Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.1 ApplicationREQUEST: BOCC 5/2/94 PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS Eastside Mine, Modification of the Special Use Permit for a mineral extraction operation APPLICANT: Board of County Commissioners 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 EXISTING ZONING: A/R/RD ADJACENT ZONING: 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. Garfield County approved by Resolution No. 93-060, a Special Use Permit for Eastside Coal to operate a coal mine in the Harvey Gap area. Condition E.(2) required Eastside to make improvements to the intersection of County Roads 227 and 231 consistent with a drawing submitted as a part of the application (see page .J• ). As required, Eastside installed the improvements necessary 1 • to delineate the intersection to be consistent with the drawings. Once the improvements were installed, it was determined that the turning radius for trucks was inadequate. After site visits by Road and Bridge personnel and Board members, it was determined that the delineation installed needed to be removed. • • ISSUES AND CONCERNS A. Zoning: Since one of the conditions of approval was approved as a part of a public hearing, it is necessary to reopen the public hearing to reconsider • change a • • • of approval.•• • or removalof the condition of approval, will require a separate Resolution of approval. (B) Road and Bridge Department: Eastside and the County Road and Bridge Supervisor have met at the intersection in question, to consider alternative designs. Eastside will b' submitting an alternativedesign that will •' monitored by the Road and Bridge Department as to its effectiveness. If necessary, modifications •1 •" agreed to by both parties. TV. SUGGESTED FINDINGS 1. That the public hearing before the Board of County Conunissioners was extensive 1• complete,1. pertinent 1• Garfield issues were submitted and that all parties were heard at the meeting. 2. That the proposed special use conforms to the application requirements of the County Zoning Resolution of • i as amended. 3. That 1'proposed /• use will •" compatible with existing1•• 1 • land uses 1 all directions if appropriate c• • •attached to the permit. Garfield4. That the proposed use will comply with all applicable standards contained in the County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended. 5. That for the above stated and other reasons,proposed •e consistentcial use is 1 the best interests of the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County. V. RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL of the proposed modification • • 1 • • 1 of Resolution No. • 1 EXiSTING '0 Lo IL:c0 X X CA/IP /RR/CATION DI TC .'v ,..l; 0 — — S c ING X X 1 DRIVEWAY .=X -ST VG EDGE OF PAVEMENT FIov.i end Direction of Traffic 227-233 INTERSECTION 40 80 120 Feet L_ STA T/nni �n1.nn 18" CMP • • BOCC 6/3/93 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, R91 W 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 EXISTING ZONING: A/R/RD ADJACENT ZONING: 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 1 • • east side of the gap and remnants from previous mining activity on the west side. There is an office, bathhouse, shop and generator shed on the site presently, that are from previous mining activity approved in 1985. B. Project Description: 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 wr• ). 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. Zoning: 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 Health 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) No 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. 5.03.12 Access Routes: All conditional uses and special uses must be provided with access routes of adequate design to accommodate traffic volume generated by the proposed use and to provide safe, convenient access for the use constructed in conjunction to the proposed use. The minimum design standards shall be the Garfield County Road Specifications. 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. 4 • • Sewage will be treated by an individual sewage disposal system to be installed, which will replace an existing system that has an unknown capacity. The new system has been designed to accommodate 15 people. (2) The applicant has submitted two analysis of the access road impacts, based on a road study done for the County by Chen -Northern. The first study did not evaluate the impacts on the same basis and was revised to be more consistent with the County's methodology. The County's study concluded that the roads to be used for hauling are presently structurally inadequate for existing traffic without the addition of varying amounts of asphalt. The latest analysis done by SGM for Eastside Coal, indicates that if all of the haul trucks had a gross weight of 80,000 lbs., the amount of asphalt needed at the weakest section of the haul route would increase from 1.80 inches to 1.92 inches (See enclosed pages cR —� ). Their conclusion is that since asphalt mats are replaced in 1/2inch increments, the Eastside Coal hauling of 20,000 tons/year would not have any additional impact for the five (5) year design life of the road. It should be noted that the applicant is requesting a maximum of 20,000 tons/year for the life of the mine. In addition to the structural deficiencies identified, the Road and Bridge Department has identified some additional safety issues related to the intersection of County Road 227; the narrowness of the road in certain areas and the signing of the road (See page %�- ). The applicant has responded to some of these issues in a supplement to the application. King Lloyd, Road and Bridge Supervisor, verbally indicated that he had met with the applicant and they had discussed other changes. These will be presented at the hearing. The Planning Commission recommended that some form of .road impact fee be established to mitigate the cost of road maintenance/improvement costs. While this may provide a more equitable method of paying for the needed road improvements, it will not provide for the total cost. By accepting a road impact fee, the County appears to be obligating itself to paying the difference for road improvements/maintenance not covered by the impact fees collected, much sooner than the present road improvement schedule would dictate. To meet this standard, a finding needs to be made that road improvements have or will be made "to provide safe, convenient access to the use". (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. 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 5 • • 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) The 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 department has expressed some concerns about the traffic safety, noted previously. Silt officials have expressed concern about heavy truck traffic travelling through town, rather than going west on 6 & 24 to access the Interstate system (See letter page -J ). 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 by the School District bus director. In general, hauling will be between 7:00 A.M. and 7:00 P.M., Monday through Friday. Emergency hauling may occur up 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. (3) 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 - ). 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 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; 6 Vc(ov (3) • • 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; (5) ktr (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. 3ors (.se, to_ 5.03.12 \\° The same basic finding of a safe access route needs to be made, as noted previously. 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. 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. 7 • • B. Other Comments: The Garfield County Citizens Alliance asked that the enclosed article from the Wall Street Journal be entered into the record. It deals with the parent company of Eastside Coal purchasing various oil and gas interests (See page - Staff received a letter of support for the project from Kenneth Short (See page). 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 the proposed special use conforms to the application requirements 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 the proposed use will comply with all applicable standards contained in the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended. 5. 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 `?" \�\ aIP 'Or fP Dov° Jer0 7 The Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed Special Use permit, ,zec e with the following conditions of approval: dad� .P�7 uA�e n s ri ing improvements - t e mine b�com leted Prior (1) That all road signin d t is necessary t unproy�YpCR . <' 233, anc CR + t ovide a e and convenient access to p p ,i/s, t0 kv t 1 ..ai 6.44. I r a - n,„ Iyj`'s (2) The Commissioners consider developing a scale for thea �pliccaa/r`itt_to pay on^aper ton nG� c%)/7( • c e � t� V c E (.4.4 11 11 .- 4-o w o � (3) The applicant demonstrate that the -existing individual sewage disposal system properly sized to meet the needs of the mine or construct an ISDS that is approved by Davt• the County; basis for road impacts; (4) Priortoissuance of a Special Use perniit, the applicant submi_ t.a letter from the RE h'othe_ 2 Seol Dis confirming .the current school bus schedule; -A- f .; t l�, •.. { ,i;,:- ' /,;,r1 F-jf,.�..�P r ,� 1 1. 23 ? (5) That all verbal and written proposals of the applicant shall be considered conditions of approval, unless specified otherwise by the Board of County Commissioners; (6) 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, me 's the mining of coal in excess of 10,000 tons per calendar year. 0"' 8 . • "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. In addition to the above noted conditions, staff would request one additional condition be: (7) That prior to any emergency hauling on a weekend, the applicant shall notify the Road and Bridge Department of the haul. 67-2/e- e LA-clNet es • `-""� ?Of ..> w' I J 6 c d ,fib u / c e 10 14-....iq k Ate e. ;doocc �� `� a./' - � of ••;9.f �`B • , - 70 /2 �/�� 4 :,�,�le�zu•�-�e. 0 v a 0 0 TT -v./ 4)-7 Pe c_ A)©� t t C 0A s �p. • ?r 5/14,e_, ,job cc.,) m e 4c,-1 .4s- ecL 10/ -e -s 4' use- o 9 ��� coo lb • ;)-‘\-"S • -J-001 :k -A/D • 7,/?72.0 iv/ '/ ' • 7,12 /1/./ 4 '0 ": • • • . . ' • (3030;15-1004 (303) 945-59,1I1 sot rtymen cortuort Wren rptottitEtts 11 : March 22, 1003 Mr. stove Self k•ast Side Coal • P.O. box 101 Silt, Co. 01052 11E: 11e -evaluation ot Pavement Sections Dear stove: As we EllsclIsned, on the phone at Hie end of last week, I have rovised thb analysis Using the °hen -Northern railing Weight belleetumeter test I•estiltti fol. the existing Pavement sectIons on the Proposed haLll road to the Last SIde Coal taclIlly. north of silt. The pr-oposed hail! road rotite consists of °minty hoad 2271 bast Oh' 116ad 233 and north oh CoUttly head 23/ to the Mine. • Again, 1 analyzed the overlay dePtho recnilred tor a reddced yearly llaUl lohliade oi 20,000 addition,' only the!!I traffic phis tho original two options that were analyzed.. • optiont the i t 1 1 1 of the halil trucks at 60,000 i Until), hatil It Ltelcd at 30,000' • pptIon 112 - 100%of lite hatil trucks at MON f i Those options were analyzed with existing ti.afflo and with mine traille for h pet-lod ot 1/2 years.. the Chen-rior theft I:WD test resillts indicated a 0 -Width hlitt dopth lot- the oxisting.asphalt and base cease layers. These vaides are 111 1111# enclosed Pavement Analysis printodts as the layer coefficient and layet the lower portion of the printouts. , • SUmlnarized below are the resUit of the analysis: overlay depths redllirbti itir 1/2 year design • iI Ch 227 Ctl 233 011237 Sollth of Mine inihe 1000 Traffic None Option None option 112 •:1 1 • - • • - • • 1- . . _ _ . • • -" ' ''•-•• • • • • -=-. ID • a -0 .•••••• ••••• - • o ..1.