Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.0 ApplicationCM RAM' 4 d .IGC I.D. RHS[]!,. Y1. 11 _Alt% t V[ ACTIVNIED APPLICATION AND DATA FORM TO LEASE WATER FROM WEST DIVIDE WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT A. APPLICANT Name Eastside Coal Company, Inc. Address P• 0, Box 61, silt, CO 81652 Telephone Number 303 /876 ._. 2944 Authorized Agent or Representative , Stephen Self nor W ;171 B. WATER RIGHT OWNED BY APPLICANT Name of Right Type of Structure or Right (1) Eastside Spring & Seep (2) Eastside Well No. 1 (i) i astslae Mine well Location of Point of Diversion (1) SE z NEo Sec. 24, T. 5 S„ R. 92 W., 6th P.M. (2) SWa NEE Sec. 24,. T. 5 S., R. 92 W., 6th P.M. approx 2200 from north sec. line & 1700 from east sec • line 3) 4 SE� NFa Sec. 24, T. 5 S. ► .R. 92 W..; 6 P.M. approx. 1500 feet north sec. line & 1300 from east sec. line Water Court Case No. 90CW348 and 91CW096 Well Permit No, see attached C. INTENDED USE OF LEASED WATER Location of Area of Use S1 NFA Sec. 24, T. 5 S.. R. 92 W., 6th P.M. Description of Use Municipal, domestic and related uses. Dust suppression at an underground coal mine. The number of people served will be approximately 35. Number of Dwelling Units n/� Total Acreage 12 Proposed Potable Water System Cumexcial water treatment system. Proposed Waste -Water Treatment System Septic tank/1eachfield Projected Monthly Volume of Leased Water Needed in Gallons; Feb, 0.6 , Aug.r...0,6 Sept,or.0.33.7 May� Octo_ June_ ate July1.33----- Nov,� Deo. 0 6 Acre Feet 10 Annual Total Gallons,, o . e � . 0 . s . Maximum Instantaneous Demand gp D. OTHER REMARKS The. Eastside Mine Well is an underground coal mine which intercepts around water, k2/.../a4? DAT Contract 1 c?/497 0 -- ES=C Map ID i }�� <<S 4►ri Date Activated WEST DIVIDE WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT Water Allotment Contract Name of Applicant: Eastside Coal Company, Inc. Quantity of water in acre feet 10 acre feet / year Applicant, hereby applies to the West Divide Water Conservancy District, a political eubdivision of the State of Colorado, organized pursuant to and existing by virtue of C.R.S. 1973, 37-45-101, et seq., (hereinafter referred to as the "District") for an allotment contract to beneficially and perpetually use water or water rights owned, leased, or hereafter acquired by the District. By execution of this application, and eubeequent delivery and use of water, Applicant hereby agrees to the following terms and conditions; 1. Water Rights: Applicant shall own water rights at the point of diversion herein lawfully entitling Applicant to divert water, which will be eupplemented by water leased herein. If Applicant intends to divert through a well, it must be understood by Applicant that no right to divert exists until a valid well permit is obtained from the State Engineer. 2. Quantity; Water applied fo.r by the Applicant in the amount set forth above shall be diverted at Applicant's point of diversion from the District's direct flow water rights, and when water is unavailable for diversion pursuant to administration by the Colorado State Engineer during periods when said direct flow water right is not in priority, the District shall release for the use of Applicant up to said quantity in acre-feet per year of storage water owned or controlled by the District. It is understood that any quantity allotted from direct flow, storage or otherwise, to the Applicant by the District will be limited by the priority of the District's decrees and by the physical and legal availability of water from District's sources. Any quantity allotted will only be provided so long as water is available and the Applicant fully complies with all of the terms and conditions of this contract. The District and the Applicant recognize that some of the District's decrees may be in the name of the Colorado River Water Conservation District, and the ability of the District to allot direct flow rights to the Applicant may be dependent on the consent of the Colorado River Water Conservation District. If at any time the Applicant determines it requires less water than the amount herein provided, it may so notify the District in writing, and the amount of water allotted under this contract shall be reduced permanently in accordance with such notice. Rates shall be adjusted accordingly in following water years only. 3. Beneficial Use and Location of Beneficial User Any and all water allotted Applicant by the District shall be used for the following beneficial use or uses; Municipal, domestic and related uses, or irrigation and commercial (except to the extent that Ruedi water may not be available for irrigation and commercial as those terms are defined on page 5 of Contract No. 2-07-70-W0547 between th,e United States and the West Divide Water Conservancy District). ,Applicant's beneficial use of any and all water allotted shall be within or'through facilities or upon land owned, leased, operated, pr under Applicant's control. 4. Decrees and Delivery; Exchange releases made'by the District out of storage from Ruedi Reservoir, or other works or facilities of the District, or from other sources available to the District, shall be delivered to the Applicant at the outlet works of said storage facilities or at the deoreed point of -1- diversion for said other sources, and release or delivery of water at such outlets or pointe shall constitute performance of the District's total obligation. Delivery of water by the District from Ruedi Reservoir shall be subject to the District's lease contract with the United States Bureau of Reclamation. Releases from other facilities available to District shall be subject to the contracts, laws, rules, and regulations governing releases therefrom. Furthermore, the District hereby expressly reserves the right to store water and to make exchange releases from structures that may be built or controlled by the District in the future, so long as the water service to the Applicant pursuant to this agreement is not impaired by said action. Any quantity of the Applicant's allocation not delivered to or used by Applicant by the end of each water year (December 31), shall revert to the water supplies of the District. Such reversion shall not entitle Applicant to any refund of payment made for such water. Water service provided by the District shall be limited to the amount of water available in priority at the original ,point of diversion of the District's applicable water right, and neither the District, nor those entitled tp utilize the District's decrees, may call on any greater amount at new or alternate points of diversion. The.Diatrict shall request the Colorado State Engineer to estimate .any conveyance losses between the original point and any alternate point,•and such estimate shall be deducted from this amount in each case. The Distriot, or anyone using the District's decrees, may call on any additional sources of supply that may be available at an alternate point of diversion, (though not at the original point of diversion) only as against water rights which are junior to the date of application for the alternate point of diversion. • 5. Alternate Point of Diversion and Plan of Augmentation: Decrees for alternate points of diversion of the District's water rights or storage water may be required in order for Applicant to use the water service contemplated hereunder. Obtaining such decree is the exclusive responsibility of Applicant. The district reserves the exclusive right to review and approve any conditions which may be attached to judicial approval of said alternate point of diversion as contemplated or necessary to serve Applicant's facilities or lands. Applicant acknowledges and agrees that it shall be solely responsible for the procedures and legal and engineering costs necessary for any changes in water rights contemplated herein and further agrees to indemnify the Distriot from any costs or losses related thereto. Applicant is solely responsible for providing works and facilities necessary to obtain/divert the waters at said alternate point of diversion and deliver them to Applicant's intended beneficial use. Irrespective of the amount% of water actually transferred to the Applicant's point of diversion, the. Applicant shall make annual payments to the District based upon the amount 'of water allotted under this agreement. In the event the Applicant intends to apply for an alternate point of diversion and to develop an augmentation plan and institute legal proceedings for the approval of ouch augmentation plan to allow the Applicant to utilize the water allotted to Applicant hereunder, the Applicant shall give the District written notice of such intent. In the event the Applicant develops and adjudicates its own augmentation plan to utilize the water allotted hereunder, Applicant obeli not be obligated to pay any amount under paragraph 18 below. In any event, the District shall have the right to approve or disapprove the Applicant's augmentation plan and the Applicant shall provide the District copies of such plan and of all pleadings and other papers filed with the water court in the adjudication thereof. 6. Annual Payment: Annual payment tor the water service described herein shall be determined by the Board of Direotors of the District at a per aore-foot rate. The initial annual payment shall be made, in full, within thirty (30) days after the date of notice to the Applicant that the initial payment -2- Annual payment for the water service described herein shall be determined by the Board of Directors of the District at a per acre-foot rate. The initial annual payment shall be made, in full, within thirty (30) days atter the date of notice to.the Applicant that the initial payment is due. Said notice will advise the Applicant, among other things, of the water delivery year to which the initial payment shall apply and the price which is ear thereafter ashall tbe due and payable by the ar. Annual yApplicant ments roneh or before each January 1. If an annual payment is not made by the due date, written notice thereof will be sent by the District to the Applicant at such address as may be designated by the Applicant in writing, (If no address has been so designated in writing, then said notice shall be sent to Applicant's address set forth herein. water use for any part of a water year shall require payment for the entire water year. Nothing herein shall be construed so as to pdiscretion ret the from years o Diutrict ?y ting the annual rate in its sole If payment is not made within ten (10) days after the date of said written notice, Applicant shall at District's sole otion et under this cohave no -further without further.notice noieright, and deliveryor n ® may ntractbe immediately curtailed: and the allotment of water, as herein made, may be transferred, leased, or otherwise disposed of at the discretion of the Board of Directors of the District. 7. Security: As security to the District, the foregoing covenant of annual payment° in advance of water delivery, will be fully met by annual budget and appropriation of funds from such sources of revenues as may be legally available to the Applicant. Aa additional security to the District, te Applicant will hold harmless the Distr�ctand other anyerpersonh, corporation, quasi -governmental entity, o entity, for discontinuance in service due to the failure of the Applicant to maintain the payments herein contemplated on a current basis. Applicant agrees to defray any out-of-pocket expenses incurred by the District in connection with the allotment of water rights hereunder, including, but not limited to, reimbursement of legal and engineering costs incurred in connection with any water rights and adjudication necessary to allow Applicant's use of such allotted water rights. • 8. Asai nment: This agreement shall inure to the benefit of the era, euccassora or assigns of the parties hereto, except that no assignment shall be permitted in the event the water right allotted hereunder is to be used for the benefit of land which will be subdivided or otherwise held or owned in separate ownership interests bitw c (2) event more users the of tthe wa er r right allotted hereunder. In portion, but less than all, of the Applicant's property to be served under this oontraot, have any rights hereunder. Any assignment of the Applicants rights under this reqc retract sasllthe be subject to, and must complywith, District may hereafter adopt regarding assignment of contract rights and the assumption of contract obligations by assignees and successors. Nothing herein shall aprevenprevent g sutccessors theDtotaiportion of Applicant's property from individual and separate allotment contracts. • 9. Other:Rules: Applicant shall be bound by the Provisions of the Water Conservancy, Act of Colorado; by the rules and reulatons of nd all a endmentsithereof ha d e asupplemenrd of ts othereto rs of eand s byCalanlother applicable law, 10 Operation and Walntenance Agreement: Applicant shall enter into an •Operation and Maintenance greement• with the District under terms and conditions determined by the Board of Directors of the District, if and when, the Board of said District -3- determines in its sole discretion that such an agreement is required, Said agreement may contain, but shall not be limited to, provisions for additional annual monetary consideration for extension of District delivery services and for additional administration, operation, and maintenance costs/ or for other costa to the District which may arise through services made available to the Applicant. 11. Chance of Use: The District reserves the exclusive right to review, reapprove oc disapprove any proposed change in use of the water allotted hereunder, Any use other than that set forth herein or any lease or sale of the water or water rights allotted hereunder be deemed withouttobethaematerialrior written bre ch ofapproval this co tract. 12. Use and Place of Use: Applicant agrees to use the water in he mannr and on ocuments submittedt to the .District atetheo timet this ragreem ntibed in hisedexecuted (said documents are incorporated herein by this reference thereto), or in any oporation and maintenance agreement provided lease plicant orales ofA use water rights herein,t other than any pted in paragraph agra h 8 above, shall be deemed to be a material breach of this 13. Title: It is understood and agreed that nothing herein legal feel titleninte ined to terest in give ore Applicant wateror any watt able or errights referred to herein. • 14. Conservation: Applicant shall use commonly accepted conservation practices with respect to the water and water rights herein,' and hereby agrees to be bound by any District conservationplan or controlled waterted er or water erightsthe Cict for use of 15. Restrictions: Applicant shall restrict uses as follows (unless spec c waivers are appended to this agreement). Violation or these restrictions shall be deemed to be a material breach og'th•id agraamentt rE•, •..,.,.. ,: , Use Annual Maximum Diversion Household Domestic (includes lawn) Livestock (cattle) Irrigation 16. Well Permit: If Applicant intends to• divert through a well --E—,teirrirplreint must provide to District a copy of Applicant's 'valid well permit before District is obligated to deliver any water hereunder. 17. Representations' By executing this agreement, Applicant agrees that he is not relying on any legal or engineering advice that he may believe he has received from the Distriot. Applicant further acknowledges that he has obtained all necessary legal and engineering advice from his own sources other than the District. Applicant further acknowledges that the Dbotict makes no guarantees,rwateravailabiepursuant eassurances whatsoever this about the quantity or quality of agreement, $houid the District be unable to provide Che 'water contracted for h a srefnrr edagainst the District, nor may Applicant obtain a refund mthe District. 18. Costs of Water Court niciin e Applicant's contract in its own d! nr c oo e herein in a water court filing for alternate point of diversto ion or plan of augmentation, then Applicant hereby agrees to pay the District, when assessed, an additional fee representing the District's actual and reasonable costs and free for Applicant's share of the proceeding. 1/3 acre foot 1 - 3 acre feet 2 ac 3e foot/100 head acre feet/acre -4- 19. Binding Agreement: This Agreement shall not be complete nor binding upon the District unless attached hereto is the Corm entitled "Applioation Eor Purchase of Waters Erom the West Divide Water Conservanoy Distriot" fully oompleted by Applicant and approved by the District's engineer. Said attachments shall by this reference thereto bo incorporated into the terms of this agreement. 20. Warnings IT IS THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE APPLICANT TO OBTAIN A VALID WELL PERMIT OR OTHER WATER RIGHT IN ORDER TO DIVERT WATER, INCLUDING THE WATER ACQUIRED UNDER THIS CONTRACT. IT IS THE CONTINUING DUTY OF THE APPLICANT TO MAINTAIN THE VALIDITY OF THE WELL .PERMIT OR WATER RIGHT INCLUDING FILING FOR EXTENSIONS OF PERMITS, FILING WELL COMPLETION REPORTS, FILING STATEMENTS OF BENEFICIAL USE, OR OTHERWISE LAWFULLY APPLYING THE WATER TO BENEFICIAL USE ON A REGULAR BASIS WITHOUT WASTE. STATE OF COLORADO COUNTY OF GARFIELD ) es. ) APPLICANT:/)/Eastside C By 1 Ccrnpany, , Inc. APP IC ANT, ADDRESS: n, 0, Box 161 Silt, CO 81652 fi th/The foregoin i strument was ackn,� legged be ,r me on this /v2 day of g , 19�L, by �1e.' Witness my hand and official peal. 3' 40. My commission expires: N t ry 3ut4nic ORDER t After a hearing by the Board of Directors of the West cR* .-b�V4d, Water Conservancy District on the above application, it is he�te�� HDERED that said application be granted and this contract ----shWtbe qnd is accepted by the District. : -5 �. WEST DIVIDE WATER 7 7 *-21 -•CONS VANCX DIS RICT By N _,1'4' ;� res dent ATTEST* ecretar `Da e - . .2a/ / 9 9/ This contract includee and is subject to the terms.and conditions of the following documents which must accompany this contract: 1. Map showing location of point of diversion (use map provided); 2. Application and Data Form fully completed and signed 3. Other 'To.N-)(1 .G XnN•,e.40T1 1.`nta V�� �\a) �,. D1 \ STATE OF COLORADO MINED LAND RECLAMATION DIVISION Department of Natural Resources 1313 Sherman St., Room 215 Denver, CO 80203 303 866-3567 FAX: 303 832-8106 July 11, 1991 Mr. John Spangler 1823 237 Road Silt, Colorado 81652 C7 -147 -if _C7157377.7 ,i7 JUL 161991 r,Af(HIELD COUNTY Roy Romer, Governor Fred R. Banta, Division Director RE: Eastside Coal Company (File C-84-063) Dear Mr. Spangler: I would like to take this opportunity to respond to your July 1, 1991 correspondence, and to summarize our May 24, 1991 phone conversation. When reviewing an application for a mining and reclamation permit, the Mined Land Reclamation Division focuses on determining whether compliance with the Coal Regulations has been demonstrated. These regulations deal mainly with technical issues documenting whether an applicant has the ability to reclaim a mine to a pre -determined post -mining land use. We are very concerned about topsoil quantity and quality, revegetation success, ground and surface water protection. We do not evaluate a permit application in terms of many issues which are considered to be outside of our authority. These issues include aesthetics of a mine, impacts of truck traffic to local roads, noise and other socio-economic concerns. The Colorado Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act requires that operations not impair the quality of water adjacent to the mine site. We require each permittee to monitor ground and surface water quality on a periodic basis. We then evaluate these data in order to determine whether water quality is being protected. We have no authority to enforce air quality violations. The Air Pollution Control Division of the Colorado Department of Health has jurisdiction over these matters. We do, however, require coal operations to be in compliance with the standards established by Air Pollution Control. The Coal Mining Rules and Regulations require that a permittee be in compliance with applicable local requirements. In some cases, the local authority will impose a maximum permissable production limit on an operation. Our permitting process requires the applicant to disclose the anticipated mine production. It is our position that an operator cannot exceed the lower of the two production figures. An exceedance of the lower production figure Mr. John Spangler - 2 - July 11, 1991 would probably place the operator in a non-compliance situation, as either the state or local requirements have been surpassed. Again, the Coal Rules and Regulations require an operator to be in compliance with local permitting. Thus, if production exceeds the locally imposed standard, the operator is also not in compliance with the State regulations. I hope that this discussion is responsive to your questions. Please contact me if you have questions or comments. Sincerely, Steven c. Renner Coal Program Supervisor SGR/yjb cc: Jim Pendleton Larry Routten Dan Mathews Mark Bean, Garfield County Planner Steve Self, Eastside Coal Co. 6931F GARFIELD COUNTY REGULATORY OFFICES AND PERSONNEL July 1, 1991 Stephen Self Eastside Coal Company P.O. Box 161 Silt, CO 81652 RE: Eastside Coal Company Special Use Permit Application Dear Mr. Self: Please consider this letter to be a response to the Special use permit application for a coal mine and associated facilities submitted to this office on June 3, 1991. consistent with Section 9.03.03, this application has been reviewed by this office and the Garfield County Attorney's office. As a result of this review, it is my responsibility to inform you that the application appears to be deficient and therefore I do not feel it is appropriate to formally submit the application to the Garfield County Board of County Commissioners for consideration. In general, we found the application to be very general, with statements of fact, unsupported by any documentation of the basis for the statements. The following comments should not be considered a complete list of deficiencies, but the most obvious: - Section 9.03.01 requires the application to be filed by the owners of the property, which appears to be Helen Christine, "Nell" Eldridge and Ed Eldridge, individually, and as trustee. - The site plan lacks adequate detail to be able to determine present and future building locations, setbacks, building size and height. There is reference in the air emission permit to a conveyor system with no plan for such a system. - Water and sewer facilities are referenced and general statements are made to their adequacy both physically and legally. There are no references to approved permits for water and/or sewer facilities or calculations for future need and use. While the augmentation plan has been submitted, there is no legal opinion as to whether or not the proposed augmentation plan will be approved. 109 8TH STREET, SUITE 303 • 945-8212/625-5571/285-7972 • GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601 Stephen Self Page 2 July 1, 1991 There is no identification of road impacts that correlates to existing or proposed street improvements adequate to accommodate traffic. There needs to be considerably more detail regarding a road maintenance agreement, which will have to be a part of any approvals given to this project. These are some of the major issues that need to be resolved. There appears to be a number of conclusionary statements about what will be done without any real indication of how it will be done. While you reference the MLRB application as supporting documentation for the Special Use permit, there are few cross references to help explain various statements. In general, it will be necessary for you to support various conclusionary statements with the basis for these statements. To say you will comply with a particular regulation does not demonstrate how you will comply. There may be a difference as to how compliance is best achieved. Again, this letter is being written to you consistent with our responsibility as stated in Section 9.03.03 of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended. As such, we have not cashed your check for the application fee and you do not have any particular time line in which you must respond. If you have any further questions, I will be glad to respond to them. Sincerely, 47/"4"4" ---- Mark L. Bean, Director Regulatory Offices and Personnel MLB/rib xc: Jim Lochhead GARFIELE' CIT1ZENS'A'LIANCE "Dedicated to creating a sustainable future for Garfield County" L JUN 28 1991 GARH 'yr ounty Commissioners, • June 27,1991 We have reviewed the Special Use Permit Application of Eastside Coal Company and offer the following comments for your review. We believe the application to be inadequate at this time, thereby not allowing the Planning and Zoning Commission or the citizens of Garfield County to responsibly review it. One of the major concerns of this mine will be the impact to county roads, yet this application lacks a road agreement between the applicant and Garfield County. The discussion of impact mitigations is insufficient,. as is the discussion of life -of -the mine. The application lacks detail in many areas, and we feel this is an excellent opportunity for Garfield County to stand by its' rules, regulations, and procedures. In doing so, it will work to the benefit of everyone; the Planning and Zoning Commission, the County Commissioners, the citizens of Garfield County, and yes, the applicant too. Once again we are dealing with a sensitive issue, and we would hope that it is dealt with as truely a Special Use Permit. Before sending this application before the County Planning and Zoning Commission and the citizens of Garfield County, we ask that you recommend a more adequate application be submitted by the applicant. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Yo s truer ,.Re-rWHiry ohn Span{ er ccs Mark Bean BOX 111 SILT, COLORADO 81652 945-8205, 984-2729, or 876-2924 ABS EASTSIDE COAL COMPANY, INC. PO. Box 161 Silt, Colorado 81652 (303) 876-2944 June 3, 1991 Board of County Commissioners 109 8th Street, Suite 301 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602 Dear Board Members: Eastside Coal Company, Inc. is requesting a Special Use Permit to conduct Mining Operations in Section 19 of T5S R91W and Sections 23 and 24 in T5S R92W, Garfield County, Colorado, in compliance with the approved Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Permit and Garfield County requirements. Eastside Coal Company originally permitted the aline for a production level of 200,000 tons per year in 1985. The term of that permit was five years. During that time Eastside Coal Company pursued a market for the coal out- side of the local area, and is still attempting to develop that market. This Special Use Permit is for the life of the mine as long as the mine is operated in compliance with State, Federal, and County Performance Standards and conditions in the permit. The permit application has addressed items which are in the following Sections in the Garfield County Zoning Resolution dated January 2, 1978: 3.02 Zone District Regulations 5.03 Conditional and Special Uses 5.03.07 Industrial Operations 5.03.08 Industrial Performance Standards 5.03.12 Access Routes 9.03.01 Permit - Special Use Application 9.03.02 Fee 9.03.05 Periodic Review The impact statements required by 5.03.07 are a part of and included with this Special Use Application. Thank you for the consideration of the Special Use Application. Eastside Coal Company wants to keep the lines of communication open to obtain approval of a Special Use Permit. If your staff has any questions we would appreciate a call or letter and we will respond in a timely manner. Sincerely, Stephen el Self :" General Manag r SS/11 MEMO TO: MARK BEAN, DIRECTOR OF REGULAT FROM: DON K. DEFORD, COUNTY ATTORNE RE: EASTSIDE COAL SPECIAL USE PERMI 'PLICATION - PRELIMINARY REVIEW DATE: June 6, 1991 I have had an opportunity to do a very quick preliminary review of the Eastside Coal Special Use Permit Application. This review does not include the voluminous information contained in the Mine Land Reclamation Bureau permit applications appended to this special use permit request. Nevertheless, my preliminary review demonstrates some significant deficiencies in this request. Due to the deficiencies noted below, it is my recommendation that you determine that this application is not yet complete, that additional information is needed pursuant to the provisions of Section 5.03.07 and that before submittal to the Board of County Commissioners the applicant must complete those deficient items. Specifically, I note that under the foregoing -noted section, the Planning Director, in addition to the Board of County Commissioners, has independent authority to make such a determination and such a request. However, such authority is not exercised in regard to an impact statement, but, rather is required to meet the fundamental application requirements. I note the following areas of concern: 1. In regard to the fundamental application, Section 9.03.01 requires that application be submitted by the owner or owners of the subject property. The information contained at Section 9 on Page 3 of the application, together with the letter of application contained at Exhibit C, does not clearly delineate the ownership of the property that is the subject of this permit. At a minimum, the application needs to claim ownership of the property that is the subject of the request in the name of a specific person or company. Additionally, supporting information in the form of deeds or other documents of conveyance should be appended. 2. Neither the provisions at Page 3 of the application nor the letter of application in Exhibit C contain a legal description of the property that is the subject of this request. The letter of June 3, 1991 specifies areas in which mining will be conducted, but does not specifically note that the special use permit should cover all of the property set forth in Paragraph 1 of that letter. A similar description in the vicinity map contained in Exhibit A contains a legal description that is ambiguous at best. MARK BEAN, DIR. OF REGULATORY OFFICES PAGE 2 JUNE 6, 1991 3. Neither the regulation references on Page 3, nor the letter of application contained at Exhibit C specifically delineate the contemplated maximum extent of mining operations. In other words, are we permitting a 200,000 ton mine or something less that will grow to 200,000 tons. Is 200,000 tons the maximum requested by this permit? The application should be clear and unequivocal in that regard. 4. The most glaring defect in the application is its failure to address the methods by which the applicant will mitigate the impact its operation will have upon County roads. The applicant has identified and addressed the contemplated impacts. However, the method by which the applicant will mitigate those impacts apparently is covered by the statement that a road agreement will be entered into after approval of the permit. No other terms and conditions are specified as to the nature of that agreement. From a legal perspective I see no method by which the County can compel the applicant to enter into an agreement that is not a part of the special use permit application process. At page 21 of its application, the applicant specifically notes that the road maintenance agreement would not be part of the special use permit. The provisions of Section 5.03. require that the applicant accomplish street improvements necessary to accommodate all traffic generated by the proposed use. Section 5.03.07(2) provides that no industrial use traffic shall create a hazard or nuisance to other areas of the County. Section 5.03.12 provides that a special use must be provided with an access route of adequate design to accommodate the proposed traffic volume of the use and shall be constructed in conjunction with the proposed use. In our case, the applicant has identified no design for improvement of the identified County road routes on which it has also stated traffic would be doubled and forty trips per day by 80,000 lb. trucks would be accomplished. Without any method to compel the signature on a road maintenance agreement let alone power to compel needed terms and conditions within that agreement after approval of this special use, the applicant must comply with all of the foregoing -cited sections and state in its application the road design, construction schedule, and other requirements set forth below regarding improvements to County roads. 5. The applicant has identified no measure of security that will be provided to assure construction of required improvements in conjunction with the requested special use. Specifically, it has identified no security in regard to road improvements. The provisions of Section 5.03.10(2) permit such a condition to be attached to a special use permit. Traditionally, it has been the practice of the Board of County Commissioners to require such MARK BEAN, DIR. OF REGULATORY OFFICES PAGE 3 JUNE 6, 1991 security in regard to a proposed special use. I believe the amount of security that will be provided should be identified by the applicant regarding both road improvements and landscaping. 6. The applicant has not identified with specificity the manner in which it has met the provisions of Section 5.03.10, the conditions upon which a special use permit may be approved. The applicant should identify the manner in which the Board is required to enter its approval of this request. Additionally, the applicant should identify those elements of 5.03.11 with which it has complied in order that the County Commissioners may not deny this request. 7. At Page 16 of its application, the applicant states that it will generate dust through its operations, and further states that it has air quality permits from the State of Colorado. The holding of a permit from the State of Colorado does not identify the manner in which it will mitigate or reduce the amount of dust generated by this project. 8. The storage of the product of the coal mine, both the fines pile, as well as the product pile, is not identified by size or storage area. I note on Page 27 of the application that other areas for storage are identified. The same provisions require identification of the size and location of the storage area of the coal product itself. The vicinity map contained at Exhibit A does identify a location for coal storage, but is not incorporated in the industrial performance standards section on Page 27. Additionally, that map does not indicate the amount of coal storage at the specified location. Finally, I note on Page 27, Section 5.03.08(5)(d) requires identification of materials that might constitute a fire hazard. The applicant states that there is no material which would constitute a fire hazard to be stored outdoors. At previous hearings before this Board, this applicant has specifically stated that storage of waste and fines piles from the coal mine constitute a fire hazard, a danger from spontaneous combustion. Does the applicant require no such storage for this mine? 9. Finally, I note no where in the application the request that this document be considered a site-specific development plan under the vesting provisions of the Colorado Revised Statutes. Pursuant to our discussions with New Castle Energy, we should be concerned as to the status of this application under the provisions of Section 24-68-101, C.R.S., as amended. I believe the Board of County Commissioners should specifically state that this is not such a plan. MARK BEAN, DIR. OF REGULATORY OFFICES PAGE 4 JUNE 6, 1991 The foregoing constitute my comments upon brief review of the initial application. Prior to commencing a public hearing on this matter, I anticipate conducting a more extensive review. If you have any questions, please contact me upon my return. DKD:mis STATE OF COLORADO DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY Department of Natural Resources 1313 Sherman St., Room 215 Denver, Colorado 80203 Phone: (303) 866-3567 FAX: (303) 832-8106 March 4, 2003 Garfield County Planning Department Planning Director 109 8th St Ste 200 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re: Eastside Mine (Permit No. C-1984-063) Technical Revision Application No. 16 (TR -16) Revised Monitoring and Updates of Reclamation Status Dear Sir or Madam: REGO ED r P 9041..011`1G €r. P I DIVISION OF MINERALS GEOLOGY RECLAMATION MINING•SAFETY Bill Owens Governor Greg E. Walcher Executive Director Ronald W. Cattany Division Director The Division of Minerals and Geology hereby issues notice, in accordance with Title 34, Article 33, Section 116, Paragraph 4, of the Colorado Revised Statutes, that on March 4, 2003, an application to revise coal mining operations at the Eastside Mine was considered complete for the purposes of filing. The revision was submitted by Eastside Coal Company, Inc.. All review and comment periods as provided in the Act and the Regulations initiate from this date of filing. This proposed technical revision to Permit C-1984-063 revises the monitoring program and updates descriptions of reclamation status. The Underground coal mining operation is on land located approximately 4 miles North of Silt, Colorado. The permit area is further described as follows: T5S, R92W; Portion of Section 24 The above-mentioned tracts of land are shown on USGS 7.5 minute Quadrangle map of Silt, Colorado. The applicant is required to publish notice in a local newspaper that this application has been deemed complete. At the time of publication of this notice, the applicant is additionally required to place a copy of this application at the Garfield County Courthouse, 108 8th St Ste 213, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601-3355, and at the Division office. For additional information or to provide written comments, contact the Division of Minerals and Geology, Room 215, 1313 Sherman Street, Denver, Colorado 80203, (303) 866-3567. In order for us to comply with regulatory time frames, we request that comments be submitted within fifteen (15) days of this letter. If no comments are received by then, we will proceed on the assumption that you have no concerns with, or objections to, the applicant's proposal. Sincerely, �.� Byron G. Walker Environmental Protection Specialist BGW/Ahd C -TR -03 C1984063 BGW 20030304 123923 PM RECEIVED MAR 2 -I 2001 Stephen Self 1098 County Road 214 Silt, CO 81652 970-876-5368 Fax 970-876-5234 March 16, 2001 Garfield County Planning Commission 109 8th Street, Suite 205 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Sir: Eastside Coal Company, Inc. is seeking release of the Phase II bond for the Eastside Mine. A copy of the public notice is enclosed for your review. Written comments, objections, or requests for informal conferences may be submitted to: Colorado Division of Minerals and Geology 1313 Sherman Street Denver, CO 80203 Phone 303-866-3567 Sincerely, Stephen Sel Enc. Eastside Coal Company Inc PO Box 701007 San Antonio, TX 78247 210-490-8837 has filed an application for a Phase II bond release for the Eastside Mine, Permit No C-1984- 063, approved Jan 14, 2000, with the Colorado Division of Minerals and Geology. The Phase II bond release covers land in Section 24, T5S, R92W, 6th P.M. Garfield County, Colorado, more specifically described as follows: Commencing from a point which bears S6°25'08"W, 483'+/- from the NE corner of Section 24: thence south a distance of 905'+/-; thence S89°27'34"E a distance of 2,650'+/-; thence south a distance of 975'+/-; thence west a distance of 4,160'+/-; thence south a distance of 395'+/-; thence west a distance of 740'+/-; thence N5°2322"E a distance of 2,662'+/-; thence S80°04'26"E a distance of 2,030'+/- to the point of beginning. The surface facilities area which has been reclaimed is located approximately 3.75 miles north of Silt, Colorado. Access to the site is via Garfield County Road 237 (Harvey Gap Road). The existing reclaimed area is approximately 1500 feet south of the Grass Valley Reservoir. The Silt Quadrangle, 7.5 Minute Series, contains the area described above. The area covered is approximately three (3) acres. The area was regraded and seeded in 1985. In 2000 a vegetation survey indicated a vegetation cover of 55% which meets the approved standard of 35 % cover for a Phase II bond release. A copy of the application is available for public inspection at the Garfield County courthouse, Glenwood Springs, Colorado and the Colorado Division of minerals and Geology, Denver, Colorado. Written comments, objections, or requests for informal conferences may be submitted to: Colorado Division of Minerals and Geology 1313 Sherman Street Denver, CO 80203 Comments will be accepted within 30 days of the last day of publication of this public notice. 