Loading...
11/21/07 Final Report~'[e ~-~ C-,~v~~ T~ ~~`~ ~ ~~ KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH 2005 GRAVEL TASK FORCE FINAL REPORT PRESENTED NOVEMBER 21, 2007 TO THE KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH ASSEMBLY AND PLANNING 8c ZONING COMMISSION` KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH 2005 GRAVEL TASK FORCE MEMBERSHIP MR. TOM ABELL - MEMBER, KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH ASSEMBLY MR. DAVID KING CHAIRMAN, KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH PLANNING 8c ZONING COMMISSION DR. GARY CARVER MEMBER, KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH PLANNING 8c ZONING COMMISSION MR. BILL OLIVER COMMUNITY REPRESENTATIVE MR. MIKE ANDERSON COMMUNITY REPRESENTATIVE MR. THOMAS TROSVLG COMMUNITY REPRESENTATNE MR. CHARLIE POWERS COMMUNITY REPRESENTATIVE, KONIAG, INC. MR. CHARLES "BUD" CASSIDY DIRECTOR, KODIAK ISLAND. BOROUGH COMMUNITY pEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MS. SHEILA SMITH STAFF SUPPORT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FINAL REPORT OF THE KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH 2005 GRAVEL TASK FORCE The Membership of the Gravel Task Force is pleased to submit our final report to the Kodiak Island Borough Planning & Zoning Commission and Assembly for your acceptance and approval as an advisory document. Established in May 2005 by the Kodiak Island Borough Assembly, on the recommendation of the KIB Planning and Zoning Commission, the Gravel Task Force had as its mission the assessment of the sand, gravel and earth materials resources of the road system region of the borough; the development of policies for earth resource management; and to make recommendations to the KIB Planning and Zoning Commission and the Borough Assembly on management approaches, procedures, and policies. The goal of the committee was to provide for the sustainable long-term availability of sand, gravel and earth materials in support of orderly and economical growth and development in the Kodiak Island Borough, and to reduce to the maximum extent possible any undesirable impacts and conflicts arising from the extraction and use of these resources. The Task Force was charged with the following areas of investigation. 1. Compile a comprehensive inventory and description of past and existing gravel and earth material sources and sites. 2. Compile a comprehensive inventory and description of potential future gravel and earth material sources and sites. 3. Describe, generally, the estimated community need for various types of gravel and earth material in future development projects projected fora 20 to 30 year time-frame. 4. Recommend policies to the Planning and Zoning Commission and the KIB Assembly for the orderly development and long term availability of gravel and earth materials. Page 1 of 15 Charge One of the Committee was detailed in the implementing legislation as: 1. Compile a comprehensive inventory and description of past and existing gravel and earth material sources and sites to include: a. location b. material type (sand, gravel, rock, top soil, other) c. estimated volume of material extracted d. estimated remaining volume of material e. quality of material f. land ownership g. land use zoning of the site h. environmental sensitivity of the site i. socio-economic sensitivity of the site The Task Force presents these findings in summary format on the following two pages: Page 2 of 15 Map produced by KIB CDD 9130!05 ~~ as siaH support to Ibe KI8 Grave Task Force ",_.,,., ' Informationconteinedhereinarere resentaSohal L ony 8 sYwutd not be usetl tar navigational purpdaes. Page 3 of 15 Z m Vi f!1 < N A A '~ ~ ~ fit' N n d ~ d W 7C ~ G7 ~ < A W ~ ~ ~ p d 7r » ~p tD ~ V/ A O N m A m 3 m ~, ~ A A ~ 3 m f n m ~ a ~ ~ p• ~ '~ ~ ~ ~ G ; a W ~ a x Q7 Oo W w n+ ~ O Z Z Z ~ ~ m ~ T. x ~ o _ ~ z A ~° F :L7 7J A ~ J ~ a W W [0 ~ Co o J ni ~ on A ; o c c o b c c c c m r ~ v N ~ n c ~ ~O F d A ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ v Q oao ~ $7 ~ i c x o ~ Z ~ H ~ b ~ O ~ z j A _ <_ Q ~ W x N A N W N a d P OV N N pNi (T (Ji 7 W O N ~ S ~ m v C ~ ~ n A a O c n n W m CO m ~ a D D D D U N, m. ~ J O O ~ m O O ~^ m ~ m O CQ T m ~ ~ m `~ o `G o ~ m O '~ d N N n O } J Ll ~ yJy ^ J ~^ O M ~ N J O 7C ppT~ S N J J j ~? ~ N~ 2~ ~ N O W N d ~ d x N O A O O O ~ O N O ~^ ~ V O O ~ O O N ~ O O O c N O O O O O N p O O o RI r c ~ c 8~ c ~ ~ ~ v ~ ~ C x C x ~ ~ ~ m C ' ~ m ~ ~ ~ m c x .. ~ ~ 0 ~ 0 m~ o ~ o g ~ o m n ? ~ c o J. m ~ ~ p o J N N o. ^ v (~ v F~ ~ N a p J~ ~ N ~. O~. n N ~ C m N B. V c c g c c c c c c c c c ~ W B~ J F x o ~ J JC J F J J~ J JC J JC J Jc J F J F J F m o = G ~ J R W m w m aJi ~ ~ m ~~ O a. ~ S2 N A N a ~ A N 2 N ~~ N Z~ ~ ~ N a ~ ~ ~ 0 O ~ O O ~ O O O O O 3 < G ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ p~ `~ ~ tD N N N (D N R N F '~ ~ N ~ d• c n m n m = n c3 n m = o ~ 3 n ~ m m m .n o m Q ~$i m 3 w o m ~ w o m W ~ o m ~ f» 3 m m g W m ~c3 m g W o m ~ 4d m g W m g W _ m S, a ~ m ~ d a co ~' am ~ ~ am ~ d ~ am ~ am ~ ~ d. a ~ d d m ~ ~ d ~ d ~ v ~ d ~ ~ ~ d ~ v ~ W d. z z z z z z z o Q° m z z o zN ~• m m ~ ~ 3 ~ m '<_ _ O ~ pp d ~ O p G _ _ O O O ~ ~ ~ v ool m ~ ~ ? f f F N c 3 Fc m m m ~ m ~[ d N n io O 2 r £ r f r F r E 2 S S r r r ~~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ £ £ F ^: o ~ 3 n x x x x ~ ~ ~ ~ x x x x ~.Z~1 ~:I7 ~ A ~ :D Z O O O O O D C D~ D ~ D~ m c r r r r ~ ~ ~ ~ Page 4 of 15 Charge Two of the Committee was detailed in the implementing legislation as: 2. Compile a comprehensive inventory and description of potential future gravel and earth material sources and sites to include: a. location b. material type (gravel, rock, top soil, other) c. estimated volume of material d. quality of material e. land ownership f. land use zoning of the site g. environmental sensitivity of the site h. socio-economic sensitivity of the site The Task Force presents these findings in summary format on the following page: Page 5 of 15 ^ a. Mav Produced by KIB CDD 6113Ip7 ea ~ as stall support to the KI9 Gravel Task Force Intormat;on contained herein are rBpresentafronal ~ ~ only 8 should not ba.used for navi~tionellpurposea Page 6 of 15 In addition, the Gravel Task Force directed additional exploration and assaying of resource potential at two specific sites on the road system, and welcomed private sector collaboration pertaining to a well-known, although less accessible, resource site. A synopsis of effort and findings follows. Salonie Creek Investigation: Anderson stated nothing was found at Salonie Creek. It was mostly overburden and glacial till. Bedrock was found on one of the highest sections. Bob Hales went with him and eleven holes were dug. Holes were dug by the rifle range and then up by the Cottonwoods. Silt was found down to 9 feet with a lot of water. When they dug behind the rifle range the hole was full of ammunition and gun parts so they covered it back up. The area that was identified to do the exploration on where the mounds are going in was standard organics, a good layer of ash, overburden, and then glacial till with one exception there was bedrock. In the area where material was borrowed from Anderson discovered what was borrowed was glacial till which was used as fill. Anderson and Hale dug down 3, 4, and 5 feet where the old parts of buildings are and found gravel fill, and then found where that fill was used. The material was borrowed out of there to make a big area and then just capped it with gravel. Anderson and Hale's assumption is the gravel came right out of the creek. It was fine without many cobbles. They dug in two different man made construction pads which the material was the same as the material in the creek. If you went up further past the borough property you would get into more cobbles that would probably be better quality material. There was nothing found worth developing on the borough property. Lot 7 United States Survey 2539 Investigation: Anderson stated there were 9 sites identified on Coast Guard property to dig but the Coast Guard came with a permit to dig only 6 holes. Anderson picked the 6 places that best represented the area which he got good results from. In the first hole, the water level was at 6 '/2 feet down but he dug to 14 feet deep with no change in the material, but he found a silt lens about a foot deep. Most of the holes were dug at 14, 14, 16, and 18 feet. The better holes were farther up closer to the river and away from the ocean which he got 18 feet with no water, and then 17 feet with no water. Up in the corner is a big bedrock knob. Anderson said the 17 and 18 foot deep holes that had no water were probably two hundred feet from the creek. The gravel looks good which he got 6 five gallon bucket samples to be sent in. He likes the high percentage of cobbles because it bodes well for the hardness of material. The site looks good. It's on the road system and there aren't any neighbors to disturb.2 From the Minutes of the July 2, 2007 Gravel Task Force Meeting. 