• ••••• --Fr: • a -0 VS 0 0 - cr. 0 -a - yr '07 = •r: - -0 0 -a 0) 0 C) 0 0— ••••• = .- 0 . _ > X < 0 0 0 0 t▪ o 0 0 0 0 re. JJ DC/Ja90248.2 : • . • • . •••-• : . . - . - . • . . - „ _a. >-• • - - • •ry • • •',;;..4 •Idas —',,eW4.-ttip--ir—•Var °FP. ...A. ••• •;.• - •••7- .••• . , . • • • ABR W FORINTIRD EASTSIDE COAL COMPANY, INC. no. Box 161 Silt, Colorado 81652 (3(13) 876-2944 APR 3 o 1993 GAF -WIELD COUNTY April 30, 1993 Garfield County Commissioners 109 8th Street, Suite 301 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Commissioners: The enclosed information is in response to the comments from Mark Bean to the Garfield County Planning Commission Garfield County Commissioners and Eastside Coal Company; In Part V. Recommendations, the following statements were made: (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. The engineering evaluations of the required asphalt thickness for the existing 1990 traffic and the additional traffic generated by Eastside Coal based on three different scenarios are as follows: Scenario 1 - 1/3 of coal haul trucks at 80,000 lbs gross weight and 2/3 of coal haul trucks at 68,000 lbs gross weight. Scenario 2 - 100% of the coal haul trucks at 68,000 gross weight. Scenario 3 - 100% of the coal haul trubks at 80,000 lbs gross weight. The 1990 analysis of the existing road structure at the weakest station as measured by Chen -Northern with a Falling Weight Deflectometer indicates an asphalt mat of 1.80 inches would be required to carry the 1990 traffic volume based on a five year design. The additional traffic generated by Eastside Coal with the haul trucks gross weight at 80,000 lbs requires 1.92 inches of asphalt mat. The asphalt mat is placed in inch increments so the difference between 1.80 and 1.92 inches of asphalt is minimal - both existing traffic alone and with the addition of the mine traffic lbs • • . a) -) T -1 -,-I 0 w� 0� 0 - 010 .i-) t0 ZS -- TS -N P cop as a) 0 s� • O 44 a) .0 -al ,g (0 • 4-3 v •� >~ (0 0 A w r 1 U N U) 4) 0 .0 4 S:, RS 0 co 4) TS •r1 TS O 0 IT I 1~ C0 in 4 0) a) H( 44 TS H 0 C tD 3.t > i-1 -,1 ,-i 0 •r1 +) -rl 0 r 4 0 U N -N 0 0 o 0 a) > 0 s~ a) U) 0) tT 1:1 4-) 0 4 • •.-1 1-1 R) > 0 U 3 TS 4) 4-) a) its w a) 0 0 4) NU) '0 .,.{ . N Li U) 4-) C1) •--Ir-1 fU W U) a) 0 !; .Q .PTS 0 U) a) 4) 4) •rf 4) = -r1 TS 04 W 13.1 -'-4 C) -,,.1 I.0 C S: to tts .0 "U) rn U) •a) 0 NTS 4) • a14 Ifl -r1 to a) .[ 3a I a) 4 ' >1 TS 0 TS C.R) -i a) w X '?4 A .0 .0 0 Ss7 ,sem 4-)a) U) 'O C 0 • .rl ,4 4) w w 0 0 N 0 Qf P H U) ft3 a U) E 0 NTS 4) O U) aS -r1 RI O O Z U) 0) a) (0 .Q 0.0) U) ) 0 .r 4 Q) N ..--4 -) • N to U) 1-) sn Ts -r a 4) 0 't3 ) 4 0 U) s~ 4-) 0 4 P 0 N its C N •r al a) H CA 0 31 N 0 .S2 a) a (Cf a) 0 W -r1 U) N to 0 F. 44 5:4 - to ,-i )=. U) TS 0 .S-) a (1) r0 RS TS 0 as 0 o its O p 3U) C a 4-1 to CO U 3t >1tPO4- TS.ca .O 0 3.1 .s~ U) 0 N O N -r1 4 to •r1 0 •r1 0 r1 w •r.1 � - 3-t � U H t3' TJ TS its > tT ) tr W E �U) H w S14 3-1 0 0 0., 0 0� W 0) 0 a) r-1 a) • Sa c 14 a) 44 a) C a) w (j) (3) U) •ri O •r1 •r1 r-1 -r1 3 t 4-) )4 3.1 0 S1,-ri 4) )4 itS 4) 0 •O 0 .$4 0 its c0 O w its U its -r1 = to is Z 31 U) O 4 itf a) -) U) 3.1 U )a U U )-t TS • 34 U) r-1 w 0 S0 0 0 >+ t:11 its r-1 a) 0)(W4 004 0 0 4 N U) 3a L. C w r-1 a) -r1 a) -r1 a) a) o w >; a) O a: itS -P O r 4 U 4) p 0 •-' 1 0 A 4-) - O C C1) I 3 rr 4 a)U a) Z .0 TS Aas , TS to a its a) 'ts u) a) r-1 o Si 4-) N 4 a) U) a) 3 a) U) 0 a) -r1 0 d-) 0 0 S~ < a) to th U) 4 0 .Q 4-) a) is 0 ch C U) 0 '0 0 -r1 • � X 0 --I N 0 < a) 4 r•1 31 c» 0 tt3 -rI TS >Z -r1 tip 0 .C` 04!~ I .v 0) w >1 g •r1 •r1 -rt Q U) 44 U) >t Ct o .0 .-', 0 U) aS 0 O 3-t >+ w r-1 0 If) •L) 't r -I U) O f� •• -4 0) .1) 1) CO U) '.3 to • A w mal 4 as as «^, 34 co a) ttS )-1 s~ Rf TS .O J~ N .4" U) el tT N 01 1-1 4 TS 1 a W 3-1 0 U) -ri 4J O H a 0 0 4 s~ w o U- as a w aa) 4 as + z. -) r�-I 0 w U . -� 0) O- I ,�-I - •3 U) w a) 40 • Ul O +1 U) c S Q O I~ 0 +) as 1~ Z U U) -r1 P 400x)0) Ta 1~ a1 SU), a) 0) a)z 03.1 - 0)3030 a) - -r,s~ r1 0 (ti RS tT U) 4 � -,-I a) a) its .) 1 ." 31 •r1 -r1 )~ a O aI tS' .1-) a) tow 4) 4-) .1-4 to -,.1 g 0 • m 3 U) Aa N "i-1 �I 0) 4 o o a) al I~ g N o TS 0 0 .s~ v 0 >, to a) fa S1a o w ,-1 ,-1 a ,-S a.) 03.1 0 0 0 s +) a) •1.1 1~ H En 0 -CI a) a ca 0 s� � 03 O O w ri tea) 0 w 4-4-4 W - 0 a) 0 •U 44 a) S1, •r 1 -r♦ U O 0 r-1 U) al tT is a) c U) r-1 > W 4-) I d-) < 4.3 -01,-I ro >1 tt1 as IIi S.; S: U) N > - --4 0 0 a) N Q) o r a) )„I E g to 3a -r1 4-) 4J U U UI >s 0) a)ri 4.) O 3a tU ri a) a) m Ul as its as a) r-1 0) r TS 1-) a) •r1 -r1 l 0.4 U td a) a)) > dO 4 0 O a)0� «s Zit XX' aUD•C E4 U E- ...-I U "E -r1 a 0 g EH a) a) -r1 •rl Z to its 4-) E s Sincerely, U) P4 its Enclosures - RE -2 letter, 74. • • CC W' 2q ,0 0 1✓ m Evaluation of Pavement Sections for 5 and 10 Year Design Dear Steve: i >. 0) 0 — .0 . O F-. = U 0.).= 0 i i.. .-' m o co ca 0 "' N U 0 0) 0) O E X O >.>.L j N 0 0) N \ c0 VI N L a) w. r^- M 0 .0 to +, .c 0 CO W C O r_ 0 C C D 11 II U) V n O 0) c0 -0 .0 O) C mN c 0O II cO O•' 0.0 O p 'V N r 00 O — U p 0 O W ��¢ ca como r res A r r L c0 ca 0 N C mar a) ` m 1 :L +- `°= =:� o CO vow w tC o c0 p i ,� a) ,_ O O N •p -0 U •O , N >s i L . E 0 13 C i 0 0CO to 3 " •' U 0 N p .� r 0) L U) >> L 0. O .0 C 0 r Q p 0 CO to '" o a. 4-• '- 2 0 r-' i L s— a O to C �°i N >.'0 it1 O O coO 0 a C t0 0 .0 c N N CO) 4-. L .fl• CI '' C +• >. U c o -0 I- ��`U pea 0. 3��0m c.) to E N •Col 0 C O N-0 V y-+ r NW CO >.L N_ Q)} 0-- :13, co isKa-s3o a'y=» 3c a) >. 0 O > °) ca ca ca •3 t0 t 0 f0 - ` vs r .- 0 to 0- 0) '► >,"'' (00>, cco O t •o ,• O W �.0 p L .° • t 2 C c c I- C N co V r 0) 0 O t0 p co to )- •fl •'-• a) 0 .c to cn 0 = < a) c c -0C I- as 4.4 ►;ocm Q cao'tn2)� c 0' O p CD O U N D O CO) = O+4. -Q Com Z 0 0 O 't3 y, u) W -- 0 a . co U) T. C ° . U) i s 3 .0 .0 > i 0 co C LC N I—U0.I-,`-W o 7 N•- • • • • O _N N >.N.O_>. 1 0 to ai 0 0 C !L c0 Q c0 U) 4- 0) 0) +' N a) >s.0- 0 0) r 0) ' ca .2 co co (. C -t 3 to �, . = to •C N t0 V r7 V j 0) N to i a L O 0) p r c`0 C. In 4- >. • '='� � � a0 ' 5 . o •`_-v a N n!L c c.) tII a 0 m r 0 0) \ tT 0 •17 O N •O co C to ca O IIcN �.-. O �c3 .0 LI) 0� 0 .0 O O W a) C •— !0 j— N 0 0) 'O > 0 C 1 -C � 0 >. (0 _ > ,_ o �' � O l t C I COc0 .0 't7 0 O 0 ca try al= 0 O O ..o N C- ) O 0 .0 i» 0) to -O p C i O a >, .0 M to O O t0 >. C co a) o>, o .c'"' N1] "" "O 0+-'+. o O L -a U m a) c L N to ccs tfl0>' •- O C ca +-• N O (CI �o a) to m ca a)Y� i ca�•� c a) vs N OCO C C C i 1n = V co 0) r 'O ..- •O O -N 0 0 vF---)E3� .OcrO`er0oQca c-vni n = m L o= *' o �_ r O> N I.- N i •0 r N t:i .c �. a) Nau' c0 • W N C w.• .1 r 0 -O r o •0 co C ca O -C > a) c O L T O r a) O N 0 ca C'') >' •a 0 ti-• X co c O T. r 0 O N U p 1 t0 •O w a o 0 N p L OC O >, ..- A 0 . as N co b a) E O C) -0 ca Co'O > E . C .0 O r O C •O N O +- L f, > ep° CL 4; -C-OCD;) � fel,�W to o+.- a) O av Op�a cID)-t(v2X`'0 C 0 �..- N to - 0 0> O •p 0 •O V N O CO 0 0 E .0 >, L. 0. 0 O O a N—Lv m =L p ca `.. c CC" a C N p EL C.. t✓ r 0 i 3 L. . C N >r O. -- N O 0 c) '— C 0 a) •0 >+'" «- o= p — 0 •c y- O E to C CD .� O O p .0 ca 0 7 a "�. r U) - t.. _ 0. Cl.)C r 0 0 L 0) t. to E r N o L U) _ tar U O r L O L C N ca N C -fl a) 0 as C to ocm O `-o ,, r TaL i C �, +-• O .2 >. 3-v�Otn� �CN��oco �c Qo0+_ca O ,p rR1 .0 r �• 0 C 3 O` .— R's .011. U EE 0:..! ? O p Q) C � C C -0 0 C ... O E ;,.„ 'L O c0 0 U U O N t0 C C -o G) r C r = 0 O U) r .N• N p O r N t— •-• -ta .� d 0 I— E U O L p 1 r = too 0 0 O >O� 3 0 0 C •O O N L co 0 L .� to !n > N .0 a) to 'O 0 L < c E •O I- E . ca W < N .0 NEE O $.. I- < •- .- ca Scenario i/2 - • • • April 21, 1993 Mr. Steve Self Page 2 Finally, seasonal variations In road strength due to freeze/thaw cycles and subgrade moisture in the spring is a problem with the existing road. The additional mine traffic will affect the road during these periods to the same degree at which it affects the roads during the "summer" type period which was analyzed. In addition, the additional mine traffic will affect the roads to the same degree in the winter when the roads are at their strongest. The bottom line is the additional mine traffic is not significant when compared to the existing traffic on these roads. Also enclosed is the traffic Information used for this analysis. Please do not hesitate to call if you have any question8. Sincerely, SCI-IMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC. Dan Cokley, E.I.T. Encl. cc: Dave Sturges DC/ja92048.3 SCIIMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC. • • Traffic Analysis (20000 Tlyr) Estimated Dally Total Road Vehicle % 1990 ADT 2000 ADT Mine Traffic 10 yr. ADT (a) (c) (b) 227 Car 64 500 • 585 3 • (60%) 588 (353) PU 31 242 283 3 286 (172) SA 1 8 9 9 (6) DA 4 31 36 1 37 (22) ST 0 0 0 •• 233 Car 53 145 170 3 173 (104) PU 40 110 129 3 132 (79) SA 1 8 9 9 (6) DA 4 8 9 1 10 (6) ST 0 3 4 4+• (3+•) 237 to Odin Dr. Car 50 364 PU 40 321 SA 3 22 26 DA 2 15 ST 17 426 3 376 3 18 1 429 (258) 376 (226) 26 (16) 19 (12) 8+' (5+•) Total 5 yr ADT (0°%) id). 503 (302) 245 (147) 8 (5) 32 (19) • 148 (89) 113 (68) 8 (5) 9 (6) 3+• (2+•) 367 (220) 32t (94) 22 (13) 16 (10) 7+•(4+•) 237 N of Odin Dr. Car 431/2 PU 491/2 SA 2 DA 3 106 . 120 • 5 • 7 S'I' 2 5 >u. 3 ':140 3 ,6 8 1 6 • 127 (76) 109 (66) 143 (86) 123 (74) 6 (4) 5 (3) 9 (6) 8 (5) 6+' (4+•) 5+•(3+') a - Two way b-oflio b - Car, PU, Delivery Traffic reduced by % of coal produced c - 10 year growth factor = 1.17 d - Design lane carries 60% of ADT • Option A - 317 80K vehicles, 635 68K vehlctes, 952 empty vehicles on return lane (per year) Option 13- 1052 68K vehicles, 1052 return (per year) Design Lane carries 60% of non mine traffic and 100% of loaded mine trucks 1?A1! (ijcdtil3iip1.U9tbq ii CR 227 10/90 Condition from Chen=Northern PWD Test E 18 Traffic loads: 2" Asphalt, SC a 034 8" base, SC = Site Speclflc Station SC (Base, Moduli (kid) . 1990 0 0.14 17 0 1002 0.14 i1 0.15 2003 0.14 13 0 3002 0.08 7 2.24 4001 0.07 7 2.44 4490 0.14 8 0.76 EX EX+A EX + B 5year 10 year 78939 185696 86128 200074 84760 197338 Five Year Design 1990+A 1990+13 0 0 0.22 0.2 0 0 2.32 2.29 2.52 2.49 0.84 0.82 Ten Year Design 1990 1990+A 1990+B 0.03 0.09 0.08 0.87 0.93 0.92 0.53 0.6 0.58 3.06 3.13 3.12 3.26 3.33 332 1.55 1.62 1.61 CR 233 10/90 Condition from Chen -Northern PWD Test E 18 Traffic Loads: 2" Asphalt, SC = 0.34 10" base, SC- Silo Specific EX EX+A 5 year 10 year 56746 110347 63935 150119 EX+13 62567 147382 Subgrado Station SC (Base) Modull (ka() 0 0.14 16 1003 0.07 7 2000 0.09 7 3001 0.14 4001 0.095 5024 0.14 Five Year Design 1990 1990+A 0 1.8 1.3 1 0' . 9.69 0.78 0 0 19 1.4 0 1990+B 0 1.88 L38 0 0.76 0 Ten Year Design 1990 1990+A 1990+13 0 0 0 2.4 2.69 2.67 1.9 2.19 2.17 0 0 0 1.24 1.52 1.5 C11237 10/90 Condition from Chen -Northern FWD Test E 18 Traffic loads: 2" Asphalt, SC = 0.34 8" bale, SC - Site Specific 5 year 10 year 237S EX 129884 318661 237N EX + A 137073 333040 EX+A EX+13 135704 330303 Ex + 13 Syear 10 year 45229 117277 52419 131655 51050 128919 Suhgrade Station SC (Basel Moduli (kal) 0 0.11 15 801 0.11 5 1603 0.14 17 2400 0.09 11 Overlay Depths In inches Five Year Design 1990 1990+A 1990+13 0 0 0 1.84 1.98 L95 0 0 0 136 1.6 1.6 Station referenced from Chen -Northern FWD Report Ten Year Design 1990+13 0.58 2.89 1990 1990+A 0.5 0.59 2.79 2.91 0.46 0.5 0.49 2.36 24 239 SC - Structural Coefficient MI, gift • O rn April 29, 1993 Analysis of Mine Haul (load Using 100% 80,000 Ib. Haul Vehicles Dear Steve: O W 3 N O in N3CsC • • •7`' p � O �C Ca) V 3.. co�rn7 CN V) ..0 �� �+ Cr) O U)p = C N a) ... co U •fl - • 0 13) 66— .G>aJ 0iOa L C 1- �U • N _-•0)oL r (7 rcD t!w OU U pcCcDCOr-w U «- •fl 7 0 7 al p '' .o 0 ^L N O � N « L 0. oU +' - tc1 0NN .D •-• m ilCC L O N N N N L>V -p .OO L 0) p L (6 "N L E C >.i- _' '0) 0 70. O C 4- E CD (n O O • 1.) "C O .• AL Or ▪ ..-•7 "-tea r O > > 0 CO L Cn•• CCI U To) .O C (0 O O i- ak a) C o C p •+- O O 'D a 0) L .,_ 0 oD NO> 14 N aUu vi• C a>._E 0) 0) U u) p U , r O L co + co t ✓ o O O L LTC O_ a • .� ►- ::: ,2 p o r 'O p • 0 N N N E -o •r- O>> .