7 STATE OF COLORADO DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY Department of Natural Resources 1313 Sherman St., Room 215 Denver, Colorado 80203 Phone: (303) 866-3567 FAX: (303) 832-8106 July 22, 1999 Mark Bean Garfield County Planning Department Planning Director 109 8th St Ste 200 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re: Eastside Mine (Permit No. C-84-063) Permit Renewal Application No. 3 (RN -3) Reference: Colorado Division of Minerals and Geology letter of July 20, 1999, subject as above Dear County Planning Director: So much of the reference letter that reads: "T5S, R89W; Portion of Section 24" should read "A portion of Section 24, T5S, R92W; and a portion of Section 19, T5S, R91 W; 6`h PM". Please call me if you have any questions concerning this correction. 'Yours truly, DIVISION O F MINERALS GEOLOGY RECLAMATION MINING•SAFETY Bill Owens Governor Greg E. Walcher Executive Director Michael B. Long Division Director Byrin G. Walker Environmental Protection Specialist Bill Owens, Governor Jane E. Norton, Executive Director Dedicated to protecting and improving the health and environment of the people of Colorado 4300 Cherry Creek Dr. 5. Laboratory and Radiation Services Division Denver, Colorado 80246-1530 8100 Lowry Blvd. Phone (303) 692-2000 Denver, Colorado 80230-6928 TDD Line (303) 691-7700 (303) 692-3090 Located in Glendale, Colorado http://www.cdphe.state.co.us February 4, 2002 STATE OF COLORADO Stephen Self, General Manager Eastside Coal Company, Inc. P.O. Box 701007 San Antonio, TX 78270 RE: Termination Request for Coal Mines; Eastside Mine Permit No: COG -850019; Garfield County Dear Mr. Self: Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment As requested per a letter, on January 3, 2002, I am. sending a termination form which must be completed and signed by you, as you are listed as the legal contact for the above -referenced permit. Before the Division can consider inactivating the above -referenced permit, a release of bond from Division of Minerals and Geology is required. At that time you will need to submit the enclosed form along with a copy of the bond release from the Division of Minerals and Geology. Also, you must certify that all discharges to state waters have ceased. Upon receipt of the completed termination form, the District Engineer (D.E.) for the above -referenced county will be notified and will inspect your facility. Regulations require that monitoring reports be submitted until the permit is formally inactivated. If appropriate, such reports should simply state "no discharge". Please be aware that Section 61.15 (e) (ii) of the permit regulations state: "Once the Division proceeds to terminate a permit at the permittee's request, the prorated fee shall apply to the period of time the permit has been in effect, including but not exceeding ninety (90) days from the date the permit termination request is received by the Division." Please contact me at (303) 692-3556 with any questions. Questions concerning fees please contact Misty Grange at (303) 692-3534. If you have any questions pertaining to your facility or this action, please contact your District Engineer, Dwain Watson at (970) 248-7156. Sincerely, d./(4/11Li Nina Coronado, Administrative Assistant Water Quality Protection Section WATER QUALITY CONTROL DIVISION enclosure xc: Permits Section, EPA, Bruce Kent, Permits Team Leader (8P2 -W -P) (w/o enclosure) Local Health Department (w/o enclosure) D.E., Technical Services Unit, WQCD (w/o enclosure) Division of Minerals and Geology (w/o enclosure) Permit File Inc lig#T4 1995 Ba 1 az & Associates, Inc. 'CIA iI. 1-41X a� 203 Sunset Circle Palisade, Colorado 81526 (970) 464-7942 August 17, 1995 Mr. Mark Bean Garfield County Planner 109 8th Street Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602 RE: Mine Reclamation and Phase I Reclamation Bond Release Application Dear Mr. Bean: This letter notifies you the Eastside Coal Company has reclaimed its Eastside Mine Facility and backfilled the portal entries, During June and July, 1995, the three portals were sealed in accordance with the approved sealing plans. The buildings and coal handling facilities were removed, and the facility area was regraded and covered with acceptable growing medium per the approved reclamation plan. The diversion and collection ditch and sediment pond have been left to control surface drainage. The area will be seeded this fall with the approved seed mix. A Phase I reclamation bond release application is being prepared and will be filed with the Colorado Department of Mines and Geology. Should you wish to file written comments, objections, or requests for informal conferences, you may do so by sending your written comments, objections or requests for informal conferences to: Colorado Division of Mines and Geology 1313 Sherman Street, Room 215 Denver, Colorado 80203 Written comments, objections and requests for informal conferences should be received within thirty (30) of the last publication of this notice or within thirty (30) days of the completed inspection whichever is later. Mr. Mark Bean Page 2 August 17, 1995 Please feel free to contact the undersigned at the above address or Mr. Stephen B. Self, General Manager, Eastside Coal Company at (210) 828-5354 if you have any questions regarding the reclamation activities or this letter. Sincerely, Balaz & Associates, Inc. 1/(0, ad, William P. Balaz Jr., PE President cc: Mr. Stephen Self, Eastside Coal Company 1r. 1 ^ 11 A "Ir': 1 511 ,^n F t. uL'l,l‘fli.' 4.J MINED LAND RECLAMATION DIVISION Department of Natural Resources 1313 Sherman St., Room 215 Denver, CO 80203 303 866-3567 FAX: 303 832-8106 March 26, 1991 Mr. Steve Self Eastside Coal Company, Inc. P.O. Box 161 Silt, Colorado 81652 0 APR 219911 GARFILLU CUUNT Y RE: Eastside Mine, Citizens Concerns, File No. C-84-063 Dear Mr. Self: r+ Roy Romer, Governor Fred R. Banta, Division Director This letter is in response to information you submitted concerning questions raised in our letter of February 4, 1991 regarding various aspects of the Eastside Operation. Compliance with County Permitting Requirements Based on recent communication with the Garfield County Planning Department, it is our understanding that the Garfield County Commissioners have determined that Eastside Coal Company has the legal right to operate the Eastside Mine on a limited basis (857 tons per year) as a pre-existing non -conforming use. Please confirm whether Eastside intends to operate the mine at this level of production until a special use permit authorizing a higher level of production is obtained. If Eastside does not intend to operate the mine at the limited production level , we request that you submit a Notice of Temporary Cessation pursuant to Rule 4.30.1 no later than April 15, 1991. Removal of Rifle Loadout from the Permit Area and Associated Life of Mine Issues Your response letter of February 19, 1991 has adequately addressed the questions raised regarding life of mine plans for transporting coal to market. It is our understanding that Eastside Coal Company has no plans at this -Lisle to uta i ize any rail loadout facility and does not have. 7:1-.ws �c a power :'r~t .idjacent to the mine. Any change D1 ons whir" woul i P..-+a� � use of an off -s1 1oa�utac, expon5iot. of the ;.enirT :Pay, which would otherwise significantly affect the terms of the pert i t ;:r the reclamation plan would require approval of a permit revision. In regard to adequacy of information on life of mine plans, the Division's practice is to rely upon information presented to us by the applicant or permittee. When that information conflicts with information or requirements Mr. Steve Self - 2 March 26, 1991 set forth in public documents or plans, such as permits or approvals issued by local , state or federal agencies, the permittee must modify the Mined Land permit to el iminate discrepenci es . Modifications of this nature would be accomplished through the permit revision process. Blowing Coal Dust and Potential Hydrologic Impacts A review of the hydrologic baseline information contained in the Eastside permit document and the upstream and downstream surface water monitoring conducted by Eastside since 1985 supports your assertion that the Eastside operations have not diminished the water quality in Harvey Gap or the Farmer's Ditch below the mine. Data from indicator parameters such as conductivity, pH, total dissolved sol ids, sulfate and sodium, which could possibly be elevated as a result of mine water discharge or leaching of drainage water through coal fines, have been examined. The data does not indicate that detectable trends exist. These evaluations were based on a same day comparison of upstream and downstream sampl ing stations, and on a comparison of baseline data wi th subsequent monitoring data. Compliance with the approved air pollution control pl an and permit should be sufficient to minimize the hydrologic impacts associated with blowing coal dust and to prevent material damage to Farmer's Ditch water which is used for both domestic and agricultural purposes. The Division will insure that this is the case through regular site inspections, periodic hydrologic monitoring and consultation with the Air Pollution Control Division (APCD). We have requestd that APCD conduct a site inspection upon resumption of mining operations. The surface water description and hydrologic impact mitigation sections of the permit application will need to be revised to acknowledge and describe the domestic use of Farmer's Di tch water. These sections should also discuss the potential impact of the operation on the domestic use. This information should be included within a technical revision application to be submitted no later than May 1, 1991. Since the letter which Eastside sent to Farmer's Ditch shareholders did not specifically inquire as to whether the water was used for drinking, the impact evaluation in the technical revision application should include the assumption that the water is used for drinking. To summarize, we are requesting the following .information. 1, Documentation of county approval unci t.onfirmation c;F Fasts idE ;;nay Canpany's intent to mine at a limited production level, or submittal of a Notice of Temporary Cessation by April 15, 1991. 2. Submittal of a technical revision application addressing domestic use of Farmer's Ditch water and potential impacts of the Eastside Mine on that use by May 1, 1991. Mr. Steve Self - 3 - March 26, 1991 We appreciate your attention to this matter. Please contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Dan T. Mathews Reclamation Specialist DTM/yjb CC: Mr. Harry Collier, ARCD Mr. John Spangler, Garfield Citizens Alliance Mr. Mark Bean, Garfield County Planning Department Mike Savage Fred Banta Steve Renner DTM/yjb 4108F GAilFILi� Cl7IZENS MITT 13 �8DwwO � -�' _ �u�hHE[D COUNTY ALLIANCE RESPONSE TO GARFIELD COUNTY PLANNER'S POSITON ON STAlUS OF EASTSlDE COAL'S PERMIT The Garfield Citi2ens Alliance supports Garfield Cuu:�y Flannpr Mark Bean's position as stated in his letter |991 to Eastside Coal's attorney regarding the s�atu� of Eastsid�a's permit. The GCA has previously taken the positon Eastside Coal must begin to seek a county perm/ and we believe that the county planner's decision will further that process. It is our hope that Eastside Coal now Hill begin to bring its mine into full compliance with bot{' 6~�fiblJ County and the State of Colorado specifically pe,AxH::-ing the mine with the county and revising its state to reflect the level of production and use it rece�ves in the county permit. Although Mr. Bean did grant Eastside the right to produce up to 857 tons of coal a year as a "granfathered° USE we find that level of production to he of an insignificant amount as to in essence affirm the position we had earlier taken. We recognize that the county planner and attorney have spent considerable time and effort in arriving at the county position and we appreciate the depth and clarity of the document. We as an organization hope and believe that this signals a new effort on the part of our county government to focus its efforts on the implementation of our county land use code. Eastside Coal's history over the past sevraI years has been one of great concern and gisappoint1n1m both its supporters and detactors. The proposed powerplants at first Harvey. Gap and then near Silt drew opposition from not only the GCA but also many residents in the Silt area and thruout the county. We have been told that many former Eastside miners still have not been paid past wages. We hope that the first step taken by Eastside is to make good on this obligation to its former employees. We hope that Eastside will view the county planner's decision for the well thought-out and well documented position that it is and react in a positive manner and not resort to needless and unnecessary posturing. We restate our stance taken in our " Position Statement " dated Feb. 28,1991 as regards the future of the Faatside Mine. Specifically we are willing to enter into talks with Eastside, the county and the state as to permitting of the mine. We endorse a mine proposal that would match the character of the surrounding neighborhood. We believe that a mine with a production capacity of 10,000 tons per year or 50 % greater than has ever been mined at the Eastside property would be compatible with the surrounding area with the proper permit requirements. We uffer Lhis proposal in good faith and intentions and it is our sincere desire that Eastside will respond in a positive contact : Greg McKennis 984-2729 Randy Corry 945-8205 GARFIELD COUNTY REGULATORY OFFICES AND PERSONNEL March 12, 1991 James S. Lochhead, Esquire Leavenworth & Lochhead, P.C. P. 0. Drawer 2030 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re: Eastside Coal Company - Claim for Non --conforming Use Dear Mr. Lochhead: Pursuant to your correspondence to Mr. DeFord dated February 15, 1991, I: have had an opportunity to review your letter of February 15, 1991 concerning various claims by Eastside Coal Company. In direct response to your request for confirmation that production of 7,000 tons per year would constitute a valid pre- existing non -conforming use, I do not agree with that position for the reasons set forth below. As set forth below, I agree that there may exist a valid pre-existing non -conforming use for mining operations not to exceed a production level of 857 tons per year. Finally, I do not agree that all usages from March 21, 1985 were conducted as valid pre-existing non -conforming uses. Rather, it Ls my position that such uses were conducted pursuant to the terms of Resolution No. 85-42, a Resolution authorizing special use activity on the subject property. The validity of such uses terminated on the expiration of the permit authorized by that Resolution. My reasoning for the foregoing positions is as follows: 1. In regard to the claim that no special use permit was issued to Eastside Coal, hence the time period for expiration has not run and all uses since 1985 were lawful non -conforming uses, I would note the following: a. Immediately subsequent to the passage of Resolution No. 85-42, the Eastside Coal Company began compliance with all seven conditions of approval set forth in that Resolution. b. That compliance with those provisions is evidenced by the filing of the quarterly reports required by Condition No. 7 commencing in June of 1985 and running continuously on a quarterly basis up through and including July 13, 1990. For every year included therein, your company submitted four reports each stating that the report was being filed pursuant to the special use permit approved in Resolution No. 85-42. 109 8TH STREET, SUITE 303 • 945-8212/625-5571/285-7972 • GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601 JAMES S. LOCHHEAD, ESQUIRE PAGE 2 MARCH 12, 1991 c. That in regard to Condition No. 3, the applicant complied and tendered to the Planning Department copies of the permits required by that provision. d. That in regard to Condition No. 5, Eastside Coal has continuously used the haul route specified. Additionally, you negotiated with Garfield County concerning an agreement for maintenance and improvements of the roads in question, as commissioned and submitted to the County the appropriate study concerning pavement thickness set forth in that section. Due to the minimal amount of hauling, your client verbally agreed to a road maintenance program with the Road and Bridge Supervisor in lieu of the written agreement and, in fact, did perform some repair of the haul route due to damage done to the roads. e. In regard to Condition No. 6, Eastside Coal has continuously complied with that provision by obtaining permits prior to need. f. That in regard to Paragraph 2 of Resolution No. 85- 42, Eastside Coal in its correspondence of February 28, 1990, recognized the need to renew its existing permit under that Section, published notice of a request for renewal of the existing permit under that section, and appeared at the established public hearing in an attempt to obtain that permit extension. Of equal importance, when Eastside Coal was informed at that public hearing that they could not renew as the time had elapsed on their existing permit, no statement was made to the Commissioners disclaiming the existence of such permit. No appeal was taken as required from that decision within the required thirty days. Additionally, you may have asserted a remedy under the provisions of Section 9.04.01 concerning my decision that no extension of a permit could be granted after its expiration. Such appeal needed to be filed Within seven days of that decision. That action was not taken, clearly evidencing your agreement that there was an existing special use permit that had expired. Given these circumstances, it is my position that a special use permit came into existence as earlier stated, that such permit has expired, and that any operations in excess of a lawful pre- existing non -conforming use must be the subject of a new application and approval process. 2. With the foregoing in mind, it is my position that no use or activity subsequent to the enactment of Resolution No. 85-42 may be considered a pre-existing non -conforming use and a basis for �" . .41-r' 7 ' ,. Jr',� _:r7v.r. _.' ,"`T T*t.w�.• .tar nrery•'�+rrw, ��. i i JAMES S. LOCHHEAD, ESQUIRE PAGE 3 MARCH 12, 1991 establishing a level of activity. As set forth above, all such activities were undertaken pursuant to a special use permit, not as a lawful pre-existing non -conforming use. Therefore, I am looking to the time preceding 1985 for the basis of your claim. In that regard, I find the following: a. The property that is the subject of your request was first subjected to County zoning on January 1, 1973. h. By your own documents, the level of production on that property for the preceding year was 857 tons per annum. c. That while that production did not emanate from the portal currently in use, all evidence does indicate that the coal was drawn from the same source. Additionally, I believe it is clear that in 1973, the use of the property in question was for the production of coal. Therefore, I agree with your position that the actual portal from which the coal was withdrawn is irrelevant in determining a pre-existing non -conforming use. d. The provisions of Section 7.01 of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution, as well as Section 30-28-120, C.R.S., as amended, specifically provide that a lawful pre-existing non- conforming use will be determined by that use that is existing and lawful at the time of the adoption of the Zoning Resolution. Numerous authorities construe this language to mean that the landowner is bound by the actual use existing on the property at the time the zoning resolution is adopted. I believe this is contrary to the position set forth in your letter of February 15, 1991. e. I recognize that there is some authority for the proposition that a landowner may expand the volume of business by natural expansion and growth of trade without violating the theory of pre-existing non -conforming use. However, that authority does not recognize a seven to eight fold expansion of such use, construction of additional structures, a many fold increase in the type of traffic and size of loads on the roads, water and sewer. All of the foregoing would need to be recognized to accept your proposition that a 7,000 ton limit should be established for a non- conforming use. f. In your letter, you make reference to a 1983 contact by Eastside Coal, in which the County confirmed a pre-existing non- conforming use on the property. I believe that your attached documentation included a letter of May 29, 1984. In any event, that correspondence indicates that it would not enforce land use JAMES S. LOCHHEAD, ESQUIRE PAGE 4 MARCH 12, 1991 permitting for a withdrawal of 2,000 to 3,000 tons of coal to be utilized for test burning purposes. At no point in that letter do I note any statement that we were confirming a lawful pre-existing non -conforming use to that level. Additionally, I do not note the language of existing use, although that may have been my impression at that time. In any event, the only levels of production of which I was aware in 1984 were those levels provided verbally through Mr. Self. Neither the letter nor my recollection of that correspondence confirm that I was attempting to authorize continuous production at the level of 2,000 to 3,000 tons per year. I also note that at the time of this correspondence, Eastside Coal had pending a special use application to greatly increase production from its mine. Neither the correspondence nor my recollection of the events confirms that a lawful pre-existing non- conforming use was a matter of concern or discussion during that time period. g. Additionally, I note no where in your correspondence of February 15, 1991, a claim of reliance upon an authorized 2,000 to 3,000 ton production level in the operation of the subject mine. Therefore, I am at a loss to find that the County is estopped in setting a level lower than that as one appropriate for a lawful pre-existing non -conforming use. h. In regard to the question of abandonment, I am in general agreement with the positions stated in your letter. The Garfield County Zoning Resolution does not talk about an intent to abandon. Rather, it states a discontinuance of use for a period of six months requires that the property be used in conformance with the existing zoning resolution. While we note a number of years in which no coal was produced from the property, the question seems to revolve around the use of the property. The documentation you have submitted seems to confirm that the intent of the property owner and indeed the actual use of the land continued to be for coal mining purposes, even with a lack of production. Therefore, I agree with your position that no abandonment of use occurred. With all of the foregoing in mind, it is my position as set forth above, that Eastside Coal enjoys a lawful pre-existing non- conforming use for coal mining purposes on the subject property to a level of 857 tons per year. Any use in excess of that amount would require the issuance of a special use permit in compliance with the currently existing Garfield County Zoning Resolution. Any use above that level without such issuance would be considered a violation of this Code and subject to enforcement by the County. Fbr your information, I note that a special use permit for any JAMES S. LOCHHEAD, ESQUIRE PAGE 5 MARCH 12, 1991 amounts over that specified in this document would require a new application and approval process, not the mere execution of a document under Resolution No. 85-42. If you have any questions, please contact me at your earliest convenience. If you desire to appeal this position, be advised that under the provisions of Section 9.04.01, you have seven days to appeal the decision of an administrative officer administrating this Code to the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Sincerely your MARK L. . BEAN Director of Regulatory Offices and Personnel MLB:I)KD:mis GARFIELD COUNTY COUNTY ATT'ORNEY'S OFFICE 109 8th Street, Suite 300 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601-3303 Telephone (303) 945-9150 Far No. (303) 945-2379 February 19, 1991 James S. Lochhead, Esquire Leavenworth & Lochhead, P.C. P. O. Drawer 2030 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 Re: Garfield County Resolution No. 85-42 Eastside Coal Company Dear Jim: I am in receipt of your letter of February 15, 1991, generally requesting a statement as to the position of Garfield County on a non -conforming use for the Eastside Coal Company. At this juncture, I feel that this matter is properly placed in the hands of the appropriate building official, in this case, the Director of Regulatory Offices and Personnel, Mark Bean. I will be directing this correspondence to him today for an appropriate response. Additionally, I believe it is obvious that the issues raised in your February 15, 1991 letter require both factual and legal research. Given the current press of other matters, I will not be able to provide the legal direction to Mr. Bean for at least a week. I do not believe that Mr. Bean can appropriately respond prior to the end of the month. However, we will respond in writing as soon as possible and hopefully within two (2) weeks. Additionally, in confirmation of our discussions of February 15, 1991, it is my understanding that the letter that is the subject of this correspondence is a public document. If requested, I feel that we will be required to produce this document for inspection by any members of the public. If you do not agree with this position, please contact me at your earliest convenience. I appreciate the detailed request and supporting documents, all of which assist us in making a determination regarding the non- conforming use status of Eastside Coal Company. Our responsive correspondence should address not only the non -conforming use status, but a number of other issues raised in your letter. 'If you have any questions in regard to this letter, please contact me at your earliest convnience. Sincerel -u es, ON K. DE �• D Garfield County Attorney DKD:mis cc: Mark Bean, Dir. of Regulatory Offices & Personnel LOYAL E. LEAVENWORTH JAMES S. LOCHHEAD SHERRY A. CALOIA THOMAS L. ADKISON LEAVENWORTH & LOCHHEAD, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW February 15, 1991 Don DeFord, Esq. Garfield County Attorney 109 Eighth Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re: Garfield County Resolution No. 85-42: Eastside Coal Company Dear Don: 1011 GRAND AVENUE P.O. DRAWER 2030 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81602 TELEPHONE: (303) 945-2261 FAX: (303) 945-7336 I am writing on behalf of Eastside Coal Company with regard to the resolution for the issuance of a special use permit for Eastside Coal's mine, Resolution No. 85-42. It is my understanding that the County may take a position that Eastside Coal's mine is not in conformance with the Garfield County Zoning Resolution, in that the special use permit for the mine has expired. I am writing to outline the position of Eastside Coal on this issue and to seek a clarification of the County's position. We have been able to develop some history of coal mining operations on the property by Eastside Coal Company and by its predecessors in interest. That history has been developed through examination of the records of the County, records of the Mined Land Reclamation Division in Denver, and interviews with various people involved in the use of the property over many years. As far as we can determine, all mining activity has been undertaken on a single piece of property, which is located immediately below the dam for Harvey Gap Reservoir, and which straddles the County Road through Harvey Gap. Coal ownership is virtually identical to surface ownership. Enclosed for your reference are two maps prepared by Steve Self of Eastside Coal. The first map shows the relative ownership patterns between surface and coal ownership. The second map shows the locations of the various mines which have been in operation on the property since at least 1913. Also enclosed are two deeds. The first deed shows a conveyance of the subject property from Phora H. Wiggins, et. al., to Helen Eldridge in 1980. The second deed is a conveyance of the property from Helen Eldridge to Helen and Ed Eldridge, Trustees, in 1985. These are the current owners of the property. I have also enclosed a table which summarizes annual coal production undertaken on this property since 1913. Attached to the table are copies of annual reports prepared by the State DEFORDA.4LT LEAVENWORTH & LOCHHEAD, P.C. Don DeFord, Esq. Page 2 February 15, 1991 of Colorado. The production figures for 1981 through 1990 were compiled from the records of Eastside Coal. As you can see, there have been a total of seven separate mines located on the property at one time or another. The enclosed map shows the locations of these mines. Although there are some years in which more than one mine has been operating, for the most part only one mine has been operating on the property at any one time. Despite the fact that several mines have operated, the table makes it clear that coal mining activity has been undertaken continuously on the property since 1913. The only use of the property has been for coal mining purposes. I believe the law is clear that, in a mining operation, the use is not limited to a particular location on a piece of property. Rather, the owner, or any lessees, have the right to pursue and mine minerals wherever they are located on the property, to the boundaries of the property. I believe the relevant consideration is the overall level of activity, although there is case law to support the position that the landowner has the right to increase the volume of business by natural expansion and growth of trade, and that such expansion is not an unlawful use. In other words, the relevant inquiry is the original nature and purpose of the undertaking. Historically, coal extracted from the property has been sold to numerous sources. There have been local sales by which customers have driven trucks to the property to purchase coal. There were also sales to the railroad in Silt which required hauling coal to the Silt depot. Finally, there have been sales to other customers which have required hauling. Therefore, it is clear that mining operations on the property have historically generated truck traffic on local roads. There are two periods in which there was no coal production on the property: 1926- 1930, and 1980-1983. We do not have any information concerning the reasons for the cessation of production on the property during the period 1926-1930, other than the fact that operations shifted from the Harvey Gap (Old) to the Harvey Gap #2 mine. Commencing in about 1969, Louis and Henry Bendetti obtained a written coal lease on the entire Eldridge property and commenced operations at the Nu Gap #3 Mine. In about 1976, the Bendettis determined to separate their operations and began the negotiation of separate leases with the owners. While they were in the process of negotiating separate leases, Louis and Henry separately operated the Nu Gap #3 (Henry), and the Eastside (Louis), Mines, under oral leases with the Eldridges. During this time, the Eldridges also commenced negotiations with other entities for the leasing of the property for coal mining purposes. On December 5, 1978, the Eldridges leased the entire property to Peltron Energy. Harrison -Western Corporation, a contractor of Peltron, commenced negotiations with Louis Bendetti for Louis to continue to operate the Eastside Mine. At the same time, Harrison -Western undertook the permitting process DEFORDA.4LT LEAVENWORTH & LOCHHEAD, P.C. Don DeFord, Esq. Page 3 February 15, 1991 necessary to comply with the newly promulgated regulations of the Mined Land Reclamation Division. The MLRD was apparently prepared to issue a permit, but Peltron failed to make the bonding requirements, and a permit did not issue. Peltron also failed to make an advance royalty payment required under its lease with the Eldridges, and on June 2, 1980, the Peltron lease was terminated. During the slightly more than one and one-half years that the Peltron Lease was in effect, Peltron claimed to have spent approximately $500,000 to develop this coal property, including market analysis, planning and sales promotion, mining permits, feasibility studies of work flow and investment analysis forecasts, legal engineering and accounting fees, geological studies, and minimum royalty payments. Immediately upon the termination of the Peltron Lease, the Eldridges began negotiations with other interested entities for a lease of the property. Negotiations were commenced with First Western Coal Company, Inc. on June 9, 1980. On July 17, 1980, the Eldridges were contacted by the Animas Coal Company, Inc., who was interested in a lease. In August, 1980, the Eldridges entered into negotiations with the Harrison -Western Corporation. In mid -1981, the Eldridges began to negotiate with Westmoreland Coal Company. All of these negotiations involved meetings and telephone conferences between attorneys concerning lease terms, and also involved investigations by the interested companies into matters relating to coal reserves, title, market analysis, and permitting requirements. These matters naturally involved some time to pursue. At all times during this period, the Eastside Mine was open. In 1982, the Eldridges began negotiations with Western Associated Energy Corporation, and a lease was executed with Western Associated on October 15, 1982. Western Associated immediately began the construction of portal facilities at the Eastside Mine in Fall, 1982, and commenced production in 1983. This lease is still in effect. The mine is being operated by Eastside Coal Company. In 1983, Eastside made contact with the Garfield County Planning Office, which indicated that it was the County's position that mining was a pre-existing, non -conforming use on the property, and that no County land use approval was required for continued operations at existing levels. The County informed Eastside that a special use permit would be required for higher levels of operation and, in particular, for the 20,000 tons of production per year which Eastside was then contemplating. In essence, the County position at that time was that operations at "existing levels" constituted a valid non -conforming use, but that operations of 20,000 tons per year or more would require a special use permit. The County did not take any position on the precise level at which a valid non -conforming use would cease. Therefore, it is clear that the level of operation which was valid was at least 5970 tons per year, since this was the most that was produced at the property prior to 1973. I believe the case law on non- conforming uses supports the position that non -conforming uses exist at levels at which the business is capable of operating, based upon past historic record. A "snapshot" of the use of the affected property on the effective date of the zoning ordinance to determine the scope of the DEFORDA.4LT LEAVENWORTH & LOCHHEAD, P.C. Don DeFord, Esq. Page 4 February 15, 1991 non -conforming use would not only be improper, but also would be quite problematical for governmental agencies, since such a position would encourage a quick expansion and beefing up of uses which are imminently subject to more restrictive zoning laws. On February 23, 1984, Eastside Coal submitted to the County an application for approval of a special use permit, which application contemplated a substantially higher level of operations -- 200,000 tons of coal per year. Throughout this period, Eastside continued to operate the Eastside Mine and produce coal consistent with pre-existing levels with full knowledge and acquiescence by the County. Garfield County, by Resolution No. 85-42, resolved that a special use permit be authorized, thereby permitting the use of Eastside Coal's land for natural resources extraction and associated facilities at a level of 200,000 tons per year. In a letter dated March 21, 1985, to Stephen Self, Mark Bean stated: "The Resolution only authorizes the issuance of the Special Use permit, it is not the actual permit. The permit will be issued when the conditions of approval have been met." The Resolution specified certain conditions for the issuance of the special use permit. Included as a condition was that "any Special Use permits issued shall be valid for a period of five (5) years or until production levels exceed 200,000 tons per year or until monthly average daily truck trips exceed 40 round trip, truck trips; whichever comes first." (Condition No. 2). Also included as a condition was that the Applicant "enter into an agreement for the maintenance and/or improvement of the roads in question, based on the study and acceptable to the Board of County Commissioners." (Condition No. 5). Eastside Coal has continued operations since that time, at existing levels, with the full knowledge and consent of the County. During the period from the enactment of Resolution 85-42 to the present, Eastside Coal has complied with many of the conditions of the Resolution, including, specifically, the reporting requirements. Additionally, by oral agreement, Eastside Coal undertook $60,000 in road improvements on County roads in 1988 when production reached nearly 7000 tons. This was strictly a voluntary effort by Eastside Coal, since the Resolution clearly contemplated that an agreement be entered into: for maintenance as well as improvement, at a level of production of 200,000 tons per year, and based upon a study of truck traffic generation. There is no way that this temporary, oral agreement can be said to rise to the level of that required by Resolution 85-42. Therefore, despite this good -faith intent to comply with as many of the terms of the Resolution as possible, and despite the fact that Eastside Coal entered into negotiations with the County concerning the permanent road agreement referenced in Condition No. 5, a written road agreement as contemplated in the Resolution was never consummated. As a result, it is clear that a Special Use Permit was never issued, since there has not been compliance with the express preconditions of Resolution No. 85-42. It is impossible for a permit to expire when it never came into existence. DEFORDA.4LT LEAVENWORTH & LOCHHEAD, P.C. Don DeFord, Esq. Page 5 February 15, 1991 Given these facts, it is the position of Eastside Coal that: (1) All mining operations on the Eldridge property have been operating legally under the Garfield County Zoning Resolution as a pre-existing non -conforming use. The level of production allowable on this basis is 7000 tons per year, since this is the level to which the County has acquiesced in the use of the property. Eastside Coal Company would agree that the mine cannot operate at any greater levels of operation without a special use permit. (2) A special use permit allowing any expanded levels of operation has never issued, since the terms of Resolution No. 85-42, concerning a road agreement have not yet been satisfied. However, that Resolution remains in full force and effect (there being no time deadlines attached to it), and a special use permit can still issue once a road agreement has been finalized. At this point in time, Eastside Coal has not yet determined whether it will seek the issuance of a special use permit pursuant to Resolution No. 85-42, whether it will apply for a new special use permit pursuant to the existing regulations, or whether it will apply for a new special use permit under the new regulations proposed to be adopted by the County. It is the intent of this letter to set forth sufficient factual documentation for the County to confirm that for existing levels of coal production (up to 7000 tons per year), mining operations on the Eldridge property constitute a valid pre-existing non -conforming use, and that such operations may continue without any further land use approvals from the County. This position is fully consistent with the previous position of the County concerning the valid pre-existing non- conforming use of the property with the express terms of Resolution No. 85-42 and with relevant law. I would be pleased to provide you with further documentation concerning the history of mining operations on the Eldridge property. I would also be pleased to discuss with you or provide you with a letter setting forth the legal basis of our position. Please give me a call to discuss this in more detail. Very truly yours, LEAVENWORTH & LOCHHEAD, P.C. a JSL: rin Enclosures cc: Stephen Self DEFORDA.4LT OAI. PRODUCTION :FROM HARVEY GAP ". Year Harvey Gap (Old) Harvey Gap #2 Harvey Gap #3 Nu - Gap #1 Nu - Gap #3 Sunny Ridge East- side Mine Total 84 4' 1914 765 765 33. 