trash is going to and ensure that it's a permitted
[10:33:09] landfill as part of any other commercial operation.
[10:33:11] It's essentially the same thing here.
[10:33:13] If the waste rock from King II coal mine, it's being taken off the side and being taken
[10:33:19] to another location.
[10:33:20] If that other location does not have the requisite land use permit, we certainly will deal with
[10:33:24] it through a code enforcement perspective.
[10:33:27] And that is, it's absolutely our intent.
[10:33:30] We've had these conversations with the applicant.
[10:33:32] I think they're well aware that county staff intends to address that situation
[10:33:36] as soon as these proceedings conclude.
[10:33:39] Council?
[10:33:51] Discussion?
[10:33:54] I
[10:33:58] guess my cloud is seeking legal counsel on this matter.
[10:34:04] I know this might meet with some jurors, but I'm siding with the planning department.
[10:34:10] I do think it's an analogy.
[10:34:15] I've used myself that with the waste, it is a separate issue.
[10:34:20] As far as them using County Road 120, Jim, do you know,
[10:34:24] Are those track counts also included in the, how are we calculating those in the numbers?
[10:34:31] Yes.
[10:34:32] Mr. Chairman, I'm informed by our traffic engineer that the traffic counts related to the transfer
[10:34:38] of materials from King 2 to King 1 are included in the traffic numbers analyzed in our traffic study
[10:34:44] and included in all of the analysis for the road improvements.
[10:34:48] As far as impact on the road, it should be addressed then.
[10:34:51] So to clarify, that's part of the 80 truck trips per day.
[10:34:56] The 80 truck trips refers only to the trucks transporting coal for ultimate disposition,
[10:35:04] but the traffic study, which is the complete analysis that recommended the total package of improvements
[10:35:08] that is being required through the RIA, which takes into account all of the traffic generated by the mine,
[10:35:14] including employees, water hauling, deliveries, et cetera, also includes these numbers.
[10:35:19] So it's not in the 80, it's in the total.
[10:35:31] So with GCC, if number seven is in, what of those items that you proposed to middle on do you think relates to number seven?
[10:35:48] Five and six?
[10:35:49] I'm
[10:35:52] sorry, you asked?
[10:35:52] No, I'm sorry, I'm asking GCC.
[10:35:55] Mr. Chairman, first of all, finding number seven is one with which GCC agrees and concurs
[10:36:02] and we have no dispute or question.
[10:36:06] If it is the inclination of the Board to allow in items six and seven proposed by Mr. Daniels
[10:36:14] and then we would ask that you also allow in items four and five submitted to GCC,
[10:36:19] which relate to the same issue.
[10:36:42] You're right. That's my mistake. That is a different matter. So it's just our item number
[10:36:47] Just five.
[10:36:49] Then I would just, you know, I think the issue of the waste rock
[10:36:53] has been raised enough for the commissioner to ask a question,
[10:36:57] and it certainly was in the documents we got.
[10:37:00] I would go ahead and change my mind and just move that we accept
[10:37:05] numbers five and seven into evidence.
[10:37:11] Not six, but not six.
[10:37:13] You just said five. You said number five only, correct?
[10:37:16] So our documents are four and five, their documents are six and seven.
[10:37:22] If you take six and seven, we want you to also take five.
[10:37:25] Gotcha.
[10:37:26] All right, then let's go with making that five, six and seven.
[10:37:31] So based on that, the May 27 letter from Trent Peterson on the King Line will become exhibit 85.
[10:37:52] The May 28th letter from Trent Peterson on King 1 becomes Exhibit 85.
[10:38:02] The May 30th letter from Luke Danielson is 86 and the written statement from Carl Mount
[10:38:09] is 87.
[10:38:14] That was my motion.
[10:38:18] Items 1-3-4 are excluded and 8-9 will wait till tomorrow.
[10:38:21] all in favor aye aye thank you
[10:38:30] respect to the motion for tomorrow's can I close
[10:38:34] can I get a close of evidence that's what we're aiming for go ahead I'm gonna
[10:38:39] move again that we close evidence all in favor please say aye aye aye aye the
[10:38:48] motion for an executive session on June 1st 2016 at 10 15 a.m. will be for
[10:38:54] For the purposes of the Board receiving legal advice on specific legal questions, pursuant
[10:38:59] to Colorado Revised Statue 2464024B for the purpose of discussing GCC compliance with
[10:39:06] state and federal permits and the La Plata County Code and for determining positions
[10:39:10] relative to matters that may be subject to negotiations, developing strategy for
[10:39:15] negotiations and instructing negotiators, pursuant to Colorado Revised Statue 2464024E
[10:39:22] regarding the Road Improvement Agreement with GCC.
[10:39:26] So moved.
[10:39:29] All in favor?
[10:39:30] Aye.
[10:39:31] Aye.
[10:39:32] Thank you.
[10:39:37] I move that we continue this matter to tomorrow at 12.30 p.m.
[10:39:44] All in favor?
[10:39:46] Aye.
[10:39:47] Aye.
[10:39:47] Aye.
[10:39:48] Thank you.
[10:39:49] Thank you all for coming.
[10:39:51] I'm
[10:39:54] not sure if what all those people said is not as far back in the room.
[10:39:57] I know.
[10:39:58] That was too bad.