� t� C L N _ _ O 7 -I U C • N N C 0 a U'in C C U p U (a Q •(n O U L W .co cn � 'N to r CD i A • -0.) 0.. E m N •U) O O 1.00 ...- i p N r• L p O•� 0) 00Nr- (0 CL p� p c 0) (00)(00) O+' > 'A•d ,� N Q rCON C m. _.... (n'O i a rrrr +r (6 i V) O f• to CA p p o Q U 0) a) • cr)co .O co co • p m 7 N -C 7 cu • a U • c0 n a) U U) co > O C 0) (0 1.. 0) O .O '" O p .0 w •o (n a) U • (n 7 • U U p �- `� a>i `n p ••L "' • o L) coO w+ • .. L (0 o L ▪ .. C•- U a 0 a) �' E C) 3 a .. a) N '� (n L a) 0) L > -i N R1 (C co O "+ pa -•-• o= 7 3 to p U.L. _n a H i 0) co •.._ C 1.. O U !_ (0 >+ E •▪ ' • O U) 0) N 00 U) •••- O >, p a) 'o C O p .r+ • O L >. co m �. p co c0 •D co L r L "�'. o fl a) C »• C >, ca •N p " LAN c0 C p a � c0 Q- a) •N C CD 4-0 O - 7 - .rCI) tD U a) i 1' co O • 0) L "' p co p 0 L • .4''"NI CO 0 C zs 0 >1 't3 O N '- c0 C E U- m C C3 CD 7 t0 ...... - C p (- >. y .. N C ._ U C U) i> U) U U) ••- a. ,-- In 0) o ,_ C "_ U ▪ N 0) 0 •o L O O_ U 0) O D p U 7 ° 3 0) 7 0) ` i- a .r =0 7 u) "• • (0 •• - O iC Cr p Ai - (6 Q CO 1--• C C co "�Cn •p- p Q CO .i' • p .0 (Lo i o .a O O .C] C tD i t0 •C ILO _ >, •O O D U U • C cc L p U p L 'L • p p L7' C >` _ ._ 7 c0 U) •v o C .. 3 a) K •- (a (o O �- ..c! �C O • N p U) L 7 C C p p N U L co i U) C C p >. C E U c=C = t U U o p ra = (>a a o _> X U U p U) - • p a) '-• 7 Q L LO r- - L C!) CA C70 - .0 U N Z F- -5. O W to to of Q N fl 10 LL +' • • April 29, 1993 Mr. Steve Self Page 2 In conclusion, the use of 80,000 Ib trucks to haul coal will not have a significant impact on the road, when compared to the previous scenarios or the existing traffic loads. Please call if you have any questions regarding this matter. Sincerely, SCFIMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC. Dan Cokley, E.I.T. DC/ja90248.4 SCI IMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC. }• •• ec — ee .0 - 3 ®^ 9 j a + g=2 . ( J M (Ti - - -:. @ '- E 7 CI %0_2 S -o - - R 2 \ @ - _ \ __ = 2 = 2 = o. •- = e g @ _ >• .=o2—go 3 \ L- _ _ .= g ¥ „ _ / - ' G = - = 2 J - z o - g 2 @ 2 = _ - : o 0 - 2 E - e f 0 0 � 3/ _���&m.% 0 G 2• @ o U 00 \gym Gw 0 _ _ Z @ D .- m m® � to 0) § >- W D - E - e ( 7-- - / / / _ 0 > ' f (@ } > @ 2 9 • : g . % R / \ 0 : E G @ & / . . D 0 0 I -m �/ �E /& 0 0 = g @ / / \ & @ . _ % 7 - efl / ( a 2 o {� / / ' o a % _ _ \ ±.a . e / I--4 , @ = m 3 . . . Q *� @ L2 oc0 § Eq -2o- _ @ 0 e 0 « 4 O • - / \ .r\ \ e>, 2 a 2 ) 0 0 - _« t' Z3 o% ( c,w = _ = 2 _ Cr;0 / E'= 3 0 @-= ID m 2 _\ - @ O D 2 -. 0=2 2=0 rn 1.4 @03B a\ Oa o& U Q E e _o O - - w ,_ m m L. @� � z c %c. § 2 \ m c 0® R D .- u®/�// /-/ \ /\/// 3 -§z 3 E / > 0 &-- e 0 E > >. _ @ e w > 0 - 0 - Q - 0 0 m m •.= F 4 -= 0 _ - • _ 2 E $ • • = m = e $ . @ _ @ _ = a . — 7 >_ (--3r, 7 o a ID 0 w % W 0 0 @ 2 O 0 7 >. 0 y .o=2±=w 0 = O \ \ �/ Q/3Om�:-.Go f E \ • • • 303 876-2353 \J 00 O P.O. Box 174 C 531 • - April 14th, Garfield W Cd Dear Mark; 0 +) N will t0 0 0 >, x +� +) to x 0, ,-1 O O m 0 0 >, ro +) E .. A •ri -ri E O ro +. On W rl 2: 4 0 S. U ri O U +� to 0 +� ri 0 •r4 -111 � � + , 4 00 w o S. •+•1 w x a. E 5- ▪ w ri E A 0w ro ' E +� 0 0 0 E o ro0,w t4oto 010 o A • 4)4.4 ,a tote rio 04 S, 01 ro Ol CO x.G -oCrori 04 O1 C 0 •(� If) 0 +) (0 •L) 6 -) x {, O (0 01 O •r1 N is On d .1:1-r1 0 N. O .-♦ 0 +) 0 0 s♦ w r+ ro 0 +) 10 0 O rl CO O ri S. 01 - U O O 4.4 ?. LS O U 01 +� N 0 • O -o x:' 0 0 -,-1 +' O O (0 +� o,roc,.c o �+ • ,.t o r-1 ro >T E ro t0 o S, c0 r► 0 0 f0 0 ri 01 w E ro U 01 +) ri U1 0 N 01 0 ro ri O 01 0 r I S~ +� 'O +) O •N 0 rl >, T3 .0 01 •ri to 3 N O A. N. ro C N b CO O 0) +� U) N N N c°0 Q1 O s~wri +'+� E-. •r1 4-t E '-I +) A 0 ro N +� ro f0 t) A w ti CO b t7 w 0 a.is H.0 O O . O 5.4 O O O +� S i +� 0 -ri •--1 0 ro A .O OV' n. tori ro 1. 0 ro 01 ro +1 .>~ 3 .-I S, ri O O ,-1 -I OCA (0 3 as 'C3 •ri .0 •0 Hai O 01 m E 5.1 N In t4 S. H r► r~ w ►� 0 03rl O a COri 4-)o COli -1) 4.4 1~ 4♦ 0 4 S. S. o O 0) 'el 01 a W 0, 01 0 S, •r{ U 0) d +� C 3 0 ..0 0 N 0 01 O +� O N el O • M U ((0 .q • 0.• w E� tow rJ (0 >, +10.ri Sc. 0)W • +sro004 >, 0) si -,.i t0 01 > .0 7.40.1 a0 o (0 0-3-3 0• � O 4.0 01wf•r01 OAC riC0 O O 0) S r C "Fl ri (0 +1 ri ri ri 0 0 a ro >, ro 0 4r , l U >; CO 4.0 ti •ri 0 O ro 10 0 .0 O +- ro 0 C H t70 E z1 0Q 'O +� N S 4) '0 01 CO N >, .-1 Sti r-4. . N ro +) O .0 +� 0 w 0 CO N r1 U fo C -l) U H ri f, H ▪ 1- ►i CO •r4. ro H co > 0 01 0 S -r (o w 01 01 -ri E U U O 4 w ti 01 O -1•1 C 0 01 (U U +1 CO CO 0 0 0 0 0 •N -r4. of Silt Board The Town Respectfully, 5.4 0 ro \r-1 to •ri >4 \C • 6 ro 01 0 \ (0o • • • •0 • t ,tit 11 , I • i 1111 t.) t l nItli.1 . t r• .t • C0LOi&A1iiX5'Y» • Si7AfE o1= l)lvlsloii vl had & Outdoor Iteacativn Wes( 'legion 222 Soiilit Glit Sltccl, ttm. 420-0 of I)J )Unc(lott, CO 111501 (303) 240-7319 May 7, 1991 l,ittda Limbach • Eastside Coal Company PO Box 161 Si1.L, CO 81652 • bear Ms. Limbach: Iwby lit/nig; tovcimuf Ito', 0.116111(4y bitectoi . •. '1. 1, 1 have reviewed the draft special use applicailoit for your company. After 'll�I disclissiou with my Park Manager Boyd Cornell we have determined tete 1: Coliowiup impacts: •• 15. increased noise f gout.. (:lie nilnitig operations and trucks Lidding I. coal impacting visitors at Harvey Gap Slate lecreatioti Aged,. . t 2) . lticreased visual disturbances for park.visliors looking sodthwakt. ftom the darn of llarvey Gap Reservoir. • 3) 'elle -large increase in traffic resaltlog from Uie ttucks lidding coal, vendors, etc. will create safety concerns, visUal.acid noise impacts, and potential traffic 'tie -Ups" for visitors to Harvey Gap State Recreation Area. - On page 6 of your: draft application you refer to the lease of Harvey Gat Reservoir Lo t-Iie Colorado Parks beparinieut. 'elle correct title of oft • organization is Llle Colorado blvlslon of Parks and Outdoor Rect:eation. 1 appreciate the oppoa:luiiily Lo review Eastside Coals Special Use ApRicdt1oLl. Let me know if 1 can be of further assistance Lo you. Sincerely, —1 GGGh/ ( l2J David Giger, Setilot'I'ark Ranger Rifle Gap State Recreation Area U050 Road 219. Rifle, CO '81650 625-1607 ,a cd CU °., w .2 ?C .0 w X , O c0 .p R cG H . 3 C) R E -t CO U O-- U = t.. � �••4 LI E as C [•U< C .n ". �E .o 6... . C ~R p C 4) O. CD lq�r = w 'O O •0 4,4 gar' R]... R w ctl C - .0 a7 O w �� ctia o o a�2 C .c•-• .4.i y l•-•°wl _ u a. c, O�v�a� p+� a3 m �yy=ao:-.7..): o o m pC.n o R c�j C.•'L'c.�r• .....o ..,..,a) c°.. °' cr trz. •� ''7 Xw v�...P.03U • ....�HO U c0 R ��0.�__U��'OrUi cyV/4'v.4 '�p7oc= ,a)vo=`mss-�-o�ao°��g iao,..Q4y p„0 7 C=H 3 .105. .tg.I'O 2o O5 r� V cd c�'O C d U HUUU N.rvl �-•'N C O. •. cU.t.N„Ur Rcd CO O++ U FIL, =If `/ F•: ,. C d. u., 5, H ,a$ = C C 5 •O E o i �� E cn E 'XI 1� rn O. C U = C 15;. .�+ .. ' cy N O O 7 O w 7 'al 'b c3 E: ESO. rG Rwua U Ute.+ ri U O U.-+ Jj a • O• V re- • NJ • • • BOCC 2/4/85 PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS , h,6,/' c REQUEST: Eastside Mine, Special Use Permit for a mineral extraction operation. OWNER: Eastside Coal Company, Inc. LOCATION: NE 1/4, Section 24, T5S, R92W, more practically described as a parcel located approximately 3.5 miles north of Silt off of County Road 237. SITE DATA: A 199 acre parcel for a coal mine and associated facilities. WATER: Individual well or bottled SEWER: Individual septic or portable self-contained bathrooms. ACCESS: Via County Road 237 ZONING: A/R/RD SURROUNDING ZONING: 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 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. B. Project Description - The application is for a coal mining operation of 200,000 tons per year for a five year period. During that period, the maximum number of employees that will be working at the site is 45. The surface facilities will consist of three mine portals, coal screening facility, coal stockpile, material storage, sediment control, mine waste disposal area, offices and shower/locker room facilities. With the exception of the waste disposal site, all of the surface facilities will be located on the east side of Harvey Gap. Coal will be transported by trucks to a rail load -out. If the coal is loaded in Silt, there would be a maximum of eight trucks making five trips a day average or 40 round trips/day. If the coal is shipped to another area, it may require up to 40 separate trucks per day. The proposed haul route is County Road 237 to County Road 233, to County Road 227 to U.S. Highway 6 & 24 to the final destination. • • This area has been mined for coal since the late 1800's to the present. The coal was sold on the local, domestic market due to limitations on the amount of coal produced as a result of the older mining techniques. The proposed mining technique will ne either continuous miners or conventional sections. It is estimated that there are 20 million tons of recoverable coal from the 5 seams of coal in the area, which could produce up to 1,000,000 tons per year for 20 years. III..MAJOR ISSUES AND CONCERNS A. Zoning - 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: 1. Utilities adequate to provide water and sanitation service based on accepted engineering standards and approved by the Environmental Health Officer shall either be in place or snail 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. 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; 4. Lawful use of water; 5. Use of adjacent land through generation of vapor, dust, smoke, noise, glare or vibration; 6. Wildlife and domestic animals and address the following additional issues; 7. Nuisances from truck and automobile traffic to other areas; 8. Sufficient separation from adjacent land uses; 9. Site rehabilitation plan; 10. Compliance with County Industrial Performance Standards. Applicant responses to the above criteria: 1. The applicant proposes to use individual wells and individual sewage disposal systems eventually, but, in the interim, bottled water and portable toilets will be used. 2. All of the County roads proposed for use are old "farm to market" roads with a 3/4 inch chip and seal surface, with limited sub -base material existing. Tne actual driving surface varies in width. The applicant has proposed some off-site road improvements. 3. The mine facilities are located just below the Grass Valley Reservoir, with the closest residential use approximately 3/4 of a mile south of the proposed site. There should not be any visual impacts to adjacent land uses since most of the adjacent land is owned by BLM or the applicant. • • 4. The applicant does not have any well permits or water rights presently. Given that the parcel is over 35 acres in—size, the Division of mater Resources will issue a well permit as the only well on a 35 acre parcel. 5. The application states that the mining operation will not exceed the County standards for sound, vibration, heat, glare, radiation and fumes contained in the County Zoning Regulations. 7. The mining activity is not expected to have any adverse impact on wildlife or domestic animals on the site. It is possible that employee vehicles and coal haul trucks could cause the death of some wildlife and domestic animals on the roads coming into the site. 8. As noted previously, the main mine portal and associated facilities are surrounded by BLM land or owned by the applicant for a distance of approximately 3/4 mile from the site. 9. The applicant does have and will be required by the MLRB to reclaim the land after completion of the project. The MLRB will also require a bond for reclamation purposes. 18. As noted in #5, the applicant states that County Industrial Performance Standards will not be exceeded. B. Staff Comments: 1. The Building Official has noted that all structures will require building permits and that any individual sewage disposal systems will require a permit. It is also noted that any sign erected or painted on the property will require a permit from the Building Division. 