1916 1320 1320 1 1918 1262 `19 58<: 1262 2358 1920 2045 2045 3I 123: 1922 192 1467 1467 84 1924 <19 1067 1067 1926 1928 0 0 19: 1930 0 1932 1165 1165 <19; 08';>: 08 1934 "1935 1877 2:. 1877 82. 1936 947 947 EASTSIDE.3TA PRODUCTION :FROM. HARVEY .. GAP Year Harvey Gap (Old) Harvey Gap #2 Harvey Gap #3 Nu - Gap #1 1938 850 X39::1 1940 1984 7.. Nu - Gap #3 Sunny Ridge East- side Mine Total 850 39 1984 7>: 1942 1553 1553 43< 3.; 1944 4307 4307 7.0 1946 4283 4283 3:: 3;> 1948 3803 3803 .1; 1950 8 910 1834 8 2744 1'< 1952 112 90 202 1954 2482 1956 1768 2482 1768 '1 8? 1958 1902 L 1902 14 1960 2501 2501 EASTSIDE.3TA AE PRODUCTION. FROM HARVEY: GE Year Harvey Gap (Old) Harvey Gap #2 Harvey Gap #3 Nu - Gap #1 Nu - Gap #3 Sunny Ridge East- side Mine Total 19; X1.4 1962 432 432 1964 1212 1212 1966 1510 1510 3 1968 126 82 208 '>1 1970 1972 420 428 848 64 863 863 1974 1976 466 441 7 466 441 .1; 1978 281 253 534 .3 1980 0 1982 1984 2785 0 2785 EASTS!DE.3TA PRODUCTION->F.ROM`HAR'VEY» GA Year 1986 Harvey Gap (Old) Harvey Gap #2 Harvey Gap #3 Nu - Gap #1 Nu - Gap #3 Sunny Ridge East- side Mine 1438 Total 1988 6960 6960 -9 2834 34 1990 2909 2909 TOTAL `PRODUCTIONT .ONIHARVE'rGAR SINCE 191; 9.366 EASTSIDE.3TA c5 LATEST NAME OF IMINE_Harvey Gan (old) Perm. Map 1923 Final Map 1925 :%a KIND OF COAL Bituminous p co 4— ROCK SLOPE (LENGTH) ROCK TUNNEL (LENGTH) SEAM THICKNESS OF SEAI•I 6+ PITCH 77-1 RAILROAD AT MINE 3 co cv LATEST O'F,RATOR Bracken & Cozza PRODUCTION : s ent�y� YEAR TONS YEAR TONS YEAR TONS 0 591 4 IMP tOc-,or� u; Cr) Cf) r-rr-I*H o cv ril CV tc le` cr•o 01.. LIN 4 CV C''' Es- : n1 .o 4 -tt000 Hr-1rl r1Hr-4 1 06 10.. BEMS eo T .e i I. cn H r�-lrHiHr.Irk-IrH-frH"lHr v, t-1Hr-!HHCVCV .o i•- tO ONO Os N CI'l Cs: NCVCVCV �Ir�Ir-irk-1�r-1 4 in `,o [ COUNTY Garfield TWN OR POST OFFICE Silt PREVIOUS OPERATORS , P. C. Coryell Harvey Gan Coal Co. Bracken & COZZA 71 .. _ — _ fi•_ 1 r _ LATEST NAME OF %TINE 1 Harvey Gap'Cte-') I Land Owners - TT _S _(_ S_ w KIND OF COAL Bituminous D i Drift -ROCK. SLOPE (LENGTH) '• Wa �. S El L; U] THICKNESS OF SEAM 51- 10" G' 1-1 * RAILROAD AT MINE None r u7171 pr Lr. 14N,i cariN LATEST OPERATOR C. A. Tolley & Eileen Tolley PRODUCTION YEAR TONS YEAR' TONS YEAR TONS . 1 0 Lt r-1 it: No 1 c-'w to c - O` to Mm rr Q� mean N uh MI tO ONtO c 1 •. Q` CV .O w w w Qu\r.1 ou i -I O' 14 - w r-1 ralga r-{ w — w « y,� V �� Ov .... cn cit r'1 cr r1 ' 3" cc\t'1 O'1 r i"r�-I r --Ito, ` ICo' cr' Cn rO-I O. 0 to r• �-I A�-I r -i -4 r�i cv -4 r�-1 l''1 r�-i -• r -t ,G i` 4 � r�-1 e�1 r¢ -I t0 0• b +r% efit 94- Cs! xn c+ti u1 - 11\ rP-1. ,Ict �S v'a G -a COUNTY Garfield TOWN OR POST OFFICE Silt 1'!--.7"-•,.) PREVIOUS OPERATORS . James Le Donne —Harvey Dap Coal Co. James Le Donne Paolazzi &1oda thru Clem A. Paolazzi k AN p-1 , ? Ni fit- 4 L r r� u, o 0 O N ,.:, l', 1 Ln LATEST NAME OF P. -%x E LI ..., O a C/3 �j ,' H 0 [sZ 0 rfi U] U F�-1 . x HH RAILROAD AT MINE rams& aHarvey Gal). Tonnage -Annual 1935 thru OPENING _ __ SII�IFT DEPTH 1 1 /3 d. 1 xf poSICr7 -hrc - ✓ethd 1952g. 90. - --- lax.. JOPENINGZy�, ps/.4a,W"'"s-e .S'eQ�e�-1-18- s"'i-. 1 SHAFT DEPTH r/ ROCK SLOPE (LENGTH) ROCK TUNNEL (LENGTH) � hci) ,.„-- o . i_i F . PITCH - RAILROAD AT MINE LATEST iiME OF tiIK; HARVEY GAP #3 'if Land self owned 4 Li Z N i 17).72i.vays J Z r.=. Cr] o yej......a)/"....://fr a7r"%/fr I rte.. W'el (1] U 'i' `\ • `� • .Y ♦ N. O' FQ r- RAILROAD AT MINE 'ral- .� Cr]" YEAR TONS YEAR TONS YEAR TONS J - -- -- \ . . •;:t. 1., .zit,i ciq 0 ,,n, ..., , ,,,, 1.1 r'' a �t'.t'....'aDC1.T yc --..�n�L, Garfield RcL t Ft I F �1�].p (Y1�Sti 1�1s ,en ,— ro ,it PREVIOUS OPERATORS t w 'a.3376vyy tis 1:H‘Vy5 rd F- f Co y S. - 14 i -4 rt3 '. - e 4 7W�� tr. 4 4 L r RUA. tiLUlt kLhaliTH) ROCK TUNNEL (JJ NGTH) z V] THICKNESS OF SEAM .r3 - b' -- b -v +?'k U H RAILROAD AT MINE i O Z y c goo+ M 7....w Y4 •$ r .14 C 1 .06 r�� Or, T $ a 1 N v1 1 ti.J I K -#': •4o 9+ til IS V A a 0 - C IC a �••�•— •• SIMMSiF aaavaarw.v TOWN OR POST OFFICE PM DU�TION SEC. 018 Coloara10 Avenue f.,......—.......4 ,„,f.. nr,i,. Al gni YEAR TON 77 YEAR TONS YEAR' TONS 211 it 0 ti A a ROCK SLOPE (LE JGT11) ROCK TUNNEL (IENGTH) r4 co l W��co o cr3 U H H i CS i- � I 1 _, : .a ,. . D No. [fir Gd. 1'7(¢ 0 1972 5 T _ 11111 11.11 MIME MIMI 1 MEI 1111111 Loa! ir'"'Mum t rUh itai've Y uo Year Harvey i. a'ey Harvey Nu -Gap Nu -Gap gunny Eastside Total Gap (old) Gap #2 Gap 03 #1 #3 Ridge Mine Production 1913 884 884 1914 765 765 1915 133 133 1916 176 176 1918 1262 1262 1919 2358 2358 1920 2045 2045 1921 1123 1123 1922 1467 1467 1923 1184 1184 1924 1067 1067 1925 1099 1099 1926 0 1927 0 1928 0 1929 0 1930 0 1931 500 500 1932 1165 1165 1933 1108 1108 1934 1867 1867 1935 1382 1382 1936 947 947 1937 897 897 1938 850 850 1939 1339 1339 1940 1984 1984 1941 1217 1217 1942 1553 1553 1943 1843 1843 1944 4307 4307 1945 5970 ,5970 1946 4283 4283 1947 3673 3673 1948 3803 3803 1949 2158 2158 1950 910 1834 2744 1951 501 501 1952 112 90 202 1953 3112 3112 1954 2482 2482 1955 1394 1394 1956 1768 1760 1957 2168 2168 1958 1902 1902 1959 1814 1814 1960 2501 2501 1961 1714 1714 1962 432 432 1963 283 283 1964 1212 1212 1965 1762 1762 1966 1510 1510 1967 573 573 108 969 126 82 652 652 1970 420 428 848 1971 1064 1064 1972 86 86 3 857 857 1974 466 0 466 1975 540 ' 0 540 1976 441 0 441 1977 441 257 698 1978 281 253 534 1979 113 113 1980 0 1981 0 1982 0 1983 1680 1680 1984 2785 2785 1985 6046 6046 1986 1438 1433 1987 1067 1067 1988 6960 6960 1989 2834 2834 1990 2909 2909 Total Production from Harvey Gap Since 1913 115496 p_ .ENFTF1 FEB ~ .��` 1��1� GARFIADCOUNTY GARFIELD CITIZENS ALLIANCE -- POSITION STATEMENT ON EASTSIDE COAL FEBRUARY 28, 1991 The Garfield Citizens Alliance has been in contact with the Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Division (see attachments) as well as Garfield County regarding nur concerns about the future of the now closed Eastside Coal mine near Harvey Gap. It is our position that Eastside must now secure a county Hpecia] use permit or commoncp full reclamation of the mine site. To that end we have pursued a course with the state and the county that we believe will lead to that end. We also believe that Eastside must provide information and update their permit with the state regarding the estimated area for the life of the mine including information concerning the location of any coal loadout facility and if Eastside still anticipates constructing a power plant of any type. Information regarding the proposed annuai coal production also is needed. The GCA has reviewed the letter dated Feb.15, 1991 from Eastside^s attorney to Garfield County. We disagree with tho conclusions reached by Mr.Lochead in that we do nut believe that Eastside has any right to claim any valid pre-existing non -conforming use nor do we believe that Eastside has the right to any claims under Garfield County Resolution No.85-42. That permit expired nearly a year ago and Eas1ide was a participant in the proceeding where it was so determined and did not enter any objections at that time. The GCA has also stated to both the state and county that if Eastside desires to operate the mine in the future in the manner that the mine was historically - including a production capacity of the historic average - that the GCA would not oppose such an operation and would cooperate in securing Eastside a permit to reflect that type of mine permit. The GCA has a long history of dealing with the various proposals of Eastside Coal including the power plants at both Harvey Gap and along Lhe Colrado River near Silt. The Eastside mine is located in a very sensitive location near Harvey Gap State Park and in the midst of a populated area of our county. The neighborhood surrounding Fastside is growing and present and future residents deserve to know what the owners of Eastside propose to do with the mine property. We believe that it is only fair and equitable for Eastside to so act and to also secure and revise their permits as required by law. }� ^��^/ _ GARFIELD COUNTY REGULATORY OFFICES AND PERSONNEL February 4, 1991 Dan T. Mathews Reclamation Specialist Mined Land Reclamation Division 1313 Sherman St., Room 215 Denver, CO 80203 RE: Eastside Coal Company Dear Mr. Mathews: Last week, Don DeFord, County Attorney, and I discussed the current status of Eastside Coal Company's Special Use Permit. Officially, at this time Eastside Coal Company does not have a valid Special Use Permit. Garfield County has taken the position that Eastside Coal Company's Special Use Permit expired in March of 1990. Eastside Coal representatives have verbally questioned the validity of that determination, but have not made any request in writing to appeal that determination. They have the right to apply for a new permit, but any conditions of approval would have to be determined after a public hearing on the issuance of a permit. Garfield County would expect Eastside Coal to comply with MLRB reclamation requirements. If you have any other questions or concerns, feel free to call or write to this office at your convenience. Sincerely, Ae6 Mark L. Bean, Director Regulatory Offices and Personnel MLB/rlb 109 8TH STREET, SUITE 303 • 945-8212/625-5571/285-7972 • GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601 STATE OF COLORADO MINED LAND RECLAMATION DIVISION Department of Natural Resources 1313 Sherman St., Room 215 Denver, CO 80203 • 303 866-3567 FAX: 303 832-8106 February 1, 1991 Mr. John Spangler Garfield Citizens' Alliance Box 111 Silt, CO 81652 Re: Eastside Mine Dear Mr. Spangler: FE B 4 1991 Cinrsii►;rt1L{1UN Y File No. C-84-063 tar Roy Romer, Governor Fred R. Banta, Division Director This letter is in response to your letter of January 7, 1991, in which you outlined a number of concerns the Garfield Citizens' Alliance has with the Eastside Mine. We have addressed each of the items of concern separately, below. Item 1. - Status of Garfield County Special Use Permit Based on a telephone conversation with Mr. Mark Bean of the Garfield County Planning Department, as well as discussion with Mr. Steve Self of Eastside Coal Company, our understanding of the county permit status is as follows. A county Special Use Permit for the Eastside Mine was never actually issued, although a conditional Resolution of Approval was issued by the Garfield County Commissioners on March 18, 1985. Garfield County has taken the position that the Resolution of Approval constituted a defacto Special Use Permit, which would have expired March 18, 1990. Eastside Coal Company (Eastside) has contested this determination, contending that the Special Use Permit was never issued and that operations to date have been conducted as a "pre-existing non -conforming use." Both Garfield County and Eastside agree that there presently is. no Special Use Permit in effect for the Eastside Mine and Mr. Self has indicated that Eastside intends to apply for a new Special Use Permit. Mr. Bean has indicated that Eastside has every right to apply for a new Special Use Permit and that the county has imposed no specific time limitations on Eastside to either apply for and obtain a Special Use Permit or initiate reclamation. Eastside may have the authority to operate the mine on a very limited basis as a "pre-existing non -conforming use" but the county has not made a final decision on this matter. Mr. John Spangler 2 February 1, 1991 Given the apparent facts that Eastside Coal Company does intend to operate mine in the future and that Garfield County has indicated that the permitting the Process is open to them, we believe there may be no legal basis for the Division to order reclamation to commence immediate) We have written a letter to Garfield County to obtain written clarification Y, as you have proposed. the situation. We will maintain close contact with the Garfield County of Planning Department and will act appropriately if the situation ch Ttem 2: g A changes. _� - Coal Loading Operations During Temporary Cessation We are aware that coal loading and hauling operations were conducted Eastside during a period of tempora by authorized this activity. � Cessation, and in fact our staff had authorized ri and hauling y' We have since clarified to the staff that coal thus cannot be conducted aduringcteempora y cessation. mining coal from operations" and Eastsidet the mine and we had authorized thatn activity, haulvco the fact that usat h pursue etiedWe have from spriate fs toissue in our enforcementannseoe to e Garfield Citizens' Y. it would be inapproprhis for previously responded to this 733 petition. �zens' Alliance August, 1990 At this time, we concur with your proposal that the Division should verify that appropriate, valid local permits are in effect for e and that this verification should be documented during our review of We will modify the records check list form which our inspectors p rm�tted operations complete inspections to include local land use permits and will no records, reference on operators that we will be checking for documentation of valid local land use Permits. In those instances where valid local tiny coal will consult with the appropriate local officials intdetare ermininintheap r we course of action, 9 proper /tem 3 - Loadouts and -Technical Revisions We acknowledge that at times in the past the Division has handled of - loadout proposals as technical revisions when they should f site properly have been Processed as permit revisions. Rule 2.08.4(3) requires that any extensions to the area covered by a permit, except for incidental boundary revision be made by application for a permit revision, s, shall Proposals to add off-site coal loadouts and processing facilities to existing Staff has been made aware that Permits are to be processed as permit revisions to comply with the re uir of Rule 2,08.4(3). It appears that we may have erred in failing City of Rifle of the loadout referenced on page 2 ofq ement revision was properly noticed in the local paper and the permit to notify the rive wasn erected as required. your letter, although the technical revision meed) We would point out that the Octobere31,f1989ion approximately 200 feet. Y relocated a previously approved loadout site by 1987. Both loadout areasThe wererinilocationsal ut whichawere approved ously set UP for rail sidings, and had been in October, used by the operator and theyarenoylongerrapprovediforr leabouE was de a the most recently approved loadout was withdrawn from ther upermitEintside. as October, 1990. Had either site been used by Eastside, it would have b responsibility of the operator to obtain the necessary local a pen the initiation of operations at the site. AAroval prior to Mr. John Spangler 3 February 1, 1991 We are aware of the confusion resulting from the notice you reference regarding the availability of an informal conference on a technical revision and we apologize for the inconvenience this may have caused you. We have taken steps to prevent this situation from recurring in the future. Further, we are considering the possibility of proposing rule changes which would allow us to better accommodate public input outside of the formal hearing process, without unnecessarily delaying technical revision review time frames. With regard to your proposal that we "cease .., using technical revisions for loadouts, important facilities, or activities which affect the amount and type of surface disturbance", it must be pointed out that a certain amount of judgement must be exercised in applying the definitions of the law and regulations. It is our belief that design changes to structures and facilities which do not result in significant additional surface disturbance and do not result in significant alterations in the operator's reclamation plan are appropriately handled as technical revisions. Item -4-- Legal -and Financial Reviews; -and -Staff -Responsibilities in Dealing with -Citizens In reference to proposal "a", the staff has been instructed in the appropriate procedure for verifying legal and financial interests. The procedure involves both a compliance status review in which regulatory authorities in other states are contacted, and the AVS check which is performed three times during the course of a permit review. This process is set out in the Staff Procedures Manual. You expressed certain concerns regarding Mr. Peter Matthies' failure to disclose the fact that he was an officer of Western Slope Carbon subsequent to 1970, within the recently approved New Castle Energy Corporation permit revision application. Our determination was that Mr. Matthies' position with Western Slope Carbon did not constitute that of "permittee", and under the regulations in effect at the time the referenced statement was not required. We will re-evaluate this issue under the recently approved ownership and control regulations in the context of our review of the Lacy Loadout permit revision. Modifications to the ownership and control sections of the application will be required as appropriate to comply with the regulations. In regard to working with citizens, I have discussed with staff the importance of the need to be courteous, professional and responsive. I feel that we have made a sincere effort to fully cooperate with members of the Garfield Citizens' Alliance although some misunderstandings have occurred. We Plan to provide training to the staff on working with citizen's groups and the general public in order to enhance our effectiveness in this important aspect of our program. Mr. John Spangler 4 February 1. 1991 Item 5a.-- Removal of Rifle Loadout from the Permit Area Eastside Coal Company has been requested to address certain questions concerning operations during the permit term and for the life of the mine. Specifically. we have requested Eastside to indicate whether or not they anticipate a new coal loadout to be needed anytime during this permit term or during the life of the mine. If not, we have asked that they specifically address their plans for transporting coal to market and further, that they address the issue which you raised concerning the existence of plans for a power plant in Harvey Gap adjacent to the mine. We have asked that Eastside submit their written response to these issues by March 1, 1991. Based on their response we will determine if a revision to the permit is warranted and we will act accordingly. Item -5b; ---Blowing Coal -Dust Officials with the Air Pollution Control Division (APCD) in Denver and Grand Junction have been contacted regarding the concerns you have raised with blowing coal dust during coal stockpiling, loading and hauling activities. Currently, no coal is stockpiled on site and the mine is not operating. so the potential for excessive dust generation is minimal. APCD has indicated that they will inspect the site upon resumption of operations In order to insure that the operation is in compliance with the APCD permits and determine if any further control measures are warranted and feasible. Hydrologic monitoring conducted to date on the stream above and below the mine site has not indicated problems resulting from the operation nor have we received any complaints from downstream water users. However, we will closely evaluate the stream above and below the mine site in future inspections to determine if evidence of coal dust contamination exists, and if so, what measures might need to be taken to address the problem. Your letter indicates that some domestic use is made of the water in the Farmer's Irrigation Ditch immediately downstream of the mine. No mention of domestic use or potential impacts on such use is made in the Eastside permit application. Officials with the Silt Water Conservancy District were contacted and they indicated that while the water was not used for drinking, there was likely some use of the water in small quantities for other domestic purposes. We have requested that Eastside address the issue of domestic use and possible impacts to such use in a written response by March 1, 1991. If necessary, we will require that the permit application be revised to address the domestic use of Farmer's Ditch water downstream from the permit area, and to identify the potential impacts of the operation on such uses. Item 5c. ;_Spontaneous -Combustion and -Blowing of Fine Coal As stated previously, the Air Pollution Control Division has indicated that they will inspect the operation to determine if additional measures are necessary to control blowing coal dust. With respect to spontaneous combustion of stockpiled coal, Eastside's statement that removal of the coal would reduce the potential for spontaneous combustion is certainly true, but does not constitute an admission that the coal stockpile had not been properly handled prior to removal. Mr. John Spangler - 5 February 1, 1991 Item-5d,--Permit-Inconsistent with Local -Land -Use -Plans -and -Permitting Requirements Please see our response to Item 1. I look forward to discussing these issues with you or other members of the GCA at our meeting on February 6, 1991. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Si ncer FRED R. BANTA Director FRB/ern CC: Dan Mathews, MLRD Steve Renner, MLRD Bill Crick. MLRD Carolyn Johnson, GCA Mark Bean, Garfield County Planning Department 3112F MINED LAND RECLAMATION DIVISION Department of Natural Resources 1313 Sherman St., Room 215. Denver, CO80203 ( , 303 866-3567 FAX: 303 832-8106 STATE OF COLORADO January 23, 1991 .Ii\N 2 1991 (;i% tLLL Mr. Mark Bean Garfield County Planning Department 109 8th Street Suite 200 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602 RE: Eastside Coal Company Dear Mr. Bean: Roy Romer, Governor Fred R. Banta, Division Director As I discussed with ,you in our phone conversation yesterday, I am requesting a letter from your office which addresses the current status of Eastside Coal Company's County Special Use permit. My understanding is that Eastside's Special Use permit has expired. You confirmed that this was the case, although you indicated that Eastside had challenged this determination. I would request an explanation of the current permit status and the options which Eastside has with respect to having the permit re -instated or applying for a new permit. Is there a specific time limit which you will impose upon Eastside to obtain the necessary permit? If such permit is not obtained by Eastside within a specified period of time, does the county wish to see final reclamation initiated? Please contact me if you have any questions. Sincere Dan T. Mathews Reclamation Specialist DTM/scg 2945F GARFIELD COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING SANITATION AND PLANNING May 9, 1990 Stephen Self, General Manager Eastside Coal Company, Inc. P. O. Box 161 Silt, Colorado 01652 Dear Mr. Self: On Monday, May 7, 1990, the Garfield County Board of County Commissioners considered your request to sell a portion of the fine coal stockpile. In the interest of eliminating•a potential fire and dust hazard, the Board agreed to allow Eastside Coal to sell the coal fines, with certain understandings. As long as the haulers adhere to the following conditions, your company may sell coal fines to your customer. The conditions are: 1. All trucks will be covered with a tarp and the coal fines moistened to prevent dust. 2. If three or more trucks travel at one time, it will be necessary to notify the Road and Bridge Department to set up a convoy with vehicles at the front and end of the convoy with warning lights flashing. If you have any questions, feel free to call or write to this office or the Road and Bridge office, at your convenience. Sincerely, Mark L. Bean, Director Regulatory Offices and Personnel MLB/emh 100 8TH STREET, SUITE 303 945-8212 / 625-5571 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601 EASTSIDE COAL COMPANY, INC. P. 0. Box 161 5111, Colorado 81652 May 1, 1990 v it' MAY 2 1990 l i•!is. i ;.IL• :r' IIINTY1,00 1Mtk'11 .,it Garfield County Commissioners 108 8th Street, Suite 300 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Dear Commissioners: Eastside Coal Company has obtained a customer who is interested in purchasing part of the fine coal stockpile 'located at the Eastside Mine. The firm is Western Paving, located in Commerce City, Colorado. We have sold coal to them for the past two years. The total amount sold to Western Paving last year was 1,413 tons. The maximum amount of coal sold on a weekly basis was 125 tons/week. The coal will be transported by semi -tractor trailers grossing 80,000 lbs or net weight of coal approximately 25 tons/load. The tons of coal sold will be dependent upon the amount of asphalt Western Paving can lay down. This amount will be determined by contracts and weather. It is anticipated that the same amount of coal will be necessary this year as last. The removal of the stockpile from the property helps to control the possibility of spontaneous combustion and the fine coal blowing during periods of high winds. Thank you for considering our request to allow a portion of the coal pile to be sold. Eastside is actively looking for a customer to take the rest of the coal. The stockpile now contains approximately 4500 tons of coal. Sincerely, Stephen Sel General Manager SS/11 EASTSIDE COAL COMPANY, INC. P. O. Sox 161 Silt, Colorado 81652 (303) 876-2944 March 26, 1990 Nark Bean Garfield County Planning Department 109 8th Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 SUBJECT: Occupation of Eastside Coal Company, Inc. Offices Dear Mark: Eastside Coal Company is keeping the offices open for the following reasons: 1. Security of the equipment and facilities during the period of no mining. 2. The underground mine and surface stockpiles need to be monitored to ensure no fires or hazardous conditions exist while the mine is idle. Federal law requires someone to be in the office manning a telephone if someone is underground. Sincerely, 6?/1 44 ‘Y''/ Stephen Self General Manager SS/lt Superior Western Corporation P. O. Box 17240 Tucson, AZ 85731 602-571-0117 Reply To: February 28, 1990 Garfield County Board of Commissioners 109 Eighth Street Glenwood Springs, Colorado Dear Chairperson Smith: This is to formally request an extension of time for the Special Use Permit which will be expired March 18, 1990 regarding the Eastside Coal Mine for validity of said permit. This is to provide all parties concerned additional information and a reasonable opportunity to review it. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Respectfully, Project Manager GARFIELD CITIZENS ALLIANCE -- POSITION STATEMENT ON EASTSIDE COAL FEBRUARY 28, 1991 The Garfield Citizens Alliance has been in contact with the Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Division (see attachments) as well as Garfield County regarding our concerns about the future of the now closed Eastside Coal mine near Harvey Gap. It is our position that Eastside must now secure a county special use permit or commence full reclamation of the mine site. To that end we have pursued a course with the state and the county that we believe will lead to that end. We also believe that Eastside muso id prov e information and update their permit with the state regarding the estimated area for the life of the mine including information concerning the location of any coal loadout facility and if Eastside still anticipates constructing a power plant of any type. Information regarding the proposed annual coal`production also is needed. The GCA has reviewed the letter dated Feb.15, 1991 from Eastside's attorney to Garfield County. We disagree with the conclusions. reached by Mr.Lochead in that we do not believe that Eastside has any right to claim any valid pre-existing non -conforming use nor do we -believe that Eastside has the right to Any claims under Garfield County Resolution No.85-42. That permit expired nearly a year ago and Eastside was a participant in the proceeding where it was so determined and did not enter any objections at that time. The GCA has also stated to both the state and county that if Eastside desires to operate the mine in the future in the manner that the mine was historically - including a production capacity of the historic average - that the GCA would not oppose such an operation and would cooperate in securing Eastside a permit to reflect that type of mine permit. The GCA has a long history of dealing with the various proposals of Eastside Coal including the power plants at both Harvey Gap and along the Colrado River near Silt. The Eastside mine is located in a very sensitive location. near Harvey Gap State Park and in the midst of a populated area of our county. The neighborhood surrounding Eastside is growing and present and future residents deserve to know what the owners of Eastside propose todo with the mine property. We believe that it is only fair~and equitable for Eastside to so act and to also secure and revise their permits'as required by law. GARFIELD COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT PLANNING / ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH / BUILDING: 945-8212 May 29, 1984 Stephen Self, General Manager Eastside Coal Company P. O. Box 161 Silt, CO 81652 ]ear Mr. Self: Earlier this month, you asked whether or not Eastside Coal Company could haul 2,000 to 3,000 tons of coal out of the mine for burn testing under your MLRB exploration permit. As I said I would, I checked with Leonard Bowlby, County Road Supervisor and Earl Rhodes, County Attorney, as to whether either of them had any concerns. Neither of them felt there was any real problem given the low number of tons of coal and that it was for quality testing. When you asked later about increasing the amount hauled out to 20,000 tons for a test burn with Public Service Company, I followed the same procedure. Leonard Bowlby did not feel the roads in that area could handle your estimated four, 80,000 ton GWV trucks per day without damaging the driving surface of the County roads in the area. Earl Rhodes also felt that an increase to 20,000 tons was getting to a production level that is subject to approval of a land use permit by the Board of County Commissioners. In conclusion, the original proposed haul of 2,000 to 3,000 tons of coal for test burning would be considered consistent with your MLRB exploration mining permit and not subject to any formal County land use permitting. The increase to 20,000 tons for test burning appears to be inconsistent with an exploration operation and would be subject to approval of a land use permit by the Board of County Commissioners. If you have any questions, please feel free to call or write this office at your convenience. Sincerely, Mark L. Bean Senior Planner MLB/emh XC: Earl Rhodes, County Attorney Leonard Bowlby, County Road Supervisor 100 8TH STREET P.O. BOX 640 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81602 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION VIII 999 18th STREET - SUITE 500 DENVER, COLORADO 80202-2405 aP Ref: 8AT-AP James S. Geier AI,QP R 3 New Source Review Section Sj,1Tp(((Ij� X90 Air Pollution Control Division ,�RypN�`pNT Colorado Department of Health SpUD(p� 4210 East 11th Avenue r'�'�Sp �/,Sj Denver, Colorado 80220 �r'pp��N 11/ Dear Jim: This letter is in response to your requested guidance regarding the proper "source" classification for several co -located operations, proposed by the Eastside Energy Corporation. The project was to consist of three types of operations: (1) a coal processing and loading operation, (2) a gasification operation that produces methanol, acetylene black, etc., and (3) a steam boiler that would burn carbon monoxide and hydrogen to generate electric power . One question was, "Is the coal preparation and loading operation, a separate source from the power plant and, if not, should all the emissions from the coal preparation and loading operation be included with the emissions from the power plant?" The correct answer depends upon the primary activity of the source and the economic value or viability of each operation. If, after properly applying the SIC manual principles and procedures for classifying establishments, you determine that the primary activity is electric generation, the operations would be considered one single source under the SIC code for electric power generation. If this situation exists, all emissions from the coal preparation facility would be added to the power plant and the coal preparation plant would be considered to be a support facility to the power plant. You referenced the PSD regulations preamble in the August 7, 1980 FR and the PSD applicability determination number 3.25 from the new source review notebook. Another good reference is the FR discussing surface coal mines, dated November 28, 1989, pages 48881-48882. If it is determined that two unique operations exist (using proper SIC code classifications), only the fugitive emissions occurring at the power plant would be included with the power plant stack emissions. For the two source situation, the power plant would be a 100 ton/year source category and the coal preparation plant would be a 250 ton/year source category. Fugitive emissions would be counted for both sources, in determining if either source is major. I Another question was, "Is the Division correct in assessing the preparation and power plant as one source at 100 tons/year and then assessing all operations together at 250 tons/year?" The primary activity determination governs the overall source category size cutoff for determining if the source is major. If the primary activity is power generation and the heat input is greater than 250 X 106 BTU's/hour (listed source), 100 tons/year is the size for determining if the operation is major. If the primary activity is coal preparation, 250 tons/year is the size for determining if the source is major. There is one general exception to the guidance stated above. If a 100 tons/year source category is co -located with a 250 tons/year source category and the primary activity is that of the 250 tons/year source category, a PSD permit would be still be required for the support facility (100 tons/year category facility) if its emissions, counting fugitives, exceeds 100 tons/year. The concept behind this approach is that a listed source category (100 tons/year category) can't escape PSD review by hiding within a 250 tons/year source category. We believe that this is consistent with the intent of the CAA and the PSD regulations. The chemical plant and the power plant are unquestionably one economic entity and would be classified as a single source. I believe that the primary activity, for these operations, would be the power generation because of the sizeable potential for generating electricity ( 30 megawatts). We understand this project may no longer be viable. I hope this guidance information will be useful for future projects with multiple operations. Please contact John Dale at 294-7611, should you have any questions about our comments. Sincerely, 4deddele--s Marius J. Gedgaudas, Chief Compliance Section 2 COLO DEPARTMENT OFAHEALTH ..Tune 19, 1992 ROY ROM. Governor PATRICIA A. NOLAN, MD, MPH Executive Director 4210 East llth Avenue Denver, Colorado 80220-3716 Phone (303) 320-8333 as N+uwbrrs: i Building, Denver (3us) 322-9076 Ptarmigan Place, Denver (303) 320-1529 First National Bank Building, Denver (303) 355-5559 Grand !unction Office (303) 248-7198 Pueblo Office (719) 543-3441 Stephen Self, General Manager P.O. Box 161 Silt, CO 81652 Pc7 JUN 2 6 1992 GARFIELD COUNTY CERTIFIED MAIL NO: P 860 423 407 RE: Final Permit, Colorado Wastewater Discharge Permit System Number: CO -G-850019 -- EAST SIDE COAL COMPANY, INC. Gentlemen: Enclosed please tind a copy of the permit which was issued under the Colorado Water Quality Control Act. Your discharge permit requires that specific actions be performed at designated times. You are legally obligated to comply with all terms and conditions of your permit. It is especially important to note the "EFFECTIVE DATE OF PERMIT", not the "DATE SIGNED", located in the lower right hand corner of page 1, of your permit. It is illegal to discharge per the conditions of this permit until that date. Please read the permit and if you have any questions contact this office at 331-4590. Sincerely, ZA/7‘ /4/2r, --d Robert J. Shulrle, Chief Permits and Enforcement Section Water Quality Control Division cc: Permits Section, Environmental Protection Agency Regional Council of Government Local County Health Department District Engineer, Field Support Section, WQCD Deraid Lang, Field Support Section, WQCD Ginny TorrezlAnne Ihlenfeldt, Permits and Enforcement Section, WQCD Permit Drafters, Permits and Enforcement Section, WQCD RJS/lg Enclosure COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH Water Quality Control Division 4210 East llth Avenue Denver, Colorado 80220 CERTIFICATION COAL MINING GENERAL PERMIT EASTSIDE COAL COMPANY, INC. EASTSIDE MINE PERMIT NO. COG -850019 GARFIELD COUNTY I. TYPE OF PERMIT: Industrial - 1st renewal (General: Coal Mining surface runoff only) II. FACILITY INFORMATION: A. Facility Type: Category 07, Subcategory 5 -General Permits Coal Mining - Surface Runoff Only Fee Category: Current fee $360/yr per CRS 25 8-502 B. SIC Code.: 1221 (Bituminous Coal and Lignite Surface Mining) C. Location: In the NE/4 and SE/4, Section 24, TSS, R92W, & R91W, approximately 3,5 miles north of Silt, CO. D. Legal and Facility Contact: Stephen Self General Manager Eastside Coal Company, Inc. P.O. Box 161 3246 County Road 237 Silt, CO 81652 (303) 876-2944 E. Discharge Point: 001 and 002 - the discharge of precipitation runoff from sediment ponds which service all active mine areas and the waste disposal area. F. Facility Design Capacity: The ponds are designed to contain the 10 - year, 24-hour precipitation event. COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH Water Quality Control Division 4210 East llth Avenue Denver, Colorado 80220 Page 2 of 3 Permit No. COG -850019 III. RECEIVING STREAM: A. Identification, Classification, and Numeric Standards 1. Identification: 2. Classification: 3. Numeric Standards: B. Receiving Water Data Harvey Gap Creek, tributary to the Farmers Irrigation Company Ditch and/or the Colorado River, Lower Colorado River, Segment 4 Recreation, Class 2 Aquatic Life, Class 2 (Cold) Agricultural Use The standards which have been assigned in accordance with the above classifications can be found in 3.7.0 Classification and Numeric Standards for the Lower Colorado River Basin (5 CCR 1002-8) as amended March 30, 1991. It should be noted that this facility does not discharge pollutants which are limited by water quality standards with the exception of pH. 1. Stream Low Flow: Not Applicable; effluent limitations are not flow based. IV. FACILITY INFORMATION: This renewal permit is for the surface runoff of a coal mine with two discharge points 001 and 002. The second discharge point, 002, is a sediment pond to control runoff from a waste disposal area. Both ponds are designed to contain the 10 -year, 24-hour precipitation event. No chemical additives or flocculants will be added to the water discharged from outfall 002. V. ANTIDEGRADATION: These are not reviewable waters pursuant to Section 3.1.8(3)(a) of the Basic Standards and Methodologies for Surface Water (5CCR 1002-2), based on a finding of no increased water quality impact. COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH Water Quality Control Division 4210 East llth Avenue Denver, Colorado 80220 Page 3 of 3 Permit No. COG -850019 VI. DISCUSSION: Applicable effluent limitations and monitoring requirements regarding active mining outfalls and are addressed in Part I.B.1(a) and I.B.3(a) respectively of the general permit. Total dissolved solids monitoring of the discharge shall be performed. Total phosphorus monitoring shall not be performed. See page 3 of the general permit for more information. The Permittee will be required to develop and implement a Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP). Although some activities may already be in place, the SWMP will require the Permittee to coordinate best management practices so the result is a reduction or elimination of pollutants reaching state water from areas not limited by effluent limitations. The Permittee will be required to submit the SWMP to the Division for review within six months from the date certification is issued. For specifics of the Plan and additional requirements, please reference the Part I.B.2 of the general permit. The permittee will not be required to perform Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) testing pursuant to Section 6.9.7(2)(a)(i)(A) of the Regulations for the State Discharge Permit System 6.1.0 (5 CCR 1002-2) which exempts facilities certified under the general permit. VII. SPECIFIC INFORMATION OF CONCERN TO THE PERMITTEE: The Permittee is encouraged to read the general rationale for an understanding of how the general permit was developed and to read the permit itself to see what requirements exist. Effluent limitations and monitoring requirements are specified in Part I.B, and special notification requirement:l for effluent violations are addressed in Part II.A.3. Based on the above information, the East Side Coal Company, Inc. is certified to discharge from the Eastside Mine under the general permit for coal mining facilities, identified as Permit No. COG -850000. All correspondence relative to this facility should reference the specific facility Permit No. COG -350019. Completed By: Bruce Kent (Science Applications International Corporation) 6/3/92 Reviewed By: Patricia Nelson (Colorado Department of Health) 6/9/92 Permit No. COG -850000 Facility No. COG -850019 CDPS GENERAL PERMIT FOR COAL MINING FACILITIES (SURFACE RUNOFF ONLY) AUTHORIZATION TO DISCHARGE UNDER THE COLORADO DISCHARGE PERMIT SYSTEM In compliance with the provisions of the Colorado Water Quality Control Act (25-8-101 et seq., CRS, 1973 as amended), facilities engaged in mining and processing of coal are authorized to discharge surface runoff from approved locations throughout the State of Colorado to specified waters of the State. Such discharges shall be in accordance with conditions of this permit. This permit specifically authorizes Eastside Coal Company, Inc. to discharge from facilities identified. as Eastside Mine located in the NE/4 and SE/4, Sec. 24, T5S, R92W, and R91W, approximately 3 - 5 miles north of Silt, Colorado to Harvey Gap Creek, tributary to the Farmers Irrigation Company Ditch and/or the Colorado River, Lower Colorado River as of this date: June 19, 1992 This permit and the authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight, June 30, 1997. Signed this 27thday of May, 1992 COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH J. Davi Holm, Director Water Quality Control Division CERTIFIED LETTER Pfd o yea cf0 DATE SI ED_...., a EFFECTIVE DATE ;. +~ PERMIT This facility permit contains 24 pages. PART I Page 2 Permit No. COG -850000 A. COVERAGE UNDER THIS PERMIT 1. This general permit authorizes discharges that consist entirely of precipitation -induced surface runoff from coal mining and processing operations and loadoucs, while active mining is taking place or during reclamation. into waters of the State of Colorado. Exceptions are those facilities in che Cherry Creek Basin upstream of Cherry Creek Reservoir and those tributary to Chatfield Reservoir downstream of the USGS gage at Waterton or in the Plum Creek drainage. No mine drainage, preparation plant water, spoils spring water, domestic sewage or other wastewater other than surface runoff may be discharged. Multiple discharges from one facility may be authorized through this permit but ALL DISCHARGES FROM A FACILITY COVERED BY THIS PERMIT MUST CONSIST ENTIRELY OF SURFACE RUNOFF. If a facility has discharges from one or more of the above excluded sources alone or in addition to surface runoff discharges, an individual permit is required. 