2 From the Minutes of the July 2, 2007 Gravel Task Force Meeting. Page 7 of 15 Shakmanof Cove Prospect: Charlie Powers, Vice-President Corporate Affairs, Koniag, Inc The granite deposit located at Kizhuyak Point (referred to as Rubber Boot) which is easily accessible via Shakmanof Cove near the village of Ouzinkie has long been looked at as a significant hard rock source for Kodiak Island and other statewide needs. The area's surface rights are owned by Ouzinkie Native Corporation and subsurface rights are owned by Koniag Incorporated. In 2006 samples were collected which tested high on scales of degradation, abrasion and soundness. In June 2007 Koniag Inc. contracted Hattenburg, Dilley and Linnell Engineering Consultants to conduct Geologic field reconnaissance to assess the controlling structures of the rock for block sizing, stability, and development of mining plan recommendations. Test results reveal a very strong, blocky and competent granite rock. Structural geologic data indicates favorable characteristics which will maximize the size of the rock product obtainable when coordinated with standard quarrying blasting methods. Taken together, the field investigation and laboratory analyses indicate that the Shakmanof granite is suitable for the following marketable rock products: 1. All grades of riprap (DOT&PF highways and airports specifications) from Class I through IV (smallest to largest); 2. Shore protection rock products (US Army Corps of Engineers); 3. Armor stone (DOT&PF airports spec); 4. Gradations of crushed aggregate including base course; surface course; aggregate for asphalt concrete pavement, concrete, cover coat and surface treatment, filter blanket and subbase (DOT&PF highway and airport specs); 5. Selected material types A, B, and C; 6. Porous backfill; 7. Gabion backfill. Additional markets for the Shakmanof granite may include many other construction products based on high quality aggregate (soil cement, emulsified asphalt treated base course, etc.), and possibly architectural products such as granite facing, flooring, slabs, etc. Koniag intends to continue work towards capturing a shareholder benefit from this valuable resource. Page 8 of 15 Charge Three of the Committee was detailed in the implementing legislation as: 3. Describe, generally, the estimated community need for various types of gravel and earth material in future development projects projected for a 20 to 30 year time-frame, to include: a. quantities of material needed by type b. description of applicable material specifications c. estimated market value of material by type d. investigation of viable alternatives to gravel or earth material products e. socio-economic impact of the industry Discussion and ultimate concurrence between the task force members concluded that the rate of use of gravel resources would not significantly increase in the next several decades. Although staff has not been able to get detailed records from all of the operators, two of the larger companies have provided staff with some detailed annual volume counts. Based on this data, we can estimate that a maximum of 200,000 yards of gravel for all uses are extracted along the road system annually. Various indicators were used to try to project anticipated needs into the future. Existing population, building construction trends, and major road projects were all calculated to establish a baseline of information. Therefore, over the 30 next years, it can be projected that the projects along the road system of the Borough would use approximately 6,000,000 yards of aggregate. Based on the information that has been complied for the four general site detailed earlier in this report, it is estimated that there is approximately 10,284,000 yards of various quality gravel along the road system. Therefore, it appears that there is enough supply to meet anticipated demand. However, these potential sites were only evaluated and investigated using the best available mapping and rudimentary field observation. Charge Four of the Committee was detailed in the implementing legislation as: 4. Recommend policies to the Planning and Zoning Commission and the KIB Assembly for the orderly development and long term availability of gravel and earth materials to include: a. develop plan/policy basis for locating future extraction sites Future extraction sites will be located where the resource is discovered to exist in economically recoverable quantities. However, extraction sites may be distinguished from processing sites because the primary activity(s) do not necessarily need to be co-located. Page 9 of 15 b. review zoning standards to address concerns/impacts