2. It is noted by the Environmental Health office that no discharge of the mine water can occur unless an amended N.P.D.E.S. permit application is submitted to and approved by the Colorado Department of Health. Later in the application, it is noted that there will be a mine water discharge. There is no record of an amended N.P.D.E.S. permit in the application. This should be provided prior to issuance of a Special Use permit. Environmental Health also recommended that the sediment pile be protected by earthern barriers to contain any leachate as a result of snow melt. 3. As noted previously, the coal will be hauled from the mine site to a loading facility by dual axle, 25 ton payload trucks via County roads. The County roads in question are "farm to market" roads according to the County Road Supervisor. Generally, these roads nave a 3/4 inch chip and seal surface with minimal, if any, sub -base. Tnese roads will not hold up to a great deal of constant heavy truck traffic, particularly in the winter and spring seasons, when frost -heave action is trie most prevalent. As a result of the County Road Supervisor comments, a pavement thickness design study was done for the selected truck naul route. The study basically indicated that all of the County roads in question could expect some additional deterioration as a result of the heavier haul trucks. • • 4. The 40 trucks per day, at a maximum production of 200,000 tons per year, could create more than physical problems on the County roads. Trucks of this size could also pose a traffic hazard if they are traveling too fast on these roads. To Help minimize this hazard and promote the public safety, the applicant should agree to certain safe driving practices. 5. The applicant originally proposed two alternate routes for the haul trucks. Either CR 237 to CR 233 to CR 231 to U.S. Highway 6 & 24; or CR 237 to CR 233 to CR 227 to U.S. Highway 6 & 24. While the first route using CR 231 rather than CR 227 is shorter, by approximately 1 to 2 miles, it is the most hazardous route in terms of blind corners and narrow driving surface. Additionally, the route using CR 231 would travel through residential neighborhoods in Silt. Given these factors, the route using CR 227 was considered acceptable, provided the safe driving practices noted previously are observed. 6. The application being made to the MLRB is for a five year period, with a maximum of 200,000 tons of coal per year being extracted. To be consistent with the MLRB permit, the County's permit should be limited to five years too. IV. SUGGESTED FINDINGS 1. That the public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners was extensive and complete, that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted and that all parties were heard at the nearing. 2. That the proper publication and public notice for the public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners was provided as required by law. 3. That proposed special use conforms to the requirements of Section 5.03.07 and 5.03.08 of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended. 4. 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. 5. That for the above stated and otner reasons, the proposed special use is consistent with the best interests of the health, safety, moreals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County. V. RECOMMENDATION On December 12, 1984, the Planning Commission recommended approval with the following conditions: 1) All written proposals of the applicant shall be considered conditions of approval, unless specified otherwise by the Board of County Commissioners... 2) That. any Special Use permits issued sriall 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. 3) That prior to the issuance of any Special Use permits, the applicant shall obtain and submit to the Department of Development/Planning Division copies of all permits from other applicable governmental entities. 4) That the applicant and/or his contract hauler shall oe subject to the following conditions related to public safety: a) All loaded trucks will be covered or binder solution will be applied to the loads; b) Tne applicant will coordinate with the RE -2 School District to insure that truck traffic will not oppose bus traffic and that a plan of operation for hauling be approved by the RE -2 School District; c) All trucks shall be equipped with operative jake brakes; d) All safety requirements of the Colorado Department of Transportation shall be implemented; e) Drivers convicted of moving violation while driving coal trucks, resulting in an accident snail be permanently terminated from employment; additionally any driver convicted of a moving violation while driving coal trucks, resulting in four (4) points or more being assessed against the drivers license, snail be permanently terminated from employment; f) Truck traffic will be limited to hours between 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday thru Friday, and furtner that hauling may occur on an emergency basis three (3) times per quarter on a Saturday between 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. with notice being given to the Department of Development/Planning Division, 24 hours in advance. 5) That the coal truck haul route be CR 237 to CR 233 to CR 227 to U.S. Highway 6 & 24. Further, that a pavement thickness design study be provided by the applicant for this route and 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. 6) That all building permits, environmental health permits and sign permits as required by County regulations be obtained prior to construction or need. 7) Tnat the applicant submit a monitoring report on a quarterly basis to the Department of Development/Planning Division, which includes the following information: a) Number of moving violation citations and accidents issued to or involving Eastside Coal drivers wnile hauling coal, if any. b) Number of deer killed by Eastside Coal truck drivers, if any. c) Number of loads of coal hauled per day on a monthly average. d) The amount of coal presently stock piled at the mine site. e) The amount of coal shipped. f) The number of employees by place of residence and length of residence. • • PC 5/9/84 PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS REQUEST: Eastside Mine, Special Use Permit for a mineral extraction operation. OWNER: Eastside Coal Company, Inc. LOCATION: NE 1/4, Section 24, T5S, R92W, more practically described as a parcel located approximately 3.5 miles north of Silt off of County Road 237. SITE DATA: A 199 acre parcel for a coal mine and associated facilities. WATER: Individual well or bottled SEWER: Individual septic or portable self contained bathrooms. ACCESS: ZONING: SURROUNDING ZONING: Via County Road 237 A/R/RD North: 0/S South: A/R/RD, 0/S East: A/R/RD, 0/S West: 0/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. Some relevant Plan objectives and policies are: "Require heavy industrial development to meet all federal, state and local standards for air and water quality." (Page 12) "Encourage industrial expansion where similar development already exists in appropriate areas; i.e., within or adjacent to platted industrial park, within designated industrial zones in existing towns, or adjacent to existing similar development." (Page 12) "Encourage industrial development in areas where adequate transportation facilities and public utilities are available." (Page 12) 'Require industrial development to use buffers between less intensive land uses." (Page 12) "If development occurs in areas with known mineral deposits, then provisions shall be made for the extraction or protection of such mineral deposit." (Page 13) "Maintain current air and water quality by requiring development to mitigate potential pollution and discouraging development which will degrade the County's air and water resources." (Page 29) 1 • • "Regulate through the issuance of special permits the exploration for, and development and production of coal, oil shale, natural gas, geothermal resources as well as all accessory activities related thereto." (Page 29) II. DESCRIPTI©N OF THE PROPOSAL A. Site Decription - The site is 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. B. Project Description - The application is for a coal mining operation of 200,000 tons per year for a five year period. During that period the maximum number of employees that will be working at the site is 45. The surface facilities will consist of three mine portals, coal screening facility, coal stockpile, material storage, sediment control, mine waste disposal area, offices and shower/locker room facilities. With the exception of the waste disposal site, all of the surface facilities will be located on the east side of Harvey Gap. Coal will either be transported by trucks to a rail load -out in Silt or to a rail facility further away. If the coal is loaded in Silt, there would be a maximum of eight trucks making five trips a day average or 40 round trips/day. If the coal is shipped to another area, it may require up to 40 separate trucks per day. The proposed haul route is County Road 237 to County Road 233, to either County Road 231 or County Road 227 to U.S. Highway 6 & 24 to the final destination. This area has. been mined for coal since the late 1800's to the present. The coal was sold on the local, domestic market due to limitations on the amount of coal produced as a result of the older mining techniques. The proposed mining technique will be either continuous miners or conventional sections. It is estimated that there are 20 million tons of recoverable coal from the 5 seams of coal in the area, which could produce up to 1,000,000 tons per year for 20 years. III.MAJOR ISSUES AND CONCERNS A. Zoning -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: 1. Utilities adequate to provide water and sanitation service based on accepted engineering standards and approved by the Environmental Health Officer shall either }e in place or shall be constructed in conjunction with the proposed use; 2. Street improvements adequate to accommodate traffice 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; 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; • 4. Lawful use of water 5. Use of adjacent land through generation of vapor, dust, smoke, noise, glare or vibration; 6. Wildlife and domestic animals and address the foliowing additional issues; 7. Nuisances from truck and automobile traffic to other areas; 8. Sufficient separation from adjacent land uses; 9. Site rehabilitation plan; 10. Compliance with County Industrial Performance Standards Applicant responses to the above criteria: 1. The applicant proposes to use individual wells and individual sewage disposal systems eventually, but in the interim bottled water and portable toilets will be used. 2. All of the County roads proposed for use are old "farm to market" roads with a 3/4 inch chip and seal surface, with no verification of what sub -base materials are existing. The actual hard driving surface varies in width. The applicant does not propose any off-site road improvements. 3. The mine facilities are located just below the Grass Valley Reservoir, with the closest residential use approximately 3/4 of a mile south of the proposed site. There should not be any visual impacts to adjacent land uses since most of the adjacent land is owned by BLM or the applicant. 4. The applicant does not have any well permits or water rights presently. Given that the parcel is over 35 acres in size, the Division of Water Resources will issue a well permit as the only well on a 35 acre parcel. 5. The application states that the mining operation will not exceed the County standards for sound., vibration, heat, glare, radiation and fumes contained in the County Zoning Regulations. G.