2. In order to apply for certification under this general permit, the owner, operator, and/or authorized agent of the subject facility shall submit by certified mail or hand delivery, the completed Coal Mining Wastewater Discharge Application (furnished by the Division) which requires che following information (at a minimum): a) Name, address and descriptive location of the facility; b) Name of principal in charge of operations; c) Name of the water receiving the discharge; d) Description of the activity including the anticipated duration of activity and/or discharge, anticipated volume, and rate of discharge; e) Description of any waste water containment and/or treatment; f) A map showing the general geographical Location of the facility and a sketch of che facility showing outfall(s) and receiving wacer(s); and g) An analysis of the water to be discharged. At least thirty (30) days prior to the anticipated date of discharge, such information shall be submitted to: Colorado Department of Health dater )uality Control Division Permits and Enforcement Section 4210 East llth Avenue Denver, Colorado 80220 The Division shall have up to thirty (30) days after receipt of the above information to request 'additional data or deny the authorization to discharge. Upon receipt of additional information the Division shall have an additional 30 days to issue or deny authorization to discharge. PART I Page 3 Permit No. C0G-550000 A. COVERAGE UNDER THIS PERMIT 2. (Continued) If the applicant does not receive a request for additional information or a notification of denial from the Division within thirty days, authorization to discharge in accordance with the conditions of the permit shall be deemed granted. If the Division determines that the facility does not fall under the authority of the general permit, then the information received will be processed for an individual permit, and discharge will not be allowed until 180 days after the date the application was received. The applicant shall be notified of such a determination. 3. Authorization to discharge under this general permit shall expire on June 30, 1997. The Division must evaluate this general permit once every five (5) years and must also recertify the applicant's authority to discharge under the general permit, at such time. Therefore, a permittee desiring continued coverage under the general permit must re -apply by January 1. 1997, The Division will determine if the applicant continues to operate under terms of the general permit. B. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS 1. Effluent Limitations a) Active Mining Outfall(s) Effluent Parameter Discharge Limitation Maximum Concentration 30-dav ay. J Daily Max. a/ Flow, MGD N/A Report pH, standard units (minimum -maximum) N/A 6.5-9.0 Oil and Grease, mg/1 (No visible sheen) N/A 10 41 Total Suspended Solids, mg/1 35 70 Total Iron, mg/1 (Existing Sources) 3.5 7.0 Total Iron, mg/I New Sources) ./ 3.0 6.0 Total Dissolved Solids, mg/1 N/A Report (Colorado River Basin Only) Total Phosphorus (as P), mg/I N/A Report (Dillon Reservoir and Upper Bear Creek* Drainages Only) * The Upper Bear Creek drainage is defined as Bear Creek and all tributaries from the source to the Bear Creek Reservoir_ See ?art 1.3.. for Footnotes B. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS 1. Effluent Limitations (continued) a) Active Mining Outfall(s) (continued) ALTERNATE LIMITATIONS PART I Page 4 Permit No. COG -850000 Any discharge or increase in the volume of a discharge caused by precipitation within any 24-hour period less than or equal to the 10-vear. 24-hour precipitation event (or snowmelc of equivalent volume) may comply with the following limitations subject to burden of proof requirements described in Part I.B.1.d). Effluent Parameter Discharge Limitations Maximum Concentration Flow, MGD pH, standard units (minimum -maximum) Oil and Grease, mg/1 (No visible sheen) Settleable Solids, ml/1 g/ Total Dissolved Solids, mg/1 (Colorado River Basin Only) Total Phosphorus (as P), mg/i (Dillon Reservoir and Upper Bear Daily Maximum k/ Creek Drainages Report 6.5-9.0 10 J 0.5 Report Report Only) Any discharge or increase in the volume of a discharge caused by precipitation within any 24-hour period greater than the 10 -year, 24-hour precipitation event (or snowmelt of equivalent volume) may comply with the following limitations subject to burden of proof requirements describd in Part I.B.1.d). Flow, MGD - monitoring only per Part I.B.2.a) pH shall remain between 6.5 and 9.0 s.u. 12/ Oil and grease shall not exceed 10 mg/1. / J Total Dissolved Solids, mg/1 - monitoring only per Parc I.B.2.a) (Colorado River Basin Only) Total Phosphorus (as P), mg/1 - monitoring only per Part I.B.2.a) (Dillon Reservoir and Upper Bear Creek Drainages Only) b) Post -Mining Outfall(s) Post -mining limitations may apply to outfalls serving surface areas which have been returned to the required contour and on which revegetation (specifically, seeding or planting) work has commenced. The permittee may request consideration for change from active mining limitations to post -mining limitations when these conditions have been met. Each facility certification shall state whether active mining or post -mining limitations apply to each authorized outfall. See Part I.B.Q. for Footnotes PART I Page 5 Permit No. COG -850000 B. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS 1. Effluent Limitations (continued) b) Post -Mining Outfall(s) (continued) Effluent Parameter Discharge Limitation Maximum Concentration Daily Maximum b/ Flow, MGD Report pH, standard units (minimum -maximum) 6.5-9.0 ' Oil and Grease, mg/1 (No visible sheen) 10 J Settleable Solids, ml/1 g/ 0.5 Total Dissolved Solids, mg/1 (Colorado River Basin Only) Report Total Phosphorus (as P), mg/1 Report (Dillon Reservoir and Upper Bear Creek Drainages Only) ALTERNATE LIMITATIONS Any discharge or increase in the volume of a discharge caused by precipitation within any 24-hour period greater than the 10-vear, 24-hour precipitation event (or snowmelt of equivalent volume) may comply with the following limitations subject to burden of proof requirements described in Part I.B.1.d). Flow, MGD - monitoring only per Part I.B.2.b) pH shall remain between 6.5 and 9.0 s.u. 12/. Oil and grease shall not exceed 10 mg/l. J e/ Total Dissolved Solids, mg/1 - monitoring only per Part I.B.2.b) (Colorado River Basin Only) Total Phosphorus (as P), mg/1 - monitoring only per Part I.B.2.b) (Dillon Reservoir and Upper Bear Creek Drainages Only) c) General Limitations - Active and Post -Mining Outfalls 1. There shall be no discharge of sanitary waste waters from toilets or related facilities. 2. There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts. 3. No chemicals are to be added to the discharge unless permission for the use of a specific chemical is granted by the Division. 4. There shall be no land application of wastewater, other than for dust control. See Part I.B.4. for Footnotes PART 1 - Page 6 Permit No. B. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS 1. Effluent Limitations (continued) d) 3urden of Proof Requirement COG -850000 The permittee has the burden of proof when requesting relief from total suspended solids (TSS), Loral iron and/or settleable solids limitations. Relief shall be granted only when necessary and shall nor be granted when the permittee has control over the discharge. The permittee should endeavor co meet the primary limitations whenever possible. 1) For rainfall, to waive TSS and total iron limitations, it is necessary to prove chat discharge occurred within 48 hours after measurable precipitation has stopped. In addition, to waive settleable solids limitations, it is necessary to prove that discharge occurred within 48 hours after precipitation greater than the 10 -year, 24-hour event has stopped. 2) For snowmelt. to waive TSS and total iron limitations, it is necessary to prove that discharge occurred within 48 hours after pond inflow has stopped. In addition, to waive settleable solids limitations, it is necessary co prove that discharge occurred within 48 hours after pond inflow volume greater than the 10 -year, 24-hour event has stopped. The Division shall determine the adequacy of proof. As part of this determination, the Division shall evaluate whether the permittee could have controlled the discharge in such a manner that primary limitations could have been met. All manual dewatering must meet TSS and total iron limitations. 2. Stormwater Management Plan The permittee shall prepare and submit two copies of a Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) to the Vater Quality Control Division. The plan shall b -e submitted within six months from the date that certification under this permit was granted .co the facility. An additional copy of the plan shall be submitted to: Colorado Department of _Natural Resources Mined Land Reclamation Division - Coal Mining Section 423 Centennial Building 1313 Sherman Street Denver, CO 80203 The Division will review and approve each plan. Upon approval, :he plan shall he incorporated into the aermittee's certification by reference. Failure to implement the approved plan as described shall he a violation of the permit. The plan shall remain in effect as Long as the facility is regulated by a CDPS permit_ PART I Page 7 Permit No. COG -850000 B. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS 2. Stormwater Management Plan (continued) In the areas of coal mining facilities directly regulated by effluent limitations, it Ls expected that, through actions directed ac achieving compliance with these limitations, the permittee will effectively control most site stormwacer discharges. However, in ocher areas, this may not be the case. Some of the discharges are outside the coverage of the diversion ditches and sedimentation ponds required under the facility's Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Division (CMLRD) permit. Examples of such areas are roads and railroad lines used for transportation to and from the site, outslopes of ponds, inactive loadouts, sites used for storage and maintenance of material handling equipment and areas granted small area exemptions. The plan shall describe all areas that have not been previously permitted, but meet the definition of a scormwater discharge in 40 CFR 122.26, and shall include a map (or maps) denoting the affected areas. The map(s) shall show the location of the discharge(s) or drainage areas and indicate the receiving waters. The map(s) shall label each stormwater outfall with a three digit number beginning with the next number after the last number assigned to surface runoff outfalls. The plan shall describe the controls and/or procedures that specifically address the goal of minimizing or eliminating the pollution from these sources. In some cases, chis may entail construction of physical facilities. In other cases, it may entail developing new methods of operation or material handling and/or replacement of materials with those Chat are less polluting. The permittee shall make the appropriate determinations and receive the appropriate approvals from the CMLRD. Where necessary, the plan shall include a schedule of activities and/or construction with a reasonable timetable for implementation of any new operations or construction of new facilities necessary to achieve the required goals. The timetable shall allow for attainment of operational Level as expediently as possible, but in no case after June 30. 1995, in conformance with Part 402(p)(4)(A) of the Federal Clean Water Act. The Division will ensure that no proposed timetable is excessively Lengthy. Specific Requirements: a) A coov of the plan shall be kept on-site and shall be readily available to all personnel involved with compliance with the plan. b) The plan shall contain a statement of certification, signed by top management, supporting compliance With the stated goals. c) Records pertaining to implementation of the plan shall be kept in a log and made available on request to Division, CMLRD and EPA representatives (see ?art _ . ' PART I Page 8 Permit No. COG -850000 B. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS 2. Stormwater Management Plan (continued) d) The plan shall include a list of personnel directly responsible for stormwater management. The plan shall describe the procedures to be followed for personnel to judge compliance with the SWMP. e) The plan shall provide for proper training of affected employees in techniques and procedures that will assure achievement of all stated goals. f) The permittee shall amend this plan at any time if there is a change in operation that will or may result in a deterioration in the quality of pollutants addressed by this plan, or if the plan is shown to be ineffective in achieving the specified goals. A copy of the amended plan shall be submitted to the Division and the CMLRD within 30 days, along with an explanation of the reason for the amendment. If the Division finds the amended plan to be inadequate, or if the procedures established are shown to be ineffective once in place, the permittee shall develop and employ new procedures. The permittee shall submit annual reports due on the anniversary date of the specific facility certification. Each report shall be signed and certified (see Part I.C.6.) and shall include a statement affirming that a thorough inspection of all affected operations covered under this plan has occurred at least once per quarte: during the period covered by the report. If the inspection detects complete conformance with the plan, this shall be so stated. If the inspection shows the plan to be inappropriate or ineffective in any area, the annual report shall address how the permittee has corrected or intends to correct this deficiency. All annual reports shall become a part of this permit by reference. g) h) Whenever a facility or a portion of a facility enters the post -mining phase, it is likely that the overall configuration of the site will change considerably. As the land is reclaimed, roads, railroad Lines and structures will be removed, and significant reshaping of the surface will occur. Prior to the time when new vegetation becomes established, the surface areas will be subject to potentially significant erosion. The permittee will need to cake adequate measures in order to minimize this erosion. Therefore, at the time of post -mining, the permittee shall amend the plan to include specific procedures to minimize erosion and other factors that contribute to the discharge of total suspended solids and ocher pollutants from newly reclaimed areas. A copy of the amended plan shall be submitted to the Division and the CMLRD with the amendment request to change from active to post -mining requirements. PART I Page 9 Permit No. COG -850000 B. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS 2. Stormwater Management Plan (continued) Specific Requirements: (continued) h) (continued) If the Division or the CMLRD finds the proposed changes to be inadequate to achieve the stated goals, or if the procedures established are shown to be ineffective once in place, the permittee shall develop and employ new procedures that are effective. i) Pre -mining: The permittee shall exercise necessary controls during construction to minimize erosion. The permittee shall amend the plan to include specific procedures to minimize erosion and other factors that contribute to the discharge of total suspended solids and other pollutants from construction areas. A copy of the amended plan shall be submitted to the Division and the CMLRD. j) Where practicable, the permittee shall employ waste minimization and pollution prevention techniques. For more information on this topic, the permittee may contact the Division. k) Materials Containment - The plan shall include information and procedures for the prevention and containment of spills of materials used, processed or stored at the facility, which if spilled, would have a reasonable probability of having a visible or otherwise detrimental impact on waters of the State. 1/ J This includes materials, especially those exposed to stormwater, that may be discharged due to poor handling practices, 'outdoor storage and/or improper waste disposal practices. The plan shall include, but not necessarily be limited to: i) A history of spills which have occurred in the three (3) years preceding the effective date of the individual facility certification. The history shall include a causation of the spills and a discussion of preventative measures designed to prevent them from reoccurring; ii) A description of the reporting system which will be used to notify responsible facility management, the State Water Quality Control Division, the Environmental Protection Agency, downstream water users within 5 miles downstream of the facility, and local health officials; iii) A description of preventative facilities (including overall facility plot) which prevent, contain, or treat spills and unplanned discharges, including discharges that occur due co stormwater picking up materials addressed in this section; ,J 2/ - See next page. PART I Page 10 Permit No. COG -850000 8. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS Stormwater Management Plan (continued) k) Materials Containment ;continued) iv) A list which includes the volumes or quantities of all materials used, processed, or scored at che facility which represent a potential spill threat to surface waters. The location of stored material shall be indicated on the facility plot submitted for item iii); v) An implementation schedule for additional facilities which might be required in item iii), but which are not yet operational; vi) A List of available outside contractors, agencies, or other sources which could be utilized in the event of a spill in order to clean up its effects. If the facility is capable of handling spills in-house, chis shall be documented in the plan; vii) Provision for annual review and updating of the contingency plan, plus resubmission of the plan co che Division if conditions and/or procedures ac the Eaciliry change the original plan. If no changes are appropriate, the permittee shall so indicate in che annual report described previously. The foregoing provisions shall in no way render inapplicable those requirements imposed by Section 311 of the Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, regulations promulgated thereunder, the Colorado Water Quality Control Act, and regulations promulgated thereunder. This plan should be prepared by a professional engineer registered in the State of Colorado. Nothing herein contained shall be construed as allowing any discharge to waters of che State other than through che discharge points specifically authorized in this permit. Nothing herein contained shall be construed as excusing any liability the permiczee might have, civil or criminal, for any spill. f If there is no such material present at the site, this shall be indicated in writing and submitted to the Division for review. 2/ If there is material present but the permittee feels there is not a Yeasonable probability of a spill impacting waters of the State, this shall be documented in writing and submitted to the Division for review. This documentation shall include; L) distance to nearest surface waters, and; 2) a detailed description of any structure which Prohibits the release of material onto the ground or into a conveyance system. PART I Page 11 Permit No. COG -850000 B. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS 3. Monitoring Requirements In order to obtain an indication of the probable compliance or noncompliance with the effluent limitations specified in Part 1.3.1, the permittee shall monitor all effluent parameters at the following frequencies. a) Active Mining Outfall(s) Measurement Frequency J Sample Tvpe J Effluent Parameter Flow, MGD Weekly Instantaneous or Continuous pH, s.u. Weekly Grab Oil and Grease, mg/1 Weekly Visual J Total Suspended Solids, mg/1 Monthly Grab Total Iron, mg/1 Monthly Grab Settleable Solids, ml/1 r./ Monthly Grab Total Dissolved Solids, mg/1 J* Quarterly Grab Total Phosphorus (as P), mg/1** Quarterly Grab b) Post -Mining Outfall(s) Measurement Frequency J Sample Tvpe J Effluent Parameter Flow, MGD Monthly Instantaneous or Continuous Settleable Solids, ml/1 r./ Monthly Grab Oil and Grease, mg/1 Monthly Visual J pH s.u. Monthly Grab Total Dissolved Solids, mg/1 J* Quarterly Grab Total Phosphorus (as P), mg/1** Quarterly Grab * Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) monitoring is required only for discharges to the Colorado River Basin. See specific facility certification rationale to determine whether TDS monitoring is required. Total phosphorus monitoring is required only for discharges to the Dillon Reservoir'drainage area (i.e., Ten Mile Creek, Snake River, Blue River, and all ocher tributaries to the Dillon Reservoir) and for discharges to the Upper Bear Creek drainage area. See specific facility certification rationale to determine whether phosphorus monitoring is required. ** See Part 1.B.4. for footnoces B. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS 4. Footnotes The thirty (30) day average shall be determined by the arithmetic mean of all samples collected during a thirty (30) consecutive -day period. Samples shall not be used for more than one reporting period. J This limitation shall be determined by a single sample or set of samples as required by Part I.B.3., Sample Type. ./ When the measurement frequency indicated is quarterly, the samples shall be collected during March, June, September and December, if a continual discharge occurs. If the discharge is intermittent, then samples shall be collected during the period that discharge occurs. If the permittee, using the approved analytical methods, monitors any parameter more frequently than required by this permit, then the results of such monitoring shall be included in the calculation and reporting of the values required in the Discharge Monitoring Report Form or other forms as required by the Division. Such increased frequency shall also be indicated. J Definitions of Sample Type 1. A "grab" sample, for monitoring requirements, is a single "dip and take" sample. 2. An "instantaneous" measurement, for monitoring requirements, is a single reading, observation, or measurement performed on site. - PART 1 Page 12 Permit No. COG -850000 3. A "continuous" measurement, for flow monitoring requirements, is a measurement obtained from an automatic recording device which continually measures flow. 4. A "visual" observation, for oil and grease monitoring requirements, is observing the discharge to check for the presence of a visible sheen or floating oil. J - In the event an oil sheen or floating oil is observed, a grab sample shall be collected, analyzed, and reported. In addition, corrective action shall be taken immediately to mitigate the discharge of oil and grease. f/ Where based on a minimum of 5 samples, the permittee demonstrates, to the satisfaction of the Water Quality Control Division, that the level of Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) in the effluent can be calculated based upon the level of electrical conductivity, the permittee may measure and report TDS in terms of electrical conductivity. PART I Page 13 Permit No. COG -850000 B. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS 4. Footnotes (continued) g/ - Procedure for determining settleable solids is contained in 40 CFR 434.64. The method detection limit for measuring settleable solids under this part shall be 0.4 ml/1. J - A new source is generally defined as a coal mine (or major alteration to a coal mine) the construction of which commenced after May 4, 1984. See 40 CFR 434.11(j) for the complete definition. C. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS 1. Reportine Monitoring results obtained during the previous 3 months shall be summarized and reported on Division approved discharge monitoring report forms, postmarked no later than the 28th day of the month following the completed calendar quarter. For example, for the 1st quarter (January, February, and March) the quarterly report must be received at this office postmarked no later than April 28. If no discharge occurs during the reporting period, "No Discharge" shall be reported. The first original copy of each discharge monitoring report (DMR) shall be submitted to the Division at the following address: Colorado Department of Health Water Quality Control Division Permits and Enforcement Section 4210 East llth Avenue Denver, Colorado 80220 The first duplicate signed copy of each report form shall be submitted to the following agency: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Water Management Division NPDES Branch 8WM-C 999 18th Street, Suite 500 Denver, CO 80202-2466 PART I Page 14 Permit No. COG -850000 C. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS 3. Analytical and Sampling Methods for Monitoring Analytical and sampling methods utilized by the discharger shall conform to Colorado Regulations Eor Effluent Limitations (10.1.3), and 40 CFR Par: 136. The analytical method selected for a parameter shall be the one that can measure the lowest detected limit for that parameter unless the permit limitation or stream standard for :.hose parameters not limited, is within the testing range of another approved method. Calculations for all limitations which require averaging of measurements shall utilize an arithmetic mean unless otherwise specified. 4. Records The permittee shall establish and maintain records. Those records shall include the following: a) The date, type, exact location, and time of sampling or measurements; b) The individuals) who performed the sampling or measurements; c) The date(s) the analyses were performed; d) The individual(s) who performed the analyses; e) The analytical techniques or methods used; f) The results of such analyses; and g) Any other observations which may result in an impact on the quality or quantity of the discharge as indicated in 40 CFR 122.44 (i)(1)(iii). The permittee shall retain for a minimum of three (3) years records of all monitoring information, including all records of analyses performed, all original strip chart recordings for continuous monitoring instrumentation, all calibration and maintenance records, copies of all reports required by this permit and records of all data used to complete the application for this permit. This period of retention shall be extended during the course of any unresolved Litigation regarding the discharge of pollutants by the permittee or when requested by the Division or Regional Administrator of EPA. 5. Additional Monitoring by Permittee If the permittee monitors any pollutant at the location(s) designated herein more frequently than required by this permit, using approved analytical methods as specified above, the results of such monitoring snail be included in the calculation and reporting of the values required in the Discharge Monitoring Report Form (EPA No. 3320-1), or ocher forms as required by the Division. Such increased frequency shad also be yndicaced. PART I Page 15 Permit No. COG -850000 C. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS 6. Signator-' Reouirements All reports required for submittal shall be signed and certified for accuracy by the permittee in accord with the following criteria: a) in the case of corporations, by a principal executive officer of at least the level of vice-president or his or her duly authorized representative, if such representative is responsible for the overall operation of the facility from which che discharge described in the form originates; b) In the case of a partnership, by a general partner; c) In the case of a sole proprietorship, by the proprietor; d) In the case of a municipal, state, or other public facility, by either a principal executive officer, ranking elected official, or other duly authorized employee. PART II A. MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS 1. Change in Discharge The permittee shall inform the Division (Permits and Enforcement Section) in writing of any intent to construct, install, or alter any process, facility, or activity that is likely to result in a new or altered discharge, and shall furnish the Division such plans and specifications which the Division deems reasonably necessary to evaluate the effect on the discharge and receiving stream. The permittee shall submit this notice within two (2) weeks after making a determination to perform the type of activity referred to in the preceding paragraph. Process modifications include, but are not limited to, the introduction of any new pollutant not previously identified in the permit, or any other modifications which may result in a discharge of a quantity or quality different from that which was evaluated in the drafting of the permit including subsequent amendments. Following such notice, the permittee shall be required to submit a new CDPS application and this application may be processed as an application for an individual permit if the application shows that the new discharge is ineligible for coverage under che general permit. In no case shall the permittee implement such change without first notifying the Division. PART II Page 16 Permit No. COG -850000 A. MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS 2. Special Notifications - Definitions a) Bypass: The intentional diversion of waste streams from any portion of a treatment facility. b) Severe Property Damage: Substantial physical damage to property at the treatment facilities which causes them to become inoperable, or substantial and permanent loss of natural resources which can reasonably be expected to occur in the absence of a bypass. It does not mean economic loss caused by delays in production. c) Spill: An unintentional release of solid or liquid material which may cause pollution of state waters. d) Upset: An exceptional incident in which there is unintentional and temporary noncompliance with permit effluent limitations because of factors beyond the reasonable control of the permittee. An upset does not include noncompliance to the extent caused by operational error, improperly designed treatment facilities, inadequate treatment facilities, lack of preventative maintenance, or careless or improper operation. 3 Noncompliance Notification a) If, for any reason, the permittee does not comply with or will be unable to comply with any discharge limitations or standards specified in this permit, the permittee shall, at a minimum, provide the Water Quality Control Division and EPA with the following information at the time Discharge Monitoring Reports are submitted: (i) A description of the discharge and cause of noncompliance; (ii) The period of noncompliance, including exact dates and times and/or the anticipated time when the discharge will return to compliance; and (iii) Steps being taken to reduce, eliminate, and prevent recurrence of the noncomplying discharge. PART II Page 17 Permit No, COG -850000 A. MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS 3. Noncomvliance Notification (continued) b) The permittee shall report the following instances of noncompliance orally within twenty-four (24) hours from the time the permittee becomes aware of the noncompliance, and shall mail to the Division a written report within five (5) days after becoming aware of the noncompliance: (i) Any instance of noncompliance which may endanger health or the environment; (ii) Any unanticipated bypass; (iii) Any upset which causes an exceedance of any effluent limitation in the permit; (iv) Any spill which causes any effluent limitation to be violated; (v) Daily maximum violations for any toxic pollutants or hazardous substances limited by PART I -A of this permit and specified as requiring 24 hour notification. c) The permittee shall report all other instances of non-compliance not requiring 24-hour notification at the time Discharge Monitoring Reports are submitted. The reports shall contain the information listed in sub -paragraph (a) of this section. 4. Submission of Incorrect or Incomplete Information Immediately upon becoming aware of the failure to submit any relevant facts in a permit application, or submitted incorrect information in a permit application or report to the Division, the permittee shall promptly submit the relevant application information which was not submitted or any additional information needed to correct any erroneous information previously submitted. 5. Bypass, The permittee may allow any bypass to occur which does not cause effluent limitations to be exceeded, but if and only if it is for essential maintenance to assure efficient operation. Bypass is prohibited, and the Division may take enforcement action against a permittee for bypass, unless: PART II Page 18 Permit No. COG -850000 A. MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS 5. Bypass (continued) a) Bypass was unavoidable co prevent loss of life, personal injury, or severe property damage; b) There were no feasible alternatives to the bypass, such as the use of auxiliary treatment facilities, retention of untreated wastes, or maintenance during normal periods of equipment downtime. This condition is not satisfied if the permictee could have installed adequate backup equipment co prevent a bypass which occurred during normal periods of equipment downtime or preventative maintenance; and c) The permittee submitted notices as required in "Bypass Notification", Part II.A.b. 6. Bypass Notification If the permittee knows in advance of the need for a bypass, a notice shall be submitted, at least ten days before the date of the bypass, to the Division and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The bypass shall be subject to Division approval and limitations imposed by the Division and E2A. 7. Upsets a) Effect of an Upset An upset constitutes an affirmative defense to an action brought for noncompliance with permit effluent limitations if the requirements of paragraph b of this section are met. (No determination made during administrative review of claims that noncompliance was caused by upset, and before an action for noncompliance, is final administrative action subject to judicial review.) b) Conditions Necessary for a Demonstration of Upset A permittee who • %ishes co establish the affirmative defense of upset shall demonstrate through properly signed contemporaneous operating logs, or other relevant evidence that: (i) An upset occurred and that the permittee can identify the specific cause(s) of the upset; and (ii) The permitted facility was at the time being properly operated; and PART II Page 19 Permit No. C0G-850000 A. MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS 7. Upsets (continued) (iii) The permittee submitted notice of the upset as required in Part II.A.3. of this permit (24-hour notice); and (iv) The permittee complied with any remedial measures required under Section 122.7(d) of the federal regulations. c) 3urden of Proof In any enforcement proceeding the permittee seeking co establish the occurrence of an upset has the burden of proof. 8. Removed Substances Solids, sludges, or other pollutants removed in the course of treatment or control of wastewaters shall be properly disposed of in a manner such as to prevent any pollutant from such materials from entering waters of the State. 9. Minimization of Adverse Impact The permittee shall take all reasonable steps to minimize any adverse impact to waters of the State resulting from noncompliance with any effluent limitations specified in this permit, including such accelerated or additional monitoring as necessary to determine the nature and impact of the noncomplying discharge. 10. Discharge Point Any discharge to the waters of the State from a point source other than specifically authorized by this permit is prohibited. 11. Reduction, Loss. or Failure of Treatment Facility The permittee has the duty to halt or reduce any activity if necessary to maintain compliance with the effluent limitations of the permit. Upon reduction, loss, or failure of the treatment facility, the permittee shall, to the extent necessary to maintain compliance with its permit, control production, or all discharges, or both until the facility is restored or an alternative method of treatment is provided. This provision for example, applies to power failures, unless an alternative power source sufficient to operate the wastewater control facilities is provided. It shall not be a defense for a permittee in an enforcement action that it would be necessary to halt or reduce the permitted activity .n order to maintain compliance with the conditions of this permit. PART II Page 20 Permit No. COG -850000 A. MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS 12. Proper Operation and Maintenance The permittee shall at all times properly operate and maintain all facilities and systems of treatment and control (and related appurtenances) which are installed or used by the permittee to achieve compliance with the conditions of this permit. Proper operation and maintenance includes effective performance, adequate funding, adequate operator staffing and training, and adequate laboratory and process controls, including appropriate quality assurance procedures. This provision requires the operation of back-up or auxiliary facilities or similar systems only when necessary to achieve compliance with the conditions of the permit. B. RESPONSIBILITIES 1. Inspections and Right to Entry The permittee shall allow the Director of the State Water Quality Control Division, the EPA Regional Administrator, and/or their authorized representative, upon the presentation of credentials: a) To enter upon the permittee's premises where a regulated facility or activity is located or in which any records are required to be kept under the terms and conditions of this permit; b) At reasonable times to have access to and copy any records required to be kept under the terms and conditions of this permit and to inspect any monitoring equipment or monitoring method required in the permit; and c) To enter upon the permittee's premises to investigate, within reason, any actual, suspected, or potential source of water pollution, or any violation of the Colorado Water Quality Control Act. The investigation may include, but is not limited to, the following: sampling of any discharge and/or process waters, the taking of photographs, interviewing permittee staff on alleged violations, and access to any and all facilities or areas within the permittee's premises that may have any affect on the discharge, permit, or alleged violation. d) The Division shall split any sample taken with the permittee if requested to do so by the permittee. PART II Page 21 Permit No. COG -850000 B. RESPONSIBILITIES 2. Duty to Provide Information The permittee shall furnish to the Division, within a reasonable time, any information which the Division may request to determine whether cause exists for revoking and reissuing, or terminating this permit, or to determine compliance with this permit. The permittee shall also furnish to the Division, upon request, copies of records required to be kept by this permit. 