Extraction and processing are primarily industrial activities, and as depicted in Table 13 of the appendix, these activities are a Use by Right only in the Industrial Zoning District. As a Use by Right, an administratively issued zoning compliance permit for the conduct of gravel extraction is not subject to appeal. However, the conduct of any activity in the Industrial Zoning District is regulated by applicable performance standards. The seven specific performance standards are listed in KIBC 17.24.060, and are: A. Noise. The noise emanating from a premises used for industrial activities shall be muffled so as to not become objectionable due to intermittent beat, frequency, or shrillness; and where a use adjoins a residential district, the noise loudness measured at the boundary line shall not exceed ninety (90) decibels. B. Lighting. Any lighting shall not be used in a manner which produces glare on public highways and neighboring property. Arc welding, acetylene torch cutting and similar processes shall be performed so as not to be seen outside the property. C. Fire and safety hazards. The storage and handling of inflammable liquids, liquefied petroleum, gases and explosives shall comply with the fire prevention code and all other applicable laws and regulations. Enameling and paint spraying operations shall be permitted when incidental to the principal use and when such operations are contained within a building of two-hour fire-resistive construction. Bulk storage of inflammable liquids below ground shall be permitted if the tank is located no closer to the property line than the greater dimension (diameter, length or height) of the tank. D. Odor. Uses causing the emission of obnoxious odors of any kind and the emission of any toxic or corrosive fumes or gases are prohibited. E. Dust and smoke. Dust and smoke created by industrial operations shall not be exhausted into the air in such a manner as to create a nuisance. F. Open storage. Any storage shall not be located closer than twenty-five (25) feet to any street right-of-way. Any storage shall be enclosed with a fence acceptable to the commission. Whenever lumber, coal or other combustible material is stored, a roadway shall be provided, graded and maintained from the street to the rear of the property to permit free access for fire trucks at any time. G. Screening. Where an industrial use is adjacent to and within one hundred (100) feet of a residential use or zone, that industry shall provide screening as approved by the commission. Gravel extraction, and associated activity, is allowed with the grant of a Conditional Use Permit in the Conservation Zoning District, the Rural Development Zoning District, and the Public Use Zoning District. The grant of a conditional use permit is regulated under Kodiak Island Borough Code Title 17 Chapter 67. Five specific standards must be found to apply after a public hearing process has provided for community wide review and comment opportunity. a KIBC Title 17 -Summary Table, Gravel Extraction Activities. Page 10 of 15 The five specific standards are listed in KIBC 17.67.050, and are: A. That the conditional use will preserve the value, spirit, character and integrity of the surrounding area; B. That the conditional use fulfills all other requirements of this chapter pertaining to the conditional use in question; C. That granting the conditional use permit will not be harmful to the public health, safety, convenience and comfort; D. That the sufficient setbacks, lot area, buffers or other safeguards are being provided to meet the conditions listed in subsections A through C of this section; E. If the permit is for a public use or structure, the commission must find that the proposed use or structure is located in a manner which will maximize public benefits. The current regulatory scheme thus provides for industry specific performance standards, and, an additional layer of standards and public review and comment opportunity in the case of conditional use permits. c. review the procedures for implementation of zoning standards The Kodiak Island Borough Assembly is the duly authorized legislative body with ultimate responsibility for implementation of zoning standards. For statutory provisions granting borough's area-wide planning, platting and zoning responsibility, see AS 29.40.010. For provisions authorizing the assembly to adopt zoning regulations and to provide for exceptions thereto, see AS 29.40.040. The Kodiak Island Borough Planning & Zoning Commission serves in an advisory capacity to the