& 7. The mining activity is not expected to have any adverse impact on wildlife or domestic animals on the site. It is possible that employee vehicles and coal haul trucks could cause the death of some wildlife and domestic animals on the roads coming into the site. 8. As noted previously, the main mine portal and associated facilities are surrounded by BLM land or owned by the applicant for a distance of approximately 3/4 mile from the site. 9. The applicant does have and will be required by the MLRB to reclaim the land after completion of the project. The [LRB will also require a bond for reclamation purposes. 10. As noted in 45, the applicant states that County Industrial Performance Standards will not be exceeded. 7 • • B. Staff Comments: 1. The Building Official has noted that all structures will require building permits and that any individual sewage disposal systems will require a permit. It is also noted that any sign erected or painted on the property will require a permit from the Building Division. 2. It is noted by the Environmental Health Officer that no discharge of the mine water can occur unless an amended N.P.D.E.S. permit application is submitted to and approved by the Colorado Department of Health. Later in the application, it is noted that there will be a mine water discharge. There is no record of an amended N.P.D.E.S. permit in the application. This should be provided prior to issuance of a Special Use permit. Environmental Health also recommended that the sediment pile be protected by earthern barriers to contain any leachate as a result of snow melt. 3. As noted previously, the coal will be hauled from the mine site to a loading facility by dual axle, 25 ton payload trucks via County roads. The County road in question are "farm to market" roads according to the County Road Supervisor. Generally, these roads have a 3/4 inch. chip and seal surface with minimal, if any, sub -base. These roads will not hold up to a great deal of constant heavy t=uck traffic, particularly in the winter and spring seasons, when frost -heave action is the most prevalent. As a result, the County Road Supervision feels that a pavement thickness design study should be done for the selected truck haul route and that the applicant. be made responsible far making the necessary improvements to accommodate the increased truck traffic. 4. The 40 trucks per day at maximum production of 200,000 tons per year could create more than physical problems on the County roads. Trucks of this size could also pose a traffic hazard if they are traveling too fast on these roads. To help minimize this hazard and promote the public safety, the applicant should at a minimum: a. Coordinate with the RE -2 School District to insure that truck traffic will not oppose school bus traffic; b. All trucks shall be equipped with Jake brakes; c. All safety requirements of the Safety Department of Transportation shall be implemented; d. Drivers shall be paid on a per hour basis rather than on a per load hauled basis in order to reduce incentive for high speed; e. The applicant or his contractor shall make available to Garfield County the following information: 1. Number of citations issued to individual drivers, if any; 2. N m j of motor vehicle accidents involving C drivers, if any; 3. Number of deer killed, if any; 4. Number of loads hauled per week; 5. Number of workers employed; 6. Monthly quarry output; 7. Other information to show compliance with State regulations. f Truck traffic will be limited to the hours between 7:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M., during summer months and daylight hours in the winter. No loads will be hauled after 3:00 P.M, Friday, on weekends or on State or National holidays; g Have all loaded trucks covered or binder solution applied to the loads. 5. The applicant has proposed two alternate routes for the haul trucks. Either CR 237 to CR 233 to CR 23]. to L.S. Highway 6 & 24; or CR 237 to CR 233 to CR 227 to U.S. Highway 6 & 24. While the first route using CR 231 rather than CR 227 is shorter, by approximately 1 to 2 miles, it is the most hazardous route in terms of blind corners and narrow driving surface. Additionally, the route using CR 231 would travel through residential neighborhoods in Silt. Given these factors, the route using CR 227 is more acceptable, provided the safe driving practices noted previously are observed. 6. The application being made to the MLRB is for a five year period, with a maximum of 200,000 tons of coal per year being extracted. To be consistent with the MLRB permit, the County's permit should be limited to five years too. IV. FINDINGS 1. That the 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 hearing. 2. That the proposed special use conforms to the 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 APPROVAL, with the following conditions: 1. All written proposals of the applicant shall be considred conditions of approval; and 2. That the permit shall be valid for a perio of five (5) years from the date of issuance; 70 /:9-rc 3. That prior to the issuance of the subject special use permit, the applicant shall obtain and submit to the Garfield County Department of Development/planning Division copies of its permits from all othe n �ove'tment entities. 4. That the applicant or his contract shall be lig' ---ga4imum 4D r. .. .- .-gid subject to the following conditions related to public safety: • • a. All loaded trucks will be covered or binder solution will be applied to the loads; b. The applicant shall coordinate with the RE -2 School District to i1tsure that truck traffic will not oppo_ e bus traffic; jf►9`' c. All trucks shall be equipped with Jake brakes;;,,,.�rT d. All safety requirements of the Safety Department of Transportation shall be implemented; e. Drivers shall be paid on a per hour basis rather thah on a per load hauled basis in order to redu9e in1centive for high speed; ,- �;' I",/ J.,;T,, ,/,/ 6A- % f. The applicant s- make available to Garfield County the following information : 1. Number of citations issued to individual drivers, if any;Qsf� 2. hilliber of motor vehicle accidents involving '"94-.140 drivers, if any; 3. Number of deer killed, if any; 4. Number of loads hauled per week; t �!�' std l.+1�-��(�C����`27 5. .Number of, Lrkers employed- e�1 6. Monthly 44444-� output; I 7 . t---i.n.f. ar-ma-t i r- e� -s• ' ,. - - e g. Truck traffic will be limited to hours between 7:00 A.M. and 5:00 P . M . -=-i ny --summer mnohs--ad- ddyii tri -ha -r s in tbe<wiute No.. load • • , Friday, on_ weekends or on State -or National holidays; 5. That the coal truck haul route be CR 237 to CR 233 to CR 227 to U.S. Highway 6 & 24. Further, that a pavement thickness design study be provided. by the applicant for/40,WT942,and that the applicant enter into an agreement forAiMArovements to the roads in question based on the study and acceptable to the Board of County Commissioners. 6 , he issuance 61 -Th -e— s -e-ci t, all building permit., e ysranrtental /hPalt par4.t. al r?� me ;e . .its applications w -a v e been sb-rnd -�tra a a� t- t&m 4 o/n/ t//79 4.1.664, R z.z a ori% ivaLIA g c U • ROAD IMPACT AGREEMENT County Roads 227. 231 and 237 • x THIS AGREEMENT, made this day of June, 1993, by and between EASTSIDE COAL COMPANY ("Eastside"), with an office at Silt, Colorado 81652, and GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO ("County"), acting by and through the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS who state and agree as follows by way of an agreement concerning mitigation of impacts to portions of County Roads 227, 233 and 237 ("haul route") to be used by Eastside in conjunction with a coal mine operation and further described in Exhibit A. WHEREAS, Eastside submitted its application for a Special Use Permit for a coal mine to be located in the unincorporated area of Garfield County, with the haul route pursuant to the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended ("Regulation"); and WHEREAS, Eastside and the County recognize that the haul route will experience impacts from truck traffic associated with the operation of the proposed coal mine and maintenance; and WHEREAS, Eastside has agreed to pay for certain safety improvements and its proportionate share of road maintenance costs to the haul route. NOW, THEREFORE, based on the above premises and the mutual covenants contained herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. DETERMINATION OF EASTSIDE'S PROPO$TIONATE SHARE OF COUNTY ROADS 227. 233 AND 237: On the basis ofa traffic study conducted on the haul route by Schmueser Gordan Meyer Engineering, the parties estimate that the truck traffic associated with the operation of the Eastside Coal Mine will be six percent (6%) of the EALs on the haul route over a dive (5) year period. This estimate has been prepared in accordance with applicable, recognized, engineering practices. The percentage of EALs attributable to the coal mine shall be employed to establish the proportionate share of the cost ofmaintenance to the haul route, specified herein, for which Eastside shall be responsible. The percentage agreed upon shall be valid for five (5) years from date of this agreement, which shall be the term of this agreement. At the end of five (5) years, the parties agree that the terms of this agreement in a public hearing to be held after notice is given in a paper of general circulation in the County. If after evaluating the situation, it is determined that the impacts have increased or decreased, this agreement will be modified. If after evaluation, and the situation has changed, and Eastside is unwilling to enter a new agreement, the County may revoke or suspend the Special Use Permit after a public hearing. • 2. IMPROVEMENTS TO COUNTY ROADS 227, 233 AND 231: A. In order for the haul route to safely carry the traffic projected, the parties estimate that certain improvements will be made by the Garfield County Road and Bridge Department and paid for by Eastside as follows: I. Centerline stripping along the haul route road edge delineation of the rock outcrop at south end of Harvey Gap; 2. Delineation of the improvements to be made to the intersection of County roads 233 and 237 as agreed by the Board of County Commissioners and shown on documents submitted by Eastside, titled Intersection Design County road 227-233, dated 6/2/93, subject to Road and Bridge Department review; Road signs as agreed to by the Road and Bridge Department and. Eastside and submitted to the Board of County Commissioners as Proposed County Road Signs, Sheets 1-8, dated 6/2/93. B. In order for the haul route to continue to carry existing and projected traffic and projected coal haul trucks it will be necessary to maintain the roads on an annual basis, the parties agree that Eastside will fund ongoing maintenance based on its proportionate share of the identified road impacts attributable to them under the Following terms: 1. Each year, the Road and Bridge Department and Board of County Commissioners shall estimate the amount of money necessary to maintain the haul route during the annual budget process; By January 31st of the budget year, Eastside will place in escrow with the County, the equivalent of six percent (6%) of the budgeted amount of funding, established for the maintenance of the haul route, such funds shall be deposited by the County into a separate, intent bearing account, to be applied solely to reimburse County incurred costs subject to this agreement, in accordance with the provisions of29-1-801, C.R.S., as amended, et seq. The County will transfer funds from the escrow account on a quarterly basis, based on six percent (6%) of the actual expenditures for maintenance on the haul route; 4. If the County expends less than the amount budgeted for the maintenance of the haul route, Eastside will be credited with the difference in establishing the escrow amount for the subsequent budget year or be refunded to Eastside should they discontinue using the haul route; 5. If the County expends more funds For maintenance for the haul route than have been originally budgeted and appropriated for a given fiscal