3. Transfer of Ownership or Control A permit may be transferred to a new permittee if: a) The current permittee notifies the Division in writing 30 days in advance of the proposed transfer date; and b) The notice includes a written agreement between the existing and new permittees containing a specific date for transfer of permit responsibility, coverage and liability between them; and c) The current permittee has met all fee requirements of the State Discharge Permit System Regulations, Section 6.16.0. 4. Availability of Reports Except for data determined to be confidential under Section 308 of the Federal Clean Water Act and Regulations for the State Discharge Permit System 6.6.4 (2), all reports prepared in accordance with the terms of this permit shall be available for public inspection at the offices of the State Water Quality Control Division and the Environmental Protection Agency. 5. Modification, Suspension or Revocation of Permits By the Division All permit modifications, termination or revocation and reissuance actions shall be subject to the requirements of the State Discharge Permit System Regulations, Sections 6.6.2, 6.6.3, 6.8.0 and 6.16.0, 5 G.C.R. 1002-2, except for minor modifications. Minor modifications may only correct typographical errors, require a change in the frequency of monitoring or reporting by the permittee, change an interim date in a schedule of compliance or allow for a change in ownership or operational control of a facility including addition, deactivation or relocation of discharge points where the Division determines that no other change in the permit is necessary. PART II Page 22 Permit No. COG -850000 B. RESPONSIBILITIES 5. Modification. Suspension or Revocation of Permits By the Division (continued) a) This permit may be modified, suspended or revoked during its term for reasons determined by the Division including but not limited to, the following: (i) Promulgation of Water Quality Standards applicable to waters affected by the permitted discharge; or (ii) Effluent limitations or other requirements applicable pursuant to the State Act or federal requirements; or (iii) Promulgation of toxic effluent standards or prohibitions (including any schedule of compliance specified in such effluent standard or prohibition) which are established under Section 307 of the Clean Water Act, where such a toxic pollutant is present in the discharge and such standard or prohibition is more stringent than any limitation for such pollutant in this permit; cr (iv) Control regulations promulgated. (b) A certification may be modified, suspended, or revoked in whole or in part during its term for reasons determined by the Division including but not limited to, the following: (i) Violation of any terms or conditions of the permit; (ii) Obtaining a permit by misrepresentation or failing to disclose any fact which is material to the granting or denial of a permit or to the establishment of terms or conditions of the permit; or (iii) Materially false or inaccurate statements or information in the application for the permit; or (iv) Data submitted pursuant to Part I.B indicates a potential for violation of adopted Water Quality Standards or stream classifications. (c) The certification for the individual facility authorizing discharge under the general permit may be modified to allow for a change in ownership or operational control of a facility including addition, deactivation or relocation of discharge points where the Division determines no change in the general permit is necessary. PART II Page 23 Permit No. COG -850000 B. RESPONSIBILITIES 5. Modification. Sustension. or Revocation of Permits By the Division (Continued) At the request of the permittee, the Division may modify, or terminate a certification if the following conditions are met: (i) In the case of termination, the permittee notifies the Division of its intent to terminate the certification 90 days prior co the desired date of termination; (ii) In the case of termination, the permittee has ceased any and all discharges to state waters and demonstrates to the Division there is no probability of further uncontrolled discharge(s) which may affect waters of the State. (iii) The Regional Administrator has been notified of the proposed modification or termination and does not object in writing within thirty (30) days of receipt of notification; (iv) The Division finds that the permittee has shown reasonable grounds consistent with the Federal and State statutes and regulations for such modification, amendment or termination; (v) Fee requirements of Section 6.16,0 of State Discharge Permit System Regulations have been met; and (vi) Requirements of public notice have been met. 6. Oil and Hazardous Substance Liability Nothing in this permit shall be construed to preclude the institution of any legal action or relieve the permittee from any responsibilities, liabilities, or penalties to which the permittee is or may be subject to under Section 311 (Oil and Hazardous Substance Liability) of the Clean Water Act.' (d) 7. State Laws Nothing in this permit shall be construed to preclude the institution of any legal action or relieve the permittee from any responsibilities, liabilities, or penalties established pursuant to any applicable State law or regulation under authority granted by Section 510 of the Clean Water Act. 8. Permit Violations Failure to comply with any terms and/or conditions of this permit shall be a violation of this permit. PART II Page 24 Permit No. COG -850000 B. RESPONSIBILITIES 9. Property Rights The issuance of this permit does not convey any property or water rights in either real or personal property, or stream flows, or any exclusive privileges, nor does it authorize any injury to private property or any invasion of personal rights, nor any infringement of Federal, State or local laws or regulations. 10. Severabilitv The provisions of this permit are severable. If any provisions of this permit, or the application of any provision of this permit to any circumstance, is held invalid, the application of such provision to other circumstances and the application of the remainder of this permit shall not be affected. 11. Renewal Application If the permittee desires to continue to discharge a permit renewal application shall be submitted at least one hundred eighty (180) days before this permit expires. If the permittee anticipates there will be no discharge after the expiration date of this permit, the Division should be promptly notified so that it can terminate the permit in accordance with Part II.B.6. 12. Confidentiality Any information relating to any secret process, method of manufacture or production, or sales or marketing data which has been declared confidential by the permittee, and which may be acquired, ascertained, or discovered, whether in any sampling investigation, emergency investigation, or otherwise, shall not be publicly disclosed by any member, officer, or employee of the Commission or the Division, but shall be kept confidential. Any person seeking to invoke the protection of this Subsection (2) shall bear the burden of proving its applicability. This section shall never be interpreted as preventing full disclosure of effluent data. 13. Fees The permittee is required to submit payment of an annual fee as set forth in the 1983 amendments to the Water Quality Control Act. Section 25-8-502 (1) (b), and State Discharge Permit Regulations SCCR 1002-2, Section 6.16.0 as amended. Failure to submit the required fee when due and payable is a violation of the permit and will result in enforcement action pursuant to Section 25-8-601 et. seq., C.R.S. 1973 as amended.. PART II Page 25 Permit No. COG -850000 B. RESPONSIBILITIES 14. Requiring an Individual CDPS Permit The Director may require any owner or operator covered under this permit to apply for and obtain an individual CDPS permit if: (a) The discharger is not in compliance with the conditions of this General Permit; or, (b) Conditions or standards have changed so that the discharge no longer qualifies for a General Permit; or, (c) Data becomes available which indicates water quality standards may be violated. The owner or operator must be notified in writing that an application for an individual CDPS permit is required. When an individual CDPS permit is issued to an owner or operator otherwise covered under this General Permit, the applicability of the General Permit to that owner or operator is automatically terminated upon the effective date of the individual CDPS permit. 15. Requesting an Individual CDPS Permit Any owner or operator covered by this General Permit may request to be excluded from the coverage by applying for an individual CDPS permit. 16. Requesting Coverage Under the General Permit The owner or operator of a facility excluded from coverage by this General Permit solely because that facility already has an individual permit may request that the individual permit be revoked and that the facility be covered by this General Permit. Such request shall be evaluated by the Division per criterion specified in Part I of this permit. i i i TART 1 Page 24. P e r m i t No . 00G-400005. rirta L474,- ilaGJ f.r�f :��1C►j „C'3t 9 n 1 ^C1 Figure 1 Eastside Coal Company, Inc. Site Sketch 4". 1 • - . . i ^..... .• . • • 1 ,./ .-" - •,- ,F,a.'. ! MOFFAT' . I / , . e ,--• 2 , ---,._ ---e.. . ,o,''''. SW, btarn •. 4 f ''''' i - ' 4 ••.. r 1 ••.;.:* . . ROUTT 4,..) .,•'• 0 A rioma 1. .; 11...,.....,_ __ _,' • 0_ ' Cr i -: ." -...1 -,,,. LL-),,, - ' -4-- ,,,, •_14110411 - .11 i'fr . ..:, . ,. ..',--...,......... 24 i ..- • .?...‘' •••:•'!"-'••• .., •‘'.4 L, , ,.f.;, . te . . . . . . .L" nr- -,f__:'_._. . . - ' • -" ,, , : . STeamboat' 1 _ ..../.4,... ! 1 • 44 orsrumiNr ---"... ' --e---- -- - ) za / / -,._ ," ...-,, . -•-••4 /•,, - .._._. -- - - aj -- , "Springst ,.. , , -; r.)? C • • 0.11 DiviC1 PART I I Page 25 Permit No. a 719) L41 C 0 G-400005 - • If 121. 41.11111t111 • 4() • r - vow _. 9g ••• / .... % . '. 1 • 1"4:::,% er,....,..-r".-- r/ri . r--...,'"" . 1 2 N11,1,101 72,4] i ',.. I2 1 _ „..- 2 5111.111 \ . ... -.. . , ..7.1..?..essi .' i ___,....• III. 4 '' _„_ .. .... • ...- 3 . 9.., Chamw." Rangeiy 1 ..". RIO BLANCO-- ., , 49 - - . N' 11,1 -71-1-_,Liii . : ... +I 1 \'''''',.... A,..; r,..,_ ____________.____ t IONA].'' X 7 ...,,, 1 • - 1 i. ' ' ,i. i , .... ,I, .4 ,I. I, I I i If .I. i'...1°.. 3I0 VI.1.8 I 7 ' \ I 4 e.,1______2. , Eciz 314 . -,cREsil ,.. 4 i ' .. .. 1. Foe. • 'xte I c.• 9 • - 9 91 : /- ' , • • i • •,' 11.a ..• • . . s° ,a1 , _ . ..... _ .. _." CL- ▪ / ' i . -•s --.1 A i n• o i _,..., • c•-•.: '14.(/' EAGLE ,,,,.....:, . - ler:0,F ,......... )i(- ,, -":-I':','" . ''., '-.4,, . .0, FM .. ..'-....-,, I GARFIELD 1... / lc -,,.. ,..7 -E4 -__•.:_.:.....7.,c7_,,,,., -i• r ; • 4 i e . ,,,,a,,,,, arm4-.. , ...1 •/ Paracht.rt4 , 2:........... ike14.. .1r2)SI:IrirIg5 / i ; ... . 1 al -;‘12 ..,.,c,-... ;_ - __ ',.. t&.' -'-1 , 3 , v r. 1, Li / .- ,._____:____ ..j Ic rifonasle r i . 4 4. 4 L•iers 'Ws S. ".„ - Dc Ds au i • ' ' 1----.1 r ---I k...."- , , •,,, . • , • ..... r . i • 7313 14- -4. r .. ' 7' ' • #1 ,," .. • `4, ', Ilk L:f POI. ."••••..,...., •-••"--2.-_,_ r_F-1 1 1 • •11%; •, 3 .r., !--11. Pe.cultursi 1 _ - 11 1, • --, , . • ,_, .: _:. • -. - - ..•••.. r -N ---' . ; .....r......r.all f'...6 • j.? i '-'• - - ii .• .1-•• - i .• • . WHITE- MLer MUTT A • 74' ' r, 7, ROLVIT z 71.‘1AT0QEST 7ts:o -S 271 / „.• 4 - 4 1 4 ", ' \4-"1 Li uvER - - Bum? .•'7' 1-.Hq ,L 7 /NATIONAL . I ,-... .._*"..-.-.-.."1.---4.,.. - • . ..,......7-- : L_-„,, ....) --\-1,..z- ..7- Eds,! . ,1 ___ .__ - ... , , ...........,:___13(1.-.4...012.-.1... ' I.. \414 71 . NATIONAL ,/ - ...Ad, " •;• -..-... ... • '.i. --, . . • .._,C,70, 4 • •' 2 7". , L.--1 -.....,.• _. , ., FOREST -' 0"---' --.., ' ' • r 4‘ ........\ .▪ -.,••• 4 •:.0* - 4 , --4 • 6 rs ,..,..,., , II' .r., DELTA / . L'r•- i ;--,, ll;---12-_____L______J I' •... ,4 '4. 9orrwr -.- .-.•-• - -..-...1 3.- 4 ..7••• .',' Lj, 1 ...• . $••• r• ,-, 4.....•1 • 4.. ‘ .r. 4 ...'• dE ..• .-, 3 .4."-...: it R71 1 / ' • ..,•." LiL ,,,,,..:du,l, • ' . • '' i .4... \ -- .7"7 1 14:n4 „.44 F Grand ruita __; c JUrIaMila 44. . 3 5 J ' 4 3:u ..:,o,eacc L12 `2 n 01-M I. \_,11 • CiirrePork 4 ' MESA 31 ••• Cr41.74f1 ‘,1iG - 43•421 4.1-tvarer 20' 4 ' 41 4 • 157,3w/1,1S3a • IP1TKIN r .31 ‘Cruarsose •- S01111141 • 11 1. ,it \Ire - .1/ r- Figure2 Eastside Coal Company, Inc. General Location if PART II Page 26 Permit No.: COG -40000.: Waste Disposal Area l Sediment Pond SP -2 00 o / 0 0 r Generator Coal Stockpile Supply Storage p Sediment Pond SP-? FIGURE 3 Portals uildings FACILITIES MAP NPDES Permit Eastside Coal Company, Inc. Garfield County, Colorado No Scale 2 RENEWAL OF COAL MINING FACILITIES (SURFACE RUNOFF ONLY) GENERAL PERMIT IN COLORADO RATIONALE COLORADO DISCHARGE PERMIT NUMBER COG -850000 I. Update This is the first renewal of the general permit for coal mining facilities (surface runoff only). The original permit was issued March 8, 1988,, and became effective on April 8, 1988. This general permit has been of value both to permittees and the Division. Permittees who qualify are able to secure a permit in a much shorter time than is required for issuance of an individual permit. The Division's permit drafting burden is lessened by the ability to issue certifications to the general permit for qualified facilities. II. Permit Changes Stormwater Management Plan - The federal effluent guidelines that govern discharges from coal mining facilities (40 CFR 434) have not changed since the original general permit was issued. Part 434 controls most surface runoff from coal mining facilities through limitations that apply to discharges from sedimentation ponds. This is consistent with regulations implemented by the federal Office of Surface Mining (OSM). In Colorado, the Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Division (CMLRD) assures compliance with these federal requirements. The Division has determined that limitations beyond these are not necessary for such areas. However, these regulations do not address all sources of stormwater from coal mining facilities. Areas such as roads and railroad lines, pond outslopes, inactive loadouts, sites used for storage and maintenance of material handling equipment and areas for which small area exemptions have been granted are not covered by these regulations The federal stormwater regulations, issued November 16, 1990, impact the subject facilities in some substantial ways. As they apply to coal mining facilities, the stormwater regulations primarily address areas not covered by Part 434. Compliance with these regulations may be achieved through measures of best management practices and pollution prevention. Best management practices (BMP) means schedules of activities, prohibitions of practices, maintenance procedures, and other management practices to prevent or reduce the pollution of the waters of the State. COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, Water Quality Control Division Renewal Permit Rationale - Page 2. Permit No.: COG -850000. II. Permit Changes (continued) BMP's also include treatment requirements, operating procedures, and practices to control plant site runoff, spillage or leaks, sludge or waste disposal, or drainage from raw material, intermediate and finished product storage. Pollution prevention (incorporating waste minimization) is an essential part of best management practices. The permittee must Look at all phases of the operation to determine what changes could be made that would result in a lower consumption and/or disposal of pollution -generating materials, as well as minimizing exposure of pollutants to stormwater. Such efforts often result in greater profit to the permittee and less pollution of the environment. The mechanism for implementation of stormwater BMP requirements within this permit shall be the Scormwater Management Plan (SWMP). The permittee will be required to develop and implement a SWMP plan. Some activities required under this plan may already be in place. However, the SWMP plan will require the permittee to coordinate these activities with any necessary new activities in an orderly manner so that the result is the reduction or elimination of pollutants reaching state waters from areas roc limited by effluent limitations. An added benefit may be a reduction of pollution reaching other media, such as the air or hazardous waste disposal sites. In fact, the permittee is encouraged to strive for this overall goal. Where the reduction of water pollution only results in the increased pollution of ocher media, there is no net benefit to the environment. The permittees certified under this permit shall be required to submit a SWMP to the Division for review within six months from the date the certification is issued. The requirements of the plan do not specify the exact pollution control facilities that the permittee must construct. Instead, the plan allows for creativity on the permittee's part, as long as the goal is achieved. Each permittee will need to determine what controls are necessary at che specific site. Then, the permittee will need co develop a plan for the timely execution of these controls. Where construction is necessary, the plan shall include a schedule detailing the milestones involved with such construction. As necessary, elements of the plan may require prior approval from the CMLRD. The plan shall include a statement signed by top management in which they affirm that compliance with the Dian shall occur. Also, it sham provide for updates where there is a change in operation that will or may result in a change in the quality of pollutants addressed by this plan, or if the plan is shown to be ineffective in achieving che specified goals. The plan, once submitted, will be incorporated into the permit and its implementation will be considered a permit requirement. Failure to do so could result in enforcement action. The plan shall remain in effect as long as the facility is regulated by a CDPS permit. The permittee will be expected to certify on a yearly basis that the plan is being implemented as required. COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, Water Quality Control Division Renewal Permit Rationale - Page 3. Permit No.: COG -850000. II. Permit Changes (continued) Ocher changes: The boiler place language in Part I. Section C., and Part II. is being revised to reflect the more condensed language currently used in individual permits. Where changes were necessary to reflect the differences between general permit requirements and individual permit requirements, such changes have also been made. No other significant changes are being made to this general permit. III. Reporting There have been occasions where specific permittees have not properly followed che Noncompliance Notification Requirements specified in Part II.A.3. of the permit. Where a request for relief from total suspended solids and total iron and/or settleable solids limitations is desired, the permittee must also submit the documentation specified under Part 1.B.1.d) - Burden of Proof Requirements. Failure to do so may result in enforcement action and/or revocation of authorization to discharge under the general permit. IV. Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) Testing Section G.9.7(2)(a)(i)(A) of the Regulations For che State Discharge Permit System 6.1.0 (5CCR 1002-2) exempts facilities certified under this general permit from WET testing requirements. V. Antidegradation The discharges certified under this permit are not reviewable waters pursuant to section 3.1.8(3)(a) of the Basic Standards and Methodologies for Surface Waters 3.1.0 (5CCR 1002-2). Jon C. Cubic January 16, 1992 VI. Public Notice Comments Verbal Comments were received by EPA Region VIII. Their primary concern related to the compliance date .for construction and/or related activities. The draft permit stated that this date was three years after the effective date of the permit. Ic was the Division's intention to state chat attainment of operational Level would occur as soon as possible, but in no event later than three years after che permit becomes effective. The final permit will clarify this to indicate that the Division will permit reasonable timetables for construction with appropriate completion dates; but, the latest date acceptable for completion will be June 30, 1995. A long construction schedule will 'oe approved only if major construction is required. The Division will ensure that no construction schedule is excessively long. COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, Water Quality Control Division Renewal Permit Rationale - Page 4. Permit No.: COG -850000. VI. Public Notice Comments (continued) The Colorado Mining Association submitted comments. Their primary concern indirectly applies to this permit. They seek coverage similar to the Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) for application to stormwater discharges from coal mining facilities that, due to the existence of discharges ocher than surface runoff, are covered under individual permits. Their desire was to apply this general permit with its SWMP provisions to these other facilities. The Division intends to cover these facilities initially under the General Permit For Stormwater Discharges From Mining Facilities. As these individual permits come up for renewal, the stormwater outfalls would be addressed through a plan similar to the SWMP in this permit. The mining permit is being drafted now and the Division anticipates submitting it for public notice in June, 1992. The Division contacted the Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Division (CMLRD) to see if they had comments. They stated that the verbal comments made to the Division prior to the official public notice date were their only concerns. Since these comments were incorporated into the draft permit, no changes should be necessary to satisfy the CMLRD. The renewal permit is being issued with the modifications described in this section. It shall take effect July 1, 1992 - on the expiration of the previous permit. Jon C. Kubic May 26, 1992 FINDINGS OF THE STATE ENGINEER IN THE MATTER OF APPLICATIONS FOR PERMITS TO CONSTRUCT WELLS IN WATER DIVISION NO. 5, GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO APPLICANT: EASTSIDE COAL COMPANY FILE NOS.: AD 12343 AND AD 2-.1+4' In compliance with C.R.S. 37-90-137(1), Eastside Coal Company, P. 0. Box 161, Silt, Colorado 81652, (hereinafter "applicant"), submitted two (2) appli- cations for permits to construct wells. Based on information provided by the applicant and records of the Division of Water Resources, the State .Engineer finds as follows: 1. The applications were last received complete by the State Engineer on April 22, 1991. 2. The proposed well locations, maximum pumping rates, average annual amounts of ground water to be appropriated, and total depths are as follows: OWNER'S WELL LOCATIONS PUMPING ANNUAL TOTAL WELL GARFIELD COUNTY 6TH P.M. RATE APPROPRIATION DEPTH DESIGNATION 1/4 1/4 SEC. TWP. RNG. (GPM) , (A/F) (FEET) Well No. 1 SW NE 24 55 92W 30 10 500 Mine Well* SE NE 24 5S 92W 30 20 N/A* * The Mine well will consist of a pump for dewatering of the mine. 3. The proposed locations are outside the boundaries of a designated ground water basin. 4. The applicant proposes to apply the water diverted from the wells to the following beneficial uses: Domestic, industrial and irrigation purposes associated with a coal mining and processing operation. 5. At the proposed depths, using perforated casing in the intervals indicated in the applications, ground water diverted by the wells would be hydrauli- cally connected to the Colorado River System. Diversion of ground water by the wells will influence the rate or direction of movement of water in that natural stream and its alluvium. 6. The Colorado River System is overappropriated. At some or all times of the year, the water supplies of said stream system is insufficient to satisfy all the decreed water rights senior to an appropriation by the applicant. 7. The proposed diversions from the subject wells would cause depletion to the Colorado River System at times when this stream is overappropriated. Applicant: Eastside Coal Company Page 2 File Nos.: AD- 12.3 + I and AD- 1 23 9-4 8. Records show that there are senior vested water rights withdrawing ground water from the alluvium of the Colorado River. Use of the applicant's proposed wells would decrease the amount of ground water in the alluvium of said stream. 9. No plan for augmentation to remedy the injury to vested water rights has been approved by the Division 5 Water Court. 10. The proposed use of the wells is not exempt under C.R.S. 37-92-602 and so the applications are evaluated under C.R.S. 37-90-137. Based on the above, the State Engineer is unable to find that the vested water rights of other appropriators will not be materially injured. The applications are therefore denied. • Dated this .3--1) day of Prepared by: GRG 6888I/Form #0536(A) Azi;LS.,.., �}• s A Danielson State ngineer By: x9Q-L,,iza. Bruce E. DeBrine Water Resource Engineer Ground Water Section 1. ��HIBIT B Wright Water Engineers, Inc. DENVER OFFICE 2490 West 26th Ave., Suite 100 A Denver, Colorado 90211 (303) 480-1700 James Lochhead, Esq. Leavenworth & Lochhead, P.C. P.O. Drawer 2030 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: Eastside Coal Water Augmentation Plan Dear Jim: GLENWOOD SPRINGS OFFICE 918 Colorado Avenue P. 0. Box 219 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602 (303) 945-7755 Denver Direct Line: 893-1608 May 31, 1991 Wright Water Engineers, Inc. is submitting this Engineering Report to support the Water Augmentation Pian for the proposed Eastside Coal Company's operation north of New Castle. The water requirements for the proposed Eastside Coal Mine are summarized in Table 1 attached with this report. The values used are directly from the Garfield County Special Use Application dated May 1991. Up to 24.5 acre feet will be diverted annually for the mine operation. An annual 10 acre-feet of this water will not return to the stream system and will 'be used to meet the ultimate coal production of 200,000 tons per year. This amount is the "consumptive use" amount and equates to an annual average depletion to the stream system of 6.2 gallons per minute. Eastside Coal proposes to use the water for coal production and associated domestic uses. Domestic use will deplete approximately 0.23 acre-feet per year. Dust suppression will consume approximately 6.87 acre-feet per year. This includes both surface dust control and in -mine face area dust suppression. The loss associated with in -mine water spraying will raise the moisture content of the extracted coal by an estimated 2.6X. Two sedimentation ponds will be constructed. A total of 0.23 surface pond acres were used to determine evaporation rates. The State Engineer's Office was contacted for general evaporation rates. Depletions were calculated using NOAA Technical Specifications monthly evaporation schedule for Colorado. Irrigation water will be required to ultimately reclaim twelve acres of disturbed land. Depending upon the mining activities for the season, irrigation waters may or may not be required. For this augmentation plan, an estimated one acre per year of irrigated land was used to determine the water requirements. It is assumed that the irrigation efficiency is 80%. Cooling water will be required for the diesel equipment. It is estimated that 90% of the make-up water will be consumptively used. The water supply to meet the mine's needs will come from three sources: 1. The Eastside Spring & Seep which is located on the mine property approximately 2,000 feet below Grass Valley Reservoir. Eastside Coal has a decree for a 12 gpm conditional water right, from this source in Water Court Case 90CW348. 2. The Eastside Well Number 1. This is a tributary ground water well. A well permit (Application No. AD -12344) has been filed with the State Engineer Office for 30 gpm. 3. The Eastside Mine Well. A proposed 30 gpm conditional water right is being sought for the mine drainage water. All three of the sources: the Eastside Springs & Seep water, the Eastside mine well, and the mine drainage well waters are considered "tributary waters" to the Colorado River system. The depletion caused by the mine operation, described in this plan, will ultimately reduce the Colorado River flow up to about 9 acre-feet per year. Prior to the construction of the Grass Valley Reservoir and development of irrigation on Silt Mesa, we believe that this drainage carried very little water. Essentially all of the water flowing through Harvey Gap is imported from Rifle Creek and West Elk Creek. The water is stored in Grass Valley Reservoir and released at varying rates throughout the irrigation season. The average release is approximately 40 cfs. During the irrigation season, all of the water flowing through Harvey Gap (40 cfs) is diverted at the Farmer's Irrigation Company ditch headgate into canals that take the water east and west to irrigate lands on Silt Mesa. The drainageway below the Farmer's Irrigation Company headgate does regain some stream flow from irrigation return flow and seepage from the local irrigation systems. GARFIELJ CITIZENS' ALLIANCE_ "Dedicated to creating a sustainable future for Garfield County" January 7, 1990 Mr. Fred Banta, Director Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Division 1313 Sherman Street Denver, CO 80203 Dear Mr. .Banta: RECEIVE: JAN 8 1991 Mined Land Reclamation Div;3ion As you know, the Garfield Citizens Alliance is deeply con- cerned about the serious problems at the Eastside mine. Over the last nine months we discussed these with the staff and had two informative meetings with you at which you expressed interest in resolving the Alliance's concerns and suggested, toward that goal, that we summarize these problems in writing. We believe your suggestion is a sincere and thoughtful one and thus the purpose of this letter is to provide a' summary and to request immediate action from ,the Division on each of the problems. 1. Eastside's special use permit from Garfield County expired on March 18, 1990. By letter dated March 19, 1990, Eastside notified the Division that it had temporarily ceased operations because its county special use permit had expired. Thus, Eastside does not have the right to mine (34-33-110(2)(j)), cannot demonstrate that it has obtained a county permit (Rule 2.03.10, 34-33-110(8), and cannot conduct surface coal mining operations. The Colorado Coal Act requires reclamation to occur as contemporaneously as practicable. [(34-33-120(2)(p) and 121(2(j) and Rule 4.13] GCA Proposal; The Division order reclamation to commence immedi- ately. 2. Although Eastside had written the Division on March 19, 1990, that the county special use permit had expired, the Divi- sion recommended to the Board that Eastside's permit renewal be granted and the permit was issued on June 29, 1990. Moreover, the Division was fully aware that the mine continued to conduct activities which constituted surface coal mining operations while it was in temporary cessation status. (See pages 9-10 and Exhib- it 10 of the Alliance's 733 petition.) Enforcement actions are mandatory under Sections 34-33-123(1) and (2) of the Act. To date, the Division has not taken enforcement action on these violations. 1 GCA Proposal: a. The Division take enforcement action immediately on Eastside for operating during temporary cessation. b. The Division institute procedures to independently verify that valid local permits are in effect for all mine facilities and sites. We believe such verification should be done as part of each complete inspection'. 3. At our meeting with you on October 24, you stated that it was the Division's policy not to allow load outs to be added by technical revision. We have learned that on October 31, 1989, Eastside applied for a technical revision (TR --06), and the Divi— sion approved it for a load out located in Rifle, Colorado. In the past two months, Alliance members have contacted the city and learned that the site is zoned highway commercial, which does not include load. outs; city officials expressed surprise that a load out was permitted by the Division and can find no evidence that the city ever gave permission for a load out on this site. In September 1990, the Division proposed to approve removal of the load out by technical revision. The Division's proposal included a notice to the Office of Surface Mining that OSM could request an informal conference. The Alliance reviewed the East— side files, found the letter to OSM, and requested an informal conference by letter on September 27, 1990. You rejected this request by letter dated October 10, 1990, stating the rules did not require an informal conference on technical revisions. CCA Proposal: a. The Division cease immediately its practice of using technical revisions for load outs, important facilities, or activities which affect the amount and type of surface disturb- ance. b. The Division institute procedures to independently verify that valid local permits are in place for mine facilities and sites as requested in 2b above. 4. On April 25, 1990, Alliance members told Mike Long and others on the Division's coal staff that Eastside's permit renew- al application failed to identify fully the financial and legal interests as required by Rule 2.03. Despite the staff's active discouragement of GCA members, the Alliance brought the matter before the Board; the Board agreed with the Alliance and required Eastside to make full disclosure. As you may know, OSM's Applicator—Violator System has flaws and is not complete. For example, Mr. Matthies was an officer of Western Slope Carbon after 1970, but he did not disclose this required information in the New Castle application. When OSM ran the AVS, this information surfaced but did not when the Division ran it. The Alliance found the information in the Division's own records, the 1983 permit for Hawk's Nest that was approved by the Board. Division staff were told of this by Ms. Johnson, but they did not require New Castle to amend its application and, as far as we know, made no check of the Division's records to confirm our finding and correct the entries in the A-V system. Nor did the Division staff check other sources available such as the Nexus system. The New Castle application was approved despite the failure of Mr. Matthies to amend his application with the required information. GCA Proposal: a. The staff be instructed to perform independent verification of applicants' legal and financial interests and to require all applicants to make full public disclosure in the permit applications. Such verification should use information in addition to 'that found in the OSM Applicator -Violator System. b. The staff be instructed in writing on their responsibilities in dealing with citizens including: to inform citizens fully and correctly of their rights, to discuss citizen concerns in a professional, non -adversarial manner, and to avoid actions and words that discourage citizens from exercising their rights. 5. a. Eastside has applied to remove the Rifle load out from its permit area. The current mine permit is not complete because it includes no description and maps of facilities for transporting the coal from the mine site and a description of how the permitted production, 200,000 tons of coal, will enterinter- state commerce. Mines don't produce coal for the fun of it and the basic question of the coal processing and transportation must be answered in all permit applications to ensure that the permit application addresses all required facilities and land disturb- ances that are encompassed in the Act. At our meeting with you on October 24, 1990, you seemed very surprised when Alliance members told you about the company's plans to build a power plant adjacent to the mine. In fact, the company has not comprehen- sively described and disclosed the array of operations contem- plated or required in this five-year permit term nor for the life of mine operations. This failure does not meet the requirements of Section 34-33-111(1)(a) and (e) of the Act and Rule 2.05. b. By letter on May 1, 1990, Eastside requested permission from the Garfield County Commission to load and sell coal, de- claring these activities were necessary to control "fine coal blowing during periods of high winds." We have evidence that the operations at the mine are not sufficiently controlling air and water pollution. The attached photographs show enormous amounts of dust being generated by loading operations at the mine on September 12, 1990. (The company informed the Division it was dropping its temporary cessation status on September 10, 1990.) These photo- graphs also show that the coal stockpile is located very near the 3 Farmer's Irrigation Ditch. This Ditch supplies irrigation and stock drinking water and the cisterns of at least three families living immediately downstream. Eastside has not taken adequate measures to prevent coal and coal dust from entering these water supplies from its mining, stockpiling, loading, and hauling operations. Section 34-33-120(2)(d) of the Act requires opera- tors to stabilize and protect all surface areas to effectively control erosion and air and water pollution and Section 34-33- 111(m) requires permit applications to contain a detailed de- scription of measures to be taken to protect surface and ground water. We strongly question that Eastside's probable hydrologic consequences properly addressed these issues and the effects of all anticipated operations discussed in 5a above. (34-33-110(i) and (1)) c. By letter on August 7, 1990, Eastside again requested permission from the Garfield County Commission to load and sell coal declaring these activities were necessary to control both spontaneous combustion and the blowing of fine coal. By this letter, Eastside again admitted it had not properly handled its coal stockpile and was not complying with section 34-33-120(2)(n) of the Colorado Act. Operators are required to ensure that all materials constituting a fire hazard are handled to prevent sustained combustion. d. As previously stated, the permit is inconsistent with local land use plans and permitting requirements and thus does not comply with Section 34-33-111(h) of the Act. GCA Proposal: The Division conduct a full review of the permit pursuant to 34-33-115(3) of the Colorado Act within 30 days of the receipt of this letter. We look forward to your timely response on these issues and to working with you in their resolution. If you require addi- tional information on these matters, please contact Carolyn Johnson at 777-0557. If she cannot answer your question, she will direct your query to the proper person. Sincerely, in Spangler., oard Member Enclosure: Captioned photographs of Eastside loading and hauling operations on September 12, 1990. c.c. Robert Hagen, OSM Field Director - Albuquerque W. Hord Tipton, OSM Deputy Director - Washington 4 MINED LAND RECLAMATION DIVISION Department of Natural Resources 1313 Sherman St., Fioorn 215 Denver, CO 80203 303 866-3567 FAX: 303 832-8106 February 5, 1990 Garfield County Planning Dept, 109 8th Street Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602 STATE OF COLORADO Roy Romer, Governor Fred R. Banta, Division Director RE: Notice of Proposed Decision to Renew a Valid, Existing Permit for the Eastside Mine (C-84-063) Dear Sir and/or Madam: The Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Division proposes that an application to renew a valid, existing permit to conduct reclamation operations submitted by the Eastside Coal Company for the Eastside Mine be approved. The Eastside operation is located in Garfield County, approximately 4 miles north of Silt, Colorado. The mine is an underground mine, with surface area to be reclaimed approximately 13 acres in Township 5S, Range 92W, Section 24, and portions of Township 5S, Range 91W, Section 19. This proposed approval decision is based on a finding that the proposed reclamation will comply with all requirements of the Colorado Surface Coal Mining Reclamation Act, C.R.S. 34-33-101, et seq., and the regulations promulgated thereunder. Copies of the proposed decision including stipulations, are on file for public inspection at the Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Division, Room 215, Centennial Building, 1313 Sherman Street, Denver, Colorado 80203 and at the County Clerk's Office in Garfield County, 109 8th Street, Suite 200, Glenwood Springs, Colorado. Persons with an interest that may be adversely affected by the proposed decision may request a formal hearing before the Mined Land Reclamation Board on the proposed decision. Such request must be made within thirty (30) days of the initial publication of this notice, must be in writing, and must state with reasonable specificity the reasons for the request and the objections to the proposed decision. Sincerely, 6a:-/ William B. Crick Reclamation Specialist WBC/scg 3742F STATE OF COLORADO COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH 4210 East 11th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80220-3716 PhJr�tune U3L ,201v��`J,,33U Telefax: (303) 322-9076 (Main Building/Denver) (303) 320-1529 (Ptarmigan Place/Denver) (103) 248-7198 (Grand )unction Regional Office) Eastside Coal. Company, Inc. Eastside Mine Attn: Stephen Self, General Manager P.O. Box 161 Silt, CO 81652 JUN 2 2 1990 GA rILLu U(iUNTi Y RE: Change in Permit Number Eastside Coal Company, Inc. Facility Number COG -850019 (formerly COG -400005) Garfield County Dear Mr. Self: Roy Romer Governor Thomas M. Vernon, ,M.D. Executive Director The Division has determined that the General Permit for coal mining discharge operations, facility number COG -400000 is required to be assigned to the facility number COG -850000. Thus, the existing facility number has been changed. Operations covered by general permits are assigned facility numbers in lieu of permit numbers. Your operation is now assigned facility number COG -850019. All future correspondence should reference this number. Enclosed are the corrected pages of your permit. Please place the enclosed pages in your permit and discard the original pages. Please contact this office if you have any questions. Sincerely, touann Gaines Staff Assistant Permits and Enforcement Section Water Quality Control Division cc: Permits Section, Environmental Protection Agency Local Health Department Stan May, Field Support Section, WQCD Dick Bowman, D.E., Field Support Section, WQCD Connie Moreno, Administration Section, WQCD Sandy Marek, Permits and Enforcement Section, WQCD MS -3 LG/dc Enclosures COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH Water Quality Control Division 4210 East lith Avenue Denver, Colorado 80220 AMENDMENT NO. 1 CERTIFICATION EASTSIDE COAL COMPANY INC. EASTSIDE MINE PERMIT NO. COG -850019 (formerly COG -400005) GARFIELD COUNTY FACILITY TYPE: Coal Mining (surface runoff only) - Amendment #1 FEE CATEGORY: Category 07, Sub -category 4 - General Permits, Coal mining - Current fee $340/year per CRS 25-8-502 SIC NO.: 1211 LOCATION: LEGAL & LOCAL CONTACT: RECEIVING WATERS: In the NE 1/4 and SE 1/4, Section 24, T5S, R92W, & R91W, approximately 3.5 miles north of Silt, CO. Stephen Self General Manager Eastside Coal Company Inc. P.O. Box 161 Silt, Colorado 81652 (303)+876-2944 Harvey Gap Creek, tributary to the Farmers Irrigation Company Ditch and/or the Colorado River SUB -BASIN, SEGMENT: Lower Colorado River, Segment 4 CLASSIFICATION: Recreation, Class 2 Aquatic Life, Class 2 (Cold) Agricultural Use DESIGN CAPACITY: Ponds are designed to contain the 10 -year, 24-hour precipitation event. 