Assembly, and the legislative authority for its creation may be found in AS.40.020. Each body, in its own capacity, may, from time to time enact, or recommend, such changes to the zoning code as it deems advisable. In the case of proposed amendments to the zoning code related to gravel /resource extraction activities, the normal course of events would be a recommendation from the Planning & Zoning Commission to the Borough Assembly. Such a sequence of events would provide for a minimum of two public hearings providing ample opportunity for public input. Page 11 of 15 f. develop recommendation for impact and conflict mitigation procedure Experience has shown that controversy may erupt regardless of the safeguards outlined in paragraph (b) above. Resolving these inevitable complaints often puts staff in a position of having to make suspect findings based on subjective criteria. This may be illustrated by considering an instance of noise complaint. KIBC 17.24.060 (A) does not specify personnel responsible for taking the measurement (staff on hand, industry certified technician, casual observer?) nor the equipment (certified by? to a degree of accuracy +\-, within the previous 6 \ 12? month time frame) to be used for measurement purposes. These types of oversight in Code construction inevitably open the door to litigation opportunities via KIBC 17.75.030 Penalties and remedies (B), which reads: Notwithstanding the availability of any other remedy, the borough or any aggrieved person may bring a civil action to enjoin any violation of this title, any order issued under subsection 17.75.010(A) of this chapter, or any term or condition of a conditional use, variance or other entitlement issued under this chapter; or to obtain damages for any injury the plaintiff suffered as a result of a violation. An action for injunction under this section may be brought notwithstanding the availability of any other remedy. Upon application for injunctive relief and the finding of an existing or threatened violation, the superior court shall enjoin the violation. It is suggested that a careful reading of applicable codes be undertaken with the purpose of substituting any subjective reference with quantifiable objective criteria. The remaining discussion points of Charge Four have been taken out of order for purposes of brevity. d. develop site monitoring and code enforcement policy/procedures e. develop standardized site development and operation specifications g. recommend site closure and reclamation standards and review process The Gravel Task Force expressed consensus that items d, e, and g, were more properly within the domain of the Planning & Zoning Commission. By unanimous Motion, the Gravel Task Force voted to refocus efforts upon the issue of Commercial Extraction activities. Foregoing specific commentary on items d, e, and g, the Gravel Task Force nevertheless suggested that existing regulatory models, i.e., State of Alaska, governing mining activities be referenced as a starting point for any future effort in this area. This Final Report of the 2005 Gravel Task Force closes with the following resolution summarizing the Gravel Task Force's Findings and Recommendations. Page 12 of 15 Introduced by: Bud Cassidy, Director Requested by: KIB Gravel Task Force Drafted by: Staff Introduced: 00/00/ 2007 Adopted: A RESOLUTION OF THE KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH 2005 GRAVEL TASK FORCE, RECOMMENDING THE ACQUISITION OF LOT 7 UNITED STATES SURVEY 2539. WHEREAS, the Kodiak Island Borough 2005 Gravel Task Force was tasked with certain investigations by Planning & Zoning Commission Resolution 2005-1; and, WHEREAS, Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution 2005-1 was affirmed by the Kodiak Island Borough Assembly by Motion at the May 12, 2005 Regular Meeting of the Assembly; and, WHEREAS, the Kodiak Island Borough 2005 Gravel Task Force has completed the Inventory of existing road system commercial material sources as directed by the Assembly; and, WHEREAS, the Kodiak Island Borough 2005 Gravel Task Force has completed an investigation of potential road system commercial material sites as directed by the Assembly; and, WHEREAS, the goal of the Task Force was to provide for the sustainable long- term availability of sand, gravel, and earth materials in support of orderly and economical growth and development in the Kodiak Island Borough; WHEREAS, two material resource sites, Lot 7 United States Survey 2539 and the granite pluton at Shakmanof Cove, were identified to best fit the community's long- term requirement for commercial grade gravel for the purpose of concrete and asphalt aggregate; WHEREAS, the granite pluton at Shakmanof Cove is currently being evaluated by the subsurface estate owner; and WHEREAS, Lot 7 United States Survey 2539 is the site potentially susceptible to powers of municipal acquisition. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED and RECOMMENDED BY THE KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH 2005 GRAVEL TASK FORCE THAT: Section I: The Kodiak Island Borough move with all possible dispatch in order to secure Lot 7 United States Survey 2539 for the purpose of serving as a material resource site. Section 11: The Kodiak Island Borough move expeditiously in the permitting process in order to develop Lot 7 Unifed States Survey 2539 as a material resource site capable of serving the Kodiak Island Borough community in future years. Page 13 of 15 1of2 AdC?PTED BY THE KO©1A,K ISLANC- BQRQUGH 20€5 GRAVEL TASK Iwf)RCE, THIS FIETENTH i,~AY Q~ t)GTt~13~ER, 24~?7 ~, ~f ~ J,: Mr. Tam Abell, Member, Kodiak Island Borough Assembly ~ ~ ~ ~ `~ r -°_ Mr. David ing, Chairman, a ' Island Borough Planning & Zoning Commissian ~ ~~ ,~ Dr. Gary ~v ; Mem odiak Island Borough Planning & Zoning Commissian Mr. Bill Uliver, Cammunity Representative .. ~,~ , ~- Mr. Mike Anderson, Community Representative ~-~~~ ~-~ Mr. Tomas Trasvig, Communityepresentative \\ E.w- w Mr. Charlie Powers, Cammunity Representative, Koniag, Inc. F~ .~~ ~ Mr. Charles "Bud" Cos ids, Director, Kodiak Island Borough Community Development Department ATTEST: ~ ~ ,.. Sheila Smith, Secretary aQ~2 KIBC TITLE 17 -SUMMARY TABLE GRAVEL EXTRACTION ACTIVITIES Appendix page 1 of 1 Zonin District Permitted Use Conditional Use 17.10 W-Watershed No No District 17.11 WH-Wildlife Habitat No No District 17.12 NU-Natural Use No No District 17.13 C-Conservation NO YES District 17.14 RD-Rural NO YES Develo ment District 17.15 RR2-Rural No No Residential Two District 17.16 RR-Rural No No Residential District 17.17 RR1-Rural No No Residential One District 17.1$ R1-Single-family No No Residential District 17.19 R2-Two-family No No Residential District 17.20 R3-Multifamily No No Residential District 17.21 B-Business District No No 17.22 RNC-Rural Neighborhood No No Commercial District 17.23 UNC-Urban Neighborhood No No Commercial District 17.24 1-Industrial YES NO District 17.25 RB-Retail Business No No District 17.26 Mobile Home Parks No No 17.27 LI-Light Industrial No No District 17.29 SRO-Single Resident Occupancy No No Standards 17.33 PL-Public Use NO YES Lands District Page 15 of 15 KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH AGENDA STATEMENT DECEMBER 20. 2007 REGULAR MEETING ITEM NO: 13.D.1 TITLE: Acknowledging Receipt of the 2005 Gravel Task Force Final Report Presented November 21, 2007. SUMMARY: The Gravel Taskforce was created and tasked to perform a number of investigations, which include: • Compile a comprehensive inventory and description of past and existing gravel and earth material sources and sites; and • Compile a comprehensive inventory and description of potential future gravel and earth material sources and sites; and • Describe, generally ,the estimated community need for various types of gravel and earth material in future development projects projected fora 20 t0 30 year timeframe; and • Recommend policies to the Planning and Zoning Commission and the KIB Assembly for orderly development and long term availability of gravel and earth materials. To accomplish these tasks maps were reviewed, ownership issues considered and rock samples gathered and sent to a lab for analysis. The taskforce, organized in May 2005, have spent quality time to perform these tasks. That information is compiled in the Final Report. Most important is the taskforce's resolution included with the final report. In it they made the following recommendation: • The Kodiak Island Borough move with all possible dispatch in order to secure Lot 7, U.S. Survey 2539 for the purpose of serving as a material resource site. • The Kodiak Island Borough move expeditiously in the permitting process in order to develop Lot 7 U.S. Survey 2539 as a material source site capable of serving the Kodiak Island Borough community in the future years. Staff recommends that the Assembly acknowledge receipt of the Kodiak Island Borough 2005 Gravel Taskforce FINAL REPORT APPROVAL FOR AGENDA: RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to acknowledge receipt of the 2005 Gravel Task Force Final Report Presented November 21, 2007.