year. Eastside shall be obligated to pay six percent (6%) of the difference between the actual expenditure and the projected expenditure at the same time Funds are escrowed for the subsequent budged year. • • C. The County and Eastside utilized a study done by Chen -Northern in 1990 to establish certain baseline information on the haul route. At the time of this agreement, the County cannot determine as to its financial capability to make the improvements to the haul route necessary to give it a five (5) year design life based n projected and existing traffic. The County shall notify Eastside of a submittal of a proposed budget from the Road and Bridge Supervisor that includes provision for a major capital improvement program for the haul route. Should the County develop the financial capability to upgrade the haul route, Eastside will pay its proportionate share of the cost to be determined as follows: The cost of the haul route improvements specified hereinabove shall be determined by the County publicly soliciting bids for the work in accordance with the level of road improvements set forth herein. This bid solicitation shall be conducted in accordance with the applicable provisions of the County's purchasing policies and procedures. The lowest acceptable bid which the County receives from a qualified and responsible bidder for the project shall be used to determine Eastside's proportionate share of the financial responsibility for the improvements. The County will furnish Eastside with copies of the bids received and advise it of the lowest acceptable bid within ten (10) days of the bid opening. Within thirty (30) days of its receipt of the project bids from the County, Eastside will pay the County as its full contribution for mitigation of its impacts to the haul route an amount equal to six percent (6%) of the lowest acceptable bid for the project as determined by the County. 2. Based on an initial estimate of gross improvement costs of provided by the County Road and Bridge Department, Eastside's proportionate share will be These funds will be placed in escrow for the County's use exclusively for those improvements as per this Agreement. Any excess in Eastside's favor resulting from the bidding procedure above in C.!., shall be reimbursed to Eastside. Any deficiency shall be paid by Eastside as per the terms of this Agreement up to a maximum gross construction cost of APPROVAL OF APPLICATION: This Agreement shall be deemed to be in full force and effect upon the County's adopting a resolution of approval for the Eastside Coal Company Special Use Permit application and ado ptin g this Agreement, provided, however, that actual operation of the coal mine shall not commence until Eastside has satisfied its financial obligation as set forth in Exhibit A above. The provisions of this Agreement shall be deemed incorporated into the Special Use Permit application and the County shall have the same rights of enforcement against Eastside under the applicable County regulations with respect to this Agreement as it does with respect to other matters in the application. Should Eastside request and receive approval for a larger coal mine than that defined in the resolution of approval, this agreement will be deemed terminated and a new agreement, reflecting different road impacts, will be required as a condition of approval precedent to issuance of the new permit. • 4. ENTIRE AGREEMENT: This Agreement represents the entire integrated understanding of the parties regarding Eastside's obligation to pay the County for road improvements to the haul route with respect to the subject Special Use permit application and no prior or contemporaneous statements, terms, conditions, representations, or understandings of the parties shall be of any legal force or affect unless set forth in writing herein or in a written amendment hereto, mutually agreed to and signed by the parties. IN WITNESS HEREOF, the parties have entered into this Agreement on the day and year first above written. EASTSIDE COAL COMPANY By Its Attorney -in -Fact GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO by and through: GARFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ATTEST: By Deputy Clerk to the Board Elmer"Buckey" Arbaney, Chairman STATE OF COLORADO COUNTY OF GARFIELD The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this day of , 1993, by WITNESS my hand and official seal. My Commission expires: Notary Public STATE OF COLORADO COUNTY OF GARFIELD ) ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this day of 1993, by , Chairman of GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO, by and through: GARFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, WITNESS my hand and official seal. Notary Public My Commission expires: • • gkA EASTSIDE COAL COMPANY, INC. P.O. Box 161 Silt, Colorado 81652 (303) 876-2944 June 21, 1993 Garfield Board of County Commissioners 109 8th Street, Suite 301 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Re: Eastside Coal Road Impact Mitigation Dear Commissioners: Eastside Coal Company has received the proposed Road Impact Agreement for County Roads 227, 233 and 237, prepared by the Garfield County Planning Staff The proposed agreement is unacceptable in its present form. The main point of disagreement is the open ended costs which Eastside Coal would be subjected to. A business decision cannot be made as to whether to proceed with the project based on costs for which the business has no control. In our discussion with the County staff on June 16th, 1993, we made a proposal to the County referencing the historical maintenance costs tied to anticipated maximum production figures to arrive at a cost per ton for Eastside's fair share of the maintenance costs. During the meeting a discussion was held as to what costs were maintenance and what costs were improvements. It was determined at that time that approximately $23,000 was maintenance costs and the rest was improvements. Later, the County staff came up with a figure of $65,927.00 as maintenance costs. Chip and sealing of the road surfacing was considered a capital cost. The cost of chip and dealing the 5.6 miles of road is $122,300.00. 1'% • e two of letter of. Garfield Commissioners - June 21, 1993 using :$23,000.00 as the maintenance costs for the past five years and a total cost of 122,3OO.00 to chip and seal the road every five' years and Eastside's fair share as six (6) percent, the laic l osed agreement is proposed. Sir' =,-P15 nhon ,'~e/ f Manacle!: SS/11 Encl r,.:ut-Pr000sed Road Impact Agreement 2 • ROAD IMPACT AGREEMENT County Roads 227, 233 and 237 THIS AGREEMENT, made this day of June, 1993, by and between EASTSIDE COAL COMPANY, INC. ("Eastside"), with an office at Silt, Colorado 81652, and GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO ("County"), acting by and through the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS who state and agree as follows by way of an agreement concerning mitigation of impacts to County Roads 227, 233 and 237 ("haul route") . WHEREAS, Eastside submitted its application for a Special use Permit for a coal mine to be located in the unincorporated area of Garfield County, with the haul route pursuant to the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended ('"Regulation"); and WHEREAS, Eastside and the County recognize that the haul route will experience impacts from truck traffic associated with the operation of the proposed coal mine and maintenance; and WHEREAS, Eastside has agreed to pay for certain safety improvements and its proportionate share of road maintenance costs to the haul route. WHEREAS, the successful operation of the Eastside Mine will generate additional property and other taxes that benefit the County road system and other taxing entities. NOW, THEREFORE, based on the above premises and the. mutual covenants contained herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. DETERMINATION OF EASTSIDE"S PROPORTIONATE SHARE OF COUNTY ROAD 227, 223 AND 237: On the basis of a traffic study conducted on the haul route by Schmeuser Gordan Meyer Engineering, the parties estimate that the truck traffic associated with the operation of the Eastside Coal Mine will be six percent (6%) of the EALs on the haul route over a five (5) year period. This estimate has been prepared in accordance with applicable, recognized, engineering practices. The percentage of EALs attributable to the coal mine shall be employed to establish the proportionate share of the cost of maintenance to the haul route, specified herein, for which Eastside shall be responsible. 2. IMPROVEMENTS TO COUNTY ROADS 227, 233 AND 237: A. In order for the haul route to safely carry the traffic projected, the parties estimate that certain improvements will be made by the Garfield County Road and Bridge Department and paid for by Eastside as follows: • • 1. Centerline stripping along the haul route road and edge delineation at the rock outcrop at south end of Harvey Gap. 2. Delineation of the intersection of County Roads 227 and 233 as agreed by the Board of County Commissioners and shown on documents submitted by Eastside, titled Intersection Design County Road 227-233, dated 6/2/93, subject to Road and Bridge Department review; 3. Road signs as agreed to by the Road and Bridge Department and Eastside and submitted to the Board of County Commissioners as Proposed County Road Signs, Sheets 1-8, dated 6/2/93. B. In order for the haul route to continue to carry existing and projected traffic and projected coal haul trucks it will be necessary to maintain the roads on an annual basis, the parties agree that Eastside will fund ongoing maintenance based on its proportionate share of the identified road impacts attributable to them under the following terms: I. Each year, the Road and Bridge Department and Board of County Commissioners shall estimate the amount of money necessary to maintain the haul route during the annual budget process; 2. On or before January 3Jst of each calendar year, Eastside will pay the County the equivalent of one (1) cent per ton hauled over the subject roads over the previous calendar yea, for maintenance of the haul route. Eastside further agrees that on or before January 31st of each year, Eastside will place seven (7) cents per ton hauled over the subject roads over the previous calendar year in escrow with the County. This seven cents per ton is to be used for Eastsiders share of the cost of chip and sealing the haul route. APPROVAL OF APPLICATION: This agreement shall be deemed to be in full force and effect upon the County's adopting a resolution of approval for the Eastside Coal Company Special Use Permit application and adopting this Agreement, provided, however, that actual operation of the coal mine shall not commence until Eastside has satisfied its financial obligation as set forth above. The provisions of this Agreement shall be deemed incorporated in the Special Use Permit application and the County shall have the same rights of enforcement _ against Eastside under the applicable County regulations with respect to this Agreement as it does with respect tr, oth r matters in the application. • • 4. ENTIRE AGREEMENT: This Agreement represents the entire integrated understanding of the parties regarding Eastside's obligation to pay the County for road improvements to the haul route with respect to the subject Special Use Permit application and no prior or contemporaneous statements, terms, conditions, representations, or understandings of the parties shall be of any legal force or. affect unless set forth in writing herein or in a written amendment hereto, mutually agreed to and signed by the parties. IN WITNESS HEREOF, the parties have entered into this Agreement on the day and year first above written. EASTSIDE COAL COMPANY, INC. By Title GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO by and through: GARFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ATTEST: By Deputy Clerk to the Board Elmer "Bucket'" Arbaney, Chairman • • STATE OF COLORADO COUNTY OF GARFIELD ) ) ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this day of , 1993, by WITNESS my hand and official seal. My Commission expires: STATE OF COLORADO COUNTY OF GARFIELD ) ) ) Notary Public The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on the day of , 1993, by Chairman of GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO, by and through: GARFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. WITNESS my hand and official seal. My Commission expires: Notary Public 4 • z 2113 Odin Drive P. O. Box 901 Silt, CO 81652 June 21, 1993 Board of County Commissioners Garfield County Glenwood. Springs, CO 81601 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN; My wife and I wish to express our concern regarding the present proposal by Eastside Coal for the following reasons.: 1. The County does not have sufficient funds to improve the road in its present condition much less a further deteriorated condition. The applicant has not demonstrated a capability or willingness to improve the road created by this "experimental" project. The taxpayers of Garfield County should not he burdened by this endeavor. 