10 -YR, 24 -HR EQUIVALENT VOLUME: 1.635 cubic feet (12,230 gallons) Amended 02/21/89 Corrected 06/19/90 Permit No. COG -850000 Facility No. COG -850019 CDPS GENERAL PERMIT FOR COAL MINING FACILITIES (SURFACE RUNOFF ONLY) AUTHORIZATION TO DISCHARGE UNDER THE COLORADO DISCHARGE PERMIT SYSTEM In compliance with the provisions of the Colorado Water Quality Control Act (25-8-101 et. seq., CRS, 1973 as amended), facilities engaged in mining and processing of coal are authorized to discharge surface runoff from approved locations throughout the State of Colorado to specified waters of the State. Such discharges shall be in accordance with conditions of this permit. This permit specifically authorizes the Eastside Coal company, Inc. to discharge from facilities identified as the Eastside Mine, in the NE 1/4 & SE 1/4 of Section 24, T5S, R92W & R91W approximately 3.5 miles north of Silt, CO. to Harvey Gap Creek; tributary to the Farmers Irrigation Company Ditch and the Colorado River. as of this date January 11, 1989 This permit and the authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight, June 30, 1992. Signed this 8th day of March, 1988 COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH CERTIFIED LETTER NOW 579 s; Paul Ferraro, Director SIGNED�� Water Quality Control Division D DA ! !E SII NED This facility permit contains 25 pages. EFFECTIVE DATE OE . r, i. PERMIT /tiles Corrected 06/19/90 STATE OF COLORADO MINED LAND RECLAMATION DIVISION Department of Natural Resources 1\ 1313 Sherman Si, Room 215 Denver, CO 80203 303 866-3567 FAX: 303 832-8106 July 3, 1990 Garfield County Commissioners 109 8th Street Suite 200 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 Dear County Commissioners: tr,.- JUL .0 91990 {:tlliric Lu . . COUNTY .0414MiSSIGl f S Roy Romer, Governor Fred R. Banta, Division Director The Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Division renewed Mining Permit No. C-84-063 on June 29, 1990 allowing coal mining and reclamation operations at the Eastside Mine under the provisions of the Colorado Surface Coal Mining. Reclamation Act of 1979. The permit was issued to Eastside Coal Co Inc, P.O. Box 161, Silt, CO 81652, (303) 876-2944, for their mining operation located in portions of Section 24, Township 5 South, Range 92 West, and Section 19, Township 5 South, Range 91 West in Garfield County. Copies of the proposed decision and permit are available at the Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Division, Centennial Building, Room 215, 1313 Sherman Street, Denver, Colorado 80203, (303) 866-3567. Sincerely, William B. Crick Reclamation Specialist 817 6G EVALUATION OF COUNTY ROADS FOR EASTSIDE COAL COMPANY, INC. BY CLIFFS ENGINEERING, INC. Rifle, Colorado October 1, 1984 Cliffs Engineering, Inc. • RIFLE, COLORADO 81650 INTRODUCTION METHODOLOGY DESIGN FACTORS RESULTS TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES PAGE NO. 1 4 6 9 BORING LOCATIONS 2 APPENDICES APPENDIX A APPENDIX B Cliffs Engineering, Inc. (+) Lincoln DeVore Report Calculation Sheets RIFLE, COLORADO 81650 INTRODUCTION This study evaluates the adequacy of parts of existing Garfield County Roads 227, 233 and 237 to carry haulage truck traffic by Eastside Coal Company as projected in their request for a Special Use Permit. The Eastside Coal Mine is located just off County Road 237 south of Harvey Gap in Garfield County. The proposed coal haulage route would be south on County Road 237 to County Road 233; thence west on 233 to County Road 227; thence south on 227 to State Highway 6 & 24 (see Figure 1). The haul would then continue east on 6 & 24 to a railroad loading station; however, for the purpose of this study it is assumed that 6 & 24 is adequate to carry the truck traffic. The mine production rate would vary during the proposed 5 -year production build-up and market development stage with the maximum production rate during that period projected to be 120,000 tons per year (TPY). That rate is assumed to be constant throughout the 5 years of this study. The basic haulage unit will be six -axle, bottom -dump trucks with a gross vehicle weight of 80,000 pounds, an axle load of 18,000 pounds and a payload of 25 tons. The effect of reducing the payload is considered in this study. Cliffs Engineering, Inc, RIFLE, COLORADO 81650 FIGURE 1 - 2 0 boring locations The evaluation analyses only the adequacy of the existing roadbed to carry the existing and proposed Eastside Coal Mine haulage traffic. No evaluation is made of road alignment or other factors which may effect road suitability. Lincoln-DeVore, a local soils testing firm, was subcontracted to perform the subsurface soils analysis. A copy of their report is included as Appendix A to this report. Cliffs Engineering, Inc. - 3 - RIFLE, COLORA00 81650 METHODOLOGY The evaluation was based on the "California Roadbed Design Method" which is a commonly accepted design standard and one which is used by the Colorado Department of Highways. The method uses three main factors or variables: 1) traffic, measured in equivalent wheel loads; 2) soil resistance or R-va]ue as determined by the Hveem-Carmany method and 3) strength of materials as developed in laboratories and road tests. The evaluation of an existing roadbed is the reverse of the design process. The Road Design Manual published by the County Road Association of Michigan was used. Using the R -value and gravel equivalent (GE) determined by Lincoln-DeVore and the average daily traffic (ADT), the following analysis was made: 1. Using the R -value and the GE value, determine the allowable traffic index (TI) from the Structural Design Chart for Flexible Pavement or by solving the equation - GE = 0.0032 (TI)(100-R) 2. Convert allowable TI to allowable design period Equivalent Wheel load (EWL) using the table in the design manual or the equation - TI = 6.7 (EWL) 0.119 106 Cliffs Engineering, Inc. -4- RIFLE, COLORADO 81650 3. Calculate allowable EWL by dividing allowable design period EWL by the design period in years. 4. Determine existing EWL from the measured average daily traffic (ADT) and average daily truck traffic (ADTT) using the table of EWL constants in the design manual. 5. Compare actual EWL value to allowable EWL value to determine roadbed adequacy and amount of available ADTT capacity, if any, that the existing road has. 6. Compare the amount of available ADTT capacity from step number 5 with the proposed ADTT by Eastside Coal Mine. The above method of analysis was made for three separate roadbed conditions determined by the Lincoln-DeVore investigation to exist on the county roads being studied. Cliffs Engineering, Inc. - 5 - RIFLE, COLORADO 81650 DESIGN FACTORS Following is a summary of the design factors, both measured and assumed, which were used in the evaluation process. A. TRAFFIC VOLUME The existing traffic volume was measured on two separate occasions in the summer of 1984. The dates and traffic counts are as follows: Dates Traffic Count ADT 6/18/34 - 6/25/84 3,930 561 7/11/84 - 7/12/84 1,045 522 TOTAL -BOTH PERIODS 4,975 553 A summer traffic factor of 1.5 was approved by Mr. Lenard Bowlby as a reasonable figure for the higher than normal summer traffic on this roadway because it serves Harvey Gap and the White River National Forest. Therefore, the ADT number used in the analysis is 553: 1.5 or 369. The ADTT was approved by Mr. Bowlby at 5 based on a visual count made by the Eastside Coal staff. Cliffs Engineering, Inc. - 6 - RIFLE, COLORADO 81650 The proposed haulage truck traffic to be imposed by Eastside Coal during the initial 5 years of operation is based on a production rate of 120,000 TAY and a 25 -ton -per -load truck capacity. The ADTT is, therefore, 13 round trips per day. B. SOIL RESISTANCE (R -Value) The Hveem-Carmany R -value was determined from soil borings taken at seven locations along the proposed haul route. Three distinct soil types were encountered and an R -value was determined for each: 1) soil type No. 1, found in boring No. 7 and classified as a clayey gravel , has an R -value of 45, 2) soil type No. 2, found in borings 4, 5 and 6 and classified as a lean clay, has an R -value of 9, 3) soil type No. 3, found in borings 1, 2 and 3 and classified as very nearly a silty clay, also has an R -value of 9. C. GRAVEL EQUIVALENT (G.E.) The amount of gravel sub -base varied over the length of the road but for the purpose of analysis they were grouped into three cases: 1) case No. 1 applies to borings 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 for which an average base -course thickness of 6 inches was used, 2) case No. 2 was used for soil boring 4 where 18 inches of base -course was encountered, 3) case No. 3 was used for soil boring 7 using 9 inches of base -course. Cliffs Engineering, Inc, -7- RIFLE, COLORADO 81650 In all cases the chip and seal surface was assumed to contribute nothing to the load-bearing capacity. D. DESIGN PERIOD A design period of 5 years was chosen to coincide with the suggested period of production buildup and market development. A re-evaluation of conditions would be made at that time. CliffsEngineering, Inc -8- RIFLE, COLORADO 61650 RESULTS The results of the roadbed evaluation for those sections of Garfield County Roads 227, 233 and 237, which have been proposed by Eastside Coal Company as a haulage route for mine production, is as follows: Case 1 Those sections of roadbed represented by borings 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 (see Lincoln-DeVore report), which have a sub -base soil with an R -value of 9 and have a gravel base course averaging 6 inches in thickness, are inadequate to carry the existing traffic without incurring damage over the design period. Some sections of this roadway currently show wheel rutting and cracking but, in general, the road is in fair to good condition. Case 2 The section of County Road 237 at soil boring 4 is adequate to carry both existing and proposed traffic according to the analysis. The 18 inches of gravel base is contaminated, however, and the drainage is very poor. The roadbed is, therefore, susceptible to frost -heave and deterioration during the spring. Unless the drainage is improved the analysis may be misleading in projecting an adequate load carrying capacity. Case 3 - The Section of County Road 237 at soil boring 7, which is in the Harvey Gap area, has a much better sub -base soil with an R --value of 45. It is, none -the -less, not entirely adequate to carry the existing traffic over the duration of the design period based on the analysis. Cliffs Engineering, Inc. - 9 - RIFLE, COLORADO 81650 A roadbed design was made of the two cases above which indicated an inadequate existing condition. The design was made for both the existing traffic volume and the proposed traffic volume. In all cases, a chip and seal surface was assumed and given no load bearing equivalent. The results are as follows: Case 1 - Using the existing sub -base soil, with an R -value of of the gravel base course required to meet existing traffic conditions would be 16 -inches thick. the additional truck traffic proposed by Eastside Coal Company an additional 2 inches, or a total gravel thickness of 18 inches, would be required. To provide for Case 3 - The required gravel thickness for this road section, which has an R -value of 45 is 10 inches to meet existing traffic loads and 11 inches to meet the proposed traffic loads. The calculations supporting the results given in this section are included as Appendix 3 to this report. Cliffs ginee. g, Inc. - 10 - RIFLE, COLORADO 81650 EXISTING CONDITIONS AND HVEEM-CARMANY R VALUES FOR HARVEY GAP ROAD RIFLE, COLORADO Prepared by LINCOLN-DeVORE TESTING LABORATORY, INC. 1441 Motor Street Grand Junction, CO 81505 303-242-8968 f f r f 1 1 1 1 Lincoln DeVore 1441 Motor Grand Junction, Colo 81501 (303) 242-8968 Cleveland Cliff Engineering P.O. Box 1211 Rifle, CO 81650 Attr] : Paul Bassone July 23, 1984 Re: File No. 52291J Existing Conditions and Hveem-Carmany R Values for Harvey Gap Road Rifle, Colorado Dear Mr. Bussone: 9 At your request, we have drilled, sampled, and tested the seven test borings at the above referenced site. Borings, Laboratory Tests and Results: Seven (7) test borings were drilled along Harvey Gap Road as shown on the attached Test Boring Location Diagram. The seven test borings were drilled in locations that were previously located by personnel of Cleveland Cliff Engineering. All test borings were drilled with a power -driven, continuous auger drill. Samples were obtained by bulk methods. The Hveem-Carmanv method was used to determine the soil support characteristics. Three soil types were encountered along the road abutment. Soil Type No. 1 classified as a Clayey Gravel (GC). The gravel material was highly variable in size with the lean clay as the matrix material. The pavement design values are as follows: R = 45 Expansion a 300 psi = 8.18 Displacement @ 300 psi = 3.66 Soil Type No. 2 classified as a Lean Clay (CL). The pavement design values are as follows: Colorado Springs, Colorado R = 9 Expansion @ 300 psi = 0.50 Displacement @ 300 psi = 4.78 Pueblo, Colorado Crond JJnUion, CJIoraj.1 Glenwood $pringa, Colorado Evoniton, Wyomi Cleveland Cliff Engineering Attn: Paul Bassone -7 Existing Conditions and Hveem-Carmany R Values for Harvey Gap Road Rifle, Colorado July 23, 1984 Pane - 2 - High displacement over 4.50 indicates that soil may be unstable unless confined. Soil Type No. 3 classified as a Lean Clay (CL). This material is very silty and very close to a ML/CL classification. The pavement design values are as follows: R = 9 Expansion @ 300 psi = 0 Displacement @ 300 psi = 4.35 Existing Conditions at Test Boring Locations: Test Boring No. 1 has 11 inches of chip and seal over 6 inches of a road base material. The sub -base material is Soil Type No. 3. The sub -base was moist at the time of drilling. The road appears to be in good condition with some cracking perpen- dicular to the roadway. Surface drainage is good with borrow ditches. Test Boring :.o. 2 has 1 inch of chip and seal over 5 inches of a road base material. The sub -base material is Soil Type No. 3. The sub -base was saturated at the time of drilling. There is cracking at the shoulders of the road and wheel rutting. Test 3oring No. 3 has 2 inches of chip and seal over 8 inches of a road base material. The sub -base material is Soil Type No. 3. The sub -base material is moist and firm at the time of drilling. The road appears to be in good condition with some cracking at the shoulders and slight cracks in the center of the chip and seal. Drainage is fair at this location. Test Boring No. 4 has 11 inches of chip and seal over 18 inches of a base material. The base material is very contaminated. The sub -base material was saturated with some cobble size material located at about 42 feet. The sub -base material is Soil Type No. 2. The roadway is wheel rutted with some crack- ing. Drainage is very poor. Cattail marshes are located on each side of the roadway. Free water was encountered at 29 inches below the surface. Test Boring No. 5 has 11 inches of chip and seal over 4 inches of a sandstone base material. The sub -base material was moist and soft at the time of drilling. The sub -base material is Soil Type No. 2. The roadway is wheel rutted and some alligator cracking is evident. Cleveland Cliff Engineering Attn: Paul Bassone Existing Conditions and Hveem-Carmany R Values for Harvey Gap Road Rifle, Colorado July 23, 1984 Page - 3 - Test Boring No. 6 has 1 inch of chip and seal over no base material. The sub -base material was moist and firm. The sub- base materials is Soil Type No. 2. The roadway appears to be in fair shape. Drainage is fair to poor in this area. Test Boring No. 7 has 1 inch of chip and seal over 9 inches of a base material. The sub -base material was dry to damp. In the areas of fill, there appears to be some sliding on the existing slopes. The sub -base material is Soil Type No. 1. Parent rock appears to be a siltstone-sandstone mix. Some boulders are present in the fills. The road surface has some alligator cracking. The drainage is fair to good. This report is intended to identify general soil conditions on the site, as requested. Seven test borings drilled along approxi- mately 51 miles of Harvey Gap Road can only be used as an over- view of the soil conditions and not for site specific design purposes. Chip and seal has no R value as such. It's crimary function is to seal the base material from surface water infiltration. If we can be of any further assistance in evaluating the exist- ing pavement structural sections, or any other aspects of the site, please feel free to contact us. Respectfully submitted, LINCOLN-DeVORE TESTING LABORATORY, INC. By:6.7 By: C.Michael Best 2;gineering chnician mac%✓�t1�1.&--{{�-tr.�� E gene T. Lohman Western Slope Manager CMB:EFL/jb i_ �1 7 2 • i 6]07 gdrr [t. W f - _ • / ' 5899 t• Ji • 1 + V 1 ;. ='L• �� `�V ._�— �,---a7•-•----------31(�J �1-t'�l/ear Fes. C' - -, f 1}` r. 5,02-310 --G +.7A NDE _-- r ,o-\l�J ,-..-r,._---...,_:„.. I. Es; eRN •,A,L�r 1 i \ COL0I.4D0 -- v.-_- HAN▪ CE s" p� -rte 1 7 �/' '•, may/ + ���~ �---- - - -~• w } \� \� yl ° ,} Ir,- lu . � '\: we Cate ;?., r _ iti SI IF f !I' y'1� \=---'\_ • o- : ...--. j •r` 1'T - '.. - } r� ;r\. � ,-..- 72,3-. /30,--),7g L O C C -r 7/0%7 a r -c7117 i Sca/e Harvey 60/0 /road •5/1/1, CO/Ora c/O 5229/ J LD ENGINEERS GEOLOGISTS COLORADO: COLORADO SPRINGS GRAND JUNCTION , PUEBLO , GLENWOOD SPRINGS WYOMING: EVANSTON 1 i SOILS DESCRIPTIONS: 57 •{r9r.k SJSG5 peScRRPTIQN Topsoil 00000 d'oo:o' 0:0;0:0; :0:0.00 0000 0000 o 000 0000 0o 10% Off/ Man-mode Fill GW Well-groded Gravel GP Poorly -graded Gravel GM Silty Grovel GC Clayey Gravel SW Well -graded Sand SP Poorly -graded Sond SM Silty Sand SC Clayey Sand ML Low -plasticity SiIt CL Law -plasticity Clay OL Low -plasticity Organic Silt and Clay MH High -plasticity Silt CH 7 CH q 0 0 O a 00 0 0 0-0(0,0 00 coo 001o{P0 0 0 0 000 0000 0 P Pt GW/GM GW/GC GP/GM GP/GC GM/GC GC/GM SW/SM SW/SC SP/SM SP/SC SM/SC SC/SM Clayey Sand, Silty CL/ML Silly Clay High -plasticity Clay High -plasticity Organic Clay Peat. Well- graded Grave Silty Well -graded Gravel, Clayey Poorly -graded Grave Silty Poorly -graded Gravel Clayey Silty Gravel, Clayey Clayey Grovel, Silty Well - graded Sand, Silty Well- graded Sand, Clayey Poorly -graded Sand, Silty Poorly- graded Sand, Clayey Silty Sand, Clayey ROCK DESCRIPTIONS: >+�s� pCSCRfPrlgllr xxx xxx SEOwENTARY ROCq CONGLOMERATE SANDSTONE SILTSTONE SHALE CLAYSTONE COAL LIMESTONE DOLOMITE MARLSTONE GYPSUM Other Sedimentary vsKecus Rc-�cs II R� (� GRANITIC ROCKS + + + + �- • GABBRO DIORITIC ROCKS : 00 b..0- RHYOLITE ANDESITE BASALT TUFF & ASH Rocks FLOWS BRECCIA & Other Voiccnics Cther Igneous Rocks uE r#scr+a,+'c Roc,; GNEISS SCHIST PHYLLI TE SLATE METAQUARTZITE MARBLE HORNFELS SERPENTINE Other Metamorphic Racks SYMBOLS a NOTES: sYA/Bo 04-SCRipr,ON 9/12 Standard penetration drive Numbers indicate 9 blows to drive the spoon 12' into ground. ST 2— l/2" Shelby thin wall sample 1.1.10 Natural Moisture Content Wx Weathered Material Free water table Y0Natural dry density T.B. - Disturbed Bulk Sample 0 Soil type related to samples in report Top cf formation Test Boring Location Test Pit Locct:an r—+'. ; Seismic or Resistivity Station. Lineation indicctes approx. length a orientation of spread (S = Seismic , R= Resistivity ) Standard Penetration Drives are made by driving a standard La" split spoon sompfer into the ground by dropping a tea ib, weight 30". ASTM test des. D-1586. Samples rnoy be bulk , standard split spoon ( both disturbed) or 2-I/2" I. D. than wall ("undisturbed ") Shelby tube samples. See log for type. The boring logs show subsurface conditions at the dotes and locations shown ,and it is not warranted that they are representative of subsurface conditions of other locations and times. /1:5 LINCOLN (leVORE TESTING LABORATORY COLORADO. Colorado Springs, Pueblo, Grern,00d Sp ^gs, Montrose, Gunnison, Grund Junction.— WYO.— Rock Springs EXPLANATION OF BOREHOLE LOGS AND LOCATION DIAGRAMS r i i 1 TEST HOLE No. ELEVATION /2 24 36 — 60 Aip 1 Seto/ Job No. LD 5129/-J 2 6" o{ /341sI Jh47/Crro/ I44.7 Clay (CL) Sod lype No. 3 Z/ brown, -11 /"c/1;/0er S6o/ t �� o { Oa /97a/e-,a/_,A i Y r, L e4r7 C/qy (CL) s,/fy, so,//;y,,e No. ,,3, ,so /utolei, coma= 22.72; -r- /2H 24H r 36— 60— DRILLING LOGS LINCOLN DeVORE ENGINEERS. GEOLOGISTS COLORADO: COLORADO SPRINGS , � GRAND JUNCTION , PUEBLO , GLENWOOD SPRINGS WYOMING: EVANSTON TEST HOLE NO ELEVATION 3 Job No. LD 522,9/-J 4 —/2 21 — .�6 60 u z w � �C�'//� 4* Seo/ 8 "0 1r %jaJC'/7Ia/t!/a jar Leon C/4y (CZ) sib/ n!0/3f {r.n, Sc// Typc* 3ywa : /7 06 %' /IJJ . %J -. »i / i r i 1 1 -r t /O rJ 03e Ma eri / Very •ila.-,;,,q;Led Free wailer eon C /ay (CZ) sod/ Type 4'0.2) SQ/crated, co46/c size "yr a/G Pe/ a.I a7' t T 24- 8 H /Z0— DRILLING LOGS d LINCOLN DeVORE ENGINEERS • GEOLOGISTS COLORADO: COLORADO SPRINGS r-' GRAND JUNCTION , PUEBLO , GLENW00D SPRINGS WYOMING' EVANSTON TEST HOLE NO. .r ELEVATION —/2 —z¢ —36 —43 —60 a_ w LenTIC/oy (CL) So/7 / y,o e Ala.2) 5 of/, Cho = 2/, '70 Jab Na• LD ,5,42,2,2/-J 6 1 i I Leon C/ay (CZ) 60,/ /ype A/02, grow = /1- 57 24-- 3e-- 4B 60--I DRILLING LOGS LINCOLN DeVORE ENGINEERS GEOLOGISTS COLORADO: COLORADO SPRINGS , GRAND JUNCTION , PUEBLO , GLENWOOD SPRINGS WYOMING: EVANSTON • TEST HOLE No. 7 ELEVATION Job No. LD .5229/-X -/� -2¢ —60 / "C4,ro l Seal 9 4%3 ,� Type rrJal/eria� Clayey 6rdLe/j (GC), q,ap ra iS l7a/iVQ JQ,7IJ/•tee /?7a/er,,., w6= 4.4r, H----71156114 is 0 0 0 lr� Clayey Grave 6(601..° anyu/cr', So/./ Type i y ,v,. / / t 60 —+ DRILLING LOGS LINCOLN DeVORE ENGINEERS • GEOLOGISTS COLORADO: COLORADO SPRINGS , GRAND JUNCTION , PUEBLO , GLENWOOD SPRINGS WYOMING: EVANSTON i 1 r 1 Soil Sample /�°/1 C43.1/(CZ) SUMMARY SHEET Test No. 5229/-3- NpPvey Oa,p Rand Location S.//f, Ca/d,-ado Date 7 - l/ -81 - Boring No. Depth Sample No -5W/ Ty.dc �- Test by e6-. f Natural Water Content (w) °, In Place Density (To) pcf Specific Gravity (Gs) ,SIEVE ANALYSIS: Sieve No. % Passing 1 Plastic Limit P.L .24•/4 % Liquid Limit L. L 3/._89 0/0 Plasticity index P.1 //. 7S % "�1/2" Shrinkage Limit % 3/4" How Index l/2 Shrinkage Rctio °! 4 /OD. D Volumetric Change 10 99.a Linecl Shrinkage °�3 9 20 9. 2 ,t/i0IST LJ E DENSITY: ASTM METHOD 0(...:ir. urn iv'aisture Content - wo % 40 Q6'. 100 89.6 200 7y / HYDROMETER ANALYSIS:S.`%eel Grain size (mm) tv'x: i rnum Dry Density -,'d _loci C.:li;ornia bearing Patio (av)_% S'.ve i l • Days oio ogoinst a, Wo gain. % BEARING: House! Penetrometer (av) psf Unconiine:i Cornpresion (qu) psf . Plate Bering: psf IncHes Seitlemert Consolidation S; under psf PERMEABILIPr': K (::t 20°C) Void Ratio Sul fates ppm, SOIL ANALYSIS LINCOLN-DeVORE TESTING LABORATORY COLORADO SPRINGS, COLORADO Soil Sample L eon C>ay (CL) SUMMARY SHEET Test No, 52.E 9i -.r Na f Vey Gap Road Location s, %f- Co/oraeJ, aile 7-/y-8¢ Boring No. Depth Sample No. -Sai/ 7Y0s 3 Test by fest Natural Water Content (w) °o In Place Density (To) pcf Specific Gravity (Gs) SIEVE ANALYSIS: Sieve No. % Passing 1„Zig” PIatic Limit P.L. /,9. '¢ % Liquid Limit L. L ,2 70 Plasticity Index P.I. 7 _ °io Shrinkage limito 3/4" Flow Index 1/211 Shrinkage Ratio °o 4dao D Volumetric Change % 10 99.7 Lineal Sbrinkaae 20 99.3 +':IOISTUR E DENSITY: ASTM METHOD _�tif it::um Moisture Content - w9 % 40 e et. 7 100 9 S 8 200 89. 8 HYDROMETER ANALYSIS: Grain size (mm) •-;, Mc:x;mur:i D'ry Density -7-(--____pcf California Bearing Ratio (av)_ °, Swell:_ Days °-o Sw»il Nairat ; \rVo gain_ % BEARING: , Houser Penetrometer (cv) _psf Unconfined Compression (au) psf Flare Eecrino: psf IncHes Settlement ConscI'dation % under psf PER MEABILIPr': K H. 20°C) Void Ratio Sulfates ppm. SOIL ANALYSIS LINCOLN-DeVORE TESTING LABORATORY COLORADO SPRINGS, COLORADO 11. Soil Sample C/ayey 6 e/ (GC) Test No. �2.23/-f , Havey Go,o Road Project &•//, C,,/oroso Sample Location Tes/ /3.2,-///9 T 100 90 H 80 601 50 40 30 a 20 Date 7-//- 84 Test by .7e,5 GRAVEL SAND SILT TO CLAY Coarse 1 Fine C Medium Fine Nonplastic to Plastic 70\_. L 4-1 I I 1—t 17 1 -11 10 .� o' I T E 100 I 1 1 1.0 f I D,ameF.er- (ren j1 0 .u01 11/2" 4'" 4#4 410 ='20 MO 41GO #200 - Sieve No. Sample No, S0/1 7V,vi ! Specific Gravity Moisture Content Effective Size 9.437. Cu Cc Fineness Modulus L.L.25.71 BEARING psf GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS Sieve Size % Passing /00.0 2" 57.5- 57 3-- 53. 6 3/,.. 46.6 yz " 4,5.4 3/s" .yc i p 4 36. D /0 324 20 go. 6 40 2 3. /ce 22.9 .200 /8.4 Sulfutes ppm LINCOLN--DeVORE TESTING LABORATORY COLORADO SPRINGS, COLORADO APPENDIX B CLIENT: PROJECT: Cc �t� Cliffs Engineering, Inc. r-' PREPARED BY: PS �J/ DATE. 9.7_p-% `I PAGE OF ■■E■EM■■Mn®■■■■■■■■■■■■■MMMN■E ■E■EM imm ■n�� ■�fl r• f��� - �' .. � , z ^ ■nn■■■E■■■■■■■■■■ T1 - ■MMM■MMMM■■■EMM■■■■EEMI ■■■ ■■■■n■■■■■■■■■■■■ MEM ■■■■E■■■■■■■■ : ■■M■■I■IMM Eli ■ - .,1 ,- I 4'.-,. 1.51 Y 01C" . ,M■ , 0 Mill MEM MIME ■ 4A-A� -�'p ; \- t x to 5.Q - Mill ■MM■M =NM ■ ��--- --, 1/M1MI■ � ■■N■ ■■■■ N T-.3,G:^„z:1 .-ii,1 k - musiggaussannia 7c �WEI■■1 11111•111 • � 1 T - - -1 -- 11__•1111111111U1111 Ell MI • ; ,..,....,,..,,..,, 3 ,1 � 11 MEM NM ■■ E■ ■ ��� t ) r, `' - 'Ewa ■M 1-,1-..., 11.1______11.1MMIM 1111111•111111= ■■MIM■EM■=El milINNII N a■■I■■I■■,_,,,,, MRI■ M■■�M■MEM■■ n■■■■■�n . Ell 1.11.1111■ ■MMM■. r v .A._'li 0,_.. .,,,,3c; _- ji i -...:_r ) 7 I i � I MN ; {'1 a_ C .� c-77 ‘ D 1 1 1 1 1 I� ` i _ - ■ ■■ 'T I .--IL. T- __ -Lir-1-2_1- - CLIENT: Ec.t. OE( e.n Cliffs Engineering, Inc. r3 PREPARED BY: ?ter= DATE' a"-)-1-8 PROJECT' PAGE ? OF 3 ■n■ ■■ TEMEEMEMEIESEEM■■■!■ ■■■■■■■■■■■ MIMES! ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■N■■■■■■■■■11•1111ESIMEREMPAINSI E.. Mill 4., MIERINEarillao■ MEM • s ■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■ E■EC!■EE■ ■■■ ■ III MIMI Q•C.f , {+ .:. r. .',-, .y 7 i MEE ■ (7),11:3t,•. („Ip . H ". F MIMI ti Trl , r .. `^'rErrNINIMMIII i I! I i IMEM ■■■ ■E■ ■MI ■ yam. 1• - MIMMI -1 1 ' I• 1-. -- r f ` E FM '-'",n/.,if )n �. i -re__ pi0sI ,I, ,r, , ;K'i.6 Q I ■ i 1 7 , ■■ ry i; ""7"'''-r'.I I ; ! F , 1 I Ili I(i , 1`— ■ I 1 1'I ■■■ _ Cliffs Engineering, Inc. CLIENT: ECA 5 S) C] .1) PROJECT' -C7 Vrl T- PREPARED BY: PS \a", c. -1 DATE• 5-2!`t"'4 PAGE -3 OF ■ MIEMEMEEMla EMMEMEME■ ■■RME■■■■■■■■■■■n■■ ■■ ■ ■■•_■■■■ uMM■M ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■N■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■rra©o■■■ ■■■m■■o■■ommuni � miummom Num um = ■■■■ ■■■■■ 1I � ■�■■■■■■■■■■ _ EEEMEMEM =MI ■ 1 j I j 1 1 i 1 MIME. 1 jj I i I I --- I I a y . I Ai B�K,�S EASTSIDE COAL COMPANY, INC. P.O. Box 161 Silt, Colorado 81652 (303) 876-2944 July 13, 1990 Mark Bean, Director of Planning Department of Development/Planning 109 8th Street Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Dear Mr. Bean: Enclosedis the second quarter report for 1990 as required by the Special Use Permit stipulations of the Eastside Mine. Sincerely, Linda Limbach Eastside Coal Company, Inc. Enclosure ��{ COUNTY RE: Special Use Permit Quarterly Monitoring Report REPORT TO: Department of Development/Planning Division FROM: Eastside Coal Company, Inc. DATE: July 13, 1990 - 0- Number of moving violation citations and accidents issued to or involving Eastside Coal drivers while hauling coal, if any. - 0- Number of deer killed by Eastside Coal truck driver, if any. 0.067 Number of loads of coal hauled per day on a monthly average. 4,840 The amount of coal presently stockpiled at the mine site. 159 tonsThe amount of coal shipped. The number of employees, by place of residence and length of residence: Number Residence 3 Silt, Colorado Length of Residence 7, 18, 30 years EASTSIDE COAL COMPANY, INC. P. 0. Box 161 Silt, Colorado 81652 May 9, 1990 Mark Bean, Director of Planning Department of Development /Planning 109 8th Street Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Dear Mr. Bean: Enclosed is the first quarter report for 1990 as required by the Special Use Permit stipulations of the Eastside Mine. Sincerely, Linda Limbach Eastside Coal Company, Inc. Enclosure RE: Special Use Permit Quarterly Monitoring Report REPORT TO: Department of Development/Planning Division FROM: Eastside Coal Company, Inc. DATE: May 9, 1990 0 Number of moving violation citations and accidents issued to or involving Eastside Coal drivers while hauling coal, if any. -0- Number of deer killed by Eastside Coal truck driver, if any. 0.39 Number of loads of coal hauled per day on a monthly average. 4500 The amount of coal presently stockpiled at the mine site. 891.17 The amount of co61 shipped. The number of employees, by place of residence and length of residence: Number Residence Length of Residence 2 Glenwood Springs 53, 34 years 1 New Castle 1.5 years 1 Carbondale 10 years 1 Rifle 28 years f 6 Silt 18, 30, 18, 12, 7, 18 years EASTSIDE COAL COMPANY, INC. P, 0. Box 161 Silt, Colorado 81652 {303) 876-2944 January 9, 1990 Mark Bean, Director of Planning Department of Development/Planning 109 8th Street Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Dear Bean: Enclosed is the fourthquarter report for 1989 as required by the Special Use Permit stipulations of the Eastside Mine. Sincerely, f; Linda Taylor Eastside Coal Company, Inc. Enclosure r' SIN 12 igga tutirlr 1�.� ' RE: Special Use Permit Quarterly Monitoring Report REPORT TO: Department of Development/Planning Division FROM: Eastside Coal Company, Inc. DATE: January 9, 1990 0 Number of moving violation citations and accidents issued to or involving Eastside Coal drivers while hauling coal, if any. 0 Number of deer killed by Eastside Coal truck driver, if any. .86 Number of loads of coal hauled per day on a monthly average. 2000 Tons The amount of coal presently stockpiled at the mine site. 1372.18 The amount of coal shipped. The number of employees, by place of residence and length of residence: Number Residence Length of Residence 2 Glenwood Springs 87 Years 1 New Castle 1 Year 6 Months 6 .Silt 85 Years 2 Months 1 f Rifle 28 Years 1 Carbondale 10 Years November 2, 1989 EASTSIDE COAL COMPANY, INC. P. 0. Box 161 Silt, Colorado 81652 (303) 876-2944 Mark Bean, Director of Planning Department of Development/Planning 109 8th Street Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Dear Mr. Bean: Enclosed is the third quarter report for 1989 as required by the Special Use Permit stipulations of the Eastside Mine. Sincerely, , • thn Le.4) Linda Limbach Eastside Coal Company, Inc. /11 Enclosure RE: Special Use Permit Quarterly Monitoring Report REPORT TO: Department of Development/Planning Division FROM: Eastside Coal Company, Inc. DATE: November `2, 1989 0 Number of moving violation citations and accidents issued to or involving Eastside Coal drivers while hauling coal, if any. 0 Number of deer killed by Eastside Coal truck driver, if any. 0.33 Number. of loads of coal hauled per day on a monthly average. 75 tons The amount of coal presently stockpiled at the mine site. 742.04 The amount of coal shipped. (tons) The number of employees, by place of residence and length of residence: Number Residence Length of Residence 2 Silt, Colorado 6, 29 years 1 Glenwood Springs, CO 52 years EASTSIDE COAL COMPANY, INC, P. 0. Box 161 Silt, Colorado 81652 (303) 876-2944 April 12, 1989 Mark Bean, Director of Planning Department of Development/Planning 109 8th Street Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Dear Mr. Bean: 1989 Enclosed is the first quarter report for 1989 as required by the Special Use Permit stipulations of the Eastside Mine. Sincerely, "e: -- Linda Limbach Eastside Coal Company, Inc. /11 Enclosure RE: Special Use Permit Quarterly Monitoring Report REPORT TO:. Department of Development/Planning Division FROM: Eastside Coal Company, Inc. DATE: April 12, 1989 • 0 Number of moving violation :citations and accidents issued to or involving Eastside Coal drivers while hauling coal, if any. 0 Number of deer killed by Eastside`Coal truck driver, if any. 0 Number of loads ofcoal hauled per day on a monthly average. 587 The amount of coal 'present]y`stockpiled at the mine site. 0 The amount of coalis hipped. The number of employees, by -place of residence and length of residence: Number. Residence .Length of Residence 2 Silt, Colorado • 6, 29 years 1 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 52 years EASTSIDE COAL COMPANY, INC. P. 0. Box 161 Silt, Colorado 81652 (303) 876-2941 July 20, 1989 Mark Bean, Director of Planning Department of Development/Planning 109 8th Street Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Dear Mr. Bean: Enclosed is the second quarter report for 1989 as required by the Special Use Permit stipulations of the Eastside Mine. Sincerely, Linda Limbach Eastside Coal Company, Inc. /11 Enclosure y77 JUL 211989 RE: Special Use Permit Quarterly Monitoring Report REPORT TO: Department of Development/Planning Division FROM: Eastside Coal Company, Inc. DATE: July 20, 1989 0 Number of moving violation citations and accidents issued to or involving E-astside Coal drivers while hauling coal, if any. 0 Number of deer killed by Eastside Coal truck driver, if any. 0.1 Number of loads of coal hauled per day on a monthly average. 278 The amount of coal presently stockpiled at the mine site. 272.2 The amount of coal shipped. The number of employees,; by place of residence and length of residence: Number : Residence Length of Residence 2 Silt, Colorado 6, 29 years 1 Glenwood Springs, CO 52 years Garfield County Commissioners 1048 8th Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81650 Dear Sir, p z - /2 Mrs. Dale George 0094 County Road 227 Rifle, CO 81650 r"71r7[VEC) I live on County Road 227 (Miller Lane) and I would like to file aMitigagNMISaNEAS on the condition of the road. Since the Coal Company has started hauling coal on this road it has deterioated to the point it is almost impossible for a small car to negotiate it. The pot holes are only getting worse with the so called repairs that you are doing at this time. The road needs to be subexcavated and start from a firm base and then add the pit run before putting the gravel an it. The way you are approaching it now there will be repairs all summer and we will have a useless gravel road in the end. I would suggest that rather than waste the money, that supposedly we don't have, on repairs why not put it into a major overhaul and fix it properly now. This will avoid some real problems later. If the road is reverted to a gravel road again the value of the property on the lane will drop and you will suffer a loss in tax revenue when the new evaluations are done. I for one am ready right now,to have our property re -done as a possible sale could be eminant and the condition of the road would be a deterant to it's sale. While on the subject the lane is pretty heavily populated and a lot of the people work away from home and have all kinds of hours and sleeping hours. Would it not be wise to have the trucks treat it as a City when using the brakes? I would like to see it banned for the use of Jake -Brake usage. The trucks should be on a speed limit already due to the heavy population and the amount of children living close to the road and if they obey the speed limit then the Jake -Brake would not be necessary. If it would help I will attend a meeting and voice my opinions and objections to the way the road is being maintained. I hope to receive an answer from you in the near future so that I will know what course of action remains for me. Sincerely 74 rs. Dale eorg • March 20, 1985 Garfield County Commissioners 104 8th Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re: County Road 227, Garfield County Dear Sirs: iGlf' iP. RTTf r!\ JED MAR 21 1985 C0W I CUMMMSSIOtIERS • I have been concerned during the past month or so with large trucks using County Road 227. In fact, 1 have more than one concern about this situation. I understand that these trucks are hauling coal from a newly opened coal mine in the Harvey Gap area. It is not my intention to close any operation down and cause people to be out of work. However, I have lived on County Road 227 for 13 years and, of course, particularly enjoyed the quiet surroundings and peaceful rural area. That is., up until approximately a month ago, at which -time --at -5:45-A.M.--large-trucks commenced --going-. North .on...- ._ ._._.. County Road 227 and at 6:15 A.M. commenced coming down South on the road. This was not only on weekdays, but also weekends. The exact location of where they applied their air brakes happened to be at my front door. Needless to say, I'm almost as much concerned about the noise as I am the destruction of the road itself. It appears to me that by the starting of the summer season, County Road 227 will be almost totally a gravel road. I can just imagine what that will do to my house with my front door open in as much as my house is located a mere 75 feet from the road. Not only does it appear that the company has no intention of repairing the road correctly, but with the irrigation ditches that run next to the road, it seems that the road would always be inadequate for heavy loads. It would be unsatisfactory to me if the road was repaired to be degraded to a gravel road. I believe a firm eye should be kept on the condition of this road. I believe that the coal company should be required to correctly and adequately repair the road to satisfy the residence on County Road 227. Further, I believe that there should be either a speed limit applied to the road or a restriction put upon the trucks as to applying air brakes in the residential area or both. I would be happy to visit with you on this situation if you should so wish. Sincerely, Carol A. Silvius 0275 County Road 227 Rifle, CO 81650 -,11!? r i ! EASTSIDE COAL COMPANY, INC. P. 0. Box 161 Silt, Colorado 81652 (303) 876-2944 February 8, 1989 Mark Bean, Director of Planning Department of Development/Planning 109 8th Street Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Dear Mr. Bean: 1939 ;,t i,.......LLL LA..;U TY Enclosed is the fourth quarter report for 1988 as required by the Special Use Permit stipulations of the Eastside Mine. Sincerely, • 1 Linda Limbach Eastside Coal Company, Inc. /11 Enclosure RE: Special Use Permit Quarterly Monitoring Report REPORT TO: Department of Development/Planning Division FROM: Eastside Coal Company, Inc. DATE: O Number of moving violation citations and accidents issued to or involving Eastside Coal drivers while hauling coal, if any. 0 Number of deer killed by Eastside 'Coal truck driver, if any. O Number of loads of coal hauled 'per day on a monthly average. 