2. Should this be allowed and the applicant not. fund the necessary road improvements, it may be considered discriminatory to subsidize one developer over another. This could establish a precedence. 0. Togrant approval for this project For the life of the mine will create a carte blanche permit. This should be evaluated on a periodic basis. 4. The applicant has indicated plans for expanding the operation. Further expansion will compound problems with road condiditions as well as other health and safety factors. 4. The applicant has stated a market is not available for the proposed tonnage. Consider the outcome of the Snowrnass Coal Company mine. They stated they had a market for the coal. Sincerely, leVaVae Zed Wayne W. Ode1 A-orrie L;;/. a Ma y F. Odell • • 4,11 GARFIELD COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 109 8TH STREET GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO. 81601 RE: EASTSIDE HAUL ROUTE DEAR COMMISSIONERS: JUNE 22, 1993 AFTER ATTENDING THE "NEGOTIATIONS," BETWEEN EASTSIDE AND GARFIELD COUNTY, PERTAINING TO THE COUNTY ROADS PROPOSED TO BE USED AS HAUL ROUTES, I HAVE COME AWAY WITH THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS: 1. SHOULD THE COUNTY NEGOTIATE OR DICTATE THE ROAD AGREEMENT FOR A HAUL ROUTE ON COUNTY ROADS FOR A "LIFE OF THE MINE" COAL MINE? 2. IF THE ENGINEERED ROAD DESIGN CALLS FOR A NEW ROAD TO BE BUILT WHAT LIABILITY DOES THE COUNTY HAVE IF THEY ELECT NOT TO BUILD THE NEW ROAD? IF THE EXISTING ROAD FALLS APART THE COUNTY RESIDENTS WILL DEMAND A NEW ROAD AS WELL AS THE APPLICANT! WHO WILL PAY?? 3. THE PARAMETERS FOR A NEW ROAD DESIGN CALL FOR INCREASED TRAFFIC COUNTS AND ADDITIONAL AXLE WEIGHTS, OVER AND ABOVE THE THOSE ACTUALLY EXPERIENCED BY THE EXISTING ROAD, TO ENABLE THE ENGINEERS TO DESIGN A ROAD THAT WOULD STAND UP TO A LITTLE MORE ABUSE THAN WOULD NORMALLY BE EXPECTED. IF THE ADDITIONAL ABUSE DID NOT OCCUR, IT WOULD ONLY ADD TO THE LIFE QF THE ROAD AND NO ONE LOOSES! THESE SAME FIGURES ARE NOT APPROPRIATE WHEN IT COMES TO A CALCULATION FOR SHARED MAINTENANCE/ef-0-- f=Xr 4. FOR A MAINTENANCE ENVIRONMENT THE COUNTY SHOULD LOOK AT THE ACTUAL ANNUAL TRAFFIC COUNTS AND AXLE LOADS THAT REFLECT THE ACTUAL ROAD CONDITION, BEFORE DETERMINING THE PROPER SHARE OF MAINTENANCE COSTS??? 5. IF THE COUNTY DOES NOT HAVE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE EXISTING ROAD CONDITION, IT DOES NOT HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION TO MAKE A DETERMINATION OF MAINTENANCE SHARES. 6. WHAT IS THE COUNTY'S LIABILITY IF THE ROAD IS APPROVED FOR A "LIFE OF THE MINE" HAUL ROUTE AND THE COUNTY CAN'T AFFORD TO MAINTAIN THE HAUL ROUTE TO COUNTY STANDARDS? 7. THE APPLICANT HAS STATED THAT THE ROAD WILL BE SAFER WITH PAINTED CENTERLINE AND EDGE STRIPES AND HIS 2000 HAUL TRUCKS PER YEAR THAN WITHOUT THE STRIPES AND WITHOUT THE HAUL TRUCKS - WHERE IS THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE TO PROVE THIS? 8. WILL THE APPLICANT BE RESTRICTED TO ONLY HAUL WHEN THE STRIPES ARE VISIBLE? • 0- 9. IF THE APPLICANT PROVIDES ANY DESIGN, MATERIAL OR LABOR FOR THE HAUL ROUTE, DOES THAT RELIEVE THE COUNTY OF ANY LIABILITY? IS THE APPLICANT LIABLE? THERE ARE MORE ISSUES AND MORE QUESTIONS, BUT, I FEEL THERE ARE SUFFICIENT QUANTITY AND QUALITY TO STOP THE PERMIT PROCESS HERE. PLEASE DO SO, AND QUIT WASTING EVERYONES' TIME WITH THIS HIGH RISK EXPERIMENTAL PROJECT! SINCERELY JOHN SPANGLER • RECORDED AT /''VV O'CLOCK P.M. JUL 1 3 1993 REC # 449784 MILDRED ALSDCRF, COUNTY CLERK 8nox 8€8 rr,r;1486 STATE OF COLORADO ) )ss County of Garfield ) At a regular meeting of the Board of County Commissioners for Garfield County, Colorado, held in the Commissioners' Meeting Room, Garfield County Courthouse, in Glenwood Springs on Monany , the 12i -t- day of July A.D. 19 93 , there were present: Elmer (Buckey) Arbane , Commissioner Chairman Marian I. Smith , Commissioner Arnold L. Mackley ,Commissioner Don DeFord , County Attorney Mildred Alsdorf , Clerk of the Board Chuck Deschenes , County Administrator when the following proceedings, among others were had and done, to -wit: RESOLUTION NO. 93-060 A RESOLUTION CONCERNED WITH THE APPROVAL OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION FOR EASTSIDE COAL COMPANY, INC. WHEREAS, an application has been submitted by Eastside Coal Company, Inc. for a special use permit for the purpose of operating a coal mine and associated facilities in substantial compliance with the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended, and under the authority granted under Section 30-28-101, et seq., C.R.S. 1973, as amended, on property full described legally in Appendix A in the Supplemental Application for amendments to Resolution No. 90-083; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners conducted a public hearing as required by the Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended, on June 3, 1993 and continued said public hearing to June 15, 1993, June 22, 1993 andJuly 6, 1993, in the Garfield County Courthouse, Commissioners' Meeting Room, regarding the question of whether the special use permit application should be granted, and, if granted, whether any conditions should be imposed on such special use permit, and, during the public hearing received extensive testimony and other evidence from the applicant and interested parties. NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to the foregoing provisions, be it resolved by the Board of County Commissioners as follows: 1. The Board of County Commissioners hereby finds as follows: A. The applicant has substantially complied with all procedural and notice requirements set forth in the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended, with regard to special use peinnit applications, and this proceeding is properly before this Board; B. That, except as hereinafter noted, the application and all required submittals at this time are substantially complete, and the applicant has paid the fee required by Sections 5.03, 9.01 and 9.03 of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended; • • afUX 868iui 487 C. After review at the public hearing beginning June 3, 1993 and subject to the conditions set forth below, the applications, supporting information and testimony before the Board of County Commissioners demonstrates compliance with Sections 5.03.07 and 5.03.08 of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended; D. Under the conditions set forth below, the health, safety, welfare and uses of the neighborhood will be protected; E. Subject to the conditions set forth below, there was substantial competent evidence presented that the proposed land use activities, all facilities and buildings proposed in. connection with the Eastside Coal's application are in conformance with the uses allowed by Garfield County for special use permits in the Agricultural/Residential/Rural Density Zone District regulations; G. That the Board must, for the purpose of analyzing the subject application, in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, specifically Sections 5.03 and 5.03.11, establish the neighborhood which may be affected by the possible granting of the proposed special use permit and, further, the Board has determined that, except as otherwise noted herein, such affected neighborhood is that area of Garfield County, Colorado, consisting of properties adjacent to the proposed coal mine site of the applicant, and property adjacent to the proposed coal truck haul route; H. The general character of the affected neighborhood of the tract proposed to be subject to the special use permit is agricultural, residential and recreational. The subject property of the coal mine is zoned in accordance with Section 3.02 of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended. Properties zoned pursuant to Section 3.02 are classified as AgriculturallResidentiallRural Density. The industrial extractive operation proposed by the applicant for the subject parcel is not a use by right within the zone classifications and is a special use in the Agricultural/Residential/Rural Density Zone. Competent evidence was presented at the public hearings that the subject property of the applicant was previously permitted for a coal mine and associated facilities. Such previously permitted activities were allowed under different circumstances and significantly different levels of activity. I.Provided certain conditions are met and street improvements are made, the haul route used will be adequate to accommodate the traffic volume generated and will not create any hazards or nuisances to areas elsewhere in the County. 2. The Board of County Commissioners hereby grants the request of Eastside Coal Company, Inc. for property described in Attachment A, attached hereto, subject to the following conditions of approval: A. That all verbal and written representations of the applicant shall be considered conditions of approval, unless specified otherwise by the Board of County Commissioners; B. That the proposed extraction activity be limited to no more than 20,000 tons per year; C. In the event that litigation is initiated against Garfield County, the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County, any members of the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County in their individual capacity, or as a Board, any agents or employees of the foregoing, the applicant or any other governmental entity regarding the specific provisions of this Resolution or the process by which either of those Resolutions were adopted, such litigation shall suspend all time limits specified • 3flrrK. OUO : X88 in this Resolution and the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended, until final disposition of that legal action. The foregoing suspension of time periods shall apply only if the subject action is initiated by a party other than those set forth in the previous sentence. If action is initiated against any other governmental entity, other than Garfield County, its officers, agents or employees, concerning permitting of the property that is the subject of this Resolution, the time limits set forth in this Resolution shall be suspended until final disposition of that action. An enforcement or regulatory action taken by a governmental entity, including Garfield County, shall not suspend the time limits set forth in this Resolution and the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended. Illegal action has been initialed as indicated above, the applicant may, at its own risk, request issuance of and shall receive any land use permit authorized by this Resolution provided all conditions of this Resolution have been satisfied; D. Coal hauling shall only occur between the hours of 7:00 a.m, to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except that the applicant may haul on an emergency basis on Saturday, three (3) times a quarter and subject to notifying and receiving approval from the Road and Bridge Department Director or his assigned substitute. E. Prior to any local haulage, Eastside will pay for the following safety traffic improvements to correct existing safety deficiencies: Centerline stripe will be painted along the haul route. The last edge of the curve on County Road 237 will be marked with delineator posts at the rock outcrop at the south end of Harvey Gap; 2. Delineation of the improvements to be made to the intersection of County Roads 233 and 227 as agreed by the Board of County Commissioners and shown on documents submitted by Eastside, titled "Intersection Design Road 227-233", dated 6/2/93, subject to Road and Bridge Department review; 3. Road signs as agreed by Road and Bridge Department and Eastside and submitted to the Board of County Commissioners as "Proposed Road Signs, Sheets 1-8", dated 6/2/93. Eastside will be responsible for six (6) percent of the anneal cost of maintenance of those portions of County Roads 227, 233, and 237 used for a coal haul route. Based on estimates of anticipated expenditures for maintenance established by the Board, Eastside will place $2,000 in escrow with the County for their proportionate share of the maintenance cost, prior to issuance of a Special Use Permit. At the end of each year, thereafter, Eastside will place funds in escrow with the County for the amount necessary to have $2,000 in the account at that time, unless the amount is modified in accordance with provisions contained in this resolution. The County will transfer funds from the account to the County Road and Bridge Fund at the end of each quarter based on six (6) percent of the actual costs incurred, up to $2,000.00 per year, unless adjusted as noted below. The proportionate share of six (6) percent shall be valid until one (1) year from the date of approval of this resolution, after which the proportionate share may be adjusted annually if the cost ofmaintenance is shown to be substantially different than originally estimated during the Public I -leanings to review this application. Substantial change will be defined as a variance of twenty (20) percent of the cost of maintenance for the subject roads, which was identified as $33,300.00 per year, which is the baseline maintenance cost. Maintenance of the road may include, but is not limited to the construction of discrete sections of the road to alleviate soils and drainage problems or other enhanced 800K 858,,..•(=7489 maintenance efforts required to maintain the road. If, after a preliminary analysis, it is determined that there may be a substantial change, a public hearing will be held to establish a new proportionate share of the road maintenance cost, after notice is published 15 days in advance in a newspaper of general circulation in the County at the expense of the party proposing the change. The proportionate share may be changed if a traffic analysis is presented to establish a different level of impact. The annual amount escrowed may be changed if the Road and Bridge Department provides documentation of the actual cost for maintenance that would justify a higher or lower assessment. Impacts due to increased need for additional safety measures may be included in the review, and a basis for Eastside having to make additional improvements to the road, at their expense. Failure to comply with this section shall result in revocation of this permit. G. Eastside will not run more than ten (10) round trips (coal haul trips) per day_ Trucks will not leave the mine site at intervals of less than five (5) minutes apart. Each haul truck will be equipped with a CB radio for the purpose of notifying the mine and other truck drivers of road damage, accidents, livestock movements or other obstacles that could result in impeding smooth traffic flow. Should a truck notify the mine that there are obstacles on the road stopping traffic, no haul truck willleave the mine site until the preceding truck(s) are moving forward on the haul route. H. There may be climatic conditions that would result in the Road and Bridge Supervisor having to close the roads to certain weight vehicles. At such times, Eastside's trucks will comply with the weight restrictions. L Prior to the issuance of the Special Use Permit, an emergency plan for the mine will be filed with the Burning Mountain Fire District, Clagett Memorial Hospital and Garfield County Emergency Preparedness Office. Dated this 12th day of July 3 A.D. 19 93 . ATTEST: C erk of the Board GARFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO Chairman d vote: Upon motion duly made and seconded the foregoing Resolution was adopted by the following Elmer (Buckey) Arbaney , Aye Marian 1. Smith , Aye Arnold L. Mackley - , Aye • BOOR 86849O STATE OF COLORADO ) )ss County of Garfield ) I, , County Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners in and for the County and State aforesaid do hereby certify that the annexed and. foregoing Resolution is truly copied from the Records of the Proceeding of the Board of County Commissioners for said Garfield County, now in my office. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, 1 have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said County, at Glenwood Springs, this day of , A.D. 19 County Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners • • STATE OF COLORADO ss County of Garfield ) At a regular meeting of the Board of County Commissioners for Garfield County, Colorado, held in the Commissioners' Meeting Room,. Garfield County Courthouse in Glenwood Springs on Monday , thel8th day of March A.D. 1985, there were present: Rob Ri rhardsnn Larry SchmuPser F] aver LT_ Cerise Steve 7wi ek Mildred Alsdorf , Commissioner Chairman , Commissioner • Commissioner , County Attorney, Asst. , Cleric of tne Board When the following proceedings, among otners were nad and done, to -wit; RESOLUTION NO. 85-42 A RESOLUTION CONCERNED WITH THE APPROVAL OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION FOR NATURAL RESOURCE EXTRACTION AND ASSOCIATED FACILITIES BY EASTSIDE COAL COMPANY, INC. WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County, Colorado, has received an application from. Eastside Coal Company, Inc., for natural resource extraction and associated facilities described tract of land: Section 24 and the S 1/2 NW 1/4, N 1/2 SW 1/4 Section 19, T5S, R91W of tne 6tn Principal Meridian (in the State of Colorado and the County of Garfield); and WHEREAS, the Board conducted a public nearing on the 4th day of February, 1985, upon tne question of whether tne above-described Special Use permit should be grantea or denied, at which hearing tne public and interested persons were given the opportunity to express their opinions regarding the issuance of said Special Use permit; and, WHEREAS, the Board on the basis of substantial competent evidence produced at tne aforementioned hearing, nas made the following determination of fact: 1. That proper publication and public notice was provided as required by law for the nearing before the Board of County Commissioners. 2. The Public Hearing before the Board of County Commissioners was extensive and complete, tnat all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted and tnat all interested parties were heard at the meeting. 3. That the proposed special use conforms to Section 5.03 concerning tne Approval or Disapproval of a Petition for a Special Use, of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution. 4. Tnat tne proposed land use will be compatible with existing and permitted land uses in all directions. 5. That for the above stated and other reasons, tne proposed zoning is in tne nest interest of tne health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity ana welfare of tne citizens of Garfield County. • NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County, Colorado that the Special Use permit oe and hereby is authorized permitting tne use of tne above described tract of land for natural resources extraction and associated facilities upon tne following specific conditions: 1. All written proposals of the applicant shall be considered conditions of approval, unless specified otnerwise by the Board of County Commissioners. 2. 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; wnicnever comes first. 3 That prior to tne issuance of any Special Use permits, the applicant snail ootain and suomit to the Planning Department copies of all permits from other applicable governmental entities. 4. That the applicant and/or his contract hauler snail De suoject to the following conditions related to puolic satety: a) All loaded trucks will be covered or binder solution will be applied to the .Loads; b) The applicant will coordinate with the RE -2 School District to insure that truck traffic will not oppose bus trarfic and that a plan of operation for hauling be approved by tne RE -2 School District; c) All trucks shall be equipped with operative fake brakes; d) All safety requirements of tne Colorado Department of Transportation snail oe implemented; e) Drivers convicted of a moving violation while driving coal trucks, resulting in an accident, shall be permanently terminated from employment; additionally, any driver convicted of a moving violation wnile driving coal trucks, resulting in four (4) points or more being assessed against tne drivers license, snail be permanently terminated from employment; f) Truck traffic will oe limited to hours between 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday tnru Friday, and, further, that hauling may occur on an emergency basis three (3) times per quarter on a Saturday between 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., with notice being given to the Planning Department, 24 hours in advance. 5. That the coal truck haul route be CR 237 to CR 233 to CR 227 to U. S. Highway 6 & 24. Furtner, that a pavement tnicKness design study be provided by tne applicant for this route and 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 tne Board of County Commissioners. 6. That all building permits, environmental health permits and sign permits as required by County regulations be obtained prior to construction or need. • 7. That the applicant suomit a monitoring report, on a quarterly oasis, to the Planning Department wnicn includes the following information: a) Number of moving violation citations and accidents issued to or involving Eastside Coal drivers while hauling coal, it any. b) Number of deer killed oy Eastside Coal truck drivers, if any. c) Numoer of loads of coal Hauled per day on a monthly average. d) The amount of coal presently stockpiled at the mine site. e) Ttie amount of coal snipped. f) Tne number of employees, oy place of residence and lengtn of residence. Dated this 18th day of March ATTEST: Clerk of the'Board i Deputy , A.D. 85 . GARFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS GARFIELD COU , COLORADO ) Chairman" Upon motion duly made and seconded tree foregoing Resolution was adopted by the following vote: Bob Richardson Larry Schmueser F1 aven J _ Cerise Aye Aye Aye STATE OF COLORADO ) ) County of Garfield ) 1, , County Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners in and tor the County and State aforesaid do hereby certify that the annexed and foregoing Order is truly copied from the Records of the Proceedings of the Board of County Commissioners for said Garfield County, now in my office. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said County, at Glenwood Springs, this day of , A.D. 19 of the Board of County Commissioners. County Clerk and ex -officio Clerk