1780 The amount of coal presently stockpiled at the mine site. 0 The amount of coal shipped. The number of employees, by place of residence and length of residence: Number Residence Length of Residence 4 Silt, Colorado 5, 32, 42, 52 years 2- Glenwood Springs, Colorado 31, 52 years EASTSIDE COAL COMPANY, INC. P. 0. Box 161 Silt, Colorado 81652 (303) 8762944 October 28, 1988 Mark Bean, Director of Planning Department of Development/Planning 109 8th Street Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Dear Mr. Bean: Please find enclosed the third quarterly report for 1988 as required by the Special Use Permit stipulations of the Eastside Kline. Sincerely, Linda Limbach Eastside Coal Company, Inc. /11 Enclosure IIL1j ,`'ti` -_J► OCT n 0 .1 1988 RE: Special Use Permit Quarterly Monitoring Report REPORT TO: Department of Development/Planning Division FROM: Eastside Coal Company, Inc. DATE: Third Quarter 1988 0 Number of moving violation citations and accidents issued to or involving Eastside Coal drivers while hauling coal, if any. 0 Number of deer killed by Eastside Coal truck driver, if any. 3.25 Number of loads of coal hauled per day on a monthly average. 1,444 The amount of coal presently stockpiled at the mine site. 5,613 The amount of coal shipped. The number of employees, by place of residence and length of residence: Number Residence Length of Residence 4 Silt, Colorado 5; 32, 42, 52 years 2 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 31, 52_years EASTSIDE COAL COMPANY, INC. P. 0. Box 161 Silt, Colorado 81652 (303) 876-2944 July 27, 1988 Mark Bean, Director of Planning Department of Development/Planning 109 8th Street Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81001 Dear Mr. Bean: Please find enclosed the second quarterly report for 1988 as required by the Special Use Permit stipulations of the Eastside Mine. Sincerely, %4141 -di Linda Limbach Eastside Coal Company, Inc. /11 Enclosure JUL 29 1988 l LiAiit=ii.LD COUNTY RE: Special Use Permit Quarterly Monitoring Report REPORT TO: Department of Development/Planning Division FROM: Eastside Coal Company, Inc. DATE: July 27, 1988 0 Number of moving violation citations and accidents issued to or involving Eastside Coal drivers while hauling coal, if any. 0 Number of deer killed by Eastside Coal truck driver, if any. 0 Number of loads of coal hauled per day on a monthly average. 6,790 The amount of coal presently stockpiled at the mine site. 0 The amount of coal shipped. The number of employees, by place of residence and length of residence: Number Residence Length of Residence 4 Silt, Colorado 5, 32, 42, 52 years 2 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 31,52 years EASTSIDE COAL COMPANY, INC. P. 0. Box 161 Silt, Colorado 81652 (303) 876-2944 April 8, 1988 Mark Bean, Director of Planning Department of Development/Planning 109 8th Street Glenwood Springs, Colorado 80601 Dear Mr. Bean: tis . `, APR 121988 (Ak r LD COUNTY Please find enclosed the first quarterly report for 1988 as required by the Special Use Permit stipulations of the Eastside Mine. Sincerely, Linda Limbach Eastside Coal Company, Inc. /11 Enclosure RE: Special Use Permit Quarterly Monitoring Report REPORT TO: Department of Development/Planning Division FROM: Eastside Coal Company, Inc. DATE: April 8, 1988 0 Number of moving violation citations and accidents issued to or involving Eastside Coal drivers while hauling coal, if any. 0 Number of deer killed by Eastside Coal truck driver, if any. 0 Number of loads of coal hauled per day on a monthly average. 6,128 The amount of coal presently stockpiled at the mine site. 0 The amount of .coal shipped. The number of employees, by place of residence and length of residence: Number Residence Length of Residence 4 Silt, Colorado 5, 32, 42, 52 years 2 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 31, 52 years JAN 2 0 1998 filKWAA e EASTSIDE COAL COMPANY, INC. L. Ciiiro LV COUNTY P. 0. Box 161 Silt, Colorado 81652 (303) 876-2944 January 18, 1988 Mark Bean, Director of Planning Department of Development/Planning 109 8th Street Glenwood Springs, Colorado 80601 Dear Mr. Bean: Please find enclosed the fourth quarterly report for 1987 as required by the Special Use Permit stipulations of the Eastside Mine. Sincerely, Linda Limbach Eastside Coal Company, Inc. Enclosure RE: Special Use Permit Quarterly Monitoring Report REPORT TO: Department of Development/Planning Division FROM: Eastside Coal Company, Inc. DATE: December 18, 1988 -0- Number of moving violation citations and accidents issued to or involving Eastside Coal drivers while hauling coal, if any. -0- Number of deer killed by Eastside Coal truck driver, if any. - 0- Number of loads of coal hauled per day on a monthly average. 5,724 The amount of coal presently stockpiled at the mine site. - 0- The amount of coal shipped. The number of employees, by place of residence and length of residence: Number Residence Length of Residence 4 Silt, Colorado 4, 31, 41, 51 years 1 Rifle, Colorado 3 years 2 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 30, 51 years it,EIMME EASTSIDE COAL COMPANY, INC, P. 4. Box 161 Silt, Colorado 81652 (303) 876-2944 October 21, 1987 Mark Bean, Director of Planning Department of Development/Planning 109 8th Street Glenwood Springs, Dear Mr. Bean: Colorado 80601 R-59,U,P 11OCT 26 1987 l. UARFIELD COUNTY Please find enclosed the third quarterly report for 1987 as required by the Special Use Permit stipulations of the Eastside Mine. Sincerely, ;„4,4442:2,. rd Linda Limbach Eastside Coal Company, Inc. Enclosure RE: Special Use Permit Quarterly Monitoring Report REPORT TO: Department of Development/Planning Division FROM: Eastside Coal Company, Inc. DATE: October 21, 1987 0 Number of moving violation citations and accidents issued to or involving Eastside Coal drivers while hauling coal, if any. 0 Number of deer killed by Eastside Coal truck driver, if any. 0 Number of loads of coal hauled per day on a monthly average. 4,770 The amount of coal presently stockpiled at the mine site. 0 The amount of coal shipped. The number of employees, by place of residence and length of residence: Number Residence Length of Resid price 4 Silt, Colorado L31), 40, 50 .years 1 Rifle, Colorado 2 years 2 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 29, 50 years EASTSIDE COAL COMPANY, INC, F. 0. Box 161 Silt, Colorado 81652 (303) 876-2944 July 2, 1987 Mark Bean, Director of Planning Department of Development/Planning 109 8th Street Glenwood Springs, Colorado 80601 Dear Mr. Bean: Please find enclosed the second quarterly report for 1987 as required by the Special Use Permit stipulations for Eastside Mine. Sincerely, inda mbach Eastside Coal Company, Inc. Enclosure 41, 1/' RE: Special Use Per.q Quarterly Monitoring Report REPORT TO: Department of Development/Planning Division FROM: Eastside Coal Company, Inc. DATE: July 2, 1987 0 Number of moving violation citations and accidents issued to or involving Eastside Coal drivers while hauling coal, if any. 0 Number of deer killed by Eastside Coal truck driver, if any. 0 Number of loads of coal hauled per day on a monthly average. 4,750 Tons The amount of coal presently stockpiled at the mine site. 0 The amount of coal shipped. The number of employees, by place of residence and length of residence: Number Residence Length of Residence 3 Silt, Colorado 3, 40, 50 years 1 Rifle, Colorado 30 years 1 Rifle, Colorado 2 months ABR 5 EASTSIDE COAL COMPANY, INC. P. 0. Box 161 Silt, Colorado 81652 (303) 876-2944 April 9, 1987 Mark Bean, Director of Planning Department of Development/Planning 109 8th Street Glenwood Springs, Colorado 80601 Dear Mr. Bean: Please find enclosed the first quarterly report for 1987 as by the Special Use Permit stipulations for Eastside Mine. Sincerely, _ r 24,11/-etf Linda Limbach Secretary Enclosure I0 ,._'.3-1Qr).-__ V.),71 ,i APR 13 1987 1 GARFIELD COUNTY required RE: Special Use Permit Quarterly Monitoring Report REPORT TO: Department of Development/Planning Division FROM: Eastside Coal Company, Inc. DATE: April 9, 1987 Q Number of moving violation citations and accidents issued to or involving Eastside Coal drivers while hauling coal, if any. 0 Number of deer killed by Eastside Coal truck driver, if any. 0 Number of loads of coal hauled per day on a monthly average. 4,070 TonThe amount of coal presently stockpiled at the mine site. 0 The amount of coal shipped. The number of employees, by place of residence and length of residence: Number Residence Length of Rides5'ce 3 Silt, Colorado 3, 40, 50 years 1 Rifle, Colorado 30 years 1 Meeker, Colorado 10 years aP.Mea EASTSIDE COAL COMPANY, INC, P. 0. Box 161 Silt, Colorado 81652 (303) 876-2944 January 15, 1987 Mark Bean, Director of Planning Department of Development/Planning 109 8th Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Mr. Bean: riWiP5i)ifF11.71q 11,. JAN 21 1987 GARFIELD COUNTY Please find enlosed the fourth quarterly report for 1986 as required by the Special Use Permit stipulations for Eastside Mine. Sincerely, Stephen Set General Manager SS/11 RE: Special Use Permit Quarterly 1986 Monitoring Report Fourth Quarter REPORT TO: Department of Development/Planning Division FROM: Eastside Coal Company, Inc. DATE: January 15, 1987 0 Number of moving violation citations and accident-, issued to or involving Eastside Coal drivers while hauling coal, if any. 0 Number of deer killed by Eastside Coal truck driver, if any. 0 Number of loads of coal hauled per day on a monthly average. 2885 tons The amount of coal presently stockpiled at the urine site. 0 The amount of coal shipped. The number of employees, by place of residence and length of residence: Number 3 Residence Length of Silt, Colorado 2, 40, 50 years 1 Rifle, Colorado 30 years A.P.Bartal EASTSIDE COAL COMPANY, INC. P. O. Box 161 Silt, Colorado 81652 (303) 876-2944 October 3, 1986 Mark Bean, Director of Planning Department of Development/Planning 109 8th Street Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Dear Mr. Bean: Please find enclosed the third quarterly report for 1986 as required by the Special Use Permit stipulations for Eastside Mine. Sincerely, /577g41� Steen Self General Manager Enclosure SS/11 SnecW !Jse 7',cArrrst ?ypr-t,,'7 2.707 70: 9ertmn.nt r.'eWn'?,"17/.7":—"'4n17 OM:7.astside Coal. Come71.hy, c. DAT: October 3, 1986 0 —n74-7 V:n?"' ty !m)r frl "11 )y 1)— nr 007C r '7;:!\/ L.456 nrY.' eresen.Y ,- the St?, tons pr=4: 0-7 COP', 7MDOn'', The nC D'ace 1 Silt 2 years 1 Rifle 29 years ,(7 EASTSIDE COAL COMPANY, INC. P. 0. Box 161 Silt, Colorado 81652 (303) 876-2944 July 10, 1986 Mark Bean, Director of Planning Department of Development/Planning 109 8th Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Mr. Bean: JUL 11 1986 it GARFIELD COUNTY Please find enclosed the second quarterly report for 1986 as required by the Special Use Permit stipulations for Eastside Mine. Sincerely, Stephen Self General Manager SS/11 PE: So0CP.7 Use M'''nt9r-7r(71 REPORT 70: DPoartmort ?' .ort/wann4no FROM: EastsideCoi Corloany, DAT 7: July 10, 1986 0 Number ?cnvv:?'.7t"?' ?"tatior!ccn :ss!.,!er) to ?r Thy() v": ''--VerS W." :" any. 0 \':„!"1:$0r 7.".210r v 0 o e -r Onr '±OV ^— 'CtY ;WPrnn. 1,645.0 0 The ar-fl',:nt :no c;44:,s tons. fl 1,, .,'..r15r Of or,n7?yr-, ,y Numor _ ._. . . . 3 Silt, Colorado 2, 40, 50 years 1 Rifle, Colorado 29 years 1 Carbondale, Colorado 10 years __ 611.85102 EASTSIDE COAL COMPANY, INC. P. O. Box 161 Silt, Colorado 81652 (303) 876-2944 April 2, 1986 Mark Bean, Director of Planning Department of Development/Planning 109 8th Street Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Dear Mr. Bean: y, _ -1„1 1 q 4 PPS _• Please find enclosed the first quarterly report for 1986 as required by the Special Use Permit stipulations for Eastside Mine. Sincerely, 6j -c/ Stephen Self General Manager SS/ll W7DIVIT "`" fl TM: nstsd Ci Cnr_lory, April 2, 1986 0 0.43 1,523.5 685 7 fl - 3 1 1 -7.nr tons. tons. , i • r.". ,) •-1 Sil t _ Rifle 29. years _ Carbondale 10 yeays A EASTSIDE COAL COMPANY, INC. P. 0. Box 161 Silt, Colorado 81652 (303) 876-2944 March 4, 1985 Mark Bean, Director of Planning Dept of Development/Planning 109 8th Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Mark: Due to an oversight, the reports required by Resolution No. 85-42 have not been submitted for the 2nd and 3rd quarters of 1985. These reports, as well as the report for the 4th quarter of 1985, are enclosed. Sincerely, Steen Self General Mana er Enc. l k1 MAR 7 1986 C FIELD COUNTY I_J SeCa' !=)!-:DnR-r- ?orpart7Pr FOM: 7astdn Coal -2ry, flATr.. Quarter Ending June 1985 0 0 'Ojn" 0 n' nrIn' 2175.00—,n nr 0 Of C9e.1 • T)or -'1CT) r!').Pter r P]ry(7'fl;, DMC(' n' r 2 Sjl t 39 a_nd 2TSoncial Yse PORT -n: n -r7 now, tside Co€ Cf)m-y, )/VT: Quarter Ending September 1985 0 r5Or I' a N r m!,1r3 .7"..r9C1J't Te r4J7'-.r"- (Yr r-r7pin' .70per 2 1• Silt fl 39 and 2 years nonrrpro,' 7:7;tfde Co CY- r),7':. Quarter ending December 1985 0 0 1.18 1819.54 --, 2026.63 kr T'fl •-• r(' (yr • rj (.1n r^rTh • Y,r• Si] t,. CO 2, 40, 50 Years 1 Ri fie, CO 31 yrs. rtha's Vine ark custom design &leatliernor x'//6ar/ Garfield County Commissioners, 11385 eJL co. -BMW I would like to state my opposition to the issuance of a Special Use Permit for the operation of the Eastside Coal Company Mine. At the present time my greatest concern is in regards to the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens who use the county road on which Eastside's trucks will be traveling. This road is barely adequate for it's present use, much less the constant abuse it will take in the hauling of coal. It is also a very dangerous road in that is quite narrow and contains several sharp turns. The deteriorating contition of the pavement itself will only be worsened by the abuse of coal trucks five days a week. Can the county afford to accept this responsibility/ Do the homeowners on this route deserve to have their road end up as bad as the Four Mile road?.I think not! Once the trucks are on Highway 68c24 then what? The proposed loadout facility in Lilt has not yet been approved, and may not be. Does that mean that these trucks will then drive right thru the main streets of Silt to get to 1-70 and some other loadout? Do we, the residents of Lilt, have to put up with the coal dust residue from these trucks tracking up our downtown business area? These are concerns that you as commissioners hopefully will address before issuing this permit. I also have a real problem with the visual impact of the mine site itself. For 12 years Harvey Gap Recreation Area has been a favorite get -away for my family friends and, myself. The mine site may not be visible from the Gap, but it is very visible to those using the mine road to get to the Gap. This mine is not yet in full production, but the area surrounding it is already "trashed out", A big yellow truck, some sort of compressor, and miscellaneous mine materials are scattered helter-skelter below the mine site. What will this area look like in five years or more? If the company pulls out , do we citizens get stuck with a huge clean-up, or worse yet, do we get to look at it forever? The old mine facility on the west side of the road has yet to be cleaned up. in these economic times it's sometimes quite easy to open up our area to development for the sake of a few jobs. however; I believe that is a very short-sighted approach. The impact of operations such as this may prove to turn away other more acceptable types of development. The long range future of our county does not depend on a coal mine in every mountain. Randy and Oleta Corry 211X Eighth Street Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 303/945.8205 raia's `c%ine ark custom design &'lleathernror Please consider the above comments while making your decision. Thank You 6;1AtiE. IC04-4 Iwo Randy and Oleta Corry 211' Eighth Street Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 303/945.8205 o DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES David H. Getches, Executive Director Richard D. Lamm Governor MINED LAND RECLAMATION DIVISION DAVID C. SHELTON, Director January 18, 1985 Mr. Mark L. Bean Senior Planner Garfield County Department of Development Garfield County Courthouse 109 8th Street, Suite 306 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Re: Eastside Coal Mine Permit Approval File No. C-84-063 Dear Mr. Bean: Pursuant to Rule 2.07.4(3)(d) of the regulations of the Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Board for Coal Mining, you are hereby notified that a coal mining and reclamation permit was issued to Eastside Coal Company on January 14, 1985 far the Eastside Coal Mine. The underground mining operation is located approximately 3.75 miles north of Silt, Colorado, adjacent to and including a segment of Garfield County Road 237. The permit area includes 299 acres in Section 24, TSS, R92W and Section 19, T5S, R91W, 6th P.M. The area is more specifically described as follows: Commencing at a point which bears S6025108%, 4831+ from the NE corner of Section 24; thence south a distance of 905+; thence 589°27'34"E a distance of 2,650'+; thence south a distance of 975'+; thence west a distance of 4,160'±; thence south a distance of 395'+; thence west a distance of 740'+: thence N5°23'22"E a distance of 2,6621+; thence 580004'26"E a distance of 2,030'± to the point of beginning. Please contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely FYA/6/1 E Dan Mathews Reclamation Specialist DM/fw Doc, No. 6875 423 Centennial Building, 1313 Sherman Street Denver, Colorado 80203 Tel. (303) 866-3567 Richard D. Lamm Governor DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES David H. Getches, Executive Director MINED LAND RECLAMATION DIVISION DAVID C. SHELTON, Director January 23, 1985 Chill r., U fJVJ 4.1./,x" Mr. Nicholas W. Goluba, Jr. Attorney at Law First National Bank Building 802 Grand Avenue, Suite 301 P.O. Box 931 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602 Re: Status of Garfield Coal Sales, Inc. Application for a Load -out Facility Dear Mr. Goluba: Upon receipt of your letter of November 7, 1984, we forwarded a copy of your objection to Garfield Coal Sales, Inc. as required by Rule 2.07.4(5) of the Regulations. Your objection pointed out that the proposed operation, if approved, would not be in compliance with the Regulations, in that operations are planned within 300 feet of occupied dwellings (Rule 2.07.6(2)(d)(v)). At this time, the Division considers this to be an outstanding deficiency of the permit application. Garfield Coal Sales, Inc. must either provide the owner's written waiver pursuant to Rule 2.07.6(2)(d), or demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Division that operations can be conducted outside of the restricted area. If neither alternative is satisfied by March 26, 1985, the Division will issue a proposed decision to deny the application. Please be aware that regardless of the nature of the Division's ultimate proposed decision on the application, there will still be an opportunity for appeal of the proposed decision under Rule 2.07.4(2)(c). You will be notified as soon as the Division publishes the proposed decision. If I can be of any further assistance please contact me at the Division. Sincerely, Brian E. Munson Senior Reclamation Specialist BEM/pjh Doc. No. 6989 • 423 Centennial Building, 1313 Sherman Street Denver, Colorado 80203 Tel. (3O3) 866-3567 • y TWN', April 11, 1984, Page 3:573 zt r•f % CEASE: AND. DESIST .praclaimed' Ipcal olfioial8 r ols , e bill Crepeau, 5lli's acting sown administrator. who discovered ;the coal loading .fadility shown ,The faeflity.is being bulit by. Garfield.Coat Sales -abovewasbeingconstructedillegally-The partial d` would • have. handled -'coal mined from the structure is located at the end of Fifth Street in •Sill ..proposed East' Side Coal. Company •mine below and was begun . with, • no.t building permit or . yarvey Gap ,approv al from either the count or the town -said t r s<. , :,,i`;, �. a Cliffs Engineering, Inc. Helping develop earth's resources to meet the world's needs. December 12, 1984 Mr. Steve Self EASTSIDE COAL COMPANY, INC. P. O. Box 161 Silt, Colorado 81652 Dear Steve: The recent evaluation of those portions of county roads 227, 233 and 237 proposed as the haulage route by Eastside Coal Company indicated that these road -beds are inadequate to carry the existing traffic loads without incurring some deterioration. It is reasonable to assume that imposing the additional truck traffic proposed by Eastside Coal would cause an increase in the rate and severity of damage to the road -bed. The exact amount of this increase is difficult if not impossible to determine by calculation. It has been shown, however, that the road -bed section required to carry the proposed traffic is not significantly different from that required for the existing traffic. (These design calculations are shown on page 10 of the Evaluation of County Roads for Eastside Coal Company, Inc., dated October 1, 1984.) Since there is no known method of quantifying the amount of damage caused by existing traffic volumes versus that caused by an increased traffic volume, a maintenance cost-sharing program should be based on some "reasonable" analysis. An evaluation of Equivalent Wheel Loads imposed by existing and proposed traffic, a review of typical maintenance costs for similar roads and traffic volumes, and/or a comparison of required road -bed sections are possible methods of arriving at an equitable maintenance cost- sharing formula. Cliffs Engineering would be willing to provide any engineering input required by Eastside Coal and Garfield County to arrive at an equitable agreement based on the best available information and technology. A SUBSIDIARY OF THE CLEVELAND•CLIFFS IRON COMPANY 818 TAUGHENBAUGH BLVD. POST OFFICE BOX 1211 RIFLE. COLORADO 81650 (3O3 625-2445 Mr. Steve Self December 12, 1984 Page 2 I am sorry we cannot offer more specific answers at this time. This is a unique problem and hopefully it can be solved by negotiation using the available methods I suggested above. Sincerely, haul S. Bussone Senior Civil Engineer PSB:lm cc: G. D. Aho R. J. Flynn E. K. Norppa Project File GARFIELD COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT PLANNING / ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH / BUILDING: 945-8212 December 5, 1984 Dan Mathews 1313 Sherman St. Rm. 423 Denver, CO 80203 Dear Mr. Mathews: The Eastside Coal Mine Company is in the process of seeking Land Use permits from Garfield County tooperatea coal mine in the unincorporated area of the County. The County's granting of Land Use permits for the proposed operation is discretionary. The mine is not a use by right in the zone district. The public hearing which must be held prior to the County's issuance of such Land Use permits has not occurred. The r County public hearing will probably be held in early 1985. squired Garfield County has jurisdiction over County Road 237. The right of way for County road 237 is within 100 feet, measured horizontially from a portion of the proposed permit area of the Eastside Coal Mine Company. The County for the purposes of 34-33-114 (2) (g) (IV) C.R.S., as amended, does not object at this time to your agency's consideration of the applicants proposal to include areas within 100 feet of the County Road 237 right of way, within the proposed permit area, including facilities therein. Those portions of the proposed permit area and facilities within 100 feet of the County Road 237 right of way are located and described on map HGP -12 of the Eastside Coal Mine Company's application to the Colorado Mine Land Reclamation Division. The County's position, as set forth in this letter, should not be construed or in any way affecting its legal ability under its zoning regulations and applicable state law to impose conditions on the operation of Eastside Coal Mine Company, should its application for Land Use permits be approved. Such conditions of approvalypormite maintenance, as well as the improvement ofmaffecteddCoue ntyirroads, for the including County Road 237. We will keep you informed as to the status of Eastside Coal Mine Company's application for County Land Use permits. Your cooperation in this matter is appreciated. Sincerely, Mark Bean Senior Planner MH/1st GARFIELD COUNTY COURTHOUSE 109 8TH STREET, SUITE 306 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601 GARFIELD COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT PLANNING / ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH / BUILDING: 945-8212 July 9, 1984 Stephen Self, General Manager Eastside Coal Company P. 0. Box 161 Silt, CO 81652 Dear Mr. Self: At our last meeting on June 27th, it was agreed that Earl Rhodes, Leonard Bowlby and I would identify the issues we feel you should address regarding the proposed coal truck transportation route. I explained to them that you were proposing to do the basic geotechnical study of the proposed route and then include various scenarios identifying impacts related to different numbers of trucks per day and/or decreasing the size of the load. Everyone agreed that what you are proposing to do covers many of the concerns. In addition to the issues you are proposing to study, we felt that some analysis of traffic safety would be appropriate. Some specific areas of concern would be road driving surface width; evaluation of shoulders; sight distance; corners; additional signage; and roadway width vs. grade. Obviously, beyond the fact the present roads physically may not be able to accommodate much heavy truck traffic, the truck traffic may present safety problems to people driving on the roads and some analysis of the situation would be appropriate. If you have any questions or concerns about the issues noted in this letter, please feel free to call or write this office at your convenience. Sincerely, *-7)Cat?/4- Mark L. Bean Senior Planner MLB/emh XC: Earl Rhodes, County Attorney Leonard Bowlby, County Road Supervisor Dave Sturgis, Attorney, Eastside Coal Company 109 8TH STREET P.O. BOX 640 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81602 GARFIELD COUNTY COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 109 8th Street Suite 300 P.O. Box 640 Glenwis6: NbOmrado 81602-0640 !4 - Phone 945-9150 TO: Mark Bean, County Planner FROM: Earl Rhodes, County Attorney DATE: June 27, 1984 SUBJECT: Garfield County Land Use Control over Coal Load out Facility This will acknowledge receipt of your memo to this office in regards to the construction of a coal load -out facility, immediately south of the town limits of the Town of Silt. As I understand it, you have asked whether this office has represented in the past that a land use permit was not required for such a facility, and whether, because of certain facts contained in your memo, this office is now of the opinion that the County zoning resolution does not apply to the subject property. The answer to both of these questions is in the negative. It is the position of the County Attorney's office that the construction of a coal load -out facility in the unincorporated area of Garfield County does require a land use permit, subject to the terms of the Garfield County Zon ing Resolution of 1978, as amended. You have represented to me that a zone district map, which applies to the subject property, contains no designation of county zoning in that area where the facility would now be built. I am aware of no reason why this should be the case, and specifically I am aware of no opinion of this office that railroad right-of-way is not subject to control of the County by means of the zoning resolution. On the contrary, to the extent that activities or construction occurs on property owned by the railroad which is prohibited by the Zoning Resolution, unless a land use permit is obtained, than such activities would be illegal and subject to enforcement by the County under the grant of authority in 30-28-124, CRS, as amended. You are no doubt aware that section 1.06 of the Zoning Resolution relates to this situation. There it is said: Land not part of a public right --of -way and which is not indicated as being in any zone district shall be considered to be included in the most restricted adjacent zone district even when such district is separated from the land, in question by a public right -of way. You have told me that the nearest, most restrictive zone district to the subject property is Agricultural/Industrial. Therefore it would be my opinion that the subject property is regulated in like fashion.. A review of the uses allowed in this zone district indicates that an industrial activity of material handling of natural resources (as defined in section 2.02.31(6)) is an allowable use on the subject property. A speical use permit, in accordance with Section 9.03 of the Zoning Resolution should be obtained. The question has arisen as to whether the Town of Silt has land use authority over the subject site because of the proximity of the site to the Town of Silt. The first thing that must be said is that the County has no land use jurisdiction inside the Town of Silt, and at such time as the subject property is annexed into the town, the County would have no authority over said land or any construction activity on said site. However, until that occurs, the County position is that it exercises land use authority over the unincorporated area. It has been represented to me that the Town of Silt desires to "permit" the subject facility under the provisions of 31-15-501, CRS, as amended, which raises the question of whether the County would recognize such activity in lieu of a county land use permit. The answer to this is in the negative. It is obvious from reading the statute that the grant of authority to the town arises from concern about health matters, and it is not intended to be authority for extra -territorial land use authority in the unincorporated area. Therefore, a permit from the town would not be acceptable in lieu of a county land use permit. Towns have other land use authority over the unincorporated areas in the County (see 31-23-212, CRS, as amended), but this authority does not apply in the instant case. I am not aware of any other authority by which the County process need not be complied with. Finally, the above -signed has no recollection of any discussion with Terry Bowman. In any case, this opinion is the position of the County Attorney's Office, and any communication inconsistent herewith should be disregarded. GARFIELD COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT PLANNING / ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH / BUILDING: 945-8212 May 29, 1984 Stephen Self, General Manager Eastside Coal Company P. 0. Box 161 Silt, CO 81652 Dear Mt. Self: Earlier this month, you asked whether or not Eastside Coal Company could haul 2,000 to 3,000 tons of coal out of the mine for burn testing under your MLRB exploration permit. As I said I would, I checked with Leonard Bowlby, County Road Supervisor and Earl Rhodes, County Attorney, as to whether either of them had any concerns. Neither of them felt there was any real problem given the low number of tons of coal and that it was for quality testing. When you asked later about increasing the amount hauled out to 20,000 tons for a test burn with Public Service Company, I followed the sane procedure. Leonard Bowlby did not feel the roads in that area could handle your estimated four, 80,000 ton GWV trucks per day without damaging the driving surface of the County roads in the area. Earl Rhodes also felt that an increase to 20,000 tons was getting to a production level that is subject to approval of a land use permit by the Board of County Commissioners. In conclusion, the original proposed haul of 2,000 to 3,000 tons of coal for test burning would be considered consistent with your MLRB exploration mining permit and not subject to any formal County land use permitting. The increase to 20,000 tons for test burning appears to be inconsistent with an exploration operation and would be subject to approval of a land use permit by the Board of County Commissioners. If you have any questions, please feel free to call or write this office at your convenience. Sincerely, Mark L. Bean Senior Planner MLB/emh XC: Earl Rhodes, County Attorney Leonard Bowlby, County Road Supervisor 100 8TH STREET P.O. BOX 640 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81602 TOWN of SILT P.D. Box 174 Silt, Colorado 81652 303 876-2353 May 7, 1904 Mr. Mark Bean Garfield County Planning Department P. 0. Box 640 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 Dear Mark: MAY ' 1984 GARFIELD CQ PLANNER Re: EASTSIDE COAL MINE — SPECIAL USE PERMIT. The Town of Silt has two area., of prime concern in the issuance of a special use permit to the Eastside Coal Mine. We would appreciate the opportunity to present these views to the planning commission and request their consideration of our suggested solutions. IMPACT ON HARVEY GAP RECREATION. The ton considers Harvey Gap Res;evoir to be a major recreation asset for the community and would be greatly distressed should the mining operations significantly diminish the quality of the outdoor experience. We are also aware that your department, the commission, and the county commissioners are the appropriate authority in this matter. We are confident that we all Share the same interests. Pertinent items we note are:: 1. Hours of operations / impact on traffic driving to the reservoir. 2. Width and condition of the roads along with the ability of the roads to withstand damage caused by heavy trucks. 3. Noise, dust and other consequences of mining can the tranquillity of the setting. We do not suggest that these problems are without solution nor would we advise that a special use permit be denied unless Eastside Coal is unwilling to deal with the problems in advance. We do suggest that stringent conditions with absolute authority to enforce those conditions be made a part of the special use permit. Further, we think that the burden of proof of compliance= lies entirely with the company 1 Page 2 and that revocation of the special use permit should be automatic should the company fail to do so. IMPACT WITHIN AND NEAR THE TOWN: Eastside Coal and their subsidiary, Garfield Coal Sales, have plans to market their product through the town. Their stated intent is to load either at a rail siding at 5th street or by hauling through town on side streets and main street. There are many problems with this plan that have not been addressed, let alone solved. 1. In 1977 Silt adopted the Model Traffic Cade for Colorado Municipalities (Revised 1977). This code establishes full traffic regulations as written by the Highway Department. Section 18 sets vehicle size and weight limits and section 23 gives the town authority to change the limits to meet local need. To date we have not modified the weight limits. Thus we have, by code, a 46,000 pound limit. Eastside Coal proposes to use trucks with a gross vehicle weight near 100,000 pounds, double the legal limit in this and most other towns. A hearing and special use permit from the town will be required before they can operate on their - proposed routes. 2. Colorado Revised Statute 31-15-501 (1)(a) gives the town authority to regulate business and to prohibit within the town limits or within one mile beyond the outer limits of the municipality any offensive or unwholesome business or establishment. A coal loading operation without proper safeguards and heavy truck traffic that endangers both safety and road integrity must be considered offensive and unwholesome. While there have been some conversations between the management of Eastside Coal and the Town of Silt there has been no formal request by Eastside Coal to operate within the town or within the one mile area of legal authority. No plans have been submitted to the town despite repeated requests. All discussions have been general in nature with no real substance. These problems must be solved prior to the start of operations and we suggest the following solutions; 1. Should it appear appropriate to issue a special use permit except for the concerns of the town, then we request that the permit contain a condition that prevents all operations until the town signs off on an approved operating plan. Page 3 2. If there are other problems with the operation of Eastside Coal that makes the commission inclined to deny a special use permit, we would ask that the Silt concerns be included in a list of problems and that no permit be issued until all problems are resolved. Sincerely, Bill Crepeau, Acting Town Administrator Leonard 8owlby Road Supervisor May 3, 1984 Mark Bean Senior Planner Garfield County Dear Mark: GARFIELD COUNTY ROAD AND BRIDGE P.O. Box 1485 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602 MAY 'l X94 L WHEW CO. FLAMM Phone 945-6111 Regarding the application by East Side Coal Company to transport heavy loads of coal on county roads: All of the asphalt roads in the Silt Mesa area are considered Farm to Market roads, meaning simply that they were not built for, or ever intended to carry heavy loads. The asphalt on County Roads 227, 231, 233 and 237 is a chip and seal application varying from 3/4" to 11" in most cases over no sub -base and very 2littleepthbase at1all. applied If there are to be heavy loads ei: tandem axle trucks, belly or end dumps grossing in excess of 50,000 lbs, then serious consideration should be given to requiring an asphalt pavement design mix for the route that is chosen by the coal company to transport their product. You s very truly • Leonard A. Bowlby, Garfield County Road Supervisor LAB/pc GARFIELD COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT PLANNING / ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH / BUILDING: 945-8212 MEMORANDUM TO: Mark Bean, Senior Planner FROM: Ed Feld, Environmental Health Officer RE: Eastside Coal Company, Inc. Special Use Permit Application DATE: May 1, 1984 Please be advised I have reviewed the above referenced and forward the following comments and recommendations for your review and consideration: The soils description on Page 71 of the application describe certain soils which may be prohibitive to a standard septic tank - subsurface absorption area. Slopes and usable ground may also be a factor. In any event, a final determination for the system to serve an employee change -shower house will have to made at a later date. From the information provided and subsequent to our site review, I suspect the system will require professional engineering. Page 125 regarding signs should include reference to the application for a Garfield County sign permit. The Colorado Department of Health's initial approval for an Emission Permit for fugitive dust does not take into consideration the potential for coal dust blowing from haul trucks on County roads if trailers are not covered or binder solutions are not applied to the loads. I would recommend one of these provisions be included as a condition to any resolution for permit or advise state health of this desire prior to final emission permit approval. The November 9, 1983 letter from the applicant to the Colorado Department of Health states an understanding in Part 7 that no discharge of mine water would be allowed under the N.P.D.E.S. permit unless an amendment was submitted and approved. Later in the application the sediment pond design calculations state, "an additional volume of 2,840 cu. ft. will be added for discharge of water produced in the mine at 5 gals/min". During my review of the submitted information, I did not observe a photo copy of any amendment to the N.P.D.E.S. allowing the mine water discharge nor did I observe any proposed time table when this would occur. The applicant should be able to clarify this matter or point out an oversight on my part. Two pages prior to Appendix C under Item 12 labeled Ultimate Disposal of Solids Discharged the submittal states "sediment will be stored adjacent to the pond until reclamation occurs". 100 8TH STREET P.O. BOX 640 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81602 Memo Page 2 May 1, 1984 Eastside Coal Company, Inc. I would recommend the sediment pile be provided with protective earthen barriers to contain any leachate runoff caused by snow melt, rain, or erosion. Please advise should you have any question. GARFIELD COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT PLANNING / ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH / BUILDING: 945-8212 April 6, 1984 Stephen Self Eastside Coal Co., Inc. P.O. Box 161 Silt, CO 81652 Dear Mr. Self: This letter is to confirm our conversation on April 5, 1984, in which you agreed to postpone your company's special use application review by the Planning Commission until May 9, 1984.- As I said, this should allow adequate time to get public notice into the papers for a public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners on either May 28 or June 4. If you receive approval from the Hoard of County Commissioners on one of the above dates, you will have 120 days to comply with any conditions of approval. One of those conditions will be MLRB approval prior to issuance of the County Special Use permit. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to call or write me at your convenience, Sincerely, Mark L. Bean Senior Planner Mt,B/emh 100 8TH STREET P.O. BOX 640 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81602 EASTSIDE COAL COMPANY, INC. P.O. Box 161 Silt, CO 81652 (303) 876-2944 March 23, 1984 Mark Bean, Senior Planner Garfield County Department of Development P.O. Box 640 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 Dear Mr. Bean: 1S1AR26198411 CO. Pd The information requested in your letter of March 21, 1984 concerning completeness of Eastside Coal Company's Special Use Permit Application will be based on a production level N� of 200,000 tons/year. The potential maximum number of employees working for East- side Coal will be fifteen people. The truck haulage will be contracted out to a private firm or individuals. Assuming the coal is to be ship i rail from the Silt area, there would be a maximum of trucks making five trips/day av- erage. If the coal is to be trucked to the final destina- tion instead of going dy il, the number of trucks could possibly increase to per day average, depending on the distance traveled. The haul route of the trucks would be County Road 237 to County Road 233 to either County Road 231 or County Road 227 to Highway 6 and 24 to final destination. Eastside Coal Company does not currently have any well per- mits. Permits will be applied for if any wells are to be drilled. Eastside Coal Company's operation will not exceed the stand- ards for sound, vibration, heat, glare, radiation and fumes identified in Section 5.03.08 (1), (2), and (4) of the Gar- field County Zoning Resolution. Eastside Coal has obtained Air Quality Permits to comply with Section 5.03.08 (3). A copy of Eastside's current Permit to Store Explosives, Per- mit No. 1386-R, is attached to show compliance with 5.03.08 (5)(a), storage of explosive solids, of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution. Thank you for your efforts in reviewing Eastside Coal Company's Special Use Permit Application in a timely manner. Sincerely, Stephen St General Manager Enclosure 1 SS/mr GARFIELD COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT PLANNING / ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH / BUILDING: 945-8212 March 21, 1984 Chuck Rains Town of Silt Silt, CO 81652 Re: Eastside Coal Company Special Use permit application Dear Chuck: Enclosed are pertinent parts of an application by the Eastside Coal Company for a Special Use permit to operate an underground coal mine. The proposed mine would be located approximately 3.5 miles north of Silt, in the Harvey Gap area. The Planning Commission will be reviewing the application on April 11, 1984. Due to the amount of information provided and only two complete copies available, the enclosed information is only the information your agency would need for review. If you would like to have additional information, please feel free to call or write this office at your convenience. Sincerely, I Mark L. Bean Senior Planner MLB/emh encl. 100 8TH STREET P.O. BOX 640 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81602 GARFIELD COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT PLANNING/ ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH / BUILDING: 945-8212 March 21, 1984 Colorado Division of Wildlife Box 1687 Grand Junction, CO 81502 Re: Eastside Coal Company Special Use permit application To Whom It May Concern: Enclosed are pertinent parts of an application by the Eastside Coal Company for a Special Use permit to operate an underground coal mine. The proposed mine would be located approximately 3.5 miles north of Silt, in the Harvey Gap area. The Planning Commission will be reviewing the application on April 11, 1984. Due to the amount of information provided and only two complete copies available, the enclosed information is only the information your agency would need for review. If you would like to have additional information, please feel free to call or write this office at your convenience. Sincerely, Mark L. Bean Senior Planner MLB/emh encl. 100 8TH STREET P.O. BOX 640 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81602 GARFIELD COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT PLANNING / ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH / BUILDING; 945-8212 t•March 21, 1984 Stephen Self Eastside Coal Company, Inc. P. 0. Box 161 Silt, CO 61652 Dear Mr. Self: Given the potential for controversy, I feel that it will be necessary for you to provide some additional information in support of Eastside Coal Company, Special Use permit application. The following information will eliminate any potential questions about the completeness of the application: 1. The potential maximum number of employees? a. mining activity b. truck 2. The destination and haul route of the trucks. 3. Copies of any well permits. 4. Statements that the operation will not exceed the standards for sound, vibration, heat, glare, radiation and fumes identified in Section 5.03.08 (1), (2) and (4) of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution. 5. Additional information that addresses Section 5.03.08 (5)(A), which refers to the storage of flammable and/or explosive solids or gases. These items will make the Special Use permit application complete, in my opinion. Typically, one of the first things an opponent will do is challenge the completeness of the application. This application will be referred to the Planning Co111nlission by the Board of County Commissioners on April 2, 1984, at 2:55 p.m. If you can get me the requested information prior to that date, the referral should be a formality. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to call or write this office at your convenience. Sincerely, Mark L. Bean Senior Planner MLB/emh 100 8TH STREET P.O. BOX 640 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81602 EASTSIDE COAL COMPANY, INC. P.O. BOX 161 Silt, CO 81652 (303) 876-2944 February 27, 1984 Mr. Mark Bean, Senior Planner Garfield Planning Department 2014 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Mr. Bean: Eastside Coal Company, Inc. anticipates the maximum number of trucks hauling from the Eastside Mine will be 20 round trips per day. The 20 round trips per day will not be realized until mid -1985. Starting after the approval of the Permit Application sub- mitted to Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Division, the coal haulage will be at a maximum of four round trips per day. As additional customers are obtained, the coal haul- age will increase to the maximum of 20 round trips per day. Sincerely, ,y) `7 l Stephen Serf General Manager SS/mr `s4;ir'iL..D Ga. P1,AN�gi . EASTSIDE COAL COMPANY, INC. P.O. Box 161 Silt, CO 81652 (303) 876-2944 February 23, 1984 Board of County Commissioners Garfield County, Colorado P.O. Box 640 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Sir: Eastside Coal Company, Inc. is requesting approval of a Special Use Permit for Section 24, TSS, R92W and Section 19, T5S, R91W of the 6th Prime Meridian. The Special Use Permit is for an underground mining operation for which a Mining and Reclamation Permit Application has been submitted to the Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Division. Two copies of the application are submitted to the County Planning Director to effect compliance with Sections 5,03.07, 5.03.08, and 9.03 of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution adopted January 2, 1979 as amended. Surface disturbance associated with the underground mining operation will occur in the N t of Section 24, T5S, R92W. The surface disturbance will consist of portal facilities, coal screening facility, coal stockpile, office buildings, material storage, sediment control, and a mine waste dis- posal area. The underground mine workings will begin at the portals lo- cated in the NE t, Section 24, and will be extended into the W 2 of Section 19, T5S, R91W. All surface disturbance and underground workings will be located on property leased by Western Associated Energy. Eastside Coal Company currently has two employees. At the present time, the maximum employment level at Eastside Coal Company will be fifteen people. We want to maintain open lines of communication during the review process. Please feel free to have any of your staff reviewing this application to contact me at the letterhead address with any questions or requests. Thank you for your attention to this matter, and I look for- ward to very prompt and productive action on the application for a Special Use Permit. Sincerely, Stephen SelfG' General Manager SS/mr RICHARD 4 LAMM GOvERNOR Permit No. 1186_R COLORADO DIVISION OF MINES DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL- RESOURCES 1313 Sterman Street, Denver, Colorado 80203 Telephone 866-3401 Donald McCauley, Director PERMIT TO STORE AND USE EXPLOSIVES Permit Expires nFE3:.MRER 31,1Q84 Date Noygmber 21.x1983 In compliance with Chapter 34, Article 27, Sections 101 through 110, Article 47, Sections 103 and 104, and Chapter 9, Article 7, Colorado Revised Statutes 1973, permission is hereby granted co store and use explosives as follows: Name of Operator �Apside Coad. Company Inc, Address of Operator Post .ice Sox 161,Silt Colorado 81652 Name of Operation Ea.s.sjde Mine Telephone: (303)876-2944 Address of Operation_zaaLsuirlorado 81652 County Garfield Name of Person in ChargeTelephone: (303)876-2944 Location of Magazine: S _24 92 W Township Section Range Surface (X) Underground ( ) Mine Location ';.i M71es North gf Silt.Colo�_in Harvey Gap Kind of Explosives & E1 i hl stin ca s Maximum Amount to be Stored 6000 pounds Distance from Main Workway, County Road 720 feet Highway 3 plus miles Distance from Nearest Inhabited Building one plus mile Railroad 3 plus miles Distance from Other Explosives or Detonator Magazine Cap magazine -65 feet -barricaded. Number of Shot Firers of Employees Who Will .Use Explosives _ Three Magazine Construction: (Explain) Ci . • 0 - u-- . 00 _ 0 It - 0 • • 0 • .. .000 1 - 0 - - . • 00 doors, th lock prottors,t?ro�tn�ed�warnin signs either side of magazines. quirements. This permit will remain in effect while the above quantities and distances are maintained and the magazine is kept clean, properly ventilated, locked and secured by an adequate door. The grantee agrees to '-emove from the premises all powder and explosives when operations are permanently shut down. Remarks: Sketch of magazines locations on file in Denver offices of C.D.M. APPROVED: POST THIS PERMIT INSIDE THE MAGAZINE This Permit is not Transferable Director ,(2? -4&,,,,,4v; L�12 District Inspector District No. THREE �7 6 DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES David H. Getches, Executive Director j`" MINED LAND RECLAMATION DIVISION DAVID C. SHELTON, Director Richard D. Lamm Governor October 14, 1983 Board of County Commissioners Garfield County 8th and Colorado P.O. Box 640 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602 Re: Harvey Gap Exploration Project - File No. CX -186-00 Dear Sirs: COMly Pursuant to Section 34-33-114 of the Colorado Surface Coal Mining Reclamation Act, the Colorado Division of Mined Land Reclamation is filing the enclosed notice of a decision to approve a permit application for a coal exploration project involving the extraction of more than 250 tons of coal. The application was submitted by the Eastside Coal Company, Inc. for the Harvey Gap Project, located 3 1/2 miles north of Silt, Colorado. The initial publication of the Decision is to be in the Glenwood Post the week of October 24, 1983. Sincerely, Dan Mathews Reclamation Specialist DM/mab Enclosure Doc. No. 6269 423 Centennial Building, 1313 Sherman Street Denver, Colorado 80203 Tel. (303) 866-3567 -2 - Decision Harvey Gap Exploration Project The Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Division is approving, with stipulations, an application to conduct coal exploration activities removing greater than 250 tons of coal submitted by the Eastside Coal Company, Inc. for the Harvey Gap Project. This approval decision is based on a finding that the proposed exploration operation will comply with all applicable requirements of the Colorado Surface Coal Mining Reclamation Act, C.R.S. 1973 as amended, 34-33-101 et seq., and the Rules and Regulations promulgated pursuant to the Act. The permit application and the stipulations will become a binding part of the permit upon approval. The stipulations for the Harvey Gap Project are as follows: Stipulation No. 1 PRIOR TO ANY TRANSPORT OF COAL FROM THE SITE OF THE HARVEY GAP EXPLORATION PROJECT, THE PERMITTEE SHALL SUBMIT TO THE DIVISION PROOF THAT THE COAL TO BE TRANSPORTED IS COMMITTED FOR TESTING PURPOSES. THE PROOF MUST BE IN THE FORM OF A WRITTEN AGREEMENT, SUCH AS A CONTRACT. Stipulation No. 2 WITHIN THREE MONTHS OF APPLICATION APPROVAL, THE PERMITTEE MUST SUBMIT THE RESULTS OF TEST CORINGS AND ANALYSES WHICH DOCUMENT THAT SUFFICIENT SUITABLE PLANT GROWTH MATERIAL IS AVAILABLE. ANALYSES SHALL INCLUDE TEXTURE, EC, pH, AND SAR. IF THE TESTS INDICATE THAT SUFFICIENT MATERIAL OF ACCEPTABLE QUALITY IS NOT AVAILABLE, AN ACCEPTABLE ALTERNATIVE WILL BE IDENTIFIED. • • &AY -410 lli.1(11/ PC 4/14/93 PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS REQUEST: Eastside Mine, Special Use Permit for a mineral extraction operation APPLICANT: Eastside Coal Company, Inc. LOCATION: A tract of land located in portions of Sections 19, T5S, R91W and Sections 23 and 24, T5S, R92W, more practically described as a parcel located approximately 3.5 miles north of Silt off of County Road 237. SITE DATA: An 830 acre tract for a coal mine and associated facilities. WATER: Individual wells and spring • SEWER: Individual sewage disposal system ACCESS- Via County Road 237 EXISTINGONING: A/R/RD ADJACENT ZONTN(i: North: O/S South: A/R/RD, O/S East: A/R/RD, O/S West: O/S I. RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The parcel is located in Districts D, Rural Areas with Moderate Environmental Constraints and District F, Rural Areas with Severe Environmental Constraints. II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL A. Site Description: The site is in the Harvey Gap area of the Grand Hogback and is a narrow valley floor with water running north to south, with the Grass Valley Reservoir on the north end. The terrain is generally fairly steep, with predominantly pinon-juniper trees with Indian rye-grass, cheatgrass, large sagebrush and other similar types of vegetation indigenous to this type of area. Mining activity has occurred in the area since 1913, with an existing mine on the east side of the gap and remnants from previous mining activity on the west side. 1 • • There is an office, bathhouse, shop and generator shed on the site presently, that are from previous mining activity approved in 1985. B. Project Descriion: The applicant is requesting a special use permit for a coal mine and associated facilities. The request is for a maximum of 20,000 tons per year for the life of the mine. The mine will employ eight (8) people during that time. The disturbed area of the mine site will be a maximum of 13 acres, which will include all buildings, storage and waste disposal areas. The mine portal area is on the east side of the gap and will have the office, bathhouse, shop, generators, powder magazine, water tank, processing plant, coal and rock storage areas and equipment storage areas. The west side of the gap will have the waste disposal area, which is included in the previously noted 13 areas of disturbed area. The mine's water, needs will be for dust suppression in the mine, domestic water for the bathhouse, office and sanitary facilities, and for cooling equipment and exhaust scrubbers. The estimated 75,000 gallons per year of domestic water would come from a spring, two wells and water pumped from the mine. Domestic drinking water will be provided from bottled water from a local purveyor. The water is stored in a 10,000 gallon storage tank. Sewage is dealt with by an existing individual sewage disposal system. Coal will be hauled off-site in end dump trailer trucks with a gross weight of 68,000 to 80,000 pounds. It is proposed that there will be an average of five round trips a day, Monday through Friday. The trucks will haul 18 to 25 tons of coal in each load, which will be covered. The trucks will use County roads 237 to 233 to 227, to access Highway 6 & 24 (See map page_). HISTORY Up until 1985, coal mining activity on the subject lands has occurred since 1913, with a maximum annual production of 5,970 tons. In 1985, Garfield County by Resolution 85-42, approved a 200,000 ton/year maximum production. From 1985 to 1990, when the permit expired, the mine produced a maximum of 6,960 tons of coal. Since that time, Eastside Coal has continued to operate as a nonconforming use, with a maximum production level of 857 tons per year. III. MAJOR ISSUES AND CONCERNS A. Zoe: Mineral extraction, processing, storage and material handling are special uses in the A/R/RD zone district. As a special use, certain requirements must be met: 5.03 (1) Utilities adequate to provide water and sanitation service based on accepted engineering standards and approved by the Environmental Flealth officer shall either be in place or shall be constructed in conjunction with the proposed use; (2) Street improvements adequate to accommodate traffic volume generated by the proposed use and to provide safe, convenient access to the use shall either be in place or shall be constructed in conjunction with the proposed use; 2 (3) • • Design of the proposed use is organized to minimize impact on and from adjacent uses of land through installation of screen fences or landscape materials on the periphery of the lot and by location of intensively utilized areas, access points, lighting and signs in such a manner as to protect established neighborhood character. 5.03.07 (1) An impact statement demonstrating that the application shall be designed and operated in compliance with the applicable laws and regulations of the County, State and Federal governments, and will not have a significant adverse effect upon: (A) Existing lawful use of water through depletion or pollution of surface run- off, stream flow or ground water; (B) Use of adjacent land through generation of vapor, dust, smoke, noise, glare or vibration, or'other emanations; (C) Wildlife and domestic animals through creation of hazardous attractions, alteration or existing native vegetation, blockade of migration routes, use patterns or other disruptions. (2) Truck and automobile traffic to and from such uses shall not create hazards or nuisances to areas elsewhere in the County; (3) Sufficient distances shall separate such use from abutting property which might otherwise be damaged by operations of the proposed uses; (4) Permits shall be granted for those uses only with the provisions that a satisfactory rehabilitation plan for the affected land be submitted prior to commencement of such use. 5.03.08 Industrial Performance Standards: All industrial operations in the County shall comply with applicable County, State and Federal regulations regulating water, air and noise pollution and shall not be conducted in a manner constituting a public nuisance or hazard. Operations shall be conducted in such a manner as to minimize heat, dust, smoke, vibration, glare and odor and all other undesirable environmental effects beyond the boundaries of the property in which such uses are located, in accord with the following standards: (1) Volume of the sound generated: every use shall be so operated that the volume of sound inherently and recurrently generated does not exceed ninety (90) decibels, with a maximum increase of five (5) decibels permitted for a maximum of fifteen (15) minutes in any one (1) hour, at any point of any boundary line of the property on which the use is located; (2) Vibration generated: every use shall be so operated that the ground vibration inherently and recurrently generated is not perceptible, without instruments, at any point of any boundary line of the property on which the use is located; 3 • • • (3) Emissions of smoke and particulate matter: every use shall be operated so as to comply with all Federal, State and County air quality laws, regulations and standards; (4) Emission of heat, glare, radiation and fumes: every use shall be so operated that it does not emit heat, glare, radiation or fumes which substantially interfere with the existing use of adjoining property or which constitutes a public nuisance or hazard. Flaring of gases, aircraft warning signals, reflective painting of storage tanks,. or other such operations which may be required by law as safety or air pollution control measures shall be exempted from this provision; (5) Storage area, salvage yard, sanitary landfill and mineral waste disposal areas: (A) Storage of flammable or explosive solids or gases shall be in accordance with accepted standards and laws and shall comply with the National Fire Code; (B) At the discretion of the County Commissioners, all outdoor storage facilities for fuel, raw materials and products shall be enclosed by a fence or wall adequate to conceal such facilities from adjacent property; (C) Nb materials or wastes shall be deposited upon a property in such form or manner that they may be transferred off the property by any reasonably foreseeable natural causes or forces; (D) All materials or wastes which might constitute a fire hazard or which may be edible by or otherwise be attractive to rodents or insects shall be stored outdoors in accordance with applicable State Board of Health Regulations; (6) Water pollution: in a case in which potential hazards exist, it shall be necessary to install safeguards designed to comply with the Regulations of the Environmental Protection Agency before operations of the facilities may begin. All percolation tests or ground water resource tests as may be required by local or State Health Officers must be met before operation of the facilities may begin. The following are the staff responses to the applicants proposal: 5.03 (1) The applicant has proposed to use water pumped from the mine, a spring and two wells as the source of domestic water. A plan of augmentation has been submitted to the water court, but there is no final ruling on the plan. Once the final decree is approved, the applicant will have adequate water for domestic purposes. Sewage is being treated by an existing individual sewage disposal system installed in the 1970's. There is no known capacity of the septic tank or leach field. Either the capacity will have to be determined and found to be capable of handling the proposed needs or a new approved system should be installed per a permit from Garfield County. 4 1 • • (2) The applicant has submitted an analysis of the road impacts, based on a road study done for the County by Chen -Northern that concludes that the proposed coal haul trucks will not cause an a ditional need for improvements to the impacted County roads (See letter pages . The applicant's analysis uses a different method of analyzing the data developed from the Chen -Northern study and comes to a different, but similar conclusion. The Chen -Northern study used a Falling Weight Deflectometer to test the various County roads strength to establish a level of improvements necessary, to meet the projected traffic impacts for a five (5) year design life. The applicant's analysis used the data from the Chen -Northern study to establish R -values for the pavement and sub -base of the impacted roads. Using these values and the projected traffic loading, the applicant established a one and one-half (1.5) year design life. Both studies conclude that additional overlay depths are necessary to deal with exist g traffic, but they have different amounts of overlay needed (See maps pages 13+ i ). A summary of the overlay depths recommended by each study is as follows: Road Chen -Northern (5 yr.) SGM (1.5 yr) CR 227 0.5" 3.5" CR 233 0.7" 3.0" CR 237 (South of Mine) 1.0" 3.5" CR 237 (at Mine) 0.5" NONE The applicant's (SGM) analysis states that the 1990 existing traffic load will require the equivalent overlay, to the 1990 traffic plus the projected coal trucks. In other words, the coal truck traffic will not increase the amount of overlay needed to meet existing traffic loads. The staff has difficulty reviewing the two analysis that utilize different techniques to evaluate the road impacts. Each has a different design life, five (5) years versus one and one-half (1.5) years. The applicant's position is that the trucks will not increase the amount of overlay needed, therefore there is no need for the applicant to make any improvements to the haul road. Section 5.03(2) states that there need to be "street improvements adequate to accommodate traffic volume generated by the proposed use and to provide, safe, convenient access to the use shall either be in place or shall be constructed in conjunction with the proposed use". Both studies conclude that the existing road is inadequate to deal with just existing traffic. The previously noted section of the zoning requires "improvements adequate to accommodate traffic generated", which the County does not have the capability of doing by itself. So, unless the applicant is willing to make improvements to the road, a finding that there are street improvements adequate to accommodate the traffic generated and provide safe, convenient access cannot be made. The applicant does note that they have participated inrepair and maintenance activities previously, but there is not commitment to continue at least that type of agreement. (3) The applicant has reviewed the visual impacts of the mine and in summary noted that the primary visual impacts will be fairly minimal when driving by the mine site and from certain points on the Harvey Gap Reservoir dam embankment. Given the proposed small scale of the mine and associated facilities, the impacts to adjacent properties will be minimal in terms of visual impacts. Access points to the mine site and waste disposal areas are located in reasonable locations. The only signs proposed are those required by the State MLRB. 5 • • 3.03.07 (1) (a) As noted previously, the applicant has filed a plan of augmentation for the necessary water rights. Enclosed in the application is a copy of an approved Colorado Wastewater Discharge Permit effective 7/1/92. (b) Eastside Coal has an approved Colorado Department of Health, Air Pollution Control Division, Emission Permits issued on 1/16/84 for coal processing; primary and secondary crushing and screening; underground coal mining operation; material handling, vehicle traffic emissions and other similar air emission sources. Also included in the application is a noise impact study done by Engineering Dynamics of Englewood that demonstrates that noise from the mine site and truck traffic from the mine will comply with state noise level limits. There are no identified sources of glare due to reflection from or lighting on the site. None of the mining activities will result in vibration off of the property. (c) The Colorado Division of Wildlife has reviewed the application and based on the proposal does not anticipate any additional impacts to wildlife in the area. (2) Truck traffic's physical impacts on County roads was reviewed previously. The average of five (5) round trips per say, Monday through Friday, are to be covered, minimizing the possibility of dust affecting properties along the haul route. The County Road and Bridge departm t has expressed some concerns about the traffic safety (See memo page 17 ). The Road and Bridge department's concerns are related to the physical narrowness of the road in one section and signage/stripping along the route. The traffic due to recreational use poses a potential safety concern. Silt officials have expressed concern about heavy truck traffic travelling through town, rather than going west on 6 & 24 to access the Interstate system. As noted previously, the trucks will not exceed any statutory noise limitations according to the applicant's consultant. The applicant has received an approval of the coal haul schedule date of June,1991. Confirmation by the School District that this schedule is still valid, should be obtained prior to issuance of any permits. In general, hauling will be between 7:00 A.M. and 7:00 P.M., Monday through Friday. Emergency hauling may occur to three (3) times a quarter, with notification to the Planning Department in advance. If this is approved, notice should be given to the Road and Bridge department, not the Planning Department. Automobile traffic due to employees and vendors, should not pose a problem, based on the relatively small scale of the mine. The mining operations nearest property line is 413 feet from the north property line. This is the property line that is contiguous with the Harvey Gap State Recreation area. The State Park Ranger has noted that there will be visual impacts and potential traffic impacts (See letter page if ). These issues have been addressed in previous comments. (4) Eastside Coal has a reclamation plan approved by the State Mined Land Reclamation Division, dated June 29, 1990, and with an expiration date of (3) 6 • • January 13, 1995. This permit must remain valid for the life of any permit approved by the County. Included in the approval of the reclamation plan is a $49,000.00 bond for reclamation, that the State has determined is adequate. 5.03.08 (1) As noted previously, Engineering Dynamics of Englewood has concluded that Eastside Coal will comply with all County and State noise limits; (2) Eastside has indicated that there is no anticipated vibration that will be noticed on adjacent properties, due to any of their operations; Eastside has air emission permits in place for all operations on the site requiring permits. No other operations are anticipated to cause smoke or particulate matter emissions; (4) No heat, glare, radiation or fumes are anticipated that will substantially interfere with the existing use of adjoining properties; (a) All explosives are stored in a concrete and steel storage explosive magazine, with the appropriate permits in place from the Colorado Division of Mines. All other flammable liquids are stored in metal tanks; (b) All outdoor storage of fuel products is encircled by a concrete retaining wall or earthen berm two feet high to minimize any spill or leak. Given that the supply storage area is behind the bathhouse and office, there does not appear to be any purpose in requiring additional screening of these facilities; (c) Solid waste disposal from the mining operation will be disposed of in a waste disposal area approved as a part of the MLRB permit. The disposal area is located on the west side of the gap and will be visible for short periods of time from CR 237. MLRB requires drainage and dust control measures; (d) The coal storage area may constitute a fire hazard, but will be stored in compliance with the COH Emission permit and should not constitute a fire hazard; (e) The mining operation is required to comply with parameters established in the State Waste Water Discharge permit. There are monitoring requirements to ensure that water quality is maintained. There are additional sampling and monitoring requirements required by MLRB. (3) (5) 9.03.05 The application for the Special Use Permit is for the life of the mine and if deemed necessary, periodic reviews of compliance or noncompliance. At the last major special use permit for a coal mine (NCIG), the Board of County Commissioners imposed the following language as a part of a condition of approval: Once begun, any cessation of mining activity for a period of more than one (1) year shall be considered an invalidation of all land use permits and any resumption of mining activity shall require a new special use permit application. 7 • • For purposes of this Resolution, "mine activity" in terms of cessation of mine activity, means the mining of coal in excess of 10,000 tons per calendar year. "Mine activity" does not mean construction of surface facilities at the mine site nor does it mean the construction of the mine including, but not limited to, the completion of rock tunnels, the installation of mine ventilation equipment and other such mine development activities. It is suggested that a similar condition be imposed on any approval of this application. IV. SUGGESTED FINDINGS 1. That the public meeting before the Planning Commission was extensive and complete, that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted and that all parties were heard at the meeting. 2. That proposed special use conforms to the application requirements of Section 5.03.07 and, 5.03.08 of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended. 3. That the proposed land use will be compatible with existing and permitted land uses in all directions if appropriate conditions are attached to the permit. 4. That for the above stated and other reasons, the proposed special use is consistent with the best interests of the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County. V. RECOMMENDATION Unless the applicant can propose some method of mitigating the road impacts, the Planning Commission cannot make a determination that there are "street improvements adequate to accommodate traffic volume generated by the proposed use", therefore, the request should be denied. If improvements to the County road can be made, the following conditions should be included with an approval: (1) That all road improvements and safety improvements necessary to improve CR 227, CR 233, and CR 237 to provide a safe and convenient access to the mine be completed prior to issuance of a Special Use permit; (2) The applicant demonstrate that the existing individual sewage disposal system is properly sized to meet the needs of the mine or construct an ISDS that is approved by the County; (3) Prior to issuance of a Special Use permit, the applicant submit a letter from the RE -2 School District confirming the current school bus schedule; (4) That all proposals of the applicant shall be considered conditions of approval, unless specified otherwise by the Board of County Commissioners; 8 • (5) Once begun, any cessation of mining activity for a period of more than one (1) year shall be considered an invalidation of all land use permits. and any resumption of mining activity shall require a new special use permit application. For purposes of this Resolution, "mine activity" in terms of cessation of mine activity, means the mining of coal in excess of 10,000 tons per calendar year. "Mine activity" does not mean construction of surface facilities at the mine site nor does it mean the construction of the mine including, but not limited to, the completion of rock tunnels, the installation of mine ventilation equipment and other such mine development activities. 9 n�p C u.Ka\A1-ocv via&\' luno. /7' ® / it p /v/ /, '0 • :1 • (303) 945.1004 FAX (303) 945-5948 SGM SOHHUESER GORDON MEYER ENGINEERS SURVEYORS 1001 Grand Avenue, Suite 2E Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 March 22, 1993 Mr. Steve Self East Side Coal Company, Inc. P.O. Box 161 Silt, Co. 81652 RE: Re-evaluation of Pavement Sections Dear Steve; As we discussed, on the phone at the end of last week, I have revised the pavement analysis using the Chen -Northern Falling Weight Deflectometer test results for the existing pavement sections on the proposed haul road to the East Side Coal facility north of Silt. The proposed haul road route consists of County Road 227, east on County Road 233 and north on County Road 237 to the mine. Again, I analyzed the overlay depths required for a reduced yearly haul tonnage of 20,000 tons/year. In addition, as we discussed, I analyzed the impact of only the 1990 traffic plus the original two options that were analyzed: Option #1 - 1/3 of the haul trucks at 80,000 Ib = 317/year 2/3 of the haul trucks at 68,000 Ib = 635/year Empty haul trucks at 30,000 Ib = 952/year Option 112 - 100% of the haul trucks at 68,000 Ib = 1052/year Empty haul trucks at 30,000 Ib = 1052/year These options were analyzed with existing traffic and with mine traffic for a design period of 1 1/2 years. The Chen -Northern FWD test results indicated a strength and depth for the existing asphalt and base course layers. These values are showh in the enclosed Pavement Analysis printouts as the layer coefficient and layer thickness on the lower portion of the printouts. Summarized below are the result of the analysis; overlay depths required for the 1 1/2 year design life. 1990 Road Traffic Option #1 Option #2 CR 227 3 1/2" 3 1/2" 3 1/2" CR 233 3" 3" 3" CR 237 3 1/2" 3 1/2" 3-12' 3 Z y South of Mine CR 237 None None None At mine March 22, 1993 Mr. Steve Self Page 2 As you can see from the table, a year and a half of hauling coal will hot require overlay depths greater than already needed to properly maintain the toads fol existing traffic loadings. Please do not hesitate to call if you have any questions. Sincerely, SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC. Dan Cokley, E.I.T. Encl. DC/ j a90248.2 SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC 3. . 0 vt4ak N.Q, i E est Coc.\ G'*u 0 4 - so sl) ttf N s- co N O 1 r ).C) 0 U m a) • U) C O is O • s_s aTa S- 0 0 0 a) CD T m L_CI ELCCD .CQS4-)00 a)� a)mU)LoD0+)or4-) w E N44- Ca)a)EL +) t0 CII) 0 > 4- .).) C t6 Co E a) p-0 L T- o) (o •0 (0 4- QS Q) s C D U) = 0 0 T C s "r 'O E +) r 4- Cr) 0 .O 4- p (oa)L v .•N a) -SOL a) 0 >, .) a) t--) CU) > C (A t0 L Q) 'D r - T.0 L O 0 t6+) -r+) D)c0 QS D +) T •r L2 Q -r X C -D O •D O C (JL. • a)+) 0 3 a) Or C•r L L 0 O C .0 [0 L L 0 D L 0 CMZ +) OL t?4.)) (1).0 t0 3 *'-- O C a) O a) O > +) otS -C U) O a) (t3 +) 4- .0 a) W L H -1-) U) (i 0L L. D> 4-)4i C •..c1 •(I)0) E 4- CO a) +) (0 0 4) 0) U) ITS OCD (1) •*- r L -D O +) > -O L •r I- 03 W 4- 0 0) al a) rn D Ci) C 4- r T 4— a) �4-C C E a) -r -D 0 L «S r a) H a) .-3 4- -0 CO a) c a) L to "O C a)c0L.COL+)t0'D-O>, • U)0 a)0>.nCD s -m E C -r -N .C04-00) RS L- 0(0a)a)+)Ca)4-)0'0 4-0Ns-(0 N 4- L L a) 4.) •r 4.) . 0 0 .0 Lr (a a)r-+) O Up 4-) 0. 0 C CO -r- 0) r D 4- LC QSEQ)O • a) U) •D r- L U 0 .F) -(1) C .r L X 9— 0 4. 4-) 0 a) 4- 4- 4- .0 •r O (a to (i) a) +) +) 'D L .0 .0 C L > 0 E (TC c0La)0_o +)'0L 0. s- U) O4-) a) a)'Da)c000-00) sM( -.CC C.0 4 s 4-) +) a) to -- -0 -0 0 >, Co D a) CO +) L -04) C 04- X0 0 3 L C -r >, 4- F . 4- 0) O D U) -r 0 +) N a) . - U) c C t L U '-) 4) 0 +) LCD 7 0 0 *- V) _C ca O)D �N a) 0 +) (0 C U) D •0 ^ +) 0 -*" c0 4- 0 >D O ,- 04)0)0)04) t0 • c0E+'0 LC00m TS s C c0 0 ca +) 0 rn a) -r 0. 0 c0 a) +) 0. 0 0 .0 L L -r .0 a) U) X M O S 0 >, 0 H U) 4.) D.0 3 -N E C t0 a) -O L .N C +) L U . U) T 40- -t-- 0 U 4 --*- r (0 C 4- L U) •D C h N O C -0 0 CD >, 0 TCL a)+) L o 0+) Cas .0 0 s- 4 - U) M 4- m a) 0 4- -0 M O +) >� U) U O • LN L T O D) t L s C d) CC CD 4- L C t0 > O O U 0 r- CO 3 4- iU LUaONs- 4-) 4) •r O a) +) U) 4- s D U i, .0 4"NS00.•r-L0 O4.. E> C )) 0 C C 4- C O L O +) a) t04-•) QiT -I) L a) L 4 0 ..0 to •r L T 4- C c0 a) U) O C 4- , _ O a) OCEi-C+) 0 (!) U) 0 C. CD .T L r a) (LS +' p r- In L +) "D O (d CO C +) .0 CO 4- C (0 C U) a) 4- -r 0 D 4-) 4-) 4-)0� N T C N om r .0 � +) U (nU) a) 0) CD a) al 0 0 a) O E ( -r SU C 3 O. CL L 4)-r C 0- O L L a) 0 O N QS .r 4) U - U) (O O O () U0 t0 : L D W -0 O C a) Co 0 • L U) a) a) c04 - C -r 4) a) (0 D 4-) so a) O t0 +) o O 1-) C C a) ()0O+)L0 O Or ()• U rO.D EnOL+)+) c0 O L (0 E a) m D m a) c0 D C r0. Ea)N_CCCCCOO N al - O .N L ca Co 0 0 a) -•- 4-) O. -r D O C 4-) r C.) -r- CKS r QS >, .r +-) a) N •D D 13 r 0 C QS >O (0 0 (0 f0 (0a) - L 03 (00-17' T T +) >, 'O .0 a) C • 4 r NWCO C .0 (0 O U) E 0)4- rte- L a) 1-) U L (a EO C L C O 'D > U) C a)a) mOa)a)r`CI) U> O ca Lf o yF- QS d